Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 16:20:07 GMT From: Paul Halliday <pjghnopsamyonder.co.uk> Subject: Re: Any thoughts on safety?
in article JfqG9.45480$pa7.4705448nopsamter.columbus.rr.com, COLUG at colugnopsammbus.rr.com wrote on 01/12/2002 15:53: > Zweef wrote: >> In article <sVoG9.45470$pa7.4636112nopsamter.columbus.rr.com>, >> colugnopsammbus.rr.com says... >> >>> Actually, the Taurus is dramatically safer than a Saab 900. :) >>> >> >> It is? Where's the data on that? > > Examining the IIHS data for the 1995 model of each vehicle we find: > > Taurus - Best Pick with a Good (the highest) rating: > http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/95013.htm > > Saab 900 - Marginal rating: > http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/95017.htm > > Additionally the Taurus is a full size car and the 900 is a mid size > car. Read the notice on comparing different class cars at: > > http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/cecompc2.asp?selCat=D > > Comments about IIHS bias should be posted to alt.conspiracy. :) The NG 900 was without doubt, crap. The 9-3 got a better review, but still only acceptable. http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/99004.htm The classic 900 would stand up to a lot more than its NG counterpart. My 1985 900 has had two head-ons (one of them mine) needing no repairs, leaving crumpled up messes at the scene to be towed away. Paul 1985 900i 16V 1989 900 Turbo S http://pjgh.go.dyndns.org/saab/index.html
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
