1999-2009 [Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
[Profile/Gallery]
, Wed, 21 May 2008 15:49:20
Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup
Sometimes what is safer is easy to judge but sometimes not. How can we conclude what is safer? Safer under what conditions? Safer for who? Driver? front passenger? rear passengers? We can look at safety equipment and that tells us something. We can look at mass and space and that tells us something. We can look at build and that tells us something. We can look at loss data and that sort of tells us something kind of sometimes. We can consider active safety.
One of the most ready measures is crash test data. The cars are similar in weight so results are sort of comparable. You have 3 major groups doing published crash tests. Conditions for a number of the tests are different which give some insight and test different aspects of the vehicles safety under different conditions. Look at them yourself and make your own conclusions. Although even this is far from the whole picture of course.
Euro NCAP rates them about identical in terms of their numerical summary in frontal offset (front seat passengers) and side impact (driver). 9-3 slightly nicer to legs; 9-5 to driver's chest based on load ratings but not clear either that make any outcome difference.
IIHS Frontal offset (driver's position). Overall summary evaluation same but 9-3 nicer to driver's right leg/foot (Good vs Acceptable). [Note: At one time I believe they commented on 9-3 driver chest load being sort of on the high side (although not enough to cause likely injury or effect rating). This does seem to match euroncaps diagram showing slight higher load on chest for 9-3].
Side impact IIHS front and rear passenger. 9-3 kicks butt. Primary weakness rear-seat passenger head which is serious consideration based on this test. No curtain air bag in 9-5. For driver 9-5 continues trend of protecting driver head and vital organs well but being weaker for lower limbs.
NHTSA Frontal (Direct) front driver and passenger. 9-5 earning 5 stars spanks 9-3 with 4 stars. In particular 9-5 continues trend of protecting head and vital organs which NHTSA give central consideration in their ratings.
It is interesting to note that many recent cars that do very well in the IIHS offset frontal crash test (getting a good across the board) seem to not fair as well in the NHTSA frontal (getting only 4 of 5 stars). For the driver at least, in my judgement, taken together this makes the 9-5 look like a rather favorable choice for frontal type impacts for a car of this weight; especially when it comes to protecting head and vital organs.
NHTSA Side crash driver and rear passenger. Both cars earn 5 star driver and 4 star rear passenger. In eyeballing numbers 9-5 appears to do numerically better in protecting head of both front and rear passenger (especially rear) but I have no idea if those numbers are significant. Regardless NHTSA summary judgment is same. 9-5 and 9-3 were both recent vehicles. The IIHS data is for both cars earlier in their runs.
Bottom line is I still am not sure I can answer original question.
posted by 75.100.81...
, Wed, 21 May 2008 15:49:20
, Thu, 22 May 2008 04:53:35
, Thu, 22 May 2008 08:23:08, Thu, 22 May 2008 17:33:58
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
