Live in Interesting times: Hyundai/ Kia want FCA

DaveF-250SD wrote:
The '59 car was heavily modified to produce the "results" they were looking for.

Can you point us to the source of your statement?

The British transportation authority tested a smart car into an immovable concrete barrier placed at a 45 degree angle to the car's right side while traveling at 60 kph, or 36 miles per hour. Crash dummy inside has measuring devices which indicated shock values far beyond what the human body can withstand, ruling such a crash with a live person aboard would be guaranteed fatal. The video with the '59 Chevrolet vs. the new Impala is a farce. The '59 car was heavily modified to produce the "results" they were looking for.

Nor does FCA.
Smart Car recently rescinded most of their franchises in the US per Automotive News.

Ron3rd wrote:
How did this discussion devolve into a diatribe about the Smart Car?

Even Consumer Reports does not recommend the Smart Car. Their take is it has a bad ride, noisy, very poor performance, and the the MPG ain't great for what it is. In summary, it's a terrible car to have to drive around compared to what's out there, and they recommend many other choices before the Smart Car.

They are only used in parts of Europe where parking is diabolical. Hyundai/ Kia do not make Smart Cars

How did this discussion devolve into a diatribe about the Smart Car?

Even Consumer Reports does not recommend the Smart Car. Their take is it has a bad ride, noisy, very poor performance, and the the MPG ain't great for what it is. In summary, it's a terrible car to have to drive around compared to what's out there, and they recommend many other choices before the Smart Car.

Bionic Man wrote:

mich800 wrote:

soren wrote:

Check the 70MPH remote controlled barrier crash with the Smart Car.

Have not seen this, but would be curious to see the g forces observed on the dummy after the test. My guess, lethal.

Why would g forces be higher in a Smart Car at 70 than any other vehicle?

I didn't say they would. I also did not insinuate the Smart Car is safe based on this test.

But with that said. I would rather be in a vehicle with a crumple zone to absorb some of that impact than take it full on and have my body absorb it instead.

mich800 wrote:

soren wrote:

Check the 70MPH remote controlled barrier crash with the Smart Car.

Have not seen this, but would be curious to see the g forces observed on the dummy after the test. My guess, lethal.

Why would g forces be higher in a Smart Car at 70 than any other vehicle?

Grit dog wrote:
My guess is Soren owns a smart car.

Yea, and it apparently came free with an agenda...

I'm sure its a fun little car. In a collision between a 5 star rated Smart Car and a Ram 1500, I'd much rather be in that 4 star rated Ram 1500.

Just for giggles, while searching to see Ram's crash rating, I checked the Smart Car's rating. See this page for more details; https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/smart-cars-skimpy-on-fuel/

Interesting quote that I will just place here for Soren to argue with...
"As for safety, the ForTwo did well enough in crash tests by the independent Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) to earn the group’s highest rating—five tars—thanks to the car’s steel racecar-style frame and liberal use of high-tech front and side airbags. Despite such good safety performance for such a tiny car, IIHS testers caution that larger, heavier cars are inherently safer than smaller ones."

But, what do I know? I've just seen the end result of literally thousands of motor vehicle collisions in my 15 year career, and my friend has only investigated every single fatal collision to occur in my county in the past 10 years...

soren wrote:
Crash ratings are developed by actually crashing vehicles. Your entire post is based on supposition and opinion, quite the opposite of how testing, and real world scientifically based results are gathered.

Not sure why you are so aggressively coming at me here...

Crash ratings are developed by crashing vehicles into similar vehicles or similarly weighted rams. My entire post is based upon the real world in which crash testing isn't done with similar weights and speeds, isn't perfectly aligned for offset and angular approach. Scientifically based results are great... but the real world provides real results. There is a reason they are referred to as RATINGS, as opposed to PROMISES OF SAFETY from the government. Those tests are designed to show the relative safety of one vehicle compared to another. It would be prohibitively expensive to crash every single car into every single car, therefore they crash every single car into an equal size car and give a comparative rating.

Modern cars have crumple zones, designed to slow the deceleration of vehicles to lessen the impact on victims. I've personally been on the scene of a collision in an older vehicle at less than 25 mph that killed the elderly driver. The sudden and violent deceleration from 25 to zero tore her aorta and she internally bled to death before I could arrive. A crumple zone would probably have saved her life.

I'm not sure what this has to due with FCA and a potential merger partner though...

My guess is Soren owns a smart car.