Dodge Challenger Not So Good Crash Test Results

[dales]

[Bicycle Bill]

That looks absolutely devastating; it appears the entire front end crumpled back all the way to the windshield — which of course would force everything in the engine compartment back into the front seat occupants' laps.  And that is not a situation I would wish to find myself in.

Then, as I rewatch this, I see that this is not a full-on frontal impact; it appears that the only part of the vehicle making contact with the concrete wall is the extreme left-side corner of the vehicle — notice how in the first few frames of the impact the hood starts to buckle upwards but then passes out of sight behind the barrier.  In other words, the only things in line with the impact area were the left-front wheel and fender, some suspension and steering components, and a lot of air space.  It's still gonna leave a mark, and the owner better hope he's got a good insurance company because the vehicle is going to be a total write-off.

I do wonder, though, what the impact speed was.

-"BB"-

[datsunaholic]

The IIHS likes to do tests that are far more damaging than those done by the NHTSA, particularly those partial-overlap crash tests seen above. The argument is that the tests are more realistic, as few wrecks are square on. Most cars do relatively poorly on the partial overlap tests, because the government doesn't test that way. Auto manufacturers generally "build to the test". It's cheaper to make a car pass the government crash tests than to make it truly safe, unless you are actively trying to market in that direction.

In the test above, the Challenger was rated "acceptable" but fared worse than the Mustang and Camaro which were tested the same way and got "good" ratings. The Challenger had the worst small-overlap front crash test of the 3 cars, as the driver's footwell did in fact crumple in and the dash was displaced, indicating severe foot and leg injury along with the driver being trapped in the car.

The test was done at 40 MPH with a 25% frontal overlap.

Article here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-crash-t ... scle-cars/

[Crackpot]

Yeah I look at it and it's not that bad. Modern cars are designed to be more or less obliterated up until the passenger compartment In order to absorb as much crash energy as possible.

As for the rest itself I would guess it is done at 25 mph as it is a hard barrier simulating biting a building or other stationary object. The granddaddy of thes tests is the ODB (offset deformable barrier) which is to simulate an offset (not directly head on) collision those are done at 35mph (IIRC) for ratings purposes

[rubato]

I had a period when I was having to fly and rent cars a lot so out of boredom I started asking for different cars and rented a Challenger one time. That car was a huge hit with the shopping cart wrangler at Stater Borthers, my dad liked the looks too, and I admit it did look nice but nothing I would ever pay money to buy. What a POS.

Best car of all, out of the rentals was the 3-series BMW but cost significantly more and it was a slush-box. No manual transmissions on US car rentals.

Best car cost included was the Camry with the Altima not far back.

Also very nice (on our recent trip to Provence) the Fiat 500, perfect for negotiating medieval towns and getting yelled at by French women. (my wife's driving was a magnet for the ire of French women. No one knows why.)

And it was a MT!

yrs,
rubato