SwedeSpeed - Volvo Performance Forum banner

The most dangerous cars in America ........... Your next one won't be a Volvo...better think again.

9K views 24 replies 10 participants last post by  Tostik 
#1 · (Edited)
There have been several threads about comparing the XC90 with this and that, how the steering wheel on the 3.2 vibrates, how the motors offer less power than a 747,
and how the platform has been around....gasp.....for 10 years.

One thing I NEVER worry about, and that is the fact that I sent my wife out on the street in some cheap alternative that "looked" like it offered the same protection as a XC90
with boron steel reinforced roof and roll cage. There are a lot of poseurs out there..........everyone wants to be like a Volvo........few attain that status (all things considered).

From the Wall Street Wire, May 29, 2012.....................sure would not want to see anyone I cared about leave the driveway in one of these cars. With all the style, utility and
interior ergonomics we get in our Volvo cars, it is easy to overlook the huge safety margin we also get every time we drive one. I have added photos of each model to help identify
what the article is talking about, we see plenty of these on the streets today........so there are a lot of unsuspecting people out there without the best protection.

The Most Dangerous Cars in America

Posted: May 29, 2012 at 6:26 am

1. Ram 1500
> Make: Dodge

> Bad ratings: side-marginal; rollover-marginal
> 2011 sales: 156,983
> Price: $22,120
> JD Power Initial Quality: 2/5

Though Dodge has been offering the half-ton Ram 1500 since 1981, its safety track record has long been unimpressive. From 1998 through 2001, the truck received failing marks from IIHS in frontal offset tests, and was rated "poor" in protecting heads and left legs, as well as in restraining the crash test dummy. Though frontal offset ratings have since received "good" ratings from the IIHS, the vehicle's side-impact and rollover ratings remain substandard. Curiously, it was the opposite in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration tests. The agency found fault with the Ram's performance on frontal impact tests but not with side impact tests. Despite safety concerns, the model has been selling well, and from 2007 to 2011 Dodge sold more than 100,000 trucks each year.

2. Colorado Crew Cab
> Make: Chevrolet

> Bad ratings: side-poor; rollover-marginal; rear-marginal
> 2011 sales: 31,026
> Price: $17,475
> JD Power Initial Quality: 3/5

The Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon crew cab are fundamentally the same light truck made by General Motors (NYSE: GM) with differing cosmetic features. The small pickup performed quite poorly in the IIHS tests, earning a "poor" side-impact grade and "marginal" grades for rollover and rear safety. Sales of the Colorado have been especially poor in recent years; GM sold 75,716 such cars in 2007 and only 31,026 in 2011. Making matters worse, a November, 2011, recall of 5,220 Colorados and Canyons due to seat belt safety concerns did not help either the brand's sales or its safety record.

3. CX-7
> Make: Mazda

> Bad ratings: rollover-marginal; rear-marginal
> 2011 sales: 35,641
> Price: $22,190
> JD Power Initial Quality: 4/5

Although it will be replaced by the newer CX-5 model next year, the CX-7's safety record certainly will not be remembered fondly. Despite "good" scores in front and side impact ratings, low grades in rollover and rear-impact measures go against perceptions that the CX-7 is a safe car to drive. Sales rose from about 20,000 in 2009 to 35,641 in 2011. Still, this is down from 2007 when 42,199 CX-7 cars were sold.

4. CX-9
> Make: Mazda

rollover-marginal; rear-marginal
> 2011 sales: 34,421
> Price: $29,725
> JD Power Initial Quality: 4/5

Assembled in Hiroshima, Japan, the Mazda CX-9 received "marginal" scores in both rollover and rear safety ratings. The CX-9 also had the lowest strength-to-weight ratio of all midsize SUVs tested by the IIHS. This ratio measures how much force a car's roof can handle before it crushes five inches, and then it is divided by the weight of the car. Despite these poor ratings, the number of CX-9s sold increased from 25,484 in 2007 to 34,421 in 2011.

5. Pathfinder
> Make: Nissan

> Bad ratings: rollover-marginal; rear-marginal
> 2011 sales: 25,935
> Price: $29,290
> JD Power Initial Quality: 3/5

The Nissan Pathfinder earned "marginal" ratings in rollover and rear-impact testing from the IIHS. The Pathfinder's performance in government rollover tests is likewise troubling, as it registered an estimated 20% to 30% risk of rolling over during testing. At a price of $29,290, the cost of a Pathfinder is similar to that of the Mazda CX-9 or the 4-door Jeep Wrangler. According to Edmunds sales figures, both these models have outsold the Pathfinder in the past three years.

6. Wrangler
> Make: Jeep

> Bad ratings: side-marginal (2-door), side-poor (4-door); rear-marginal (both)
> 2011 sales: 122,460 (all Wranglers), 46,803 (2-door), 75,657 (4-door)
> Price: $22,970 (2-door), $30,745 (4-door)
> JD Power Initial Quality: 3/5

With "marginal" ratings in side and rear-impact protection, the two-door Wrangler joins other SUVs, such as the CX-7, CX-9 and Pathfinder, as a poor performer in IIHS tests. One of the few car models that actually underperforms the two-door Jeep Wrangler is the larger four-door version. This version of the Wrangler also received a "marginal" rear-impact rating, yet was also given a "poor" side-impact rating. During a recent IIHS side-impact test, a dummy was struck by the steel bars supporting the four-door Wrangler's convertible roof. Both of the models' overall poor performance stems in part from the fact they were unable to protect the driver's or back-seat passengers' heads and other bodily parts in simulated accidents. Despite earning the lowest score of any mid-size SUV from Consumer Reports, the Wrangler still sells especially well with more than 120,000 sold in the U.S. in 2011.

7. SX4
> Make: Suzuki

> Bad ratings: rollover-marginal, rear-marginal
> 2011 sales: 12,520
> Price: $13,849
> JD Power Initial Quality: 2/5

The least-expensive car on this list, the Suzuki SX4 performed poorly in rollover and rear-test ratings. Among the more than 30 small cars tested by the IIHS, the SX4 was the only small car to receive two scores of "marginal" or "poor" out of four ratings. Similarly, the SX4 also received a "fair" rating, the second-lowest possible, in government side-crash testing. The model's U.S. sales also have languished, falling from 30,166 in 2008 to 12,520 last year.

Read more: The Most Dangerous Cars in America - 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/2012/05/29/the-most-dangerous-cars-in-america/#ixzz1x7CbDhf9
 
See less See more
7
#2 ·
Here is a full list of vehicles that got the top safety pick designation:

Note there are many different categories. This is not to suggest a Honda Ridgeline that is put in the large pickup truck category
(as we know, it is hardly a truck at all) offers the same protection as a Volvo XC90, which is in a different grouping, or a Fiat 500
offers anywhere near the XC90 protection, for instance.

Minicars

Fiat 500 built after July 2011

Ford Fiesta sedan & hatchback

Honda Fit

Toyota Yaris 4-dr hatchback

Small cars

Chevrolet Cruze, Sonic, Volt

Ford Focus

Honda Civic sedan

Honda CR-Z, Insight

Hyundai Elantra

Kia Forte sedan

Kia Soul

Lexus CT 200h

Mazda 3 sedan & hatchback

Mini Cooper Countryman

Mitsubishi Lancer (except Ralliart & Evolution)

Nissan Cube, Juke, Leaf

Scion tC, xB, xD

Subaru Impreza except WRX

Toyota Corolla, Prius

Volkswagen Golf 4-dr

Volkswagen GTI 4-dr

Midsize moderately priced cars

Audi A3

Buick Verano

Chevrolet Malibu

Chrysler 200 4-dr

Dodge Avenger

Ford Fusion

Honda Accord

Hyundai Sonata

Kia Optima

Subaru Legacy, Outback

Toyota Camry, Prius v

Volkswagen Jetta sedan

Volkswagen Jetta SportWagen

Midsize luxury/near luxury cars

Acura TL built after Sept. 2011

Acura TSX sedan & wagon

Audi A4

Lincoln MKZ

Mercedes C-Class

Volkswagen CC except 4wd

Volvo S60

Large family cars

Buick LaCrosse, Regal

Chrysler 300

Dodge Charger

Ford Taurus

Toyota Avalon

Large luxury cars

Audi A6

BMW 5 series except 4wd & V8

Cadillac CTS sedan

Hyundai Equus

Infiniti M except M56x 4wd

Lincoln MKS

Mercedes E-Class sedan

Mercedes E-Class coupe

Saab 9-5

Volvo S80

Small SUVs

Honda CR-V

Hyundai Tucson

Jeep Patriot with optional side torso airbags

Kia Sportage

Subaru Forester

Volkswagen Tiguan

Midsize SUVs

Chevrolet Equinox

Dodge Durango, Journey

Ford Edge, Explorer, Flex

GMC Terrain

Honda Pilot

Hyundai Santa Fe

Jeep Grand Cherokee

Kia Sorento

Subaru Tribeca

Toyota Highlander, Venza

Midsize luxury SUVs

Acura MDX

Audi Q5

BMW X3

Cadillac SRX

Infiniti EX35

Lexus RX

Lincoln MKT, MKX

Mercedes GLK, M-Class

Saab 9-4X

Volvo XC60

Volvo XC90

Large SUVs

Buick Enclave

Chevrolet Traverse

GMC Acadia

Volkswagen Touareg

Minivans

Chrysler Town & Country

Dodge Grand Caravan

Honda Odyssey

Toyota Sienna

Volkswagen Routan

Large pickups

Ford F-150 crew cab

Honda Ridgeline

Toyota Tundra crew cab
 
#3 · (Edited)
Here is the test data for Volvo vehicles.
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/head_restraints/headrestraints.aspx?volvo

Here is more detail on the XC90
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=452

Here is the test data for everything else
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/default.aspx

Note there is a category where you can click to see "all cars" within a particular brand.
Here is an example of Chevrolet..............there is a heck of a lot of poor ratings in this one...............http://www.iihs.org/ratings/head_restraints/headrestraints.aspx?chevrolet

Regards,

P
 
#4 ·
Search for this on YouTube for some interesting videos:

xc90 JRS Dynamic Rollover Test

Many newer vehicles don't so as well as the XC90. (And you'll never get in a
Honda Ridgeline after you see it's video).
 
#5 ·
I hear you about the Honda but it would be tough getting me in one of those anyway. I hear they have a bit of vibration in the steering wheel and the lump is a bit agricultural, lol

Best

P
 
#7 ·
It is really a testament to the XC90's safety that it has remained on the Top Pick list for the past 7+ years. I really could not see myself owning a Asian car because of the safety incorporated into European cars (especially Volvos). I look at it this way: I would rather drive a car from a company who INVENTED crucial safety features, rather than a drive a car from a company who found out safety sells.

Oh and just clocked over 120,000 miles on our XC90!
 
#9 ·
The C30 IS an IIHS top safety pick, the C70 was (until roof structure testing was done, which voided ALL convertibles from being top safety picks, but until that point only the C70 and Saab 9-3 convertible made that list), V50 is on its way out and the XC70 is the same platform and virtually identical underneath to the S80 which is a top safety pick...so why isnt the XC70 a top safety pick? THE IIHS NEVER TESTED IT.
 
#10 · (Edited)
#13 ·
No one can understand why Volvo drivers drive Volvos, until they crash into them.
 
#14 ·
We have Volvos and a Mercedes. We feel equally as safe in both of them. I just completed a school project on automotive safety, and Volvo was in most of it. Not on purpose but because they pioneer automotive safety.
 
#16 ·
Got to be careful when posting Mercedes safety propaganda on a Volvo enthusiast site.

_____________________________

Chuck Norris allows Volvo to do safety testing only because he allows other humans to exist on the planet with him.
 
#17 ·
I will say this, however. When the Mercedes was purchased my mother asked me if the MB was as safe as the Volvos we had.
Volvo doesn't just mean I roll. It also means "I'm safe"
 
#18 ·
Well it's pretty obvious some of us are rabid and partisan Volvo fans, but Mercedes builds very fine (and safe) cars. Please don't tell Chuck Norris I said that.

P
 
#20 · (Edited)
Agree with that--and every car company has their own propaganda consisting of truths and half-truths. And I try to be careful with all of my posts, lest I be cut to pieces too. But trying to say a car brand is as safe as a Volvo on a Volvo enthusiast site--well, you've got to be really careful with what you say. (And I won't tell Chuck.)
 
#21 ·
I've read that Volvo and Mercedes are the only two car companies that have a Tech Center devoted entirely to safety. I know that's true about Volvo, but I'm not sure about the rest of that statement. If true, that's a great credit to Volvo and Mercedes, but especially to Volvo, which, being a small boutique car company, has to devote a higher percentage of their resources to have such a center.
 
#23 ·
I do not know the value of having an entire center devoted to Y. I think it is one of those metrics that PR people like, however most technical people quickly realize that such a statement is meaningless other than "both companies have a tech center devoted to Y." Notice how the size, number of employees, budget, etc are all left out. I am not saying this to attack Volvo or MB or any other manufacturer.
 
#22 ·
Kia is presently selling in the middle Tennessee market saying one of their cars "is the only" whatever to get a FIVE STAR rating for crash protection.

That may be true on this particular model, but it sure implies that KIA cars are safe across the board. They have apparently had some difficulty in the past.

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/head_restraints/headrestraints.aspx?kia

Buyer beware.

P
 
#24 ·
Yeah it is relatively* easy to get 5 stars, when you know what the test is. I take most commercials to be a product of a PR/ advert department and therefore assign them practically zero value. I would much prefer to go with a manufacurer that has a long tradition of safety, Volvo, MB, BMW than some manufacturer who got best accolades in one highly specialized laboratory test.

*compared to unplanned real world tests

I do think that the average vehicle made post 2000 is a lot safer than the average in 1980, as it should be. However I do not see many people out doing the XC90, interns of passenger safety and safety of the vehicle/ person it strikes.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top