Mini cooper vs ford f150 crash test

Printable View

04-18-2008, 10:34 PM
sizzler madman

Mini cooper vs ford f150 crash test

<a href="http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.bridger.us/pictures/mini_vs_f150.jpg&imgrefurl=http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150/&h=189&w=455&sz=30&hl=en&start=26&um=1&tbnid=raGL-mJ54ranlM:&tbnh=53&tbnw=128&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmini%2Bcooper%2Bwrecks%26start%3D20%26ndsp%3D20%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4SUNA_en___US248%26sa%3DN">http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.bridger.us/pictures/mini_vs_f150.jpg&imgrefurl=http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150/&h=189&w=455&sz=30&hl=en&start=26&um=1&tbnid=raGL-mJ54ranlM:&tbnh=53&tbnw=128&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmini%2Bcooper%2Bwrecks%26start%3D20%26ndsp%3D20%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4SUNA_en___US248%26sa%3DN</a>
04-18-2008, 11:55 PM
GrampaMike46

In the early 60's I saw an Austin-Healey Sprite broadside an early 50's Chev or GMC panel truck. The Sprite was absolutely totaled and the panel truckwas barely dented. Things certainly have changed. I always did like the Mini Coopers. Gramps
04-20-2008, 05:55 AM
TexKitty

I absolutely adore the BMW Mini! I think they did a fantastic job of keeping the style of the car while updating it. I've seen the leg room in those, too. <a target="_blank" href="http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150/">Here's a link to the above story</a> without the frames.
04-20-2008, 08:31 AM
Charger68

Yep, i guess this is why we are supposed to "buy American"?? Looks like if ya bought foreign you would walk away from this crash! Later, Dave
04-20-2008, 08:44 AM
deputyrob

wow...a real eye opener!!
04-20-2008, 04:39 PM
CHEVY57

Front end damage is one thing but, What about if you get hit in the rear with that mini? No data on that huh. That Fords bumper would've ripped the drivershead off. It's often whats behind you that you can't control, thats where you need the support.
04-20-2008, 06:13 PM
lostnspc86

I'm no expert, but I can make two statements regarding this. [NOTE: For those with ADD/Reading Comprehension issues and Justin: Just skip to the recapitulation in bold at the end.] The first is that I drive all over the country on all types of roads...two lanes, interstates, multi-lane intercity thouroughfares...and I very rarely seeaccidents (and when I say that I mean the result of accidents and not the actual accident as it happens) that involve a car driving into a wall at 40 miles anhour. Also, I very rarely see head on collisions at highway speeds. The closest things to cars hitting corner impact "walls" at high(er) speeds is inMissouri when a vehicle loses control and skids into the narrow median which has a post and wire divider and other places where cars hit guard rails. However,these dividers are designed to give on impact and even though the vehicles are severely messed up, the corner impact alone isn't enough to crush thepassenger compartment. Maybe the rare instance of going down an embankemnt into a tree or hitting a telephone pole? But even those generally have more givethan a wall...not that it matters much at highway speeds. Anyway, lest I turn this into a long-winded snooze fest and put our ADD friends to sleep, I shallmove on. What I do see: intersection accidents where one car fails to yield; rear end collisions; and loss of control due to excessive speed for the present conditions. The first generally do not occur at high rates of speed, nor are they direct frontal impacts. T-bones are deadly, yes, but most impacts are glancing blows. The second, in modern vehicles, usually isn't deadly unless the front car is stopped and the rear-ending car is moving at highway speeds. The third is usually the one that results in death. The accidents result in the vehicle doing "its own thing" outside of the driver controlling speedand direction. This is where trees and poles get hit and also results in a large number of roll-overs as the vehicle hits the rougher non-road surfaces at abad angle causing the vehicle to spin, flip, roll, etc. Now my second observation is in the death chart. The death tolls are for drivers and people in vehicles they hit. Okay.... There are so many variables herethat using this chart as any form of scientific proof (other than accidents happened and people died) is irresponsible. 1) Not every accident resulting in death is a multi-vehicle accident and there won't always be the same number of occupants in the various vehicles; 2) Types of accidents common for vehicles aren't separated. Some vehicles (due to vehicle use, vehicle design, driver demographics, driving locations, anddriving conditions) are more prone to rear-end collisions and others more apt to be involved in front or side impacts. Thus, a vehicle prone to being involvedin more low-speed, city intersection, rear-end collisions will have different data than one prone to being involved in highway roll-over accidents on slipperypavement; 3) Data is in deaths per million. Since I doubt each of those car models were involved in 1,000,000 accidents each, the data is a skewed comparison. It shouldhave been presented as "percentage of accidents that resulted in death of driver." But wait...the worst offender (Pontiac Sunfire) only has a0.000158 death rate in accidents. That's less than 2 one hundredths of one percent! That's a pretty good chance of living! And wecan't present data in a way that might suggest vehicles are generally safe when our core argument is "look how poorly they performed" and"we must make them safer;" 4) The Ford F-150 is presented as the worst vehicle, but in looking at the data, we find that it's better to be the driver of a large vehicle thana small one (compare driver deaths to Grand Am, Sunfire, etc) and that it's worse to be hit *by* an F-150 than to be driving it---THE ONLY VEHICLE WITHTHAT DISTINCTION ON THE LIST. I'm sure there are other flaws in the data comparison, but lest Justin learn to play violin while reading this post, I shall conclude with summation. A: Many crash tests upon which vehicle safety is rated are not indicative of real-world accidents. They aren't even representative simulations, nomatter what the experts tell you; B: The data chart is using a skewed comparison model and presenting data in an alarmist way when it could also be presented to show that modern vehicles aresafe. Joel.
04-20-2008, 06:37 PM
CHEVY57

Joel, You are right most of this data is accrued by insurance companies to figure out more ways to add crap and cost to cars we don't need. The cost of Air bagsadd $3,000 to over $15,000 to the price of a car and do we really need them? Now the have side curtains and shin bags I mean when does it stop. The way thesecars are built now with crumple zones and the fact that we must by law wear seat belts makes us safer as it is.
04-20-2008, 06:53 PM
lostnspc86

I do need to make a correction. The F-150 is not the *only* vehicle on the list with a better death rate for driver than "others." However, the other vehicles that share that distinction are also larger vehicles: Chysler T&C minivan, Chevy Suburban, and Chevy Tahoe. Also, I just realized it's not the *F-150* specifically, but an entire *family* of Ford pickups....F-150, F-250, F-350...that have been lumped together. This is a good example of the old adage: "Statistics don't lie; statisticians do." Joel. PS: There's a reason I refer to auto insurance as state-sanctioned extortion.