Versa Crash Tests..

[Nismo V]

YouTube has some nice videos of the Versa crash test..

The first vid nice http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZUUkhclGZU

Then the next vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8g-bceLW24 might make you

Either way shows how tough the Versa is i'd like to see a Yaris or Fit video results after taking that test..

[Clipsed]

was expecting a really good video, slow motion impact, etc. etc. but that was very AMATUER! lol o0o well still good info, thx.

[themanfromvlad]

Here's a complete video of Versa, Yaris, Fit, Accent & Aveo crash tests.

http://video.google.com/videop...hl=en

[Clipsed]

now that was a video worth watching!!! gj bro!

[girly]

Now that's a reason to not get the Yaris without side curtains. The dummies head hit the vehicle crashing into it. Ouch

[proxim2020]

Thanks for the video.

[motoguy128]

I still find it strange that the Versa gets lumped into the subcompact class when by all weight, volume and wheelbase dimensions it's a compact car that's closer in size to the Matrix/Corolla, Civic, Focus and Cobalt. It's just less expensive than the cars in the compact class.

[stevenjb]

All the videos were great - especially The Auto Channel extended version.

It is amazing what damage can be done to a "modern" day car in a moderate speed (31 mph) side-impact crash. Makes one long for the days when cars were made out of real steel.

The side curtain airbags appear to be a timely addition to new cars.

[Ever Victorious]

It is amazing what damage can be done to a "modern" day car in a moderate speed (31 mph) side-impact crash. Makes one long for the days when cars were made out of real steel.

Not even a little bit. When cars were made of "Real steel", as you said, they didn't have airbags, side impact beams, or crumple zones... all features designed to have the CAR absorb the impact, as opposed to the drivers.

Of course, we didn't start doing extensive crash testing until the late 90's and early 00's... we just threw it at a wall head on and if the dummy didn't eject or impale, we called it good.

Of course, each generation has had its "safe" cars... but that is all relative. A "safe" car a decade a go likely wouldn't meet minimum federal standards today.

And I bet you dollars to donuts that if the government could actually 1) find good old cars and 2) had the willingness to crash test them, that you'd find they would all horrifically fail todays standards.

Were you here when I had my run-in with the Ford truck? Was at a dead stop, and got hit by a Ford F150 that was still doing at LEAST 25. $8000 damage to my V. I walked away without a scratch, and was back at work the next day.

[stevenjb]

Not even a little bit. When cars were made of "Real steel", as you said, they didn't have airbags, side impact beams, or crumple zones... all features designed to have the CAR absorb the impact, as opposed to the drivers.

Of course, we didn't start doing extensive crash testing until the late 90's and early 00's... we just threw it at a wall head on and if the dummy didn't eject or impale, we called it good.

Of course, each generation has had its "safe" cars... but that is all relative. A "safe" car a decade a go likely wouldn't meet minimum federal standards today.

And I bet you dollars to donuts that if the government could actually 1) find good old cars and 2) had the willingness to crash test them, that you'd find they would all horrifically fail todays standards.

Were you here when I had my run-in with the Ford truck? Was at a dead stop, and got hit by a Ford F150 that was still doing at LEAST 25. $8000 damage to my V. I walked away without a scratch, and was back at work the next day.

One might look at "the reasoning behind airbags, side impact beams, or crumple zones... all features designed to have the CAR absorb the impact, as opposed to the drivers." - all designed to protect the occupants due to lighter (less steel) built cars engineered at a lower weight to save on fuel.

When my mother was learning to drive, in a 55 chevy (tank) - she hit a tree, she survived, the car survived - I heard the tree had issues.

We see highway death rates have gone down - not in fact to better engineered cars, but a drop in the speed limit. When 40 years ago, you could drive on an inter-state highway at 90 mph - or even in some cases, no speed limit - limited only by road conditions.

When my father was driving a (real steel) station wagon on a highway - above 65 mph (legally) and the front tire exploded due to debris in the road, he hit a wood utility (phone) pole. The pole split at the base and fell on the roof of the station wagon. The station wagon was damaged, my father was scratched up - but he survived, in a "real steel" car.

Standards today are set to meet to designs of today’s vehicles.

It would be an interesting test to subject cars of long ago – 50 years back – to today’s crash tests. Until that is done – no one will know the out come.

Modified by stevenjb at 12:41 AM 2/17/2007
Modified by stevenjb at 12:44 AM 2/17/2007

[proxim2020]

We see highway death rates have gone down - not in fact to better engineered cars, but a drop in the speed limit. When 40 years ago, you could drive on an inter-state highway at 90 mph - or even in some cases, no speed limit - limited only by road conditions.

So it would be fair to say that 2 people driving on a highway at the posted speed limit of 65 died died in an accident 40 years ago because their speed was too great? In the city where I live, there's been consistent speed limits for as long as my parents can remember. The highway speeds have always been 55 until they moved it up to 65 in the late 90's. When you chart the death rates for the city, you begin to see sharp declines during advent of seat belt laws and air bag requirements. To say that death rates have fallen because a reduction of speed only would be faulty since there's parts of the country that have always been consistently low. This isn't to say that the drop in speeds and the introduction of limits doesn't have an effect on survivability, because it does.

[Ever Victorious]

Do you have curb weights on the "real steel" cars you are referring to? My father was recently talking about a '54 Buick my grandfather owned, saying it weighed "one ton".... not that it weighed "a ton" as an idiomatic expression, but "one ton" as a mathematical expression, 2000 pounds... and saying that was a respectable-sized car for its day.

Excepting anomalies like the Smart car and single-seaters, there are no mass-produced cars these days that weigh that little. Your smaller cars (Aveo, Fit, Yaris) are going to be in the 2500 pound range. Your typical midsized sedan (Legacy, Sonata, Accord) is upwards of 3300 pounds. A Ford F150 weighs nearly 5,000 pounds these days.

I can only compare, personally, back to the late 70's and early 80's because that's as far back as I have specs on anything. However, a compact car in those days was between 1900 and 2100 pounds. The same car class today averages 2800 pounds.

Yes, we have more weight-saving materials in the cars these days. They are used to offset the increased weight of the car through the use of sound deadening, thicker sheetmetal (yes, I said thicker... go compare the sheetmetal of any Japanese import built in, say, '82 to what's on your Versa), not to mention all of the weight of our ubiquitous optional systems... our radios are heavier, we use heavier power window systems than we used to (which are inherently heavier than manual windows anyway), we put A/C in almost every single car... and those airbags and related systems all take up a significant amount of weight. Not to mention, again, side impact beams did not exist before... they exist now, and they weigh a lot.

We also NEED to design safer cars these days because of how many more cars there are on the roads now that in the "old days", thus a huge increase in the likelihood of a multiple vehicle collision.

Yes, we are more efficient than cars built up until about the early 70's. But then during the energy crisis of the 70's, cars suddenly, overnight, had an emphasis on fuel economy... and this prevailed through the late 80's. We use larger engines now to offset the increased weight of the cars, and then use technological innovation to make those larger engines use less fuel than their older counterparts.

Let's take a couple more examples of this particular point here. Let's look at a KP61 Toyota Starlet. 54 hp carbureted 1.4L 4-cylinder, if I remember correctly. Car weighed 1720 pounds. Fuel economy up to 40 mpg. Current fuel economy equivalent? Toyota Corolla. 1.8L VVTi fuel-injected, 126 hp. Car weighs 2615 pounds.

There's many other examples of how cars have changed over the last couple of decades. And if you don't think speed and old cars kill, look at NASCAR and their regulation changes for safety over the years. It became cheaper to replace cars than to retrain dead drivers. Granted, Earnhardt and Petty were horrible tragedies... but "back in the day", racing was a HELL of a lot more dangerous when the car would come out in more or less one piece.