nhtsa tested the tsx
#1
nhtsa tested the tsx
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/2642.html
Five stars everywhere except for the rear side-impact test.
#3
big differnce compare
http://www.acura-tsx.com/forums/show...&threadid=6815
http://www.acura-tsx.com/forums/show...&threadid=6815
Trending Topics
#8
Looks as good or better than most of the others that I considered. Including the S60 Volvo.
What's with that 805# load on the passenger's left femur? Better a broken leg than a broken head, but still... The 4-door Accord seems to show the same pattern.
What's with that 805# load on the passenger's left femur? Better a broken leg than a broken head, but still... The 4-door Accord seems to show the same pattern.
#10
Thank you! Was it not horrible to see those gorgeous TSX being destroyed like that? LOL
Anyway, I hope that everyone who was really upset over the 5 mile bumper test on MSNBC is now relieved and reassured by these results.
Now, does it mean that our insurance premium will go down? LOL
Anyway, I hope that everyone who was really upset over the 5 mile bumper test on MSNBC is now relieved and reassured by these results.
Now, does it mean that our insurance premium will go down? LOL
#11
Originally posted by ostrich
Anyway, I hope that everyone who was really upset over the 5 mile bumper test on MSNBC is now relieved and reassured by these results.
Now, does it mean that our insurance premium will go down? LOL
Anyway, I hope that everyone who was really upset over the 5 mile bumper test on MSNBC is now relieved and reassured by these results.
Now, does it mean that our insurance premium will go down? LOL
#12
Acura was aiming for 5 star frontal, 4 star side - so this is slightly better than expected (in that the car got 5 star side on frontal).
Good news, I guess.
But the real danger on the roads right now are SUV's, which are rolling death traps. I dont think these test address that danger, and they should. Also SUV makers need to be more responsible and make them sit lower to the ground, or absorb more of the impact somehow. And to fund these extra saftey features, the government should tax $1000 on every SUV purchase and use that money.
Don't flame, thats just my opinion.
EDIT: I wonder if the TSX rollover rating wont be as good , since it sits very high and narrow.
Good news, I guess.
But the real danger on the roads right now are SUV's, which are rolling death traps. I dont think these test address that danger, and they should. Also SUV makers need to be more responsible and make them sit lower to the ground, or absorb more of the impact somehow. And to fund these extra saftey features, the government should tax $1000 on every SUV purchase and use that money.
Don't flame, thats just my opinion.
EDIT: I wonder if the TSX rollover rating wont be as good , since it sits very high and narrow.
#13
Originally posted by ostrich
Now, does it mean that our insurance premium will go down? LOL
Now, does it mean that our insurance premium will go down? LOL
#17
Originally posted by fdl
Acura was aiming for 5 star frontal, 4 star side - so this is slightly better than expected (in that the car got 5 star side on frontal).
Good news, I guess.
But the real danger on the roads right now are SUV's, which are rolling death traps. I dont think these test address that danger, and they should. Also SUV makers need to be more responsible and make them sit lower to the ground, or absorb more of the impact somehow. And to fund these extra saftey features, the government should tax $1000 on every SUV purchase and use that money.
Don't flame, thats just my opinion.
EDIT: I wonder if the TSX rollover rating wont be as good , since it sits very high and narrow.
Acura was aiming for 5 star frontal, 4 star side - so this is slightly better than expected (in that the car got 5 star side on frontal).
Good news, I guess.
But the real danger on the roads right now are SUV's, which are rolling death traps. I dont think these test address that danger, and they should. Also SUV makers need to be more responsible and make them sit lower to the ground, or absorb more of the impact somehow. And to fund these extra saftey features, the government should tax $1000 on every SUV purchase and use that money.
Don't flame, thats just my opinion.
EDIT: I wonder if the TSX rollover rating wont be as good , since it sits very high and narrow.
#18
Originally posted by Crazytree
I follow trends in the insurance industry as I may want to pursue a career with an insurance company. To the best of my knowledge... they will NEVER lower a premium as a result of one of these tests. Why would they give money back that would otherwise end up as black ink? Also remember that the most expensive part of your insurance is your liability insurance... which has nothing to do with the car itself. Take theft and other types of comprehensive damage into account... and the impact safety rating does not have an overriding impact on the cost of insuring a TSX. If anything... a good impact rating benefits the insurer of the person who hits YOU... as it is his insurance that will have to pay out for your medical expenses.
I follow trends in the insurance industry as I may want to pursue a career with an insurance company. To the best of my knowledge... they will NEVER lower a premium as a result of one of these tests. Why would they give money back that would otherwise end up as black ink? Also remember that the most expensive part of your insurance is your liability insurance... which has nothing to do with the car itself. Take theft and other types of comprehensive damage into account... and the impact safety rating does not have an overriding impact on the cost of insuring a TSX. If anything... a good impact rating benefits the insurer of the person who hits YOU... as it is his insurance that will have to pay out for your medical expenses.
But you're pretty right on about insurance premiums.
-Fanboy
#21
Originally posted by Gpump
No flames, just a reality check. SUV's usually weigh more than cars - will transfer that energy to the collision, not sure if it is possible to engineer them to absorb more energy. As for lower to the ground, isn't that an El Camino? (or a SSR, depending on how you look at it).
No flames, just a reality check. SUV's usually weigh more than cars - will transfer that energy to the collision, not sure if it is possible to engineer them to absorb more energy. As for lower to the ground, isn't that an El Camino? (or a SSR, depending on how you look at it).
#22
Originally posted by corbs
I think he was just joking . . . a reference to that other thread where everybody was freaking out because of the slow speed (oxymoronic) crash/bumper test. Everyone kept asking whether our insurance would go up because of it. That's why the "LOL".
But you're pretty right on about insurance premiums.
-Fanboy
I think he was just joking . . . a reference to that other thread where everybody was freaking out because of the slow speed (oxymoronic) crash/bumper test. Everyone kept asking whether our insurance would go up because of it. That's why the "LOL".
But you're pretty right on about insurance premiums.
-Fanboy
Originally posted by fdl
I've read about how car manufactorers are now building their cars to protect pedestrians.
I've read about how car manufactorers are now building their cars to protect pedestrians.
#23
Originally posted by Crazytree
.........People have been trying to come up with a device to protect pedestrians before cars were even invented. Most of them had one thing in common: they were retarded. I remember seeing one patent diagram for some sort of giant spring on the front of a Model-T... and some schmucks in Europe are working on an EXTERNAL airbag right now. I guess you can only make a 3,000 pound object hurtling at 50mpg "SO" safe.
.........People have been trying to come up with a device to protect pedestrians before cars were even invented. Most of them had one thing in common: they were retarded. I remember seeing one patent diagram for some sort of giant spring on the front of a Model-T... and some schmucks in Europe are working on an EXTERNAL airbag right now. I guess you can only make a 3,000 pound object hurtling at 50mpg "SO" safe.
#25
Most people I know don't understand that the NHTSA ratings are relative to the type of vehicle being tested.
Several people I work with have even said that they read that the Civic had a much better crash rating than an Expedition and drew the conclusion that the Civic was a safer vehicle.
If a Civic and an Expedition were about to be involved in an accident involving both hitting each other, at any angle, I would pick the Expedition to be in. Mass almost always wins.
The SUV's only (2)real dangers (with regard to their own passengers) is rollover and inability to avoid accidents. They are top heavy, and rollovers are very dangerous. They also handle like sh1t, so evasive maneuvers are often futile.
SUV's are, however, a threat to all cars on the road. Pick-Up's for that matter, too. 95% of the Pick-Ups I see never have a load in them.
Several people I work with have even said that they read that the Civic had a much better crash rating than an Expedition and drew the conclusion that the Civic was a safer vehicle.
If a Civic and an Expedition were about to be involved in an accident involving both hitting each other, at any angle, I would pick the Expedition to be in. Mass almost always wins.
The SUV's only (2)real dangers (with regard to their own passengers) is rollover and inability to avoid accidents. They are top heavy, and rollovers are very dangerous. They also handle like sh1t, so evasive maneuvers are often futile.
SUV's are, however, a threat to all cars on the road. Pick-Up's for that matter, too. 95% of the Pick-Ups I see never have a load in them.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Eggs999bacon
2G TSX (2009-2014)
10
09-24-2015 10:08 AM