Hi all,

I’m a long time lurker and a huge fan of the TSX. Recently, my wife and I had a baby, so I’m looking to sell my 1995 BMW 318ti Club Sport and buy a four-door sedan. The reason I’m selling the BMW is that I’m a little concerned about safety. Specifically about getting rear-ended. There really isn’t any crushable zone in the rear of the Club Sport (it’s a hatch back). I’ve narrowed down my choice to the TSX (auto with NAV) or the Mercedes C230 Kompressor (there are some pretty good deals on the C-Class). I’m leaning towards the TSX, but my only concern is the crashworthiness of the TSX when it’s rear-ended. So my question to anyone on the board who has been rear-ended in the TSX is “How did the rear-seat passenger area hold up in the crash?” I’m particularly interested in a hard crash (say getting hit in the rear by a car going greater than 40mph). A friend of mine got rear-end in his C-Class by an old man in a truck going approx. 67 mph. The passenger compartment held up beautifully (hence the reason I’m considering the C-Class). Any information (any or pictures) would be appreciated. Thanks so much.

Sincerely,
Leif W.

 

Leif, I don't have an answer for you, but I would caution you against looking solely at anectdoctal evidence of vehicle crashworthiness. What you want is some valid statistical information based on empirical testing of vehicles under controlled circumstances. Any statement that begins with "a friend of mine..." or "my cousin knows this guy who..." is not a reliable indication of true vehicle safety. Every accident is different.

This would be a good place to start your search:
Buying a Safer Car: New Car Assessment Program

http://www.crashtest.com/

NHTSA crash test data for the TSX (and othe midsize cars):
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/2004MidS.html

Also see here for links to real world crash statistical analysis:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa/

Even the testing the IIHS and NHTSA does should be a little suspect IMO, because I don't think they use large enough sample sizes nor enough variety of crash tests. But they're probably better than nothing and certainly better than anecdotes.

 

A recently departed member (not dead, just left the board cause he got another car) was suposedly rear-ended at 70mph and he virtually walked away. Like the above post though, I would not put too much stock in that. From the sounds of it you're a bit paranoid about this issue (not necessaruly a bad thing) and I don't think any kind of post on this board will help much. While I might have avoided a Pinto due to its rear end crashworthiness, I would probably never exlcude a modern car based on such a thing. As long as it has at least 3-4 star ratings from the major testers move on to other issues to decide the car for you.

 

You can look up actual insurance injury claims data HERE. The C-Class is somewhat better than the Accord, but not a whole lot better.

Back to Physics 102....



Where:

K is kinetic energy
m is mass
v is velocity

If you're going to be rear-ended you're going to be much better off if you're in a Humvee (or an Excursion) than a TSX or a C-Class.

BTW, wagons tend to have better claims histories than sedans in the IIHS database, in part because of the drivers and in part because of the additional buttressing that the wagon configuration provides. Anyway for a FAMILY car you can't beat the E500 4-matic wagon!

 

Majormojo,

Thanks for the response. Although you couldn’t tell from my post, I actually did some research on this (NHTSA, IIHS, etc.). Both the TSX and C-Class did well with the front and side crash tests (when equipped with airbags). The only thing left for me to investigate was rear-end crashes. Since this isn’t tested, I figured I’d start asking TSX owners for their experiences. Those links you posted are greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Leif W.

 

Biker,


<< recently departed member (not dead, just left the board cause he got another car) was supposedly rear-ended at 70mph and he virtually walked away.>>

Do you know if he posted any pictures?

Leif W.

 

bob shiftright,

Thanks for the link.

<< If you're going to be rear-ended you're going to be much better off if you're in a Humvee (or an Excursion) than a TSX or a C-Class>>

I’m not really into SUVs, but I appreciate the thought.

<< Anyway for a FAMILY car you can't beat the E500 4-matic wagon!>>

I wish. That’s out of my price league.

Leif W.

 

here is the thread

put it looks like he took down his crash pics

 

I think either car will be fine, as long as you are not hit by a 3-ton Excursion. The Excursion is so high, it will run over any sedan at high speed.

That said, safety is a big thing for me, and the combination of features on the TSX are awesome. The side airbags, especially the curtain-type, should diminish the chance of injury in most common accidents. And the head restraints go high enough to protect from whiplash (if configured properly).



I remember being rear ended once at over 20mph. I was in ther rear seat of a German Passat Avant (stopped). The rear bumper suffered a minor paint scratch. The other car, a Brazilian Passat model, had major front damage. Same brand of vehicles, different safety capacities.

The type of car that collides with yours, and where it hits, will be a deciding factor. Hopefully, such accident will never happen.

 

"Mass will save your ass".

 

Except for the part where the truck frame has no crush zone. Thus all impact energy is transfered to the occupant's body.

 

I'm not into driving something the size and shape of a garden shed, either.

You said you drive a '95 318ti. Need the replacement car be new? KBB.com produced a "private party value" of $8980 for a '95 E320 Wagon and $11,810 for a '95 S500 in my zip code. You could buy one of each and it would still cost less than a new TSX.

(My own explanation for the TSX is that my company has been shifting ops out of lower Manhattan and to the boondocks, and for family reasons I can't move. So I need to drive about a bazillion miles and need a car that's extremely reliable and fuel-efficient.)

 

You make a valid point that occupant safety is a complex issue that involves more than just vehicle mass. However, crush zones are more important when the vehicle has low mass and is more easily accelerated by some force. The higher the mass of the impacted vehicle the less it moves in response to an impact force and therefore it transfers less energy to the occupants.

Here's what the NTHSA has to say about vehicle mass as it relates to occupant safety:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...te/808570.html

And this article is interesting too.
http://popularmechanics.com/automoti...ks/print.phtml