ccheung

Can the 04 TL be one of the safest car in the market like their Honda and Acura brothers and sisters. There are so far 10 vehicles in the market that received all around 5 star crash ratings. Honda and Acura has total of 6 out of 10. Volvo has 1. Hmm... is Volvo still the number one in safety? I guess not then!
Check www.acuranews.com for more info!

04 TL should make it on the list this time!

Skull One_RENAMED

I tell you what, you get to drive the '04 TL and I will drive my little old 2000 S80 and we will do a nice slow impact head on. Say impact speed of 120 MPH. But before we do this make sure your will and life insurance are up to date before this little crash test. Simply put, you have a chance of dying at that impact speed in the TL. I know for a fact I won't in my S80. I have seen what happens to an S80 at 90 MPH, hitting a fixed object. The only reason the driver didn't walk away under his own power was because he wasn't wearing his seat belt. He hair-line fractured his right hip on the gear shift when his body left the seat. So he required someone to help balance him as he limped to the ambulance.

While I think safety testing at 40 MPH with fixed barriers are good ideas to get base lines data, the real tests are the 100+ mph impacts. And trust me BMW, Volvo and Mercede Benz are the top 3 cars when it comes to those types of impacts.

Peter7777

What happens to a 'Vette during impacts of that type?

ccheung

You are going to get a ticket because you are stupid enough to risk your life driving over 100 MPH! Have some common sense please! I think we should keep Skull One off the road!

BTW who is going to drive above 60 MPH on a busy local road anyway! Pure stupidity!

AcuraRoo

You are just plain stupid if you think you will walk away from a head on of 120 mph in any vehicle. I will take a honda/acura car any day over a volvo. I have a friend that fell asleep at the wheel going 80 MPH. He flipped his car 3 times, went air born hit 4 trees and only had a broken leg. Needless to say I don't doubt for one second that Honda/Acura makes safe cars. If only one volvo makes a list of 10 at 40 mph and 6 Honda/Acura's make it then who do you think is the safer brand? In other words if it can't hold up at 40 how in the hell do you expect it to hold up at 100?? Your logic is just plain stupid.

Hmm I'll take Honda/Acura. Untill I see a person live through a crash that I mentioned driving an Volvo I don't think I will say they are safer.

I was also in a Honda wreck with my brother in which we were hit at 70 mph in the side, and both of us walked away with zero broken bones and just a few scrapes from glass.

Both cars looked like shit after the wrecks but everyone walked away just fine.

Peter7777

No actually I think Skull may have a point. Suppose that a car and a very heavy vehicle are travelling in opposite directions at 40 mph. What if one crosses the line followed by an impact? That's a relative speed difference of 80 mph and the effect on the car is similar to that of hitting a fixed barrier. These things are horrible but they happen in real life nonetheless. Therefore it's valid to ask what kind of protection one might expect. I do appreciate the safety features of the S80. I just couldn't bring myself to overlook its physical appearance both inside and out. That said the TL has a number of excellent safety features in its own right. I feel confident about the car.

ccheung

2 months ago, we had a client purchased a CPO 2000 TL from our dealership with only 7900 miles. She took it down to N. Carolina and involved in a major accident on highway one week after the purchase. She got clipped by a tracker trailer from the back and went into the jersy wall of the highway. It then got back on the road and T-boned by another car. The whole car was totalled and she walked out of the vehicle unharmed. That's amazing! She will only buy a Honda or Acura product now! She just bought another TSX from us!

Skull One_RENAMED

LOL, they get totalled, as in never to be driven again. And of the 3 accidents I have seen; one broke a leg, the other 2 walked away. But they were all head on and with cars that were low to the ground like them. I wouldn't want to be in a side impact crash in that car or in a head-on with a SUV or larger vehicle. Which is why my Vette is driven less than my S80

Skull One_RENAMED

Do me a favor, show me the insurance agency ratings for the last 20 years on these crash test. Lets see how many Honda products vs Volvo are on it.

Edit: ALSO, remember Volvo only has about 12 models in the last 20 years, vs Honda/Acura which has probably closer 40 in the last 20. So make sure you compare apples to apples on counts.

Skull One_RENAMED

ROTFLMAO....

Do me a favor, unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have never driven 5 mph over the speed limit, go troll somewhere else. I am here to have intelligent conversations. You just stuck your foot down your throat and are looking to exit it out your *bleep*.

As for your second point, most deaths in auto accidents occur when the total impact velocity is over 100 mph. IE two cars hitting head on at 50 MPH each, or one at 60 and the other at 40. Please learn just a LITTLE about physics and then come back and join the conversation.

Skull One_RENAMED

I would love to know what the speeds were on these accidents. I am very glad to hear that she was able to walk away. But a car can be totalled after a 20 MPH accident if it is hit the right way. Hell my Vette would be totalled if I took a 30 mph combined head on accident since Vettes are $$$$ as hell to repair. Most insurance companies total at either 70% or 75% value to damage.

Skull One_RENAMED

Exactly, total velocity and energy are the real issues. And since most deaths occur above the 80 mph mark, the crash data in a small sense is flawed if you want to compare apples to apples on crash test vs real world. And yes the last 10 years have seen all passenger cars jump in ratings compared to the Volvos, BMWs and Mercede Benz. But that is because the goverment has seen fit to force the industry to catch up to the more $$$$ cars out there for safety.

planman

You realize that two cars coming head-on at 120mph is the equivalent of one hitting a fixed object at 240mph, right? I'd like to see you or your Volvo survive that. Or any car, for that matter!

Why do you hang around here if you just want to be so negative? You've added some valid points to discussions, but then you pull out something like this...about how "my X is sooo much better than your Acura." We all know Volvo focuses on safety. Point is, Honda/Acura does, too. And they're finally getting credit for it.

Bring back the good Skull One, banish the "superior" one.

ccheung

Who said that they more $$$ cars are safer? Unit body design from Honda and Acura is used to disperse energy. Velocity, come on! Normal human being will not drive like a maniac on the roadover 100 MPH. Most accidents are caused by carelessness. Be a responsible driver and help others. Safety on the road is number one priority. Who wants to get into an accident if you can avoid it? That's why Honda is implementing its Honda Intellignece Driving System into the 2004 Honda Inspire in Japan. It helps all careless driver. If I have a choice, I'll buy a car that help me to avoid accident. Statistics may show Volvomay be safe in terms of crash test in the last 20 years. I totally agree to it. On the other hand, we are in a whole new ball game in the 21st century. Number one priority is to avoid accident, not getting involved in it. Let do it in a more proactive way. Stop thinking about what's going to happen AFTER the accident! BTW, by 2005 all Honda and Acura vehicles will achieve all 2007 safety standard in the industry. It is good to know that Honda is always steps ahead in terms of safety!

planman

Actually, what Skull is saying is that crash data based on 40mph fixed-barrier tests aren't necessarily indicative of real-world collisions. Two cars moving toward each other at 50mph creates a 100mph crash...very different from one car crashing into a wall, etc. at 50mph.

He's got a point. Let's stay out of fan-boy mode and open our ears.

Skull One_RENAMED

I couldn't have said it any better, thank you. That last decade has seen wonderful improvents with body crumple, engine break away (which forces the engine into the ground instead of the firewall) as well as safety restraints to keep people in the sweet spot of a car during an accident. And more expensive cars have always lead the way on these improvements. Volvo, BMW and Mercede Benz all had crumple zones 10 years before the first goverment mandate for it. Volvo had working break away engines at least 10 years before the first Honda/Acrua product did. Why? Because they could afford to do it sooner because they charged $10k to $20k more per car.

And that is how the Vette is actually designed. Front and rear are made to take really hard impacts (over 12" of dead space on each end for that to displace energy). Side-ons are setup to be avoided (if possible) thru braking and acceleration techniques.

BTW: I legally drive over 130 MPH on occasion. They are called hot laps at the track and driving courses for performance vehicles. Can't say enough about how valuable those two things are to improving someones skill behind the wheel. But these hobbies cost a little more money than people are willing to spend . I am lucky enough that I don't have that issue.

ccheung

I need some more "updated" safety news like now and in the next few years, not from the last 10 to 20 years. There are good reasons why 6 Honda and Acura versus 1 Volvo on that list. I am going to buy a NEW car, not a car 10 or 20 years old. Hmm... it tells me something!

BTW it's nice to know you can spend that kind of money on the track crusing 130MPH. I've also done a few times and it was so much fun. I understand that no many people are as lucky as you. But, can we be more realistic? Let's talk about normal driving conition and everyday driving car on regular roads, okay! That's more realistic for general public.

One more thing, why did you pick MDX over XC 90? Just curious.

Skull One_RENAMED

I meant 120 MPH combined impact (60 each head on). There isn't a recorded 240 MPH impact on record for a passenger car. That only happens under race conditions usually with Top Fuel drag racing.

Actually people want to perceive me as negative, still haven't figured out why yet. But I am not going to lose any sleep over it.

I am the first person to say that Acura makes a safe car, which is why my wife drives an MDX (one of the 2 safest SUVs on the road. Volvo XC90 being the other). But I only have the experince to talk completly about cars I have owned or driven enough to have data on. That list right now means I can talk fairly well about Buick LeSabers, Pontiac Montonas and T1000s, Toyota Celics and Corollas, Honda CRX and Accords, Acura MDX, Chevy Corvettes, Volvo S80s and the cars that are direct competitors when I test drove and researched crash data. Which means I have looked over the data for almost all the Honda/Acura 4 doors, BMW 3 and 5 series, Infiniti G35/M45/Q45s, Mercedes Benzs below $60k, Toyota 4 doors (save SUVs), and almost every GM and Ford 4 door vehicle and SUV made in the last 20 years.

Skull One_RENAMED

A) The reason you have no safety data on the Volvos in the last 2 years is because they haven't been recertified since 1999ish when the S80, S60 and S40 first came out. They test once and don't retest unless there is a structural change. Honda/Acura on the other hand have made enough changes and/or asked for their cars to be retested each year for the last 5 years. Personally I think it was DAMN smart of Honda/Acura to do that for PR reasons alone. The fact that people here are quoting this year data alone proves that point out

B) Yeah, I am pretty lucky, no doubt about it but when I am not on the track my wife hates me. I drive right at the speed limit on city streets and 5 below on residential streets. She says I drive like a grandpa. Now on the highway that is a different issue. I drive between 5 and 10 over on highways as long as I have at least 10 car lengths in both directions to work with. If I don't, it is the speed limit only. Infact I am probably one of the few people anal enough to test my speedometer against GPS systems to make sure my speed readings are acurate. Vette is .4 off, Volvo is 2 mph off and MDX is 1.2 mph

C) MDX was picked over the XC90 for 2 primary reasons. MDX had 5 years of testing data before the 2003 came out. XC90 had less than one. MDX is only lacking side air curtains over the XC90 which didn't give enough justification to over come the poor gas mileage and chromed out look of the XC90 (which my wife and I hate with a passion). I am fairly certain when the ratings on both cars are done, they will be just about dead on the same save for side impact against large vehicles (Navigator class) which the XC90 should do slightly better. Now the new '04 MDX has side impact air curtains. But I have seen zero test data on them. Should be interesting to see if '04 MDX matches up well with the '03 XC90.

MikeMa

Skull One: You present some very good arguments...

But, are you implying that Honda/Acura *improving* its safety ratings is a *BAD* thing? I think the fact that they *CARE* enough to be continuously tweaking their car to get safer and safer is an extremely good idea--it means they're not stagnating; not sitting on their laurels. It may just be for PR, but who cares? The end result is they're making safer cars.

Yes, the auto world may have been lagging behind Volvo in safety, but they're rapidly making huge strides towards making safer cars.

And as for your "modest proposal" to ccheung, how do you *know* that the TL will fail? Have you bought a 2004TL and crashed it into your S80? Do you have actual data?

Now, I wonder what will happen when we start getting the Ford-based Volvos in the coming years....

Skull One_RENAMED

I never implied it was a bad thing, infact I was saying it was a GOOD thing.

Yes and I actually thank the goverment for forcing the issue on that.

I don't know for 100% sure. But if my tank (S80) can tear up the front end of a F-350 truck with no issues (I was rear ended by one and he lost). Then I am pretty sure the TL will have more problems since it is made from even lighter material.

ACK! My worst nightmare is that Ford americanizes the Volvo line from a production stand point for material and craftsmanship. It will be a very sad day when that happens and yes, I have a bad feeling it will. :'(

moreace_RENAMED

In regards to meeting 2007 safety specs, do we know what those are? I wish we had some more of these Japanes options around here. I have not been reading this thread the whole time and it kinda exploded. I hate reading. Anyone wanna sum it up in nice bullet points? Thanks

Skull One_RENAMED

1) Nope, not a clue on '07 specs.
2) People wanted to talk safety based on recent data without knowing about older data that is still valid today.
3) I want to test a 120 mph crash with a '04 TL and '00 S80 and see who walks away.
4) Vettes can be hurt real bad in side impact crashes.
5) I thank the goverment for forcing car companies to upgrade safety features more quickly.
6) I picked a MDX over a XC90.
7) People think I am negative here, still no clue why.
8) People think I drive fast on city streets. No clue why.
9) You weren't serious about the bullet point thing? :P (damn I can be funny sometimes )

moreace_RENAMED

I was
super helpful
I read slow
thanks skull (un unsafe speedy negative bastard)
j/k, keep it coming

tsos

Sorry for being a troll'er (my MS/6spd/Nav won't arrive until Dec), but...

A head-on crash between two cars going 50 mph is equivalent to a single car going 50 mpH into a fixed wall. At the end of the accident, all cars decelerate from 50 to resting. The wall applies the same impulse to the car as each car does to the other in the head-on. I.e. you're not allowed to add.

However, if it is a incredibly massive semi and a TSX hitting head-on, the TSX will end up going 50 mph in the opposite direction, or a total change of 100 mph. So when the weights are substantially different, you can add the two speeds from the smaller car's perspective, while the bigger one may never even know it hit something.

Skull One_RENAMED

Ok, lets get down to specifics on this, because yes, you are correct based on formulas that deal with energy conversion, it is not an additive effect.

But here are the issues you don't take into account, for which I am, in a head on car to car collision.

Car against a brick wall has a different dissipation of converted energy in the form of sound and heat then hitting another car of equal mass. Which means you have the potential to bleed more energy into the wall which then dissapates across a larger surface area and actually helps the car out. Second the wall has NO moving parts unlike another car. Simply put, no car is locked down properly and objects that aren't secured properly will (at a slower speed) continue to move at the other car until it too finally comes to a stop. So the potential enegery conversion is in the cars favor hitting a wall instead of hitting another car. Another car will not dissapate the frictional (or sound) energy conversion like the wall will. So yes, there is extra energy in a head on with a car collision vs an into the wall collision. But no, it is not a 1+1=2 equation, probably closer to a 1+1=1.2

Of course from a G-Force perspective to the human body your 100% correct as long as no moving parts from the on comming vehicle penetrate the zone the body occupies as it is brought from 60 to 0 in about .2 seconds. BTW at that speed, your internal organs can and will become jelly. Which is why air bags were invented

Next time I will try to be a little more clear in my examples and what I mean.

tsos

Yes, there is ~2x the kinetic energy in a two car collision compared to a single car collision with a very heavy wall (the wall does recoil with a small velocity, but as KE=0.5Mass*Vel^2, this is negligible)

That was my point - as far as the human is concerned, hitting a wall and on-coming (identical) car is the same thing, assuming all the flying objects hit their mirror images and cancel out.

blkngld

I think you've fallen into the trap where someone goes off and designs a relatively simple test and it comes to be taken as the last word. There are a lot of things that could be measure that aren't simply to cater to the short attention span of the typical consumer.

Given a simple enough test, it becomes a game of designing a vehicle that performs well on the test. This is done for safety, but a big part of it today is that the 5 star rating is a marketing coup.

Honda has never been a leader in safety, and certainly not compared to volvo. For all they do well, this is one area they are followers. Even today, you have to ante up to the premium lines to get all of the safety features that come standard in every volvo. They've gotten a lot better, but by no means do I consider them a leader.

Our family's owned 5 hondas between us and one volvo. It's much more likely my next car will be honda/acura than it is to be another volvo. But that doesn't mean my choice will be the 'safer' one.

AcUrAgUy

Too bad Volvo's are ugly . Safety is obviously important, but it's not the be-all end-all when choosing a car. Think about it - most people on this board are at least 25-30 years old and have driven in very unsafe cars over and over again in the past. Hell, I bet most didn't use seatbelts until the late 80's early 90's (me included). The last accident I was in I didn't have a seat belt on. Fortunately, my brother was kind enough to sacrifice his head (we headbutted each other and were both fine) as I was headed for the driver's window coming from the passenger seat (drivers side door impact).

The point is, we made it this far and every car (Honda or Volvo) is getting safer and better every year. I say keep up the good work and I could care less who has the "safest" car. They are all safe compared to what we grew up riding in. Besides, avoiding an accident is the real trick. Which leads me to another topic. Don't you all think that it is too easy for just anyone to get a drivers license? I say the drivers test should be much more demanding including evasive manuevers (sp). That would produce fewer overall drivers (reducing traffic and emmissions) that have better driving skills (less accidents). Maybe cheaper insurance for the rest of us. Just because you are 16 or whatever your state requires doesn't mean you get a license. You need to be able to handle yourself and your vehicle in a crisis situation. My kid won't get a license until she can put a car into a spin and recover from it (on a closed course, of course). I can't handle the thought of her finding herself in a situation where she must react fast and not know what to do. Sorry for the rant. I still think Volvo's are ugly, but that just my own damn opinion.

larchmont

Where on this link do we find anything like what you're talking about? I looked pretty hard, and I didn't find anything of the sort.

tsx-mdxman

I wouldn't call the S60 or XC90 ugly...
__________________________________
04 TSX CG AT/NAV
03 MDX SSM TOURING/NAV/RES

AcUrAgUy

It's a matter of opinion. I have not seen a Volvo yet that I think is attractive.

vtechbrain

Someone has been smoking some serious funny stuff around here. An impact against a solid structure at 90 mph will desintegrate any vehicle softer than an abrams tank! The only reason the abrahms will not break apart is because whatever it hits will!! This is the same uninformed comments that NASCAR fans like to utter "Bubba Unser hit the wall a 200 mph"!!!! No he didn't!!!! Although the car is travelling at that peed, the actual speed is a a product of the vector of the angle of the applied force (physics 101) depending on the angle the actual force of the impact maybe 40 mph or less!! So yes those barrier impacts are the best measures of survivability. And remember, the severity of the crash increases exponentially with the speed so a very small increase in speed will increase the severity of the crash quite significantly. A crash at twice the speed will increase the force by a factor of 4. Regardless of VOLVOS promotional efforts volvo hardly makes the safest cars on the road anymore. Japanese automakers have relegated the Swedes to have beens. In all sincerity, nowa days to build safer cars all you need are bigger faster computers, modern auto makers (who care) just test their desings more thoroughly and are willing to spend more resources in the application of their test results Japanese and european manufacturers in general have comited to that philosophy . American automakers pay lip service to it but as usual their efforts are scattered at best (as long as the can have bubba buy only american they dont care) .

Skull One_RENAMED

Wow, you are so right. I didn't see a Volvo S70 after it hit an 18 wheeler at 90 MPH (driver admitted and crash physics proved) that was stopped on the side of a road. How silly of me to think the dealership the car was parked at (for over a year) for show purposes (with documentation) was not a hoax. How could I be so blind?

And as far as NASCAR goes, impact speeds are actually retrieved from the onboard computers and accelerometers buried in the crash boxes. While you are correct that observation of speed is subjective, most crashes at the 1.5 mile tracks and larger happen at 150+ MPH. The very nice thing is they are violent looking crashes that in reality are the best ones to have. Dissapation of energy over time is the key to surviving a high speed impact. Which is why Dale Earnhardt was killed instantly. His car went straight into the wall at 178 MPH and the car stayed almost intact. Which means something had to give. Sadly it was his life.

And yes, most of understand the basic of physics. Some of us however like to keep things simple so that the conversation doesn't get out of hand and everyone (regardless of age and education) can add something meaningful to the conversation.

Saying someone is smoking funny stuff isn't meaningful or even useful. And currently Volvo, BMW and Mercedes Benz do make some of the safest cars on the road. Considering most of the safety features mandated today are based on their research and testing.

fuque

OK, I can see the only way to settle this is for Skull to give us a demonstration. Go ahead, Skull, drive your Volvo into a concrete wall at 120MPH. If you survive, I'll buy you a new Volvo and admit publicly that you were right.

Skull One_RENAMED

ROTFLMAO, let me check with my wife on that one

frainc

WOW, some of you guys really know your stuff on crashes.

But as Skull One tells us, the way not to find out how good or bad your car is in a crash is to avoid one. How TRUE that is, does everyone always leave room in following a car, always checking your side and rear mirror to see what is happening around you, does everyone really look ahead of the road, not a few car lenghts, but 500 - 1,000 feet ahead?

How about roll stops and speeding up at the yellow light or passing them! How about driving only 5 mph above the speed limit on a highway instead of 20 mph above!

I'm 56 and not once did I get hit or hit anyone driving (I drive about 25,000 per year).

By the way, I love cars and do like to step on the gas when its the RIGHT time but as you get older you will learn that arriving a few minutes later is better than not getting their.

Skull One_RENAMED

I couldn't have said it better. Thank you and welcome to the forum.

I do the posted speed on all city streets and only 5 over on highway unless the road is clear by a minimum of 20 car lengths in front and behind. And the only cars I will take above 100 MPH is my Vette and S80. Because both are truely made to go that fast. Had the S80 at 120 MPH for 30 minutes one morning and it felt like I was doing 70 because it was so smooth. I will get a chance to do 150+ MPH in the Vette legally next year at Texas Motor Speedway. May can't get here fast enough.

RJC RSX

this RSX hit a tree at 100+ and the driver walked away with minor injuries. The passenger, however, died

duugk

You left out the fact that your wife hates you when you are off the track...You're not Jeff Gordon or someone like that are you?