Jalopnik 
Enter your username and password.
Detroit, 10:04 AM
Fri Dec 11
25 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Ray Wert | | AIM
Road Test Editor:
Wes Siler |
Weekend Editor:
Murilee Martin |
Associate Editor - Houston:
Associate Editor - Detroit:
Editor-at-Large:
Contributors:
John Krewson |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/19/09
Then again, I've never really agreed with MT's choices.
11/18/09
This may be the one and only thing Dodge can shove into Toyota's face and actually have ground to stand on.
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
It's OK that you are such a terrible car now little Chrysler. As you will grow up to be the only car still running in a demolition derby when you lose half your value next year.
And with that the little Chrysler was no longer self conscious about it's looks as it knows that for it's true purpose in life looks don't matter.
Chug along little shit box, chug along to victory.
11/18/09
11/18/09
But, really, isn't it better to know what would happen to your car in the event that it experienced the kind of crash that they are testing? As opposed to having no idea how one car will perform vs. another... And you can't blame better design for a lack of personal responsibility. Especially when that better design can still save your a*! when some jerk with NO personal responsibility comes crashing into you in a frontal offset setup after crossing the double-yellow line while reaching for their cell phone...
11/18/09
11/18/09
The IIHS does not test Porsches. It does not test many of the most expensive BMWs and Mercedes either. Therefore their absence should not make a big difference.
The IIHS told us they tested only 52 roofs at this point. Why? Because when they told manufacturers of the tests and asked them to send cars they thought had a chance of passing, all they got was 52. of those 27 passed. They will add new models to the list throughout the year though as they do more testing. That's why so many 2010 models were rushed through the old testing to get 2009 awards.
11/18/09
*Denotes sarcasm.
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
#tips
11/18/09
Large Cars:
Buick LaCrosse
Ford Taurus
Lincoln MKS
Volvo S80
Midsize Cars:
Audi A3
Chevrolet Malibu built after October 2009
Chrysler Sebring 4-door with optional electronic stability control
Dodge Avenger with optional electronic stability control
Mercedes C class
Subaru Legacy
Subaru Outback
Volkswagen Jetta sedan
Volkswagen Passat sedan
Volvo C30
Small Cars
Honda Civic 4-door models (except Si) with optional electronic stability control
Kia Soul
Nissan Cube
Subaru Impreza except WRX
Volkswagen Golf 4-door
Midsize SUVs
Dodge Journey
Subaru Tribeca
Volvo XC60
Volvo XC90
Small SUVs
Honda Element
Jeep Patriot with optional side torso airbags
Subaru Forester
Volkswagen Tiguan
11/18/09
11/18/09
-An engine that can accelerate out of trouble.
-Suspension that can handle around idiots.
-Brakes that can stop me before hitting morons.
-and grey matter between the ears.
11/18/09
When I was 16, I was "taught" to drive by my father, in a 1964 356C Porsche (with the optional lap belts!). His teaching method was to put me in the car after describing the controls and say "good luck".
But his advice was priceless, and I carry it with me to this day: safety comes from avoiding accidents, not from airbags, ABS etc. and agility is more valuable than any of those features.
Passive "safety" is an illusion for idiots. Grey matter, reflexes and most of all attention to detail while driving are your only sure-fire safety mechanisms.
11/18/09
11/18/09
Can you think of a time where you could really accelerate your way out of trouble? I used to think the same thing when I had a WRX, but getting on the binders was always the safest way to avoid trouble.
11/18/09
11/19/09
#tips
11/18/09
11/18/09
I guess it would be best to drive in overstuffed furniture. That would, you know, cushion any impacts.
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
If a Volvo with defectve seatbelts can get a high rating, doesn't that undermine the argument for wearing the things in the first place?
Does it undermine the whole testing programme?
I know that PJ O'Rourke had issues with seatbelts at one point* but, assuming he hasn't changed his position, I don't think he'll be dashing down to the Volvo dealership to get a car that is stamped 'SAFE' despite not having functioning seatbelts.
Seatbelts are at the centre of almost all current passenger safety programmes and most manufacturers even tell you that airbags will only help if you have a seatbelt holding you in place.
*I recall an interview with PJ O'Rourke in Top Gear magazine during the late nineties in which he mentioned not liking seatbelts because he didn't want to be compelled to stay in a car that was about to crash.
11/18/09
11/18/09
A piece of plastic came lose and actually depressed the button disengaging the belt.
11/18/09
lack of reading you
11/18/09