2010 Camaro Crash Test results - Full (almost)

[carfansince73]

Originally Posted by diddiyo

didn't they add the weight "for safety reasons"?

once again i love the hypocrisy of people on this board. "oooh no i can't drive an 'econo box' GTI, they're not safe!! i need a bigger car!" but now that the camaro has the same rating all of a sudden safety is not a factor anymore.

Everyone has to keep in mind this rating is for cars of similar weight. If you crash into a car weighing 2800 pounds that has a 5 star rating, the Camaro will come out on top. Look at this test of a Honda Accord versus a Fit. Both have 5 star ratings. The Fit looks like a crumpled beer can.

Honda Accord versus Fit

[syr74]

As has been stated here already a car is not rated on how the car looks after a crash, but in how well it protects the occupants from the impact both through actual physical intrusion into the cabin and through the transmission of the force of the crash into the cabin which may not actually leave major physical distortion post impact. In the case of the Camaro video you can actually see the doors/roof of the car distort temporarily as the force of the crash moves through the front of the vehicle into the cabin area. Watch the video of the crash tests for the Mustang and Challenger, you don't see the same distortion as the force from the impact travels through the car which would tend to suggest those forces are being absorbed and or dissapated before they reach the passenger. Without doubt that isn't helping the Camaro.

[rodimus prime]

Originally Posted by dursin

Seriously, do you really think that more people aren't surviving car crashes now due to all the advances made in safety?

Click it or ticket probably helped a lot.

[AMERICANMADE]

Are there actually any of us within this thread that are structural engineers having a real understanding of kinetic energy, structural statics, or knowledge of how forces are actually transmitted through rigid structures? Just because the dodge or ford doesn't crumple beyond the front clip doesn't say there are not similar forces continuing into the cabin. That doesn't mean that forces stopped at the dashboard. As far as we know the steering wheels could have ended up in the rear seat.
I don't think any of us would want to be subjected to the forces recorded in any of these vehicles.

These tests are simply conducted as controlled comparitive samples. As I have said several posts back. The actual safety performance of all three of these cars will not be fully understood for several years unitil actual road crash data is collected and observed.

Conduct 300 real road impacts and you could likely see 300 differing results in all three cars.

[djsnoflake]

Originally Posted by gold5000000

you think that was bad? go to google and type in smart car hit by semi click the first result *warning* it is a little gruesome

Here's the link

WARNING EXTREME CONTENT:
http://www.winnipegheights.com/forum...d.php?t=135661

what's the crash rating on THAT??

[Hanzo]

Here is another smart car incident.
http://imgur.com/kGUKD.png

[stovt001]

I am a bit disappointed with the 4-star rating. Mind you, I feel perfectly safe in a car with a 4-star rating, but the main justification for the Camaro's weight has been for getting the absolute best safety ratings. If all the excess weight went towards safety, I'd hate to see how bad things would be if it weighed in the 3500 lb range.

[EMB135Driver]

Originally Posted by dursin

Ok, first of all, for this post only, I have temporarily changed your name to "Your dealer".

Seriously, do you really think that more people aren't surviving car crashes now due to all the advances made in safety?

First Off, I could be wrong but I think calling me "Idiot" is a violation of forum rules, but I don't really care what you call me.

Secondly, my point was that If you truly wanted a 100% survivable car it's do-able...but you will sit behind a 15 foot long hood with 6 crush zones, in a 12 foot wide car that is no taller than 3 feet so it doesn't roll over. Everyone will wear a 6 point safety harness and a helmet with a HANS device, a nomex fire suit, and drive from inside an airtight ejectable compartment with a fire supression system rated to withstand 50G impacts.

Sounds a little crazy right......my point is that you can't engineer a car to be 100% safe without sacrificing other things, like appearance and driveability. Do you think an extra crash star is worth a couple hundred more pounds to our already hefty Camaro? What about if it required the front and back to be higher for better crash results? Maybe the windshield needs to be bigger and set forward more at more of an angle. The A pillars need to be twice as big to reinforce the new larger front crush zone. By the time you are done getting a 5 star rating you might have a different car.

I think the car is fine as is, and all you need to do is not drive like a moron and you will be fine.

[chevymuscle311]

I read somewhere that it was rated 5 star........................ hmmmm


Ok that was side impact.

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33918

[Vash]

Hum strange cause 4th Gen's had 5 stars frontal. Well hopefully they can take a look at it again in terms of maybe improving it a bit for future year runs.

But I think this is still one of the safest cars GM has ever made.

[fishbern82]

Just to let you guys know. neither of those cars smashed, are Smart cars. Smart cars use a 3lug pattern not 5

[dursin]

Originally Posted by rodimus prime

Click it or ticket probably helped a lot.

Don't need that either...just better driver training according to "Your Dealer".

[dursin]

Originally Posted by EMB135Driver

First Off, I could be wrong but I think calling me "Idiot" is a violation of forum rules, but I don't really care what you call me.

Secondly, my point was that If you truly wanted a 100% survivable car it's do-able...but you will sit behind a 15 foot long hood with 6 crush zones, in a 12 foot wide car that is no taller than 3 feet so it doesn't roll over. Everyone will wear a 6 point safety harness and a helmet with a HANS device, a nomex fire suit, and drive from inside an airtight ejectable compartment with a fire supression system rated to withstand 50G impacts.

Nobody is talking about a 100% survivable car. Nobody.

Originally Posted by EMB135Driver

Sounds a little crazy right......

Umm...yes it does, but I think I know why.

Originally Posted by EMB135Driver

my point is that you can't engineer a car to be 100% safe without sacrificing other things, like appearance and driveability. Do you think an extra crash star is worth a couple hundred more pounds to our already hefty Camaro? What about if it required the front and back to be higher for better crash results? Maybe the windshield needs to be bigger and set forward more at more of an angle. The A pillars need to be twice as big to reinforce the new larger front crush zone. By the time you are done getting a 5 star rating you might have a different car.

I think the car is fine as is, and all you need to do is not drive like a moron and you will be fine.

Not true at all. Dodge managed to with the Challenger, Ford managed to with the Mustang. Neither of those compromised looks for safety. There is really no excuse why the Camaro didn't or couldn't match up.

[dursin]

Originally Posted by fishbern82

Just to let you guys know. neither of those cars smashed, are Smart cars. Smart cars use a 3lug pattern not 5

Agree...first one looks like a small VW. Seems like every time a small car is crushed beyond recognition, it's automatically labeled as a Smart Car.