2010 Camaro Crash Test results - Full (almost)

[carfansince73]

Well, I'm going to throw my 2 cents in...

Since this car was designed from the ground up, it should have gotten a five star rating. After all, GM knew what the results should have been. I mean it's like having the answers to a test. Four stars isn't real bad though.

NHTSA can't even spell Camaro right either. This is how the link ended for that crash video off their site..

2010/10Camero-f.wmv

[dursin]

Originally Posted by Unfair

or the hundreds of other sedans and coupes that got a 5 star.

Exactly. Even the Mazda 3 and Kia Soul managed to pull off all around 5 star crash test ratings. Really no excuse for a car made today to fall short.

[dursin]

Originally Posted by edbrick

Every time weight is brought up its always associated with crash worthiness. This pisses me off. My 68 SS big block weighed 3300 pounds at nearly 3900 pounds this car is no longer a muscle car. Christ make it 3400 pounds if no one cares about crash score.

Interesting weights on those crash test results. They actually have the Challenger as about 20 pounds lighter than the Camaro. That really wouldn't change the results, but is still interesting.

[EMB135Driver]

Originally Posted by Crowley

I'll say it again .. no NEW car today should every have less than a 5 star rating .. this is piss poor IMO.

Crowley

Why...unless you crash it what does it matter what its rated? I suppose you think airplanes should be built out of the material the black boxes that survive crashes are made of too.

I think instead of trying to engineer survivability into cars we need to focus on driver training. Plenty of people drove for years before ABS brakes, airbags, traction control, etc without a scratch.

[Unfair]

Originally Posted by Alfieboy

Unfair:


why are you so damn negative all the time?

i just corrected a few statments on crash test results what's your issue budd?

[chevyridinghigh]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

I'm really starting to get the feeling that the OP doesn't want a Camaro at all from his posts here and at GMI.

Seriously dude, it's like you're trying to find any reason at all to bash the Camaro or bash GM. If you don't want the car, then give it up for someone who does.

Are we rationing Camaro's now too? Or am I allowed to have an opinion. This is all fact.

[chevyridinghigh]

Originally Posted by rodimus prime

Again the op only showed a video with no data until we brought it up. From the looks of the video it appears to handle it pretty well. But the data says otherwise.


It was never in my head that it matters how it looked. But when your only given half the story, thats all you can run with. So with that being said, you know where you can stick your facepalm.

The titles mentions 4 star rating...

[Cheshirelaugh]

So I was doing a little research on my own at the Safecar.gov website. When I pulled up the 2010 mustang it asked me if I meant the hard-top or the convertible, I was shocked when I actually saw *safety concern* next to it's rear-seat side-impact.

Look now, I'm not trying to deflect. I'm a little disappionted the Camaro didn't meet GM's target 5-Star rating. But hopefully they can take some lessons-learned and improve future MYs.

I'd love to be able to dig a little deeper into the crash test. I'm curious how the seat was positioned... Some people have said they're 5'11 and their head touch the ceiling, others are 6'3 with no problems... Could this have had some affect on the test results???

Regardless to me 4-star vs 5-star just doesn't seem like a big whoop. Even if I had known the Camaro would come out 'sub par' on crash rating, I'd have still bought it.

[The_Blur]

If this bothers you, then you didn't watch the crash. It fulfills the criteria for a safe car. Remember that these standards tend to get more rigorous over time. If you've ever been in a crash in an old car that had a perfect 5-star rating, today that car might barely have a 2-star rating. The cabin section of the car was fine. There was potential for head injury, according to the report associated with the test, but also remember that there are safety precautions that are not considered in this test, including the side curtain airbags.

Now, let's evaluate the quality of the testing. By judging the Camaro based upon this testing, we assume that the testing is good. Let's consider the possibility that our government, more adept at collecting taxes and waging wars by definition, can test a highly technological vessel for safety. The test of running a vehicle into a wall is not all that scientific. It dates back to the birth of crash dummies in 1949. Even in the 1930s, crashes resulted in only 15.6 fatalities per 100 million miles travelled by vehicle. Today, that statistic is about 1.8. There has been marked improvement, but the diminishing returns of improving ratings and standards to fatalities show that these modern test score mean very little when you compare them over time. As a result of these diminishing returns in statistics, we may even see standards be pushed higher, creating lower average scores, higher average fines for companies that try to meet the standards and fail, and better fatality statistics that defy these numbers. In other words, a car that has a 5-star rating may have a 1-star rating decades later when subjected to the same exact testing, even if it saves the same number of passengers from the same sort of serious injuries in both cases. As a result, even if the number of fatalities shrinks per mile over time, the test scores may decrease due to increasing standards. This will cause cars, like the Camaro, to have lower ratings than previous generations of the same car to experience scores that may indicate inferior performance when compared to past models.

In conclusion, I would consider the consequences of the test over the actual scores of the test. What sort of trauma would a person experience when in an accident? Is the score good? The latter is irrelevant if a car with lower or higher ratings ends up performing better in a crash as far as protecting occupants. Regardless of what I drive, I just want to know that my airbags will deploy when that idiot runs a red light and totals my Cobalt. Sure enough, it did when I was on a date in August 2007. 2 years later, here I sit, and it isn't because the Cobalt got a 5-star crash rating. I should add that my crash test rating wasn't the thing running through my head when a Honda came tearing across an intersection to intercept my front end. Leave the stars in the sky, and focus on the content of the report over some oversimplified summary that doesn't reflect reality.

[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.

[dursin]

Originally Posted by EMB135Driver

Why...unless you crash it what does it matter what its rated? I suppose you think airplanes should be built out of the material the black boxes that survive crashes are made of too.

I think instead of trying to engineer survivability into cars we need to focus on driver training. Plenty of people drove for years before ABS brakes, airbags, traction control, etc without a scratch.

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

Brilliant! We'll just teach people how to drive better and we can get rid of ABS, airbags, traction control and even seat belts!!!

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

[chevyridinghigh]

I think I exaggerated a bit... this won't stop me from buying the car

[67 GTO]

Now what? It is what it is, do we now trade for a vehicle with the coveted extra star for frontal? I have to ask, why would anyone who was concerned about the rating, order or purchase a vehicle before the testing was done?

I'll be the only one driving my Camaro and I'll be extra careful.

[dursin]

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.

How true! Can you imagine for even a second what this thread would look like if the Camaro got a 5 star rating and the Challenger got 4 stars?!? I can see all the "OMG, UNSAFE POS!" posts now!

Personally I don't worry about crash test ratings too much. I just totaled my '99 Cavalier a month or so ago in a frontal crash and aside from a shoulder that's still a little sore, I came out of it pretty good. That car had a 3 star crash test rating and a 1 star side impact...which pretty much meant that if someone pushed a shopping cart into my door at the grocery store I would have been airlifted to the nearest trauma center.

That said, a lot of people are concerned about crash test ratings. All things considered, if I was trying to decide between a Camaro and a Challenger, the crash test results would weigh heavily. As a parent, that would be even more true if I were buying the car for my daughter/son (hypothetical only...I should be so rich!). I don't know any parent who would chose the 'less safe' car, even if it was 4 stars vs 5 stars. In the end, this will hurt the Camaro sales, even if just a little bit.