2010 Camaro Crash Test results - Full (almost)

[Camaro_Corvette]

Yep, that's my decision maker...

[camero]

Originally Posted by eapoll11

Why did they use and rs? Seems like a waste to me why not just use an ls (not trying to offend anyone)?

It would have been too embarrassing to have a black roof-ditch molding flying around like that. The body color one finally got it's chance to shine!

[coolicarboy]

Yup. Here it is... It got 4 stars. Not bad. I expected it to do better, but 4 stars is still pretty good in my opinion.

It would have been a lot better in slow motion, though.

[usmcbmw]

wow that is come clip...wish there were more

[GTAHVIT]

Merged.

[K-A]

Originally Posted by SicSix6

I find it disturbing in this time and age, that people base the decision to buy an automobile on it's crash test rating.

Why so? That's a pretty ridiculous and non-sensical statement.

Maybe you don't value your life as much as I do mine, but I acknowledge that accidents do happen, and I'd like to do all that I can to help ensure I am as best protected as possible in the event that something unfortunate does happen.

Crash Test ratings don't tell the full story.... true. But they are one of a few ways we can best judge how well a car will protect us. To be fair, there have been some cars, namely European automakers who have built a foundation of trust through years of proven "real world" life-saving data, who have gotten less than perfect Crash Test scores, and who have simply dismissed them as "lab tests" which they put no care into, instead focusing on extensive "real world" data, which is what they use when they engineer the cars.

Many of them earn my trust (and again have decades of factual real world data to prove their claims), however GM IS NOT one of the companies. In relatively recent times GM has proven to make some of the most unsafe, and almost carelessly dangerous cars out there, so I don't give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to Safety engineering knowledge, nor do I when the Camaro gets a low crash test score.

Simply looking at the video, it looks like the hood doesn't crush enough, and A LOT of that energy got transferred into the cabin.... The Challenger seemed to absorb that impact like a sponge.... Which is a great thing. It isn't a "death trap" by any means at all, but it doesn't seem to match up to its competition. Mix that with my already clausterphobic feelings and doubts when I sit in it, and it's a bit disconcerting.

I still REALLY like the new Camaro, but surprisingly, the new Mustang has gotten my vote recently, namely due to the horrible Camaro interior, and now with these Crash scores, it's no contest for me.

[toehead93]

I did not read teh entire post so if you've seen this....
It is the frontal crash test video:

and side impact:

[MLL67RSSS]

Pretty simple really when it comes to why the frontal is 4 stars. As I stated before the car is strong, TOO strong specifically in the front crumple zone. The front not crumpling enough is not absorbing enough of the g-forces and therefor transferring more of the energy to the passenger compartment resulting in the high g-load numbers for the occupants. Its not something they can't fix. They can possibly vary where they use high-strength steel, and/or vary the thickness of the steel in certain areas, and/or add or move where there are folds in the metal in the crumple zone so it "gives" better. More of the energy will be absorbed, less transfered to the passenger compartment.
When the thread first started it was said that the Challenger "looked" bad and the Camaro "looked" better. The Challenger "looked" bad because the crumple zone was doing what it was supposed to do and absorbing a lot of the impact/g-forces. The Camaro "looked" better because it was not. Obviously looks can be decieving. And remember the Challenger is heavier than the Camaro so it isn't just about weight.

[Cyber_Gray_Autobot]

MLL67RSSS makes some excellent points.

When a car is involved in a head on collision, you want the car to crumple as much as possible. The more a car crumples, the longer the collision lasts for. As the collision time increases, the acceleration (g force) experienced by the passengers and car decreases. Hence, the passengers have a better chance of surviving the impact.

Just imagine dropping an egg 10 centimeters from above the floor. If the egg lands on cement, it cracks but if the egg lands on a sponge, it remains intact. You want the Camaro to be sponge like in a collision.

I still think its rating is very good and it did not influence my decision to purchase this car.

[K-A]

Originally Posted by MLL67RSSS

Pretty simple really when it comes to why the frontal is 4 stars. As I stated before the car is strong, TOO strong specifically in the front crumple zone. The front not crumpling enough is not absorbing enough of the g-forces and therefor transferring more of the energy to the passenger compartment resulting in the high g-load numbers for the occupants. Its not something they can't fix. They can possibly vary where they use high-strength steel, and/or vary the thickness of the steel in certain areas, and/or add or move where there are folds in the metal in the crumple zone so it "gives" better. More of the energy will be absorbed, less transfered to the passenger compartment.
When the thread first started it was said that the Challenger "looked" bad and the Camaro "looked" better. The Challenger "looked" bad because the crumple zone was doing what it was supposed to do and absorbing a lot of the impact/g-forces. The Camaro "looked" better because it was not. Obviously looks can be decieving. And remember the Challenger is heavier than the Camaro so it isn't just about weight.

Well put and intelligent info there.

The front of the car is indeed too "strong" here, as it barely crumples at all it seems. Were the car to actually use almost the full hood as a crumple zone (like for example, the Challenger), you'd imagine it would have to be a very high speed impact, and the human/s in the car would obliterated by the G's.

[cab2g]

When I was taking driver's ed, on the last day I was shown a video created in the 60's by the Ohio State Patrol. It was about obeying traffic laws. But really all it was was a montage of dead people in crashed cars. The family of 6 was by far the worst. But I digress. Cars back then had no crumple zones and if you got into an accident you typically did not wear your seat belt and you became a projectile. At least cars today have crumple zones, seat belts, and airbags. We are all in safe bubbles!

I still think they're going to fix the crash rating for next year.

[MrIcky]

Originally Posted by MLL67RSSS

Pretty simple really when it comes to why the frontal is 4 stars. As I stated before the car is strong, TOO strong specifically in the front crumple zone. The front not crumpling enough is not absorbing enough of the g-forces and therefor transferring more of the energy to the passenger compartment resulting in the high g-load numbers for the occupants. Its not something they can't fix. They can possibly vary where they use high-strength steel, and/or vary the thickness of the steel in certain areas, and/or add or move where there are folds in the metal in the crumple zone so it "gives" better. More of the energy will be absorbed, less transfered to the passenger compartment.
When the thread first started it was said that the Challenger "looked" bad and the Camaro "looked" better. The Challenger "looked" bad because the crumple zone was doing what it was supposed to do and absorbing a lot of the impact/g-forces. The Camaro "looked" better because it was not. Obviously looks can be decieving. And remember the Challenger is heavier than the Camaro so it isn't just about weight.

I'd guess that you are pretty spot on. Those ratings are based on what happens inside the cockpit, not what the vehicle looks like after the wreck. Trucks normally score 4s too because of the beefed up front rails. But against a car, the other vehicle deforms so my truck won't have to. That sounds bad-doesn't it. Still, cars are so safe today that I wouldn't worry much about a 4.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by MLL67RSSS

Pretty simple really when it comes to why the frontal is 4 stars. As I stated before the car is strong, TOO strong specifically in the front crumple zone. The front not crumpling enough is not absorbing enough of the g-forces and therefor transferring more of the energy to the passenger compartment resulting in the high g-load numbers for the occupants. Its not something they can't fix. They can possibly vary where they use high-strength steel, and/or vary the thickness of the steel in certain areas, and/or add or move where there are folds in the metal in the crumple zone so it "gives" better. More of the energy will be absorbed, less transfered to the passenger compartment.
When the thread first started it was said that the Challenger "looked" bad and the Camaro "looked" better. The Challenger "looked" bad because the crumple zone was doing what it was supposed to do and absorbing a lot of the impact/g-forces. The Camaro "looked" better because it was not. Obviously looks can be decieving. And remember the Challenger is heavier than the Camaro so it isn't just about weight.

I don't know why I hadn't thought of that until now. But now that you mention it, HeatherR's husbad had told me just that: they were having problems with the front end being too strong.