Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
Cold Air Inductions
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > General Camaro Forums > 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions

5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions General 5th generation Camaro topics not covered by other subforums.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-15-2009, 08:34 PM   #376
ShnOmac


 
ShnOmac's Avatar
 
Drives: 2006 Silverado SS, 2009 G8 GT
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: PNW
Posts: 13,309
Stir the pot......
ShnOmac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2009, 08:34 PM   #377
Teleplayer
 
Drives: 92 Bonnie SSEI - 2010 GT Soon
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEN-IV View Post
So that's why the Mustang is so slow!
Judging by your sig, it's faster from factory to owner than the Camaro.
__________________

1992 SSEI Supercharged 177k miles. 2010 GT coming soon.
Teleplayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2009, 08:41 PM   #378
GEN-IV
HEMI Hunter
 
GEN-IV's Avatar
 
Drives: 06 GTO / 79 Z28
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Maine
Posts: 469
Hey, I didn't come here to be made sport of

They are still safer than a 1969 anything. Nothing to see here, move along.......
GEN-IV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2009, 08:42 PM   #379
Camaro_Corvette
36.833283,-76.021958
 
Camaro_Corvette's Avatar
 
Drives: Team 1LE
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 22,854
Yep, that's my decision maker...
__________________
Camaro_Corvette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2009, 04:10 PM   #380
camero

 
Drives: IOM V6 RS 38808
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: S.Detroit, Ontario
Posts: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by eapoll11 View Post
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!
__________________
I've known how to spell Camaro since before you were born.
camero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2009, 10:08 PM   #381
coolicarboy
 
Drives: Don't have a car yet. :(
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 7
2010 Camaro frontal crash test video!

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.


Last edited by coolicarboy; 08-16-2009 at 10:21 PM.
coolicarboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2009, 09:59 AM   #382
usmcbmw
 
usmcbmw's Avatar
 
Drives: 2LT Camaro RS, Land Rover LR2
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 95
wow that is come clip...wish there were more
usmcbmw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2009, 10:04 AM   #383
GTAHVIT
One Lucky Guy.
 
GTAHVIT's Avatar
 
Drives: #22 Tom Henry Racing 2010 2SS/RS
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Saint Augustine FL
Posts: 28,760
Merged.

GTAHVIT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2009, 08:59 AM   #384
K-A
 
K-A's Avatar
 
Drives: M-B E350 AMG Sport / '09 Malibu
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: California
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by SicSix6 View Post
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.
__________________
'13 F10 BMW 535i ///M Sport : Jet Black/Black-Anthracite : Premium & Technology Packages/Sport Auto Trans/Camera/Park Distance Control/Heated Seats/Tinted Windows/Blacked Out Markers/Performance Spoiler.

K-A is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2009, 07:35 AM   #385
toehead93


 
Drives: 2014 2SS/1LE
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: wpb fl
Posts: 2,663
I did not read teh entire post so if you've seen this....
It is the frontal crash test video:

and side impact:
__________________
Used Racing Brake 2 Peice Rotors for sale:
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=344754

Summit White 2014 2SS 1LE
Recaros, NPP exhaust, Nav
2010 2SS A6 - sold.
toehead93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2009, 08:49 AM   #386
MLL67RSSS

 
MLL67RSSS's Avatar
 
Drives: 67 Indy Pace Car
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 1,199
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.

Last edited by MLL67RSSS; 08-27-2009 at 01:43 PM. Reason: add last comment
MLL67RSSS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2009, 03:37 PM   #387
Cyber_Gray_Autobot
 
Drives: Camaro 2LT RS
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 97
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.
Cyber_Gray_Autobot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2009, 03:53 PM   #388
K-A
 
K-A's Avatar
 
Drives: M-B E350 AMG Sport / '09 Malibu
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: California
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLL67RSSS View Post
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.
__________________
'13 F10 BMW 535i ///M Sport : Jet Black/Black-Anthracite : Premium & Technology Packages/Sport Auto Trans/Camera/Park Distance Control/Heated Seats/Tinted Windows/Blacked Out Markers/Performance Spoiler.

K-A is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2009, 03:56 PM   #389
cab2g
love. my. car.
 
cab2g's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,385
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.
__________________

Last edited by cab2g; 08-27-2009 at 04:11 PM.
cab2g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2009, 04:27 PM   #390
MrIcky

 
MrIcky's Avatar
 
Drives: Dodge Ram Megacab & Cobalt SS
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Boise
Posts: 1,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLL67RSSS View Post
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.
MrIcky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2009, 12:58 PM   #391
DGthe3
Moderator.ca
 
DGthe3's Avatar
 
Drives: 05 Grand Am GT
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Niagara, Canada
Posts: 21,876
Send a message via MSN to DGthe3
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLL67RSSS View Post
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.
__________________
Note, if I've gotten any facts wrong in the above, just ignore any points I made with them
__________________
don't believe a thing you read about the next gen Camaro -- as history has proven time and time again:

WE DO NOT TALK ABOUT FUTURE PRODUCT PLANS PERIOD FbodFather
__________________

Camaro5 Fest sub-forum
DGthe3 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Tags
chevyridinghigh, whiner

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Camaro Product Manager - interview Moose 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 11 04-04-2012 06:10 PM
Camaro Laws ChevyNut Off-topic Discussions 102 06-06-2011 10:34 PM
2010 Camaro Crash Test Safety Results (Partial) chevyridinghigh 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 27 07-29-2009 06:44 AM
2010 Camaro a goner. Camaro5 member loses his Camaro to crash rolnslo 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 368 05-13-2009 08:56 AM
Comparison Test, by Proxy: 2010 Chevrolet Camaro vs. 2009 Dodge Challenger SRT8 AirGoya Chevy Camaro vs... 86 07-24-2008 11:20 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.