2010 Camaro Crash Test results - Full (almost)

[Supermans]

Originally Posted by rodimus prime

Your insurance isnt going to go up. They dont even rate every car.

There is no way you can make this claim. Every six months the plan gets analyzed in a computer by the insurance companies and they do look at crash test ratings when available along with a lot of other factors.

[nova]

I'm wondering if the people talking about insurance have ever read their renewal notice where it spells out all the coverages and what they cost.

I'm looking at mine right this second and there are only a couple of areas where a lower driver/occupant safety rating could have an impact, Auto Medical Payments and Uninsured Motorist Body Injury. Respectively those 2 line items run $3.83/6 months and $35.10/6 months for my truck, a 2006 Colorado Crew Cab, and $4.10/6 months and $35.10/6 months for my wife's car, a 2009 Chevy Malibu.

Everything else deals with either the people in the other car getting hurt or property damage.

The Colorado has a driver side rating of 4 star and a rollover rating of 4 stars. The malibu is all 5s except for rollover which is a 4. The fact that the truck is cheaper tells me the insurance company doesn't really give a damn about me getting hurt..

Honestly the biggest part of cost in any auto insurance policy collision which will be priced on your risk level along with the repairability of the car and liability which is a risk only calculation. Those 2 things amount to north of 70% of my insurance premium on both vehicles.

ETA

I'd honestly be more worried about the weight of the car driving up the risk of you injuring someone else in a collision, thus driving up liability, or these things turning out to be nearly impossible to repair driving up collision than I would be the crash test ratings...

ETA2.0
Fixed a screwup concerning which vehicle was cheaper. The truck is cheaper not the car, like the numbers I gave show...

[ConceptVBS]

Originally Posted by Unfair

This on jalopnik.
GM said all the extra weight was for safety what happend

Cars in the 30-40's weight so much more than they do now. Do you think they are safer cars? Absolutely not.

Its the way you design the chassis that is more important when it comes to protecting the occupant. A lighter car with a better design chassis/frame will get a higher score on the crash test.

[69Bird]

I am not disputing the facts but I have an extremely hard time believing these results. Why would they make a more injury prone vehicle? Something is a foot, I don’t know what it is.

Rodimus prime stated it perfectly “Im just saying there is not a chance in hell of a 1992 camaro being safer at front impacts...especially with the old school air bag, and no airbag on the passenger side.”

I agree it is ludicrous to think an 02 is safer with 1/6th of the airbags.

[Unfair]

Originally Posted by rodimus prime

Im just saying there is not a chance in hell of a 1992 camaro being safer at front impacts...especially with the old school air bag, and no airbag on the passenger side.

Something is seriously wrong with how they determine data if so. It must not take airbags into account, because the whole purpose of the damn thing is to slow your impact with the dashboard.

So go ahead and take your head and whip it into the dash as fast as you can. It will probably hurt like a bitch.

Now stack a few pillows there and try it. Its not going to hurt as much.

Plus with the curtains and seat airbag there is less chance of you bouncing your face off the window afterwards.

Something is wrong with how they collect data.

One crash per side is not enough evidence to suggest anything.

so the nhsta is wrong now? would you be saying same thing if a challenger got 4 stars?

[Unfair]

Originally Posted by 69Bird

I am not disputing the facts but I have an extremely hard time believing these results. Why would they make a more injury prone vehicle? Something is a foot, I don’t know what it is.

Rodimus prime stated it perfectly “Im just saying there is not a chance in hell of a 1992 camaro being safer at front impacts...especially with the old school air bag, and no airbag on the passenger side.”

I agree it is ludicrous to think an 02 is safer with 1/6th of the airbags.

It's not like they did it on purpose, they thought it was going to get a 5 star all around, it didn't that is all. now you guys are coming to "they must be wrong? lol

[StoutFiles]

The Colorado has a driver side rating of 4 star and a rollover rating of 4 stars. The malibu is all 5s except for rollover which is a 4. The fact that the malibu is cheaper tells me the insurance company doesn't really give a damn about me getting hurt..

The Malibu insurance being cheaper in this example would make sense given that it performed better than the Colorado...

Bad results = Higher insurance.

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by cab2g

What I don't get is why people think they can control whether or not they get into an accident? I don't care if you're the "perfect" driver. Other drivers arent, roads aren't always perfect, and some obstacles can't be avoided w/o hitting another.

Actually, it would take almost "perfect" circumstances to come up with an accident scenario that couldn't be avoided. I've been driving 23 years with no accidents, and I've only heard of one incident where the driver(s) really couldn't avoid it.

Good thing we have Brembo brakes!

[rodimus prime]

Originally Posted by Unfair

It's not like they did it on purpose, they thought it was going to get a 5 star all around, it didn't that is all. now you guys are coming to "they must be wrong? lol

Im not saying they are wrong, but how scientific is it to only do something once?

Hell even myth busters does at least 3 runs of anything they do.

By looking at the readings some of the dummies experianced things look like there might be flukes here and there. Im not saying they are, however I am saying there is the possibility of flukes since they only do 1 run.

[cab2g]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

Actually, it would take almost "perfect" circumstances to come up with an accident scenario that couldn't be avoided. I've been driving 23 years with no accidents, and I've only heard of one incident where the driver(s) really couldn't avoid it.

Good thing we have Brembo brakes!

Haha, you're right skill plays a huge part in the ability to avoid an accident, but my real point is that you really can't avoid all accidents. Let's put it this way, who has been driving for 23 years and has NEVER gotten into an accident of some sort either as a passenger or driver? I mean it happens, you don't expect it, but it happens.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Unfair

It's not like they did it on purpose, they thought it was going to get a 5 star all around, it didn't that is all. now you guys are coming to "they must be wrong? lol

I've read a lot of your posts in here Unfair, and I've got to say I agree with just about all of what you've posted.

I'm sure they expected 5 star. It's clear the crash performance is not there as of now. (It's a little silly to challenge the repeatability/reliability of the test, IMHO). But I believe they will solve the mystery and the 2011's will be better. Sometimes it's a remarkably simple solution to fix such things... even the placement of a seatbelt clip/guide can affect it. It's unlikely they will need to undertake a major redesign to improve the crash performance.

I've seen discussion on here for example - that the little magnetic strap on the front upper seat backs comes loose too easy. Maybe all that needs done is to improve how well that retainer stays closed? In fact if that turns out to be the change, it's a simple part that can be retrofitted to the 2010's.

I think that instead of getting all sensational, folks should take a deep breath, appreciate the car's safety design for all its existing benefits (stabilitrak, awesome brakes, hefty curb weight, etc), and practice defensive driving above all... since ultimately, the best crash protection is avoiding a crash entirely.

[Unfair]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

I've read a lot of your posts in here Unfair, and I've got to say I agree with just about all of what you've posted.

I'm sure they expected 5 star. It's clear the crash performance is not there as of now. (It's a little silly to challenge the repeatability/reliability of the test, IMHO). But I believe they will solve the mystery and the 2011's will be better. Sometimes it's a remarkably simple solution to fix such things... even the placement of a seatbelt clip/guide can affect it. It's unlikely they will need to undertake a major redesign to improve the crash performance.

I've seen discussion on here for example - that the little magnetic strap on the front upper seat backs comes loose too easy. Maybe all that needs done is to improve how well that retainer stays closed? In fact if that turns out to be the change, it's a simple part that can be retrofitted to the 2010's.

I think that instead of getting all sensational, folks should take a deep breath, appreciate the car's safety design for all its existing benefits (stabilitrak, awesome brakes, hefty curb weight, etc), and practice defensive driving above all... since ultimately, the best crash protection is avoiding a crash entirely.

I agree there has to be something silly they need to change to get it up to par, I don't think the 4 star will merit any attention from GM as far as current models go, but it will make for a better 2011 camaro, this is the exact reason i check out these boards and I am SO critical of this car, i want this car next year and i'm checking out ALL the bugs if i am going to put 35-40k on this car you are damn sure I have a fine tooth comb in my hand, we all love the camaro but this is a huge purchase for me and i'm glad I didn't rush out like i was going to earlier this year when i saw this beast on a lot.

[camaroguyBC]

to some extent I even ask - what's the point of a rating system when every vehicle rated falls into the "5-star" or whatever highest category?!

It's kind of a like the education system (sorry, I'm a teacher) trying to say all students have to be above the xx percentile rating. Defies all logic. For there to be a "rating" system, the very definition says some must fall at all levels of the scale.

Secondary to all of this...people are jumping to conclusions about this test. It's one test. An extremely controlled (perfect?) set of variables to achieve a certain test. The likelihood of it being replicated exactly in a true crash are very slim. (If impact happens 0.5 degrees off center from the crash test, the results of the impact change!)

There are pictures on this forum (one on the first page or two of this thread) of crazy crash damage (frontal and otherwise) where people walked away without a scratch. There are probably others with relatively minor damage where the person ended up in the hospital. There are crashes that happened at low speeds resulting in serious injury, and high speeds resulting in no injury. Again - too many variables to account for to draw conclusions based on a simple "star" rating.

Hell...a good friend of my wife just got into a MINOR accident yesterday in a rain storm...skidded out and hit a median on a 4-lane divided road going under 35mph. The damage to the car was minimal but it deployed the front and side airbags. End result - broken nose, some pretty nasty cuts on the face, 3 broken ribs and a day in the hospital. This came on a car with a "5-star" rating...a volvo.

in the end, the only people who this should matter to are the marketing folks at GM who now get to play the spin game against the inevitable advertising from Ford and Chrysler. The rest of us need to realize that ratings are just an attempt to simplify a very complex series of events that occur during a crash. As the disclaimers say....Your Results May Vary.

[nova]

Originally Posted by StoutFiles

The Malibu insurance being cheaper in this example would make sense given that it performed better than the Colorado...

Bad results = Higher insurance.

Whoops, I had a mixup. Its the truck that is cheaper. Older post edited to reflect that..