Why did the cavalier do so badly in the side crash test? And did GM inprove the structure after that? I was just wondering hopefully someone can help me.
Maybe GM didn't care about side structures then.
it did so bad because it's a small 2 door car designed in 1995 for the 3rd gens, and 1981 overall.
to be honest with you i don't take those ratings to serious, i poor rated car could out survive a 5 star if the accident happens a certain way.
well weve seen some pretty bad accidents on the org here and somehow the people managed to be all right. obviously these cars were built to be bottom of the line econoboxes but they can still handle an accident fairly well.
Check out my build thread!
Agreed.... my Cimarron was in fairly good shape after I rear-ended a Benz @ 55 mph...
The Benz on the other hand.....
I don't have pics anymore of the aftermath (they got lost in a move, as well as many others),
here i did my own test.. i didnt even get tboned.. he "Scapped" me from the side lol
97cavy22 wrote:it did so bad because it's a small 2 door car designed in 1995 for the 3rd gens, and 1981 overall.
to be honest with you i don't take those ratings to serious, i poor rated car could out survive a 5 star if the accident happens a certain way.
Well we have 2 2000 cavaliers 1 is the LS sedan and the other is the base coup. Well on safercars.gov it says the drivers side door hit the pelvis of the dummy. Now that tells me that the structure had to go inward like 3 inches or 4. But they don't show any pics of the side crash test.
1. Government test are NOT an accurate reflection of real world crashes anymore. Just like EPA Milage estimates can be wildly innaccurate, the NHTSA has not updated their methods of testing since inception. This has drawn plenty of criticism because getting a 5 star rating doesn't necessarily mean the passengers are more likely to survive.
2. A rating of 1 Star (that's right just one) means the occupant survived. Probably has life threatening injuries, but the test dummy "survived the accident. It's very easy to get stars knocked off your rating for (what I would consider minor) injuries. Thins like the dummy touched the door will knock plenty off. Doesn't mean the dummy even sustained an injure (might have, but not necessarily) but still the stars come off.
3. Check out the
IIHS website for some more tests. You'll see the same general ratings (Poor for the Cavy) but read up on how it got that rating. You'll see that again the dummy survived, but was injured in the accident (thus the poor rating). It's a tiny economy car, you can't expect to hit a cement baracade at 40mph and walk away without any injury at all every time.
Also on the IIHS site, compare the Cavy to some other cars. It's not the worse, and not the best. What else is new?
Yep^
Shifted wrote:Yup, they improved it greatly since then, so much so that it was discontinued.
And before anybody says it, no that wasn't the reason it was discontinued.
Oddly enough in 2006 the replacement is not much better either. It scored really low with no side airbags and better with it. Which only thing that tells me is the structure is still weak.
In 1997 Js went with better impact protection and it was updated again for 2003. The crash test picture I've seen has been the same one since 1995.
I always say side impacts is a type of accident you'll never want to get into no matter what car (because you only have less than a foot of protection), simply put... depending on the speed, angle, height, etc. your gonna get hurt and you may be dead on 5 star rated vehicle and you may walk away in a 1 star vehicle. It all depends on whats destiny lays in front of you.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
2nd gens did really well in crash tests, too.....prolly due to the boxy shape...
Broken axle, car went off 40ft embankment, flipped several times...owner walked away with bump on the head, passenger with a broken ankle.
I Think automotive consumers in general just like to rag on the J's and make them out to be one of the worst cars chevy ever made, it's like what was stated in a previous post if an accident is a certain way a cavy could probably do as good as a car that got a really good crash test rating
the side impact sucks on cavs FLAT OUT
pics of my 99, 25mph crash
and the drivers seat was completely sheared off of the mounting bolts
Yeah you want side crash safety buy the new Jetta, 5 stars.
As for me well if it my time to go in a side impact crash, then it is my time to go.
I'm not going to spend $15,000 more for a car because it has side impact air bags, and a five star crash test rating.
- 2004 Cavalier - 124k, owned since new
i think the biggie is how your in the accident you can't just say it sucks flat out, i mean it may be bad yes but as was stated in other posts it depends on the type of accident how fast your going etc
im living proff that j-bodies are awesome in a side impact....
i hit a tree broadside at over 50+ mph, the car actually buckled nearly in half........ i walked away completely untouched
I agree with you meckster it's all in the kind of accident you have i mean if your doing speed wise past the point of no return then that's one thing but like in your case so yeah .
C.T.S wrote:1. Government test are NOT an accurate reflection of real world crashes anymore. Just like EPA Milage estimates can be wildly innaccurate, the NHTSA has not updated their methods of testing since inception. This has drawn plenty of criticism because getting a 5 star rating doesn't necessarily mean the passengers are more likely to survive.
2. A rating of 1 Star (that's right just one) means the occupant survived. Probably has life threatening injuries, but the test dummy "survived the accident. It's very easy to get stars knocked off your rating for (what I would consider minor) injuries. Thins like the dummy touched the door will knock plenty off. Doesn't mean the dummy even sustained an injure (might have, but not necessarily) but still the stars come off.
3. Check out the IIHS website for some more tests. You'll see the same general ratings (Poor for the Cavy) but read up on how it got that rating. You'll see that again the dummy survived, but was injured in the accident (thus the poor rating). It's a tiny economy car, you can't expect to hit a cement baracade at 40mph and walk away without any injury at all every time.
Also on the IIHS site, compare the Cavy to some other cars. It's not the worse, and not the best. What else is new?
Yeah, the gov't test probably hit at 90 degrees right on the driver's door. So don't be running red lights!
Andrew i totally agree with you , i mean you shouldn't be running yellows or reds either one in the first place but.
