new liberty is safest car in aust!

[whiteballz]

the new subaru liberty/legacy is the safest car ever registerd in australia. safer then a volvo saab or mb. with OR WITHOUT side airbags! i think thats pretty cool... its amazing it looks solid, and IS solid! the cops in the act/nsw had a solid volvo once.. before they crashed it through 3 brick walls....

[motorsportnerd]

Well, it got a 5-star NCAP rating, but then so does the Renault Laguna, Renault Megane, Mercedes C-Class, and a few others. Not sure it you can rate one 5-star NCAP rated car above another. Any real world statistics yet? I know the old Liberty/Legacy is highly rated in the real world.

[fpv_gtho]

i think its pretty hard to say something "the" safest. plenty of cars have achieved a 5 star crash test rating like the XC90, laguna and i think 5 series just to name a few, but its almost impossible to say one of them is better than another

[motorsportnerd]

Take a look at http://www.mynrma.com.au/motoring/ca...gs/index.shtml.
Real world crash ratings on the NRMA site. Worth noting that for large cars, the Falcon EF, EL & AU, Commodore VR, VS & VT, Magna TR & TS and 93-97 Lexcen all rate as "significantly better than average."
Of the medium cars, no car rates as "significantly better than average". However, the 88-91 Ford Telstar/Mazda 626, Ford Mondeo, 89-92 Toyota Camry/Holden Apollo, 93-97 Nissan Bluebird, 82-93 Peugeot 505 and 89-94 Subaru Liberty/Legacy all rate as "better than average".

The data comes for real world crash statistics compiled by Monash University. In many ways this data is more useful than the ANCAP/NCAP ratings, because it is based on data collected from real world crashes. Newer cars like the 98-02 Subaru Liberty are not on the list, but that will be because there isn't enough data yet (for example, not enough have been crashed for a proper sample to have been taken).

But, the original point about the Subaru Liberty been "the safest" car on the road - that's too difficult to verify. Its certainly up there...
There's so many factors which influence how safe the occupants will be in a crash. For example, the aggressivity of the vehicles. Its well known smaller vehicles usually come off worse against bigger vehicles. That's why 4WDs usually win confrontations with smaller cars, despite the fact that in single vehicle crashes, 4WDs are not very safe (remember the recent crash on the Hume involving a Landcruiser?). That's one of the reasons I've always hated 4WDs being used outside their intended purpose. I consider it highly selfish for 4WD owners to buy such a vehicle and adopt the attitude of "its me or them" (and before anyone criticises me for accusing all 4WD owners of selfishness - I know some 4WD owners buy the vehicles for reasons other than their safety). It doesn't have to be "me or them" of course. The manufacturers of large 4WDs and cars are starting to build a greater level of "compatibiliy" into the safety of their vehicles. That means that the larger vehicle are designed to absorb more of the impact, helping to better protect the occupants of both cars.
Its worth noting that the NCAP ratings are based on likely result of a crash with another vehicle of the same size and weight. How well would a Liberty go in a crash with a Falcon BA? Especially considering the Falcon has relatively poor ratings for aggressivity?

When it comes to safety, I can that the NCAP ratings, real world statistics and the level of safety features can all play a role in helping motorists chose a car that will protect themselves. However, once a crash happens, a little thing called "fate" takes over.

[fpv_gtho]

but still saying that, your not invincible in a liberty, or your best chance isnt in one. when the VY and BA were released, they were praised for getting a 4 star rating (although the AU2 was damned close to getting a 4 star rating as well), they only got a 1 star rating in pedestrian safety, so obviously from this crash safety extends further than the occupants

[motorsportnerd]

they only got a 1 star rating in pedestrian safety, so obviously from this crash safety extends further than the occupants

You're right, and very few cars get more than a one star rating for pedestrian safety. See my arguments above about "aggressivity". The European Union is about to introduce new crash regulations designed to save pedestrians. This will be introduced at the end of 2005, and to quote the Feb04 issue of EVO magazine - "requires any cars being type-approved for launch from late 2005 to have frontal structures the 'mitigate the severity of injuries to pedestrians in the event of a collison with a motor vehicle' ". This will cause challenges for car makers. The front of the car (particularly the bonnet) will have to be made soft enough not to injure passengers, while still being capable of absorbing the impact of a two car crash. One of the problems, apparantly, for engineers to solve is the fact that there are a number of 'hard points' under the car's skin, such as the tops of front struts, the engine cam cover, the steel bars behind the bumper, etc. So, the bonnet can be design to absorb some of the initial impact with the pedestrian, but said pedestrain will than be stopped by the hard points, which can be fatal. EVO suggests that 2006-2007 cars will need 60-70 mm clearance over the hard points and that by 2011, cars will need 100mm to meet the regulations.

The result of all this is that bonnets will have to be redesigned. Hard edges will need to be smoothed off. Mini airbags will be used to protect the head against the stiff windscreen surround. Bumpers will probably be lower (may help pedestrians, but that will make it easier to scratch them on kerbs). Air bags or other absorbing materials may need to sit between the bonnet and the hard points underneath.

Which ever way you look at it, there will be some mild changes needed to the appearance of cars. I'm not sure what standards the US or Japan will adopt, but they will certainly adopt something similar to the European regulations. Australia will no doubt follow. Something to look for in the VE Commodore and the next Falcon will be increase protection for pedestrians.

[fpv_gtho]

well ford are currently developing some better systems for the pedestrians, in europe they have this system demonstrated by the focus that the bonnet is moved around in the case of an accident to better support a pedestrian being thrown onto the bonnet, and then Mazda for their RX-8 have a special type of alluminium bonnet fitted that looks completely different to a comventional one on the underside that absorbs impacts easier. i doubt anything serious will be in by 2006 and 2007 when the big locals release their next models as europe is always trying to be the major leader in safety and legislations

[crisis]

the new subaru liberty/legacy is the safest car ever registerd in australia. safer then a volvo saab or mb. with OR WITHOUT side airbags! i think thats pretty cool... its amazing it looks solid, and IS solid! the cops in the act/nsw had a solid volvo once.. before they crashed it through 3 brick walls....

Who cares. The day I start buying cars based on safety is the day I take a bus. Safety tests are relevant for hitting stationary objects.

[fpv_gtho]

fair point, safety and fuel consumption are some of the lowest rating characteristics most australians look for in a new car

[motorsportnerd]

They're usually ahead of performance, handling and driving enjoyment though. Also worth pointing out that manufacturers wouldn't offer safety features unless both market forces (the buyers) and governments had demanded it. Buyers may not rate safety as important as price, comfort, features and refinement, but they do tend to expect a decent level of safety equipment these days.
However, I do agree that you shouldn't buy a car solely on its safety features. Look at the whole car as a package and how it fits your individual priorities.

[fpv_gtho]

i think performance is one of the highest rating characteristics, i know for one i wouldnt want a car thats an outwright slug, i'd want something to happen evertime i stepped on the loud pedal. the government seems to have a fairly big influence on vehicle safety implemented by manufacturers, i dont know what was happening around 1993 and 1994 but thats when safety started to become a bigger issue when the VR commodore acclaim and EF falcon futura each came standard with a drivers airbag, then in 1995 when ford came out with the smartbar

[Falcon500]

The goverment are the biggest influence on safety...only a small majority of buyers actually care for safety...safety hardly wasnt even a conern for my parents with the prado....i persoanlyl dont give a rats about safety...to me it only means your car is going to be much more worse off in a minor bingles and is less safe then anything before the 90s im a highway accident...i have some fairly solid proof on this as i am the one who sorts out orders from large stacks to small bingles with holden parts...most small bigles require a new bonnet and front facia (bumper) and the cost of these crash soaking parts are phenomial...

[fpv_gtho]

i remember my brother telling me of a lawsuit someone made against chevrolet because they didnt fit collapsible steering columns to their cars during the 50's. i dont know what brought on the lawsuit but the guy was claiming that after chev had changed all the machinery to fit the new steering columns, it would be cheaper on a cost per unit basis and bla bla bla........i think the guy lost as i dont think my dads 66 impala has a collapsible steering column

[motorsportnerd]

Yes, you're right. Government has had a major impact on manufacturers introducing increasing safety features, through legislation. However, to meet government basics in Australia cars only need to be fitted with a drivers airback, side impact beams and pass the 50 km/h barrier test. There was talk of implementing the Euro standards, but I'm not sure if that happened. Since most cars on the market today exceed the basic government legislative requirements, I would suggest that customer expectations and demands (ie: market forces) have some impact on safety as well.
Also, in regard to performance, many car buyers are perfectly happy to get around in small to medium size cars (Hyundai Getz & Toyota Corolla classes). Many cars in these classes could be discribed as having "adequate" performance levels. If performance was a primary issue in buying a car, we'd all drive V8s or turbos. Of course, not many people drive cars with dangerously low levels of performance such as the Daewoo Matiz.
Also, most people don't rate dynamics as highly as they should. Many drivers are completely unaware that a cars handling and braking capabilities could be the difference between life or death in emergency situations.

[motorsportnerd]

The goverment are the biggest influence on safety...only a small majority of buyers actually care for safety...safety hardly wasnt even a conern for my parents with the prado....i persoanlyl dont give a rats about safety...to me it only means your car is going to be much more worse off in a minor bingles and is less safe then anything before the 90s im a highway accident...i have some fairly solid proof on this as i am the one who sorts out orders from large stacks to small bingles with holden parts...most small bigles require a new bonnet and front facia (bumper) and the cost of these crash soaking parts are phenomial...

Correct on small bingles and parts prices. But tell me, would you REALLY prefer to be in a 1985 Toyota Corolla over a 2004 Toyota Corolla if you were to have major crash at highway speed?