"They did extremely well; you would have survived in every one of those vehicles." Key word: _survived._ As if the fact that people who have crashes in these vehicles, and will probably not be able to walk on their own two legs ever again, is not the real issue.
I love their explanations: speed was too high, test was deceptive, we can't protect legs, cause we'll lower protection for head, we passed the minimum safety requirements. How does it compare to real life? I would like to find a chapter in car user manual called: "Prefered accident conditions", where user will be informed he shouldn't be driving more than 35 mph during an accident, should aim directly at the obstacle, be it a wall, tree or another vehicle. When colliding off-center, you should tuck your legs. You would also be told that injuries sustained are within government specifications. I'd also like to hear their rep telling public how much heavy injuries and deaths are acceptable according to them. Preferably with pie charts. Everything's looks better with pie charts.
I remember when I was a little kid one of my neighbors had a Neon. Thought it was a cute name, but little did I know that said neighbor was driving a very poor performing car.
I simply find it amazing how all these auto makers where standing on the wrong side of history without even knowing so... adamantly defending their cars and heavily criticizing the Insurance Institute. Nowadays, they use their crash test scores from the IISH to promote and sell their cars... Isn't THAT ironic? LOL
Oh sí! Son pruebas reales. Estoy muy pendiente de los resultados para los autos que me interesan comprar. Pueden ser la diferencia entre la vida y la muerte. Algunos carros dicen ser muy seguros y fracasan en algunas de las pruebas más severas!
@TCL IIHS conducts crash test studies that are more rigorous and strict than the gov't standards. They are a huge part of why car safety has improved immensely over the last 30yrs. They put pressure on the manufacturers to do better. The government's own testing is pretty pathetic.
if I had to get one of these compact saloons, I'd get the Saturn SL2 just so I could walk away from the crash. Saturn sure knew how to make small cars back in the day.
Although I dont disagree with the findings of these older cars, I think a greater issue today is how cars made today make you feel like your going slower than what you are, have less engagement between the driver and the ground that causes needless speeding and complacency. These tests dont mean much when most of the populace is driving above the speed limit and being careless. Nothing against proper hooning, but here in the states most arent formally taught to drive so accidents are more common. These tests tell a lot about a common crash but we really need to fix our drivers educations infrastructure. These small cars are relatively safe when not going head on with 5000 pound truck or a modern 200hp grocery getter 4 door. I hope the research they find continues to improve safety in cars but I find the market seems to sell cars a bit differently than what is efficient, safe or cost effective for the consumer.
the main problem i see is that most cars today are suv's which are taller & heavier, and they are usually driven by less experienced coordinated people. and the modern cars make you feel slow and are removed from the road. i see everyone driving way faster now. also the distracting screens in cars.
Yea, 40 mph is “super fast” even though most people in Florida and in a lot of other states drive 50 mph on a 45. So the institutes test is a lot more logical than the governments test
@@hoofaa17 it is possible in a particularly safe, modern (2018 or newer) car because modern cars are getting better at absorbing the energy, running it through the frame of the car, getting the forces away from the driver and increasing the time it takes to decelerate.
Jaymate nope, it can’t. A relative from Australia crashed at 70 mph, no intrusion into the cabin. He died instantly, no car can protect you from those types of forces from 70 mph to nothing. In the top gear episode on TH-cam they crash a smart car at 70 mph and listen to what they say near the end of the video
I had a 2002 neon it was made out of Reynolds Wrap tin foil I shut the door one time with my hand on the door itself and it dented if you hit a bump in the road the doors would shake
I’m scared of my neon now after seeing these videos. My daily is a 1998 dodge neon. It’s been a fantastic little car, but these videos scare the crap out of me. Literally a death trap.
20 mph isn't a fender-bender, and 3800 is pretty reasonable. A broken bone is going to run way more than that. Who cares about such a minor cost when the car is designed to sacrifice itself to protect something that cant be replaced...YOU
"65,000 years of driving, that's how rare this is." The ignorance and idiocy of George Parker's comment is astounding. Who doesn't drive on a road that's exposed to someone else driving towards you on the other side of the road? We all do, unless you live somewhere where there's nothing but one-way streets. That's the very definition of an offset driving direction, or offset crash. What kind of tomfoolery is this fool up to? All he cares about is big money. Was his second job a politician, because his lies would have surely made him a damn good one.
Just 4 years later, the Elantra would flunk the offset test because of late airbag deployment and high head injury measures, along with movement of the driver seat. The 2004 Elantra improved in the same test because the airbags deployed on time.
However, it did take three tests for that generation Elantra to earn a Good rating in the offset test. The first test resulted in a fuel tank leakage, and the airbag never even deployed during the second test.
Yeah, but it has been already outdated back then. It's essentially a VW Golf III from 1991, usually a small 3 door compact car. It passed offset crash tests at 35mph, and other tests against heavier cars of the day with flying colors. This 40mph test was specifically developed to raise the bar and challenge those older designs. Let's put it that way: a Mercedes 190E or BMW 3 series from that era wouldn't perform well either. The first Mercedes 200 C class barely passed.
Its called aerodynamics. Those cars are nice for nostalgic reasons but simply cant hold a candle to newer cars. Power, performance, interior, unibody, handling, abs, AC, power windows, reliability, and so on. Autos have progressed quite a bit since then. And any car that is extensively restored is expensive but doesn't mean its great.
You'd never catch me driving a deathtrap Neon or Sephia. Both of the legs of the Sephia driver were severely injured at the kneecaps, I cringed as the pulled the dummy from that car. Both cars were redesigned around 2000, and both did only marginally better than their predecessors.
So fast, so severe? With the current 70 mph speed limits and traffic moving at 50 in a 35 zone, super-speeders, and monster personal use vehicles weighing three tons or more, inexcusably high power (who really needs more than 150 horsepower for daily driving?), 40 mph crash tests may be considered to be too slow. There is a trade-off between crash performance and manufacturing cost, but if one car does well in a particular test, what is the excuse that another doesn't in the same test?
5610winston Honestly, is you crash going 150 mph, you’re probably better of dying quickly. Why would you want to live with half of your face missing and many broken bones?
The results in IIHS and Euroncap are different. For example Civic in euroncap is a crap, Corolla is much better. Kia Rio is getting better and better and in IIHS it is a total crap. Probably there are some differences in these car for different regions?
@@justenzo6342EuroNcap actually pushed the offset frontal test to 40 mph, the American institute started off using a speed of 35. The American side impact tests are better though, with a higher more aggressive barrier, and at 40 rather than 30.
I have a 98 Neon and after she saw this, she wants me to get rid of it which I understand honestly but I do like a little car. It definitely feels unsafe though. It’s a go kart and it feels like it’s made out of a tin can 😂
That AIAM sleezeball needs a reality check. Did anyone else notice that he was shaking his head "no" while he was saying that all of the cars did well?
Everyone here is correct. 40 mph is the average speed for a two-lane country, mountain, or forest road. Any collision about that speed is a greater chance for more devastating results in the event of that said collision.
The crash test industry wants to test cars at the same speed; most cars should reach 40mph ... and every car has a different top speed, it wouldn't be fair
+BlueNinjakoopa553 Yes. It received a poor rating. A concussion would be likely, as well as a severely broken leg. Depending on the crash, the driver may experience some more severe injuries due to the dummy flying about inside the vehicle during the crash. Instrusion was severe and the steering wheel column was rammed upwards, while the foot well was rammed back. The plastic inside the cabin was cracked when the dummy's head hit the windowsill.
+Josh Mckinnley The car is also relatively light (~2700LBS) compared to every other car. You'd probably die if you hit another car since the other car would most likely be heavier. Two of my friends have this car and I worry about them sometimes.
The Mirage and Mirage G4? Those are cheap cars, actually when IIHS released the small overlap test, Mitsubishi even scored better than some BMW, Mercedes and other cars, the 2008 Lancer earned acceptable when IIHS rated that test, the others got poor, I remember the C-Class got poor at that time, remember the last generation Lancer was released back in 2008. The new Outlander was also named the safest SUV in the market for the year 2023, fun fact, the Outlander got a good rating in the new updated side impact crash test, Volvo with it's XC60 got an acceptable rating, Cadillac with it's XT6 got a poor rating, not to mention the new Grand Highlander got an acceptable rating on the small overlap crash test.
I agree my mom had this 2002 trailblazer and this guy ran a red light and hit my moms trailblazer head on my mom had a lot of engine damage like it made the belt radiator but all it did was mess up the grill and the front bumper not enough damage for airbags to deploy but still lotta engine damage and if your wonders the guys small car that ran red light only had a scratch even though his front went almost all the way to back seats
So, would the results of the SeVille also go towards the DeVille? Because you said in the description that the DeVille was one of them, but I never saw it in the video. Just the SeVille. I just want to know if I'm as safe in my 97 DeVille as I would be with the older SeVille they show.
![[กูเพิ่งซื้อมึงปิดหนี] 20 นาที ผมรีวิวเกมที่แย่ที่สุดในโลก CONCORD](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XhC-3q3Ii7I/mqdefault.jpg)
"This is the Kia Sephia.... from Korea" best Rhyme I heard in a long time.
RATING: POOR
In 2021 the car companies love IIHS.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who recognized it
The Kia sophia from Korea. The death trap that was marketed in the US.
Honestly that rhyme was sublime. I only noticed cuz you wrote this. Good ear and happy new year!
"They did extremely well; you would have survived in every one of those vehicles."
Key word: _survived._ As if the fact that people who have crashes in these vehicles, and will probably not be able to walk on their own two legs ever again, is not the real issue.
*I DON'T WANT TO SURVIVE! I WANT TO LIVE*
@@jarofdelisauce2266Poor lad. Just stay quiet and you'll be ok, we're heading back to the dealership.
Wow, it is weird to see that the automakers bashed the IIHS in the 90's, Now automakers rely on the IIHS.
Nicolas Whittington I
Nicolas Whittington exactly! They were thinking wrong!
I love their explanations: speed was too high, test was deceptive, we can't protect legs, cause we'll lower protection for head, we passed the minimum safety requirements. How does it compare to real life?
I would like to find a chapter in car user manual called: "Prefered accident conditions", where user will be informed he shouldn't be driving more than 35 mph during an accident, should aim directly at the obstacle, be it a wall, tree or another vehicle. When colliding off-center, you should tuck your legs. You would also be told that injuries sustained are within government specifications.
I'd also like to hear their rep telling public how much heavy injuries and deaths are acceptable according to them. Preferably with pie charts. Everything's looks better with pie charts.
Nowadays car companies brag about how their cars get the IIHS Top Safety Pick Plus award.
They have to cause thats what convinces there customers to buy there cars cause of the safety
9:59 The Kia Sephia from Korea. Because its never Dateline Consumer Reports without a darn rhyme about a car.
Nader Ammar I thought Kia was Slovakian. (this is from Top Gear)
The Kia sephia from Korea, that reporter was spitting straight fire
SOMEONE, left THE HEADPHONE JACK HALF IN
I owned two of these little death traps (Neon), they were quite nimble and handled amazingly well, but they had no structural integrity
I remember when I was a little kid one of my neighbors had a Neon. Thought it was a cute name, but little did I know that said neighbor was driving a very poor performing car.
Thankfully there aren't too many Neons on the road anymore.
Well the Dart was considered as the modern day Neon.
_÷@
= Yes
@DillyDally thats good. Except the SRT4, it's the best Neon.
The new Neon is just a rebadged Fiat Tipo in Mexico.
Dumbest car ever. Ugly as hell too
I simply find it amazing how all these auto makers where standing on the wrong side of history without even knowing so... adamantly defending their cars and heavily criticizing the Insurance Institute. Nowadays, they use their crash test scores from the IISH to promote and sell their cars... Isn't THAT ironic? LOL
Oh sí! Son pruebas reales. Estoy muy pendiente de los resultados para los autos que me interesan comprar. Pueden ser la diferencia entre la vida y la muerte. Algunos carros dicen ser muy seguros y fracasan en algunas de las pruebas más severas!
I distinctly remember Ford promoting their safety scores often. They were one of the few companies that generally did well.
@@honkhonkler7732
Volvos and Mercedes also did extremely well in these early tests.
@@darthgamer6080Not the first C Class, and the W210 only performed averagely.
IIHS does good work. The guy in the glasses is a deceptive crook. Either that, or he's incredibly deluded or corrupt.
@TCL IIHS conducts crash test studies that are more rigorous and strict than the gov't standards. They are a huge part of why car safety has improved immensely over the last 30yrs. They put pressure on the manufacturers to do better. The government's own testing is pretty pathetic.
Your right, what a smuck.
I had a Civic like that, glad to know it was acceptable
if I had to get one of these compact saloons, I'd get the Saturn SL2 just so I could walk away from the crash. Saturn sure knew how to make small cars back in the day.
Not safe by today's standards, not safe at all. No side or curtain airbags either.
Although I dont disagree with the findings of these older cars, I think a greater issue today is how cars made today make you feel like your going slower than what you are, have less engagement between the driver and the ground that causes needless speeding and complacency. These tests dont mean much when most of the populace is driving above the speed limit and being careless. Nothing against proper hooning, but here in the states most arent formally taught to drive so accidents are more common. These tests tell a lot about a common crash but we really need to fix our drivers educations infrastructure. These small cars are relatively safe when not going head on with 5000 pound truck or a modern 200hp grocery getter 4 door. I hope the research they find continues to improve safety in cars but I find the market seems to sell cars a bit differently than what is efficient, safe or cost effective for the consumer.
the main problem i see is that most cars today are suv's which are taller & heavier, and they are usually driven by less experienced coordinated people. and the modern cars make you feel slow and are removed from the road. i see everyone driving way faster now. also the distracting screens in cars.
It's amazing, how cars have come a long way since twenty years ago.
Yea
Yet the old car fools still claim their 50's, 60's and 70's classics are safer! 😮
Yea, 40 mph is “super fast” even though most people in Florida and in a lot of other states drive 50 mph on a 45. So the institutes test is a lot more logical than the governments test
They should test at 70 or even 60 MPH the norm for freeway speed . Then that would be very scary . Thanks for the upload , good info . Gave a like .
yeah I bet the Neon and the Kia sephia will be very scary to see in a 70 mph crash test.
yep , I hear you on that one !
70 mph no matter what car you have your organs and body can’t survive going that fast and stopping that quickly
@@hoofaa17 it is possible in a particularly safe, modern (2018 or newer) car because modern cars are getting better at absorbing the energy, running it through the frame of the car, getting the forces away from the driver and increasing the time it takes to decelerate.
Jaymate nope, it can’t. A relative from Australia crashed at 70 mph, no intrusion into the cabin. He died instantly, no car can protect you from those types of forces from 70 mph to nothing. In the top gear episode on TH-cam they crash a smart car at 70 mph and listen to what they say near the end of the video
I had a 2002 neon it was made out of Reynolds Wrap tin foil I shut the door one time with my hand on the door itself and it dented if you hit a bump in the road the doors would shake
1993spirit damn lol glad they stopped making those
that's offensive...
Reynolds Wrap is much stronger than the Neon
LMAO I bet it was the off-brand tin foil.
Thank goodness Dodge Neons and Kia Sephias are rarely driven nowadays
I’m scared of my neon now after seeing these videos. My daily is a 1998 dodge neon. It’s been a fantastic little car, but these videos scare the crap out of me. Literally a death trap.
20 mph isn't a fender-bender, and 3800 is pretty reasonable. A broken bone is going to run way more than that. Who cares about such a minor cost when the car is designed to sacrifice itself to protect something that cant be replaced...YOU
"65,000 years of driving, that's how rare this is." The ignorance and idiocy of George Parker's comment is astounding. Who doesn't drive on a road that's exposed to someone else driving towards you on the other side of the road? We all do, unless you live somewhere where there's nothing but one-way streets. That's the very definition of an offset driving direction, or offset crash. What kind of tomfoolery is this fool up to?
All he cares about is big money. Was his second job a politician, because his lies would have surely made him a damn good one.
Just 4 years later, the Elantra would flunk the offset test because of late airbag deployment and high head injury measures, along with movement of the driver seat. The 2004 Elantra improved in the same test because the airbags deployed on time.
However, it did take three tests for that generation Elantra to earn a Good rating in the offset test. The first test resulted in a fuel tank leakage, and the airbag never even deployed during the second test.
I though the Jetta would be a lot safer
Yeah, but it has been already outdated back then. It's essentially a VW Golf III from 1991, usually a small 3 door compact car. It passed offset crash tests at 35mph, and other tests against heavier cars of the day with flying colors. This 40mph test was specifically developed to raise the bar and challenge those older designs. Let's put it that way: a Mercedes 190E or BMW 3 series from that era wouldn't perform well either. The first Mercedes 200 C class barely passed.
The Saturn tested is a design that debuted in 1991 and the Mazda chassis under the Escort goes back to the 80's.
Arbags
The 1999 Jetta got a good rating.
@@captmcneilYou're absolutely right.
"It almost never happens" WTF! Car crashes are one of the most common ways to die!
Especially the offset crash, which is the most common type of crash, since every single person drives past someone on the opposite side of the road.
I feel better now since I own both a 1998 Honda Civic DX and a 2001 Toyota Corolla S.
they both suck
AutoXmachine they both sucksssssssss so much
VTEC bitches !
Well you bought japanese cars that's why they were light years ahead of the US
Mat Jiowoo You wouldn’t be saying that once you driven one.
Its called aerodynamics. Those cars are nice for nostalgic reasons but simply cant hold a candle to newer cars. Power, performance, interior, unibody, handling, abs, AC, power windows, reliability, and so on. Autos have progressed quite a bit since then. And any car that is extensively restored is expensive but doesn't mean its great.
Agreed. The Escort wasn't bad either, for its time.
1995-1999 NEON and Kia sephia Are A dead trap!!!
neons are fine
kia sephia is shit. Anything by kia will fuck your life up in a crash as shown.
So is the Mitsubishi Mirage.
bleachaholickk maybe from the 90’s but today they, as well as Hyundai, get lots of awards from the IIHS
You'd never catch me driving a deathtrap Neon or Sephia. Both of the legs of the Sephia driver were severely injured at the kneecaps, I cringed as the pulled the dummy from that car. Both cars were redesigned around 2000, and both did only marginally better than their predecessors.
Seeing a Civic crashed like that breaks my heart
So fast, so severe? With the current 70 mph speed limits and traffic moving at 50 in a 35 zone, super-speeders, and monster personal use vehicles weighing three tons or more, inexcusably high power (who really needs more than 150 horsepower for daily driving?), 40 mph crash tests may be considered to be too slow. There is a trade-off between crash performance and manufacturing cost, but if one car does well in a particular test, what is the excuse that another doesn't in the same test?
5610winston Honestly, is you crash going 150 mph, you’re probably better of dying quickly. Why would you want to live with half of your face missing and many broken bones?
You can't survive hitting a solid object at 70 mph, even if the car didn't collapse, your body would.
Nissan Sentra, no doubt the toughest car in the group. Mechanically and structurally. A great great car!
Spot on! I'd say the Sentra was the best all-around small car one could buy in the late 90's, next to the '99 VW Golf!
The Sentra had a structural performance of marginal.
40mph is not too fast!!! You'd be going down the highway at 65!
Hopefully you at least attempt braking before you crash though.
This test simulates two cars of the same size and weight hitting
at a combined speed of 60 mph.
Fun fact: my classmate own a 1999 Nissan Sentra B14 which was acceptable
The results in IIHS and Euroncap are different. For example Civic in euroncap is a crap, Corolla is much better. Kia Rio is getting better and better and in IIHS it is a total crap. Probably there are some differences in these car for different regions?
antonarset, Yes
IHS is better than euroncap they test at high speeds And have a better facility with better technologies.
@@justenzo6342 what's IHS?
@@pong.o Insurance Institute for highway safety
@@justenzo6342EuroNcap actually pushed the offset frontal test to 40 mph, the American institute started off using a speed of 35. The American side impact tests are better though, with a higher more aggressive barrier, and at 40 rather than 30.
I have a 97 Neon. My mom is making me sell it as it’s too unsafe
I have a 98 Neon and after she saw this, she wants me to get rid of it which I understand honestly but I do like a little car. It definitely feels unsafe though. It’s a go kart and it feels like it’s made out of a tin can 😂
11:31 you should watch iihs more than government tests
At the end of the video the
Kia sephia testing if it
Was to crash with a truck the person would most likely die
That civic did amazing
"is it something to be concerned about? I don't think so.". Then he hopped in his Honda Civic and drove off.
I had a '94 Kia Sephia, it was a horrible car. I'm just glad I never got into an accident with it.
6:40 6:41 1997 - 2000 Ford ESCORT LX ( MERCURY TRACER )
RATINGS: ACCEPTABLE
1:17 OMG ITS BEAMNG IN REAL LIFE!!
Im surprised the saturn did good considering it is made mostly of plastic i was scared to drive mine but now i dont have to worry too much
Didn't know US had Escorts in the 90s.
That AIAM sleezeball needs a reality check. Did anyone else notice that he was shaking his head "no" while he was saying that all of the cars did well?
The 1994 Nissan sentra preformed worse than this one, check out the video on the IIHS channel, Nissan Tsuru vs Nissan Versa
That place is every cars worst nightmare
Saturn SL2 is actually an excellent car.
THANKS FOR PUTTING THIS UP!!!!!! the original guy took them down :(
@Theclassicplastic it was tested in Dateline 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 IIHS Small Cars Offset
What about Mitsubishi Mirage?
Nope. That's a 1998 or later corolla and a 1996 or later civic.
8:44 and Chrysler in Canada, Mexico, Europe, Mercosur and outside the United States in general.
i wish iihs would of done a crash test on the 2000 mustang
they probably did
+Mat Jiowoo no they didnt....ive done research it
They should’ve done it with the full-size SUVs.
No Chevy Cavalier?
Thanks! It's good to know! =D
my moms 98 civic was crashed in 1999 and she never went to the hospital
good
at least that civic was destroyed
My uncle farted in 1997 and nobody called the cops.
@thefassold they did in a separate episode, it got a poor
i bet if they had tested a volvo it would have put all these cars to shame :D
13:41 RIP AE86
They all did better than my first car would have.
My dad happens to have a 1998 Honda Civic
The Honda Civic is also as the Acura EL in Canada
After about 60mph its purely luck if you survive in about any car.
jjmonns this is very true
Actually, you have a little chance at 60mph. 45mph is life-threatening for most.
Everyone here is correct. 40 mph is the average speed for a two-lane country, mountain, or forest road. Any collision about that speed is a greater chance for more devastating results in the event of that said collision.
I really miss Stone Phillips!
Mercury Tracer is also equivalant to a Ford Laser.
How come in some shots of the civic, it was grey and not blue?
Why do they test the cars in about 40mp/h and not the topspeed...???
5:41 5:42 5:43 1995 - 2003 SATURN SLS
RATINGS: ACCEPTABLE
yup,the twin of the corolla
One would think that crash tests would be done to simulate the most common crashes that occur and grade correspondingly so.
They are you Muppet.
Nice! I love my civic!
what year was this show broadcasted?
Probably 1997
@@kennethseah758 makes sense, I used to have a very similar civic (a couple of years ago) and it was a 1998 model, thank you! ☺️
Around September-October 1997
@@trippymoredd3016 thanks! 😄
Nowadays, with new generation tests and standards, yours would likely get marginal or poor.
1995 - 2000 HYUNDAI AVANTE ( ELANTRA ) RATINGS: ACCEPTABLE
1995 - 1998 MADZA 323 FAMILA ( PROTAGE )
RATINGS: ACCEPTABLE
1993 - 1997 NISSAN SUNNY ( SENTRA )
RATIGS: ACCEPTABLE
6:49 6:50 6:51
40MPH (64KMH)
The crash test industry wants to test cars at the same speed; most cars should reach 40mph ... and every car has a different top speed, it wouldn't be fair
I am getting a 90s civic as my first car 👍👍👍😶😶
Update: In the new moderate overlap crash test with a crash dummy in the back seat, no small car earned a Good rating.
9:58
kia
Sophia
From Korea
🔥 She's spitting fire 🔥
saturn passed with a plastic car talk about mighty plastic
X4 I know right? Glad to know my SL2 is fairly safe
i have a 2004 ion i love it
"Hits like Kia Sophia. From South Korea.."
I had mirage. I tell you what - they should test 2DR Mirage coupe ! it's much harder
okay thanks!
twin towers at the beggining =)
My dad has a 1998 Honda Civic coincidentally it won
Kia
Sephia
from Korea
Was there a test done for the Chevrolet Cavalier?
+BlueNinjakoopa553 Yes, IIRC, it received a poor rating for the frontal offset test.
+BlueNinjakoopa553 Yes. It received a poor rating. A concussion would be likely, as well as a severely broken leg. Depending on the crash, the driver may experience some more severe injuries due to the dummy flying about inside the vehicle during the crash. Instrusion was severe and the steering wheel column was rammed upwards, while the foot well was rammed back. The plastic inside the cabin was cracked when the dummy's head hit the windowsill.
+Josh Mckinnley The car is also relatively light (~2700LBS) compared to every other car. You'd probably die if you hit another car since the other car would most likely be heavier. Two of my friends have this car and I worry about them sometimes.
BlueNinjakoopa553 The Cavalier was one of the first cars tested by the Institute
TechTipsToday No one want to see your ass.
Wild how Mitsubishi still has some of the most dangerous vehicles on the road
The Mirage and Mirage G4? Those are cheap cars, actually when IIHS released the small overlap test, Mitsubishi even scored better than some BMW, Mercedes and other cars, the 2008 Lancer earned acceptable when IIHS rated that test, the others got poor, I remember the C-Class got poor at that time, remember the last generation Lancer was released back in 2008. The new Outlander was also named the safest SUV in the market for the year 2023, fun fact, the Outlander got a good rating in the new updated side impact crash test, Volvo with it's XC60 got an acceptable rating, Cadillac with it's XT6 got a poor rating, not to mention the new Grand Highlander got an acceptable rating on the small overlap crash test.
I'm glad I drive the 98 Corolla.
what about if I had a 97 corolla
corollas are crap
Mat Jiowoo screw you then
Exactly why i own a W126 560SEL Mercedes. Those cars are built like tanks i kid you not!
+George heinsman finally someone who understands me. old benzes are the best
The Mitsubishi Mirage that’s my grandmas car she has been driving it since 1999
Meet or exceed "GOVERNMENT STANDARDS". LOL LOL LOL
elentra did pretty well.....i didnt knew that
“Kia Sefia From Korea!”
The Dodge Neon is a deathtrap!
9:58
This is the Kia Sophia from Korea(W rhyme)
anyone notice a cough at 6:34?
I agree my mom had this 2002 trailblazer and this guy ran a red light and hit my moms trailblazer head on my mom had a lot of engine damage like it made the belt radiator but all it did was mess up the grill and the front bumper not enough damage for airbags to deploy but still lotta engine damage and if your wonders the guys small car that ran red light only had a scratch even though his front went almost all the way to back seats
So, would the results of the SeVille also go towards the DeVille? Because you said in the description that the DeVille was one of them, but I never saw it in the video. Just the SeVille. I just want to know if I'm as safe in my 97 DeVille as I would be with the older SeVille they show.
Then you should probably change to the 2000 because it got a good when the 1997 got a poor.
Then you should probably change to the 2000 because it got a good when the 1997 got a poor.
Victor Roman Or just never get in a crash I guess. I can't afford a 2000
@@boxman139You will, but you'll need to rebuild the engine with the longer head bolts.
Couldn't watch. I cried ;(
THE FRICKING CARS DIE :(
HEARTLESS STUPID PINK PATRICK C0CK CREEP
+Super Trini Gamer the poor dodge neon 😭 I own one
And I have a Hyundai Accent :(
Wow, the mk3 Golf wasn't safe
I have a 1999 Hyundai Elantra weights at 3200 pounds how's my car not safe
New first rule of auto safety?.....get off the damned cell phones!!!
3:43 3:44 1995 - 1999 ACCEPTABLE HONDA CIVIC ( CIVIC FERIO )