[Number 3]

Originally Posted by BigRedViking

I didn't mean to undermine the severity of Dale Earnhardt's fatal crash. He was my favorite driver, and I was very sad to see him go. What I wanted to convey is that even minor accidents can be fatal, and that safety features can be the difference between life and death. When I purchased my 2016 Camaro I knew that it hadn't been safety rated, but I purchased it anyway. Because I believed that GM wouldn't produce an unsafe vehicle. Especially with the recent faulty ignition lawsuit, and switchblade key recall. I think emergency braking systems are a great idea because it's the panic situation, or the things that the driver doesn't see that can really be a life saver. The roof can be reinforced, and safety systems can be added. Maybe it's just something that GM is still developing.

This test does not mean GM or Ford or Fiat make an unsafe vehicle. As I mentioned, this is the IIHS whos number one goal is to drive the automakers to make cars even safer than the government standards in order to do one thing............help the insurance companies pay out less money.

IIHS conducts valid tests, but they are more severe than the government mandates.

So not a matter of being unsafe, but even more safe.

As for automated braking systems? They better work better than FCA on my SS.

[Heavymetal454]

[QUOTE=Zeke.Malvo;9113179]

Originally Posted by Heavymetal454

I'm saying it's rare on city streets to be involved in a collision like this unless you are DUI. Even if you substitute it as oncoming traffic, one or both drivers are likely to be DUI. But I do see it much more often with a fixed object than an oncoming car.

I don't understand your second argument/question. I don't see a realistic scenario where that would come to play. I can't think of any location in my city where you would be parked facing the wrong way in a 40+ zone. At that point it's much more likely to be a side swipe.

All I'm saying is 40 hitting a stationary object is one object hitting another at 40 mph. You could be going the opposite direction on a two lane road and if someone opens a car door and you swerve into the opposing lane a similar accident would occur. Perhaps even someone tailgating and attempting to avoid the car in front of them if they don't see cars coming to a stop by veering onto the shoulder. I'm not sure about the statistics of a rollover but from what I see the Camaro faired pretty well in this scenario though they may have rated the Mustang better overall. Nevertheless I'm not planning on testing it myself.

[Heavymetal454]

Originally Posted by SayHelloToMyLittleFriend

How many in here even checked the IIHS ratings before buying their Camaro? Or would not buy one because it wasn't a TOP pick?

If it's supercharged I'm buying it. The car is coming out in December so it will never be driven anyway.

[b4z]

IMO the Camaro did better than the mustang. the roof not doing well is less important than the front impact score.

[b4z]

if you go back to the '80s and look at the crash test scores, the 3rd gen Fbods did very well in those. But a lot of people died or got injured in crashes because the age of the owner group, who, were doing stupid things in them. Look at the number of modern GTO crashes. they do very well in the actual crash, but don't have stabilitrack and because of the owner group they are being totaled right and left.

[ohhhh-cam]

I'm amazed that these cars are totaled at 40 mph overlap collisions... The amount of damage is incredible... Never want to be an accident...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by ohhhh-cam

I'm amazed that these cars are totaled at 40 mph overlap collisions... The amount of damage is incredible... Never want to be an accident...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The idea is the car is totaled ................ But you aren't.