[Heavymetal454]

If you look at the roof line you can see that the Camaro had minimal distortion. The impact from the door being driven into the Qtr panel is what caused it to buckle. I'd rather the pieces fly off as in the case of the wheel since all that mass isn't getting pushed into the passenger compartment.

[crabman]

I recall reading the most common accident type for high HP rear wheel drive cars was departing the road or striking an object due to power induced oversteer. Many of those are low speed, for example making a 90 degree turn to the left at a stoplight and hitting the curb with the outside rear tire after getting overly ambitious with the throttle.

On the mandatory braking it is seldom intrusive. I tend to hate this sort of thing but in this case after seeing it in action for a few years I think the benefit of not hitting something outweighs the downside of the odd unneeded brake application. I was wondering if making it mandatory would reduce the buy in cost of ACC?

[RallyHT]

Originally Posted by BradfordCamaro

But just don't end up on your roof....

Clearly....I bought a Vert! I suspect my roof would perform much, much worse.

[sdmcss]

I noticed that the windshield on the Mustang shattered in every test. The Camaro and the Challenger had minimal or no damage to the windshield.

[Zeke.Malvo]

I've dealt with hundreds of traffic incidents, and those conditions (40 mph vs fixed object) are super rare unless, more often than not, the result of driving impaired (DUI). That, or the driver suffered a medical emergency where they likely died before impact and were unable to hit the breaks.

As for the windshield breaking and such, all that hardly matters. If the car is going to be totalled in a catastrophic impact anyways, you may as well have as many parts absorbing as much energy as possible.

All of those are very survivable with a seat belt. Actually, I took a very similar crash just last week of a challenger where the driver didn't wear a seat belt. He broke his leg in a couple parts, couple ribs, and ended up under the dash in the passenger side area.

[Brian 1LE SS]

Originally Posted by SpeedIsLife

You really don't want to be in any car in these accidents..you're not walking away from any of them. You'll likely fair the best in the Camaro, but you're still going to the hospital.

Hitting a wall at 40 mph your going fo the hospital no matter what your driving. All 3 of these cars did well. The problem with the Challenger is the extra weight, same with the Mustang. All that energy has to go somewhere.

[Runewrath]

After walking away with just very minor bruising from my side impact I feel like I can say I'm either very lucky or the Camaro did a very good job at absorbing the impact.

[xmonger]

Nice result overall but what the hell happened to the Camaro wheel? It broke apart like a clay pot.

[Hypertrophy]

Originally Posted by xmonger

Nice result overall but what the hell happened to the Camaro wheel? It broke apart like a clay pot.

Yeah, I've never seen a wheel just brake apart quite like that. I guess losing weight means sacrificing strength. Its just a matter of distributing what strength you keep in strategic places.

[fastball]

Originally Posted by Hypertrophy

Yeah, I've never seen a wheel just brake apart quite like that. I guess losing weight means sacrificing strength. Its just a matter of distributing what strength you keep in strategic places.

See my prior post on this. Might want to read the whole thread.

[Number 3]

First, this is IIHS. There job is to protect the insurance companies from paying out due to injury. They continually increase the severity of the tests they run (compared to the government) in order to keep pressure on the automakers. And you can tell they've won simply by the number of OEMs that taught how they did in the IIHS testing.

Second, a small offset is the worst possible front collision you can have. Yes, the front suspension will likely give way simply due to the penetration resulting from this test.

Third, hitting a solid brick wall at 35 MPH (NCAP speed) is the same as a head on collision with an identical car also going 35 MPH. That is why no matter what the ratings are......mass wins every time in a car to car collision of cars of the same era. You will rarely see the results of a Suburban going 35 MPH in a head on collision with a Spark also going 35 MPH.

Fourth, this is why mass reduction is an increasingly difficult engineering feet. Not many people quite understand how to manage crash energy and protecting occupant space post crash and the resulting impact to the solution for a car or truck.

Fifth, this is only one of many, many tests that are also quite devastating to watch.

Sixth, the sound of 3 Hemi V8s getting ready to pull a test property into the wall is quite distraction from the test. A facility in NY used those to get the vehicle up to speed with a tow cable.

[90503]

At around 1:56, this guy says..."Given, that 'sports cars' have high crash rates...."...???

Is this true? Do the newer Camaros, Challengers, Mustangs, (even though they are sports coupes, not sports cars) really have a higher crash rate than others?...Perhaps the good old insurance companies may help put the screws on high hp V-8s as being more dangerous and costlier to insure?.....Sounds like he makes an ominous statement that may be a bad sign of things to come....Or is it a non-issue, old news or whatever??

[BigRedViking]

Even a minor accident can be fatal. Just look at what happened to Dale Earnhardt. That wreck didn't look serious, and compare it to the Richard Petty crash. Everything helps.

[fastball]

Originally Posted by BigRedViking

Even a minor accident can be fatal. Just look at what happened to Dale Earnhardt. That wreck didn't look serious, and compare it to the Richard Petty crash. Everything helps.

Dale hit the wall head on at 196 MPH. I knew instantly it wasn't good. I remember watching it live thinking it was bad because he went right into the wall at full force and his car wasn't torn to shreds. Petty was alright because his car dissintigrated.