NBC Reports on PT crash test

[Hooligan]

During tests on the Chrysler PT Cruiser, the institute found that measurements on the driver dummy showed rib fractures and internal organ injuries would have been likely in a similar crash. Test results showed the rear passenger could have suffered serious neck injuries and a fractured pelvis in a similar accident.

“The PT Cruiser doesn’t offer the same crash protection level as other small cars,” Nolan said.

Chrysler said in a statement that the vehicle has performed well in government tests and the PT Cruiser is equipped with standard front and side air bags. Chrysler said a vehicle’s overall safety performance can’t be determined by a single test and the IIHS results are reviewed by the company to make improvements.

[CREWZIN]

So who do you believe?

[Ptrope]

The PT is the oldest car in the test, so obviously it's going to perform the worst - it's a decade-old design! Chrysler so thoroughly dropped the ball on this car that it would be comical if it weren't so tragic - they had a great start, and then they made the new Sebring, of all things! Someone thought that was a better idea?

Jalopnik.com also reported on this (too bad that site is chock-full of airhead members who hate the PT, but somehow are encouraged to post!), and reading the press release, I was struck by one overwhelming fact: the insurance industry wants all drivers to be completely insulated from any need to know how to drive, to so absolve them from any responsibility to avoid accidents in the first place that it borders on criminal! Apparently, no car which is not an absolute cocoon, which has so many airbags that the occupants stand more of a chance of suffocating than being injured by the impact, is acceptable.

When was the last time you heard the insurance industry propose stricter standards for receiving a license to drive? Apparently, driving is a 'right' now, not a privilege; any sort of restriction is either politically incorrect or somehow racist, because it affects certain 'oppressed' economic demographics - we can't expect higher licensing fees or education because the cost of education would 'deprive' someone of their God- (or GM-) given "right" to drive.

Better to deprive fellow drivers of their lives when the person has no skills and no responsibility. Just keep texting and talking - the car is only an inconvenient distraction from the "important" stuff.

[soonercruiser]

Let them eat asphalt cake!!!

[AA PT]

In 2002 my 2001 PT got rear ended by a guy who told the police he was going 50 miles per hour. I was stopped to make a right turn when he hit me.

My car was totalled, but it held up very well. I took my insurance money and bought another PT.

I'm a real live crash test dummie, I guess. No injuries except for a whip lash. I didn't sue anyone, either.

RG

[ptborder]

yeah,my wife was freaked out. Oh well, she can drive her Tundra, I'll stick with the PT.

[PurplePTGirl]

As a real live crash test dummy, I have to say that my 2005 PT protected me well in a head on crash. I hit a Camry who turned left in front of me--I was going about 45. I had bruises from the shoulder belt and a swollen knee (it hit the dash) but other than that, I walked away from a head on collision with no injuries. The car was totalled but I was not. I had no side curtain air bags on that PT, but the front airbags did deploy. My new PT does have side airbags.

The performance of my car played a part in my decision to purchase another PT (after being in a crash like that, you DO think of these things!).

Yes, if it had been a huge SUV (which is what was used in that test), things might have been different, but really, other than driving an equally huge SUV, what can we do to protect ourselves against these monsters? No smaller car is going to stand up against something twice its size--that is the law of physics.

[mileshuff]

My guess is that the NBC tests were funded by trial lawyers. Can anyone remember the fiasco regarding tests done to the Isuzu Trooper, Suzuki Samurai and Jeep CJ's years ago? Smells like the same rhetoric all over again.

The Government tests are standardized and the PT has performed quite well. Insurance companies have rated the PT above average and I believe their reports based on actual accident claims over anything from NBC.

[Vetetr]

NBC, huh? Did anyone check it for incendiary devices?

[blucruzer]

I can see that this is an old thread and don't know if Ptrope is still active on site but just have to say that I couldn't agree with him/her more! I'm getting tired of the car as cocoon model that the insurance industry and governmental agencies seem to be promoting while roundly ignoring any measures to better prepare drivers for the task of driving. I once read a Road & Track (I believe) article that said that "the average German school-
girl (their term) could drive circles around most (experienced) American drivers." In this era when you can purchase a flight simulator program for your home computer, why can't drivers be tested on a driving simulator that could simulate conditions/situations that would never be encountered in a typical driver's license test but could well come up in the course of actual driving? Too expensive? Maybe, until you or a loved one die in a(n) (avoid-
able) crash. It has always seemed strange to me that we can lose 3,000 lives in Iraq, (or 49,000 in Viet Nam) and there is an outcry but we can lose nearly 50,000 lives every year, year after year, in auto crashes, most of them avoidable, and, other than Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, no outcry except to say that the cars should be better. Bull@#$%!