10 worst cars
 

What follows is a roundup of the ten worst cars on the market, based on three criteria: the worst crash test scores, the lowest projected reliability and the lowest projected residual values. We thought about castigating cars for multiple recalls, but the 2005 model year is too young to do so (most recalled '05 models have been recalled only once so far). Furthermore, consumers often ignore such issues as recalls — unless they are for universally dangerous reasons, such as spontaneously exploding gas tanks — in favor of style, sex appeal or raw power.

In the interest of fairness, we excluded from consideration all cars that are in the process of being killed, such as General Motors' Chevrolet Cavalier and Pontiac Sunfire, both of which have horrendous crash test scores. Excluding lame ducks, there are no cars currently sold in the U.S. that suffer the indignity of a one-star crash test rating. Out of a possible five stars, several achieved two-star ratings, and we included all of those models.

Whatever your current political leanings, we advise you to trust the government when it says you and your kids could have a 21 percent to 25 percent chance of serious injury in a particular car — at least trust it enough not to buy that car.

LEAST SAFE
• Kia Rio
• Mitsubishi Lancer
• Nissan Sentra (this surprises me)
• Ford Ranger
• Mazda B-Series
• Ford Explorer Sport Trac

LEAST RELIABLE
• Lincoln Navigator

LOWEST RESIDUAL VALUE
• Dodge Neon
• Lincoln LS V-6
• Chrysler Sebring sedan

10 worst cars
 

Isn't the Dodge Neon a death trap too?

http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/.../ictl_0903.pdf

PS, I am convinced that iihs has to factor in drivers too. Is one who drives a Ford pickup more likely to crash when pulling out stumps than the type of person who drives a Saab 9-5?

Like why does the BMW 3 convertible have better injury rates than the 4 door?

10 worst cars
 

Affordability? Less likely to be purchased by younger, less experience drivers, or drivers who buy for the speed/handling.

Fewer people in it? Ever tried to wedge an adult in the back seat?

Reinforcements? To get body stiffness, there's a ton (well, 1/4 ton) of extra metal, plus pop-up rollbars and what not, that may keep things safer. Unless a truck actually rolls over you, there's probably more to protect you in a cabrio. And it's not like the roof of the sedan gives you too much protection from that kind of accident either.

10 worst cars
 

I think that everything that you said in this post is wrong, with the exception of the bit about 500 lb. of reinforcements (true) and pop-up rollbars (not sure).

Why do you think that they add that stuff? It's not just stiffness for performance; it's stiffness for safety. Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that there is so little stiffness and protection by virtue of it being a ragtop that they have to make some tradeoffs so that all rollver and incursion accidents don't kill you?

A convertible is a very bad idea for the truly safety conscious. No matter how well it's designed, the hardtop version is going to be safer. A car like the Z4 is decently safe because it sits low and has mounted roll hoops. Are you sure that the 3er's got pop-up roll protection? Where?

10 worst cars
 

Dude, taking the roof off of a car increases the body flex. The reinforcements are for the body flex. So you don't roll over. But if you're going to roll over, some convertibles are better than others. (See Geo).

Same is true to a smaller extent (now) for t-tops. No one buys a convertible for the safety factor. I'll have to check on the roll bar, but BMW is usually pretty conscious about safety, so if any car's going to have it, that would be the one.

The list is not based on who buys it, and who drives it, but gov't crash tests and the Kelly Blue Book.

10 worst cars
 

I'm pretty sure that's what I said. And I'm absolutely certain that it has pop-up roll protection. It's behind the rear headrests. If you look on the top of the headrests, there's a plaque that says "do not cover--roll-over protection system" or something like that. It's two words in German, of course. (And the A-pillar is an integrated roll bar as well).

(BMW site--choose rollover protection for pic)

ETA: or did you mean I got their motivation wrong? Because if that's your criticism, well, ooh burn.

My point is that they add all that stuff in order to make the safety and rollover protection passable. It's still not as good as a hardtop. Have you seen pictures of what happens to even somewhat safe convertibles in major accidents? Not for the faint of heart.

They add all that protection and stiffness in order to make up for the inherent design flaw of a convertible (that is has no hard roof that's all welded steel and beams and shit like that).

Saying the convertible is safer because it has all that stuff added is like saying "Of course it's safer to be an inner-city patrol officer than it is to be a lawyer; the cops wear bullet-proof vests and carry guns!"

I think that you would be very surprised how protective the roof of a modern car is, especially a BMW. We're all talking out of our asses here, but I'd bet that you'd be much safer in a car with a roof than a car with pop-up roll over protection, ceteris paibus*.

* Hi!

Sure, but let's go back to the discussion. Pony asked why a cabrio had a better safety record than the sedan. I posited three reasons, none of which is alone likely sufficient to explain the data (assuming the data reflect reality accurately). One militating factor on your Naderesque concerns is all of the extra metal the car has. But I doubt it's the only one. Another one, not mentioned, is clear from the handout--a large part of the data are driven by minor accidents with relatively minor injuries, such that death is not heavily factored in.

I'm not sure of the pics you're talking about. But I'm sure that for every horrible cabrio crash you could find one with a sedan too. I'm not saying cabrios are safer, but I'm quite comfortable saying I don't feel substantially less safe in my 3er convertible than I would in, e.g., the 3er coupe.

I generally agree that a car's "safety" as manifested in actual performance, has far more to do with driver habits and experience than anything else, and I doubt that the arbiters or "safety" do a passable job, or maybe even any job at all, of normalizing those kinds of things. I'd prefer to talk about a more conceptual "safety," which has to do with how well a car will respond and protect its driver in a given situation, with maybe a little factor of "it's really impossible to drive safely" thrown in. The Z28 was a much safer car than the data suggested, since so many of the crashes and deaths were due to driver error. My dear departed 911, underpowered by modern standards as it was, WAS absurdly tail happy to the point of being somewhat dangerous if you weren't careful. But I doubt that the 3er convertible and coupe are that different in the ways that they would respond to the same driver's input, at least until they are meeting another vehicle or an immovable object hard.

I strongly don't believe that, in any given crash in identical conditions, it would be better to be in a 3er convertible than it would to be in a 3er coupe or 3er sedan. Even with the added weight (whether from intent or just the result of other up-engineering) intended to compensate for lesser safety and rigidity, the cage of a hardtop more than makes up for the force transfer benefits of the heavier convertible. At least that's my guess, I am sure that we could both find all sorts of data about this, but the design is an inherent major disadvantage.

Any real discussion of these issues is really for structural engineers; I'm not qualified to speak about the real science behind it. But, having done high speed track laps and autocross in a variety of cars (including my Z4, an M3 coupe, an M3 convertible, and all kinds of high performance Japanese cars, including an S2000), I strongly believe that the structural integrity of a production convertible will never be anywhere near as good as the production coupe version of that car, when available. Even if the convertible is designed from the ground up to be rigid, safe, strong, etc. I can feel my car torque around itself when in a hard corner. I've only had once chance to do "hot laps" in it, and didn't get about 100 mph or so, but you can definitely feel the car twist when you get on throttle after some sliding through a turn; without the wheels gripping and spinning normally, the friction with the surface is much lower, and it feels solid. Go hard to throttle out of a slide or otherwise get the traction back, and the rear end wants to be in a different plane than the front end. And it's much more successful than a coupe or sedan would be at altering those planes.

Of course, all those pictures of horrendous crashes are anecdotal. But I have seen several pictures of convertibles in accidents where the structural destruction is not something I have seen in pictures of coupes or sedans in accidents. Significant compression, folding over and incursion through the trunk into the passenger cabin from a high speed rear impact. I have seen in person compressed and folded convertibles (not BMWs) from relatively low-speed incidents. The vertical stabilization a roof provides does not allow for that to happen as much in a coupe or sedan. It also seems that, even where there is no roll-over, the presence of a roof helps prevent against injury from stuff hitting you, falling on you, submarining, etc.

Finally, I assure you that my safety beliefs are not Naderesque. I just think that there's no way a convertible is safer than the equivalent hardtop, for appropriate definitions of safety. They're still both damn safe in comparison to how cars used to be, when you consider how inherently dangerous driving is.

Instead of Nader's style of hysterics, I think that a more coherent balancing of cost, risk, reward, behaviour and all that stuff should come way before the kinds of things he has advocated. I'm a safe driver, but I drive quickly and aggressively. I see people all the time doing crazy, absurd shit on the roads that will get people killed. Before we look to the cars themselves, we should look to licensure and enforcement of certain laws. Tailgating, swerving and running red lights is stupid, and that's the kind of shit that gets people killed. Merely speeding around within reason doesn't necessarily add much risk to the equation.

10 worst cars
 

I can vouch for that. Mrs. dL narrowly escaped death (in all seriousness) in an accident while she was driving a Neon. The thing crumpled like an aluminum can.

10 worst cars
 

The rear headrests are reinforced and double as roll bars and pop up in the event of a roll

Having two friends who narrowly avoided death last fall when their (m5!) car was hit by someone flying through a red light, I can vouch for this. Serious head trauma for both. Roof ripped off of the car by the teenager in the fucking SUV when he ramped over the car because he was going so fast. They should be out of the rehab centers before the end of the spring. Then only a year in community living centers with daily commutes to rehab before they are independent members of society again.

But all their friends are glad it rained that day. Otherwise they would have been out in his z3.

I wish them the best. That is fucked up. That kid is probably getting off without too much jail time, if any. That's the fucking problem. Put someone who does that shit in prison for a while and that kind of stuff will be a lot less common.

bad taste?
 

Weirdest. Car. Ad. Ever. Bad taste? Cynicism at its finest? You decide.

spree: link to quicktime movie of new car ad.

bad taste?
 

There's an entire new industry of people who do ads for companies on spec and without their approval. Thanks to the web, we get to see what VW had very little compunction about rejecting. The punishment for not buying the exclusive rights is that people everywhere see the ad and assume that you approved the use of your brand name or logo.