Type 44/5000 safety rating

Wed Aug 28 13:24:20 EDT 2002

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Hmmm, amazing!
According to this, the '86 Golf is "safer" than the '95-'96 Golf. The '84 T=
oyota Tercel is "safer" than the '88, which again is "safer" than the '91. =
Apparently, Toyota is building cars that have a lower and lower sdafety rat=
ing!
Everybody: Let's NEVER buy a Toyota!

The same is the case with the Corolla!

Take a look:
1984--- Toyota Corolla------- 2Dr-- 2680 (*****) (**** )
1984--- Toyota Corolla------- 4Dr-- 2610 (**** ) (**** )
1988--- Toyota Corolla------- 2HB-- 2750 (**** ) (*****)
1989--- Toyota Corolla------- 4Dr-- 2370 (***  ) (**** )
1990--- Toyota Corolla------- 4Dr-- 2355 (***  ) (**   )
1991--- Toyota Corolla------- 4Dr-- 2405 (**   ) ( N/A )

Or the Pontiac Grand Prix:
1979--- Pontiac Grand Prix--- 2Dr-- 3799 (**** ) (*****)
1984--- Pontiac Grand Prix--- 2Dr-- 3700 (**** ) (***  )
1988--- Pontiac Grand Prix--- 2Dr-- 3710 (***  ) (*****)
1990-94 Pontiac Grand Prix--- 4Dr-- 3155 (**   ) ( N/A )

And DON'T buy a Mercury Topaz with only 2 doors! It's MUCH less safe than t=
he 4-door version:
1985--- Mercury Topaz-------- 4Dr-- 2990 (**   ) (**** )
1985--- Mercury Topaz-------- 2Dr-- 2996 (*    ) (*    )

And the Olds Cutlass Supreme is deteriorating too:
1984--- Oldsmobile C Supreme- 2Dr-- 3700 (**** ) (***  )
1988--- Oldsmobile C Supreme- 2Dr-- 3710 (***  ) (*****)
1990-94 Oldsmobile C Supreme- 4Dr-- 3155 (**   ) ( N/A )

And did ANYONE read THIS:

Note: In the frontal crash tests the vehicles were crash tested into an imm=
ovable object at 35 miles per hour. The "Star" ratings show the relative sa=
fety of the above vehicles if they were to become involved in this type of =
a collision.
Quite often however accidents involve one vehicle running into another vehi=
cle.
For these types of collisions the relative weight of the vehicles is also s=
ignificant.
If two vehicles with the same "Star" rating crash into each other head on, =
but one vehicle weighs twice as much as the other, the occupants of the lig=
hter vehicle are eight times more likely to be killed then the occupants of=
 the heavier vehicle. (Audi =3D 3,397Lbs) If you choose to be in a lighter =
vehicle, this should give you even more reason to choose a vehicle with a 5=
 star rating over a vehicle with a 1 or 2 star rating.

I have done a bit of further analysis:
The total # of cars listed in the test results:     842
Average weight of ALL cars tested:              3,281.2 Lbs
Weight of the Audi in question:                    3,397   Lbs

There is no data available in this test, concerning the numerical spread of=
 the mix of these cars on today's highways. Therefore I cannot calculate th=
e risk of hitting someone heavier than yourself while driving the Audi. How=
ever, if we imagine that the mix is exactly the same number of each of the =
cars (which it is not), you are more likely to hit a car lighter than yours=
, while driving the Audi, thereby making your chances statistically better =
of having no serious injuries.

Michael L. Riebs
Grand Rapids, Michigan

'90 V8Q
'98 A6QA

www.1stchoicegranite.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Efraim Gavrilovich" <egav at wireless2000.com>
To: <bswann at worldnet.att.net>; <quattro at audifans.com>
Cc: "SWANN (E-mail)" <bswann at worldnet.att.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 12:05 AM
Subject: Re: Type 44/5000 safety rating

> As much as I don't believe it, I did find the information your buyer's wi=
fe
> might have referred to. It's here:
> http://www.crashtest.com/explanations/archive/crash.htm#anchor232806
> It shows one star driver side and five star passenger side ratings at
> frontal impact for 1985 5000. The rating for 1989 for 100 shows big
> improvement - five stars both sides. I am sure something was wrong with t=
he
> testing in 1985, but it's there, black on white. Too bad this poor woman
> believed these so called "facts".
> Efraim Gavrilovich
> 1988 5KTQ 345,000km (216K mi), 1.8 Bar
> 1990 90 123,000km (77K mi)
> Vancouver, Canada
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ben Swann" <bswann at worldnet.att.net>
> To: <quattro at audifans.com>
> Cc: "SWANN (E-mail)" <bswann at worldnet.att.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 7:30 PM
> Subject: Type 44/5000 safety rating
>
>
> > OK - Listers, I'd appreciate some help with this one.  I had always been
> > under the impression that out Type 44's were rather safe.  Please help =
me
> > refute this.  I thought I saw some testimonials awhile back proclaiming
> > that in this very type of drivers side accident the occupants came out
> > miraculously unscathed, while the other vehicle disintegrated on impact,
> or
> > something to that effect.
> >
> > I personally con't see how this can be knowing something of the
> > construction of these cars.  The only thing I can see is these safety
> > rating are making a comparison to the newer luxury cars with side impact
> > air bags, and even then, I question this rating.
> >
> > Here is what happened - the potential buyer of my '87 5000 turbo quattro
> > avant backed out due to the following email:
> >
> > Joe Buyer here.  I've run into a bit of a snag with my wife regarding t=
he
> > purchase of your avant.  She's a firm believer in safety ratings and wh=
en
> > she looked up the stuff on the 87 5000's was not amused at their 1 star
> > drivers side rating in the 83-88 range.  Unless I can find something in
> > print somewhere to convince here otherwise I'm afraid I'm going to have=
 to
> > pass on the car.
> >
> > Sorry,
> >
> > Joe Buyer
> >
> > Name changed to protect the identity of the buyer.
> >
> > Doesn't change my opinion of these cars, but this really bothers me, in
> > addition to not selling the car.
> >
> > TIA,
> >
> > Ben
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
--
[ =3D?iso-8859-1?Q?Michael_L=3DF8gstrup_Riebs.vcf?=3D of type text/x-vcard =
deleted ]
--