quattro digest, Vol 1 #3882 - Type 44 safety rating

Wed Aug 28 16:57:36 EDT 2002

I thought cars were generally getting lighter.  As a
trend.  Alloys in place of steel.  Plastics and resins
in place of alloy, etc.  Even "blow-foam";
polyisocyanurates (I think).  The sheetmetal on some
newer cars is as thin as 28 gauge.  Some kind of heat
stressed panel or something.  A bodyman I know said
that on newer cars, you can't even work the metal
anymore.  They just tear all the stuff off and
replace.  I know, 28 gauge is like tinfoil, but that's
what he said.  I know metal studs in interior building
components are like that now.  As thin as soda cans.
Even 20' long studs.

Jim Accordino
Union Carpenter

--- Larry C Leung <l.leung at juno.com> wrote:
> Hello Listers,
>
> As far as I recall, those ratings are correct. The
> problem with the
> earlier (pre-89 ProconTen) cars
> was that the steering column was too rigid, and
> without the seat belt
> pre-tensioners the driver
> dummy experienced large forces when it impacted upon
> the steering wheel.
> The later cars
> with the ProconTen went to 5 stars, the airbag
> actually didn't do too
> much to improve things (although
> it probably helps some). Note, these are barrier
> crashes, head on, which
> compares the car
> to a crash with another car of the same mass
> travelling at the same speed
> of 30 MPH (total relative
> velocity of 60 MPH or approximately 100 kph) [if
> someone REALLY needs a
> physics explanation,
> I will try to help, but you'd REALLY better want
> it.... it's real busy
> this time of the school year].
> The later cars are all much better at offset head-on
> collisions, and
> those with side airbags
> are superior in side collisions. I guess those of us
> with type 44s should
> use their nimble ;-) handling
> to avoid the side and offset collisions. Just a
> note, keep in mind, due
> to all of the added safety
> equipment on the newer cars has brought up the mass
> of even some
> relatively small cars up
> near to the mass of a type 44, particularly the 5K's
> (pre '89), so pick
> your fights carefully.
>
> LL - NY, a.k.a. the Physics Teacher
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Message: 7
> > Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 21:05:01 -0700
> > From: Efraim Gavrilovich <egav at wireless2000.com>
> > Subject: Re: Type 44/5000 safety rating
> > To: bswann at worldnet.att.net, quattro at audifans.com
> > Cc: "SWANN (E-mail)" <bswann at worldnet.att.net>
> >
> > As much as I don't believe it, I did find the
> information your
> > buyer's wife
> > 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 the
> > 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 the
> > > purchase of your avant.  She's a firm believer
> in safety ratings
> > and when
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --__--__--
> >
> > Message: 8
> > Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 21:06:04 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: Jim Green <jeg1976 at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: compression test #'s help
> > To: Ron Wainwright <ron_01056 at yahoo.com>,
> quattro at audifans.com
> >
> > --- Ron Wainwright <ron_01056 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >   Listers,
> > >
> > >   I have a frantic problem I'm burning oil at a
> good
> > > rate in my 90 200tqa with 209k
> > >  so I performed a compression test and would
> like to
> > > know what these #'s mean
> > >  If you'r lookin at the head from the front I
> get
> > > #1) 120
> >
> > Good
> >
> > > #2) 150
> >
> > Really Good,  Must have some gunk on those rings:)
> >
> > > #3) 120
> >
> > Good
> >
> > > #4) 120
> >
> > Good
> >
> > > #5) 120
> >
>
=== message truncated ===

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com