If you have put much faith in the crash ratings...

then maybe we should reconsider. THe 01-06 Elantra's recieved "POOR" ratings when tested during it's production run. I know many people that decided to not buy one because the almighty Insurance Institute blah blah blah rated them so poorly.

I've been a part of the Elantra/Hyundai crowd for over 8 years and I've seen dozens and dozens of these cars totaled and everyone has walked away..... like this one:

This is the latest crash one of our members had on New years day. Him and his passenger walked away after a 55mph impact with the telphone pole.

This is why I don't put much stock in tests rating cars anymore.

When the owners don't walk away, who posts the results?

Nice. Your personal experience is more valid that official crash test. Uh, right. Crash tests are best used to compare different cars in the same situation, and there is no reason to think they aren't accurate for that purpose.

There's an owners club for Elantra owners? I figured it'd be a support group

Actually, the test is difficult to replicate, since the ram that moves the car towards the target must disengage before the barrier is hit (so as to not affect the results). No way to ensure that it hits the target at exactly the same point each time. Repeatability is nearly impossible. Of course, most of us don't go around running into IIHS approved barriers.

would seem the safest course of action is to not join the owners club if so many members are driving into things.

there were actually 3 elantra sites, down to 2. After 8 years and thousands of owners between the two sites there are bound to be accidents. Many, Many large accidents that totalled both cars and almost all have had no injury to report.

Yes, I do put more faith into the real world results than anythign that comes from a cooked up lab result. Real world results show us what really happens. Lab results show us what the tester wants you to see.

Picture makes me think he got bored of driving it

Bobzilla wrote: there were actually 3 elantra sites, down to 2. After 8 years and thousands of owners between the two sites there are bound to be accidents. Many, Many large accidents that totalled both cars and almost all have had no injury to report. Yes, I do put more faith into the real world results than anythign that comes from a cooked up lab result. Real world results show us what really happens. Lab results show us what the tester wants you to see.

The problem with that is that no matter how many incidents you can document, it's still a tiny sample size compared to the total. You can't make conclusions from that.

If the IIHS tests weren't valid, the auto manufacturers would be raising hell.

I'm an engineer, and run a test lab, so there's full disclosure, but a controlled environment is the only way to test when you are making A-B comparisons. If a sampling of wrecked Elantra's faired better than a sampling of a similar car, does that tell us anything? No. There's no control in that example. The crash ratings are relative to the other comparable tested vehicles. IOW, the poor rating on a car doesn't really mean anything unless it's compared to another car.

You believe Elantra's are safe. I won't argue that point. But what we can't know is how much better or worse another car from that market segment would have done in the exact same situation, and that's where the ratings come from.

More importantly, does anybody (here) really buy a car based on crash ratings?

I personally don't know anybody who does.

It's a conspiracy to take our guns/money/Elantras!

Look at the bright side, the cars you seem to love so much are now worth less, simply because the IIHS has supposedly under-rated them. Every cloud has a sliver lining, right?

volvo owners?

Zomby woof wrote: More importantly, does anybody (here) really buy a car based on crash ratings? I personally don't know anybody who does.

Then why are you making such a point of it?

Wow, there is some good humor in this thread. Well done. I was suprised to see the lack of love for the Elantra.

Tom Suddard wrote: It's a conspiracy to take our guns/money/Elantras! Look at the bright side, the cars you seem to love so much are now worth less, simply because the IIHS has supposedly under-rated them. Every cloud has a sliver lining, right?

I wish! I can't find a good used one for under $3k anymore. Most of those are 150+k and neglected.

Bobzilla wrote: I wish! I can't find a good used one for under $3k anymore. Most of those are 150+k and neglected.

I think they're all wrecked.

One thing to remember is what constitutes poor ratings in those tests.

Bottom line is that, for the most part, cars are safer now than 20 years ago, when cars were safer than 20 years before that. The worst performing car you can buy now is probably still considerably safer for the occupant than a car that was built in 1971.

The best way to survive an accident is to avoid it. Cars today may be more safe for the driver during a controlled test, but how many more accidents are caused because you can't SEE out of many new cars? (I'm looking at you 370z / Camaro / Acura ZDX)

I'd rather drive a nimble car with great visibility and no airbags, abs, yaw control, or blind spot warnings, than a modern machine I can't see out of. Also, nav systems, touch screen controls, and anything else that takes your eyes off the road are hazards.

If our "leaders" were really concerned with saving lives, they would make drivers ed 1000 X more difficult. In many U.S. states drivers education is not needed to get a driver's license. Just show up, take an easy test, and fly down the highway in a 4000 lb weapon. More and more folks are texting, channel surfing, and screwing around with electronics behind the wheel. This is a greater hazard in my eyes than a lack of 27 airbags, and every safety device we can think of.

Joe Gearin wrote: The best way to survive an accident is to avoid it. Cars today may be more safe for the driver during a controlled test, but how many more accidents are caused because you can't SEE out of many new cars? (I'm looking at you 370z / Camaro / Acura ZDX) I'd rather drive a nimble car with great visibility and no airbags, abs, yaw control, or blind spot warnings, than a modern machine I can't see out of. Also, nav systems, touch screen controls, and anything else that takes your eyes off the road are hazards. If our "leaders" were really concerned with saving lives, they would make drivers ed 1000 X more difficult. In many U.S. states drivers education is not needed to get a driver's license. Just show up, take an easy test, and fly down the highway in a 4000 lb weapon. More and more folks are texting, channel surfing, and screwing around with electronics behind the wheel. This is a greater hazard in my eyes than a lack of 27 airbags, and every safety device we can think of.

Absolutely.

Derick Freese wrote: One thing to remember is what constitutes poor ratings in those tests. Bottom line is that, for the most part, cars are safer now than 20 years ago, when cars were safer than 20 years before that. The worst performing car you can buy now is probably still considerably safer for the occupant than a car that was built in 1971.

Absolutely this.

But still, I can't imagine anyone, certainly anyone with a family, not paying at least some attention to the crash ratings of the family hauler they were contemplating purchasing. And I would not purchase at the bottom of the crash-rating heap.

4000 lbs? Pshaw. My new Dodge clocks in at 7700 lbs

Joe, the answer for what you're looking is...ahh, I can't say it.

Doesn't Mercedes have a crash response team in Germany that investigates real-world accidents to see how their cars fare?

Zomby woof wrote: More importantly, does anybody (here) really buy a car based on crash ratings? I personally don't know anybody who does.

Solely on ratings? No. I wouldn't put my wife and kids in something that got bad ratings, though. Your lifetime odds of dying in a car accident are about 1:100. Buying a safe car is one of the better investments you can make.

An '01 Passat has about 16 fatalities per million vehicles per year. A '95 Geo Metro has 200 fatalities per million registered vehicles per year. Even taking into account the differences between how an average Metro driver drives and average Passat driver drives that's huge.

For what it's worth, the '01-0'04 Elantras fells at about 80-100 deaths per million vehicles. Lower middle of the pack. Not awful.

Source

Good point, but I'd rather see the fatalities per million miles driven - it's a more meaningful stat than mere ownership.

I agree with Joe about avoiding accidents instead of surviving them, and the profound need for better driver's education. I have twin 16 year old boys. They don't have their licenses yet because I'm not convinced they're ready.

My sons will not have texting capability as long as I'm paying for their cell phones, which they don't even have yet. I sent them to Drive Team, a very good driving school that gives them training way beyond what the state requires. I'm also sending them to DriveTeams winter driving course. Once they have their licenses, they'll be attending the Mid-Ohio School for more training. They've had off road go karts since they were 6 yrs old, and have been autocrossing a sprint kart for the past two years. They've been driving my crew cab dually and Ford 3000 tractor for several years on our property. I've done all that an more to prepare them, but I'm still not satisfied that they are ready, so they don't have their licenses.

I remember the things I did in a car when I was that age, and I'm lucky to be alive. I trust my sons, but to only an extent. So I'm also going to hide a datalogging GPS in the car so I know where it's been and how fast it's been driven. My job right now is to keep them alive until they are mature enough that I KNOW they are driving responsibly. My biggest problem is that they argue and fight all the time. If they do that in the car, it will be dangerous.

They are helping to rebuild the car that they will share, and it's a '90 Civic si. It will have upgraded brakes, suspension, tires, and horns. My theory has always been to equip a car the best I can to avoid accidents. The Civic doesn't have an airbag or anti-lock brakes, but it's a very capable car for avoiding accidents. Having ownership in the buiding of it will hopefully result in them taking better care of it while driving.

If I sound like I know what I'm doing, know that I don't feel like I do. If it sounds like I don't know what I'm doing, please offer suggestions! Sorry for the somewhat off-topic rant. I'm going to take my meds now.

1. Glad nobody was hurt.

2. Doubt that was 55 mph at impact. I have no doubt that sometime prior to the accident the car was going 55, but having seen an offset test at 30 mph, that isn't 55.

3. If you're going to hit a pole, head-on directly in the middle of the car is the way to go. Most possible distance from impact point to driver, an entire engine between you and danger, strongest point of the car, etc. Looks like that's what happened.

4. Looks like the windshield cracked, which leads me to believe there's some significant distortion to the passenger cabin. I'd be interested to see if the passenger floor/a or b-pillars/roof show any significant buckling. I bet they do.

5. Glad nobody was hurt.