2004 Honda Accord Vs. 2001 Chevrolet Venture/Pontiac Trans Sport Offset Crash Test (50% Overlap)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 лют 2025
- Going back and cleaning up some older footage with detailed photographs. Skip to 5:20 for just the Pre & Post Test photos.
A 50% overlap offset test performed at 60 Mph (100 Km/h)
Venture Driver-Passenger
HIC 815-178
Chest G's 43-38
Femur Loads N(L/R) 266/346-242/268
*Passenger door unlatched during impact, increasing the possibility of ejection*
Accord Driver-Passenger
HIC 379-134
Chest G's 39-39
Femur Loads N(L/R) 424/450-409/1101
Chevrolet Venture, Oldsmobile Silhouette, Vauxhall Sintra, Opel Sintra, Pontiac Montana, Pontiac Trans Sport, Chevrolet Trans Sport, and Buick GL8 are all vans from the second-generation GM U-Body/GMT200 vans produced between 1996 and 2005. (2000-2010 for Buick GL8)
That Chevrolet Venture/Pontiac Trans Sport/Pontiac Montana/Oldsmobile Silhouette is a death trap if it gets into an off-center collision! The IIHS test confirms this!
The Chevy Astro/GMC Safari were the exact same way... stay away from them '90s GM minivans!
@@kz1000ps But I always wanted a Dustbuster on wheels....
It’s always amazing to me how bad these vans did. Other GM cars from that time did OK in this type of crash. Did they just forget to design for it on the van??
@@kz1000ps the replacement Chevy Upalnder passed 40 mph moderate overlap.
@@normt5463 Uplander failed side crash test according to insurance institute.
I think Accord did a good job,,
Excellent Job on the Accord. No way would I be in that Chevrolet death trap.
@@interceptor-ss8kb if the Accord had a bigger v6 it might have been different as the 4-cylinder takes up less room providing more crumple zone.
The Venture was replaced by a 2007 Traverae that has passed 40 mph moderate offset crash test.
the replacement Chevy Upalnder passed 40 mph moderate overlap.
@@normt5463 Nope. I have both and they both did great. If there's any reason to believe they don't I am sure the Insurance institute would have done more tests.
@@normt5463 Too late to the game.
Wow look at that a A pillar just fold on the venture
And at 4:54 it looks like the door sill just snapped??
Legend has it that GM was originally planning on calling it the Accordion.
it folds like a wet paper plate
The same thing happened to the accord in 2004 when it was up against the 04 Trailblazer. All thru those comments, people said "the accord did very well". I wonder if those same Honda nut swingers would say the same about this Chevy van?
I think they both ended badly.
It actually performs slightly better with the addition of another sliding door.
Those sick bastards that were responsible for the design of the Pontiac Montana/Chevy Venture. How were they able to sleep at night knowing families would be driving in those vehicles. Mind you, shame on the people who bought them without doing the proper homework.
Easy there pal... the IIHS offset tests didn't start until 1995, this minivan design is from the mid-'90s, and pretty much every car before the late-'90s would fold up like this under similar tests. Nobody knew better until the IIHS started showing us results like these.
@@kz1000ps That said, the Venture did turn out to be the worst vehicle in those crash tests, which shows that GM put practically no thought into anything besides the NHTSA test. Not ALL cars failed the test, though most were lucky if they even got an Acceptable rating.
@@MaestroTJS You're absolutely correct. It's amazing/horrifying just how bad almost all GM vehicles were at the IIHS tests initially. Just one more thing to hate about 1980s-90s GM.
kz1000ps They knew how bad it was. When did the Montana/Venture/Uplander end??
Production ended in 2009
for this vehicle.
The comparison between the Accord and the Venture is just insane. While the Accord holds up really well. the Venture crumbles like a can. Mind the fact that the Accord is in a big disadvantage in terms of size, yet it looks like the cockpit is fine and the crumple zones did what they where supposed to, while in the Venture, the cockpit, IS the crumplezone.
Really makes you think if they didnt test them or it was done in pure evil, selling a minivan that was designed for families with such poor safety.
if the accord was going the same speed instead of parked, it would've folded the same, fatally
Way to go GM. Thanks for building an aluminum soda can in 2001. You expect crash tests results like this in the 1980's...not 2001. The Accord proves that the technology existed in the early 2000's to build safer cars. GM apparently missed that memo. Wow!
Hell, my 80's Mercedes would do worlds better than this piece of crap Chevy. Pretty sure even 80's Chevys would do better than this car. There's nothing safe about it, period.
@@somedudeinatunnel3102 I'm not sure an 80s Chevy with no airbags would do better. The driver is likely to suffer serious head and brain injuries and possibly skull fractures if they faceplate the steering wheel at 40 miles per hour, even with a 3-point seatbelt. However, your legs may survive.
@@hakeemsd70m Ahh don't say that, I love my aftermarket steering wheels..
@@somedudeinatunnel3102 Me too, I'm sorry about that. I just try not to think about stuff like this when I'm driving because of how much I love older and classic cars. What model is your Mercedes? I'd love to own an 80's W123-24 or W126 Diesel.
@@hakeemsd70m I don't think about it, I just enjoy the ride and if something happens, I accept the risks. I do feel safe in it, though. It's a 1981 300CD with a 4 speed manual swap. W123 chassis. I love the car but it needs a lot of work, I'm looking to get into a W201 Cosworth but they're not cheap.
I loved my 04 Oldsmobile Silhouette.. but this was A L W A Y S in the back of my mind when i was driving it
Inside the Venture is obviously where the party is at!!! 🥳
The City Morgue is where the after party 💀 is hosted!!!
We had a Chevy Venture for about 18 years. I guess we were lucky to never get into an accident. I'll always remember the winter storms it got us through.
I am repeatedly amazed of how well the seventh gen accords do in these crash tests.
only cuz they're parked. going the same speed 60, it will fold up just as deadly.
google "2004 accord head on wreck" pictures and you'll see the real life nasty results
So change the name from chevy venture. To chevy orphaner
@@normt5463 Uplander failed side crash test according to insurance institute.
Actually since it's a minivan
The kids probably wouldn't even have the chance to become orphans
@@midwestfarm757 in all fairness, mostly minivans in the mid-2000s faired very poorly without optional side airbags. But as you said, be Uplander only received a Marginal rating with side airbags, while other Vans like the Ford Freestar/Mercury Monterey and Toyota Sienna, got an Acceptable and Good rating, respectively.
@@hakeemsd70m The Venture/Montana/Sillouette were the worst. So bad Dateline had a special about them. They were terrible compared to the Caravan, Windstar, and Odyssey, etc. My uncle had a Montana and sold it because he drove a lot of 2 lane roads and didn't want to get seriously injured or killed.
@@midwestfarm757 Wow, I'll have to look into that epiosode of Dateline. It's a sad shame that GM would keep deathtrap trash on the market for 8 years. I'm real glad your uncle got rid of that hunk of junk while he could, congrats to him. What was his replacement vehicle if you don't mind me asking?
I’ve totaled a 2005 accord with my friend in the car with me and we both walked out without a scratch. I love this car !
this one was parked. if it was moving towards the venture at the same speed, it would fold just as fatally.
@@gabesmath105well almost any car would.
@@gabesmath105bro has beef with a 20 year old Honda 💀
It's not easy how ancient and subpar GM was until you step inside of a 2003 Accord and then step into any 2003 GM product and you have a hard time understanding that both vehicles not only sold at the same time but also at the same price
It's Ders Mane literally thought this very thing about the 2013 Chevy Impala. Seriously, google image that thing. Blows my mind.
That's very true when it comes to basic cars. Honda does not do well in upper-end cars!!!
Vernon Gamble your crazy ever heard of Accord EXL-V6 model. In NightHawkBlackPearl with Ivory/Taupe interior with Honda BirdEye wood. Most luxurious Honda vehicles ever made.
'04 accord had driver and passenger curtains when GM had those side impact party balloons in the seat
@@vernongamble1115 You've never been in any EX-L or touring model then.
My sister was hit by an 18 wheeler nearly head on at 60 mph in a 1992 Accord coupe in the rain. She was ok but with a neck injury that she wore a brace for a month. The strong cabin of that accord saved her life with only a driver's side airbag. The 2003 Chevy van designers should be questioned and possibly prosecuted.
Those Accords are amazing cars. I had a 1992 sedan and I always felt safe driving it. Virtually every American car of that era is garbage.
For the van, their serious flaw was with the bean counters. The van is technically classified as a light truck so they have different, less stringent safety standards, and the accountants knew they could save money by making it just barely pass. This is the result of cheaping out for Max profit
@@cpufreak101 Really? That's messed up!
@@somedudeinatunnel3102 #capitalismforya
Yeah I don't buy that story I used to work for a towing company any car from any maker isn't making it with a head on collision with just a neck injury. I have seen enough to know bullshit I detect indeed.
And some people wonder why more Americans choose Japanese and German brands over American. This proves why. We want to live!!!
That's a very vague and empty statement. As if the Japanese and Germans have never built any death traps... But even then, there's never an excuse for just how poorly The Venture and its platformmates perform in this crash.
Retarded statement. Research please.
the toyota previa did very bad as well. Just SLIGHTLY better than this.
Proof that crash tests are repeatable. Two different test centers were able to duplicate the same spectacular structural deformation.
And the award for the most unsafe minivan goes to...The Pontiac Trans Sport/Oldsmobile Silhouette/Chevy Venture!
Wow, the accord is actually fixable... While the venture was recycled into another Honda Civic...
Repairable maybe in russia lol
@@normt5463 Never seen one at copart.
By the time most people knew what Copart was, these things had already competed their short existence and been parted out in an A1/pick&pull yard. Haven’t seen one on the road in over 10 years lol
@@bw8632 Chevrolet Venture or Honda Accord? I still see plenty of Honda Accords. I even saw a 1988 at Copart last week.
@@midwestfarm757 I was referring to the Venture. Should have clarified in the first place. I still see Accord's everywhere
The two vehicles were made the same year but the van looks like an 80s dumpster while the Accord could pass for a 2010 car.
The Honda was made in 2004 and the venture was made in 2001
A three year difference isn't that much since the venture was made until 2004.
So a 7 year difference in design.
did you even read it, the Honda was a 2004, the Venture was a 2001...
The venture’s design is older than that.
I'm sure it's "comforting" for Venture/Trans Sport owners to know that in the event of an offset collision, they can expect the firewall to move rearward by a foot or more. It's interesting to note in the underside shot that the front subframe held up fine, it was the floorpan it was attached to that buckled
Buy American, drive American, die American! Give me an over engineered import/import-product over American in-name made vehicle ANY day!
Yes I DO realize the Accord is American made, so is the Altima, and Camry, etc. which is why the statement ‘American-in-name’ is so relevant here! And Yes, I’ve driven my share of PLENTY of domestic (American made) vehicles as well as imports so the opinions don’t come from blind judgement or bias. Just because a Ford Focus is made and assembled in Germany also doesn’t make it safer than an American made Nissan Sentra either!
The Honda Accord tested here is American, FYI.
Drive American is stupid. Drive what is best. Besides many foreign automakers build here in the US.
@@asdax8311 That was his point. If you want to "buy American" you are buying a Honda Accord or a Toyota Camry. Even the US trucks are outsourced mostly to mexico and canada. GM is likely gonna be a chinese company in a few years anyway.
I agree buy a Marysville, Ohio born and bred Accord.
That honda is probably more American than that GM junk.
GM junk.
They’re new stuff isn’t junk. My brother was going 60MPH and hit a tree in a 2019 Blazer and walked away.
He is talking about old ones that are purely junk not the new ones
My dad had a 2001 Chevy Venture LS, he got it for cheap. It had the 3.1L V6. It blew a head gasket 6 months after he bought it. The month after it was fixed the head gasket on the other cylinder bank went. The glove compartment doors and interior trim pieces just sort of came off in your hand. The alternator died leaving us stranded. Then we drove it on 3 cylinders when the fuel pump quit on us. All of these issues happened in a one year span. Finally the van was T-boned in a traffic accident and my dad got a Honda odyssey.
Accord FTW!!! I miss my ol' 7th gen, just like this one. Most dependable car I've ever owned.
The damage at the chevy venture is the same one as the pontiac transports
Because it was
I have this exact same silver Accord!!!! Looks like I would be alive while sadly, the people in the van would not. GO HONDA!
This test looks identical to the IIHS test of this van. I was supposed that the door popped open.
This makes me happy I purchased a vehicle on their Top Safety Pick + vehicles.
Thank you for the POST TEST signs!
How is it possible that the femur load readings are much lower in the venture than the reading in the accord? Specially looking at the footwell of the venture.
Ian Eyd more space in the foot well area
Norm T no the foot wall where your feet go there is more space for the impact to eat up then in the accord and if this van had better crumble zones it would of made a HUGE difference
Iihs tested the pontiac transport / montana / chevy venture / oldsmobile sillowete / opel
It got a poor and shows the head snapping back and the footwell was puches back 19 inches causing leg injuries abd the issue was that the driver left leg was trapped
Mini van same as European Opel/Vauxhall Sintra it was deemed poor safety, the Honda did very well indeed, also to consider Honda is lower down than the mini van it’ was technically at disadvantage.
The chevy venture/pontiac transport/oldsmobile shoulette's door opened is that worst
Just goes to show what a difference few years can do. The Venture was introduced in 1996 and the Accord in 2002. It's only six years but the Euro NCAP program was started in 1997 and it clearly influenced the safety of car models designed and introduced after that.
Man that van is a death trap!! The Honda did really well.
it did well because it had no moving energy, if going 60 like the venture, it will fold just as deadly.
google "2004 accord head on wreck" pictures and you'll see the real life nasty results
When did they stop using film for these crash tests?
Chevrolet Venture/ Pontiac Montana/ oldsmobile silhouette are terrible vehicles in a wreck. My aunt had one and died in a t-bone with a 90s civic
Wow that's sad. I hope your family stays away from Garbage Motors. Think of the hundreds who were murdered driving Chevy Cobalts.
If you want to go chevy vs honda
there was a chevy tahoe 1993 hit a 90s honda accord
lets just say the people in the accord left in body bags because they were ejected . there was very little damage to the tahoe looked repairable the tahoe was going 55mph... the accord "flew about 50-75feet away!" the honda made an unsafe u turn..
@@punker4Real have you ever heard of momentum? It's dependent on mass and velocity. A 5,000 pound truck moving at 55 hitting a 3,000 pound accord is not good news just as a 15,000 pound semi truck hitting a Tahoe wouldn't be good news either buddy.
@@punker4Real That's what happens when you don't wear seatbelts, in addition to getting hit by a vehicle that weighs 1.5x the amount.
@@waverunner7063 most of my family is very strong ford fans
Why the yellow line on the front screen?
Accord got this one. Looks like the van was a base, shortie. Would an extended LT fare worse because of the extra weight behind it??
I know of half a family was killed in a Venture, extended. Old lady pulled out on the freeway making an illegal U turn. Venture van same crumpling.
The minivan’s heavier and bigger than the accord, and it still lost. The structure basically collapsed.
This video is anti-American propaganda.
@@saxopio6280 The 2005 Chevy Uplander/Pontiac Montana SV6/Buick Terraza/Saturn Relay passed this offset test with nearly flying colors, except that the dummy hit the steering wheel through the airbag. Still, the vans got a Good rating. Much better than the deathtrap Venture.
@@hakeemsd70m Thanx for the info.
@@saxopio6280 Anytime.
@@hakeemsd70m They still should have redesigned the van from the ground up. Too much in common with the old van and sales were bad.
My aunt actually got into an accident in a venture. So heres the story shortened
The van belonged to my grandma and when my aunt borrowed it an idiot ran a stoplight and hit the van when my she was driving. Fortunately my aunt lived to tell the story (in fact she is still living to this day) but the van has since been in a junkyard (it was like 2011 when it happened)
Imagine what would happen if the accord was the car to hit the van. The standing car always takes more damage as mass increases with speed/velocity. Accord would probably rip it to pieces!!!
no imagine the accord at the same speed 60 instead of parked. would be just as deadly.
GM should be ashamed. The GM design remained the same through 2004 so in theory even a newer Montana or Venture would do just as bad. The 2005 redesign of the Venture (Uplander)/Montana/Relay did do better in the overlap test but bad in the side test! to think this "family" vehicle is so dangerous is quite disturbing.
However if you look at the loads placed on the femur (from the video description) it seems the Venture did better. I guess it's because the footwell area is smaller in the Accord. But the Gs are what kill you in a crash, not a broken foot or leg.
Excellent job Honda, Glad to have once owned that model year Accord
A lot of people don't know this, but the opening of the doors on the Chevrolet was a safety feature exclusive of Chevy vehicles at the time that allowed the occupants to more easily escape the vehicle in the event of a crash. American engineering at its finest!
It's hard to detect the sarcasm in your comment :P :D
@@gentle285 the replacement Chevy Upalnder passed 40 mph moderate overlap.
@@normt5463 Uplander failed side crash test according to insurance institute.
Actually the doors were engineered to fly open upon impact and eject mom and the kids away from the crash site to the relative safety of a nearby ditch or field
@@mikecastellon3022 Or oncoming traffic..............
Deformation of the U-Body GM minivan in this test is remarkably like that of the IIHS test. And crazy that the Accord had lower injury loads than the heavier minivan. Truly, this vehicle was/is an embarrassment to GM.
As an owner of a Honda Accord, I can say that these are crash magnets
I didn't expect a Honda of that age to have side airbags.
Yea, my 2003 does
Honda introduced driver and front passenger side airbags for the US market all the way back in 1998. Full side curtains were introduced in 03.
@muzikkphreakk
no, driver bag in 92, pass in 94
Which one is the post-test Chevy? Hard to tell based on the pictures alone.
Accord won this, just as I expected. Now why in the hell would someone buy an ugly ass chevy venture, knowing how unsafe they are, when you could get something like an accord that’s safer, more reliable, and not to mention cooler.
Right, no kidding! You could buy 90's or even early 2000's Accord for the same price some people are asking for these death-vans. There's no comparison!
It's pretty difficult to think of any 1990s/early 2000s GM cars that held up well in crashes. The bastards even managed to make some Saabs unsafe.
'
car and van are different weight of crash push so hard...
both are so thin metal bodys and weaknesses...
are both has the motors or empty space
Chevys have majorly improved in the last 3 or 4 years... thank God
that's been the sales pitch at the Chevy dealer since I bought my first couple new Chevy's back in 1990. My first new GM and my last. Toyota's, Nissan's (when they were good), and now my kids drive a BMW 3 series and Subaru. I did buy my son a Chevy truck for his power wash business, but I bought it so cheap and it hardly gets driven except when he has jobs.
The Chevy did not “venture” too well in this. It should have never “ventured” against the Accord haha
Why does the start of this video remind me of the old black and white film of the alien autopsy?
Those minivans, the Astro van and C/K pick ups were the worst permorfers that year along the Galant, Cavalier and some more
1:59 Why did the door fly open?
A pillar deformation
I'm I the only one who noticed that the passengers door popped open at 1:11
Alternate title: Little Honda tanks a van like it's nothing.
Are they for sale
make a video on a 2001 gmc Yukon denail xl
When you consider physics, and the Honda was stationary, how much help did that van need? Can only imagine if the Honda had been the moving vehicle.
since both vehicles are of similar weight, physics wont care which one was moving.
Not defending the GM crap in any way, just sayin.
Imagine how bad the damage to that death trap would be if it were actually a wall that doesnt move? I wonder if the van would even be recognizeable?
@@twoeightythreez 'During a collision, the impulse which an object experiences is equal to its velocity change. ... Total momentum is always conserved between any two objects involved in a collision. When a moving object collides with a stationary object of identical mass, the stationary object encounters the greater collision force.'
@@twoeightythreez similar weight? that van was 2 tons compare to 1.5 for the accord. I guess a 1000 lb difference don't mean anything
@@chrisbasinger181 the honda weighs more than 3000lb and van might weigh 4000
But that makes things even worse for the van, being it did so badly being hit by an object of lesser mass 😆
Early 2000s. Such an embarrassment to the US market. Honda was serious on safety during this time at the right moment starting in 2003 with this Accord. Nice to see US is back up to par because of these test.
Hey, it's one of those crappy Vauxhall Sintras.
Those were actually pulled from the European market after crash tests exposed just how unsafe these were. In the US, sales continued however.
But why not test a 2001 vs 2001? Something smells here. I'm pretty sure the honda is a newer design
That’s at least a 2003 Accord. 02 and down was more square in comparison.
@@bw8632 yea that is what I was thinking. I think this was just another show to shame domestic auto makers
@@Emilthehun They were shamed on prime time news outlets back in 1997. GM knew there was serious problems and never bothered to update the van. Other companies have been able to change a design within a year to fix dangerous problems.
Why does the footage look like it was recorded in 1965?
Certain NHTSA facilities used 16mm film up into the mid-2000's. I have no control over the quality of the footage but I did edit the film-quality clips to be more stable and remove the film border.
That was such a nice accord:'(
A lot of people say how poorly these do, but keep in mind these were based on the U platform (the venture, lumina, etc.). Its a _very_ dated design, back from when your Honda Accord was just as deadly. A few GM cars do stand out as being quite safe from that era, such as the 3rd gen F-bodies, which held up well and had airbags towards the end of the model run.
ln China Chevrolet venture actually is GL8 of Buick.
My girlfriend in high school had a Montana and having seen the IIHS crash test ratings I NEVER rode with her once.
My uncle traded his 1 year old Transport in right away after the news media attention.
@@midwestfarm757 Smart. Try telling a 16 year old girl the car her parents got for ner is ✨ unsafe ✨ though.
@@simonaldridge4099 Yeah it's unfortunate, because most kids cannot afford a very expensive car. One story that comes to mind is a young woman who got a 2004 Mazda 3. Broadsided on freeway and was killed instantly. It was a winter storm. Those older 3's didnt do to well, and to my knowledge no side curtain airbags on the older ones. Sadly a month later we had another Mazda 3 '04/05 accident near us and the driver was broadsided. Dead as well. Very sad.
The chevy is a pile of dangerous junk. The Honda Accord has done are really good job.
The Accord was a 4-cylinder while a V6 would have hit the shins of the front passengers.
the replacement Chevy Upalnder passed 40 mph moderate overlap.
@@normt5463 and the replacement Accord was even safer what's your point?? Chevys are junk hence why they are struggling in the market today because people have moved on from unreliable badly made Gm trash.
@@interceptor-ss8kb Norm is a big GM fan no matter what the issue is. He would have happily had his family drive the 97 Venture because pride blocks common sense.
Honestly surprised UA-cam didn't filter out his comments as spam, had to clear out at least a dozen or so comments saying the same exact thing. We get it, the Uplander performed better in the moderate overlap. However his comments saying a four-cylinder and six-cylinder would be different isn't exactly true. Granted the front collapsed significantly, but in most scenarios, the result would be the same, regardless of a larger or smaller engine. Worst case, the engine would've deformed the firewall maybe 5-10% more and the dashboard would've been displaced very little. Usually an aluminum engine "shatters" before causing major occupant compartment failure.
One example of this "shattering" effect; I recently saw a heavy frontal impact of a 2016-present Tacoma into the back of a box van, the bumper and frame loaded the step bumper of said box truck and shoved it under. However, because there was no additional reinforcement, the Tacoma's frame slid under the frame of the box truck and only the cab structure and engine struck the body/frame of the box truck. The engine and transmission moved rearward and downward at a steep angle, still leaving a sizeable dent in the firewall. But the amazing thing was even with the rearward displacement, the timing cover and #1 & #2 cylinders were shattered open from the impact and there wasn't any noticeable intrusion in the cabin.
I understand Tacomas and Accords are two completely different vehicles, but figured I'd share something from experience.
@@interceptor-ss8kb Chevy outsells Honda by two times as much.
Not really a fair comparison using a Honda that's 3 years newer. Should be equal years. However I blame the government for setting sub par standards for 2001 allowing those other vehicles to pass during that model year
2004 Venture vs 2004 Accord would be the same result as you see here... that body style of Venture was made from 1997-2005. This test was conducted in 2004, so both vehicles were the then current body style. I suspect they used an '01 Venture to save money, because the results would be the same as a then-brand new Venture.
Honda safety was FAR ahead of GM safety in 2004, today the gap's closed quite a lot between the two, GM vehicles are generally very safe nowadays, but Honda's still a bit safer on average. In 2004 Honda's full lineup made Good IIHS offset ratings, the Civic, Accord, CR-V, Odyssey, Element, and Pilot were all Good. The Insight wasn't tested but it was a very low selling car. The Acura TL, TSX, and MDX also scored Good, the only vehicle that scored less than Good was the Acceptable rated Acura RL that had been sold since 1996 and was getting redesigned the next year. Meanwhile GM had a mix of all ratings in 2004, their newer designs were typically Good but they still had a lot of older designs that got Poor and Marginal ratings. The Chevy Cavalier, Pontiac Grand Am, Chevy Venture, Chevy Astro, Chevy Blazer and all badge engineered versions of these vehicles got a Poor, the Chevy Trailblazer and Chevy Silverado and GMC versions of those vehicles were Marginal, while the Chevy Malibu, Cadillac Seville, and Chevy Colorado were scoring Good then.
Imagine if they'd waited a few months and crashed a brand new 2005 Honda Odyssey into a 2005 (or any year back to 1997) Chevy Venture, 40 mph offset each! The Odyssey came with advanced front airbags, side and curtain airbags, and the ACE body structure to distribute impact more effectively. It did great in crash tests by 2005 standards! I suspect that the driver of the Odyssey would walk away (well, the dummy forces would suggest that) and the driver of the Venture would be dead or seriously injured (forces on the dummy would be very high)
March 28, 2019 12:31 am
@@whattheheck1000 They should have used a 1997 Accord and a 1997 Venture. That would have been a fair comparison test.
Venturing to heaven
'04 Honda had side impact curtains, while GM had those party balloons stuffed in the front seats.... That's why I drive foreign cars
The old timey graphics aren't really needed on this video and kinda of take away from it.
That's how the footage is. Can't do anything about it.
CarPro1993 Gotcha. Thought maybe it was an effect you added. My apologies.
Why are crash test done at such slow speed and not highway speeds? Why aren't the rear tested same as front to protect children in back from a rear end crash? I see many 18 wheelers run red lights here, that is scary.
If you get into a crash like this at highway speeds, you are most likely dead no matter how well the car holds up, thats why. 40mph is the upper survivability limit.
Maybe 40mph is an average speed of a crash. The majority of highway accidents do not occur at 60 or 70mph, but after a brief period of braking or skidding. That's just my theory, though.
@twoeightythreez
umm...no. just no.
look up adrian lund's BMW wreck
The venture did the same damn thing the Pontiac transport did in the IIHS offset test, and the whole thing collapsed and surprised me, maybe the Honda did better? Who knows.
The honda did better since the passenger compartment wasn't compromised.
It said the video had no sound and it did
I own the exact same accord😅 good to know I'm not gonna die unlike GM shitbox
Unless you get hit from the side... Then your dead 💁
this must have been merely for entertainment value cuz when the hell was the last time you saw one of these GM minivans that wasn't up on blocks in a trailer park?
That venture looks like a death trap. Folded up like a soda can.
This video used CGI to make American cars look like crap. It's only anti-American propaganda. Crazy, cause the Accord was built in America too. But no hate for the Accord. Just GM bashing.
Absolutely pathetic GM was still selling such a death trap in 2001. Good on Honda for their safe Accord, A pillar hardly budged.
The honda looks safer but the dummies were killed instantly from the shrapnel in the recalled airbags.
GM was one of the worst in terms of safety from the 90s- early 2000s. Meaning, Marginals and Poor ratings across a majority of their fleet. Not only did they make unsafe cars, they always made excuses to the iihs that all of their cars, "meet or exceed federal safety standards..." The only GM platform from the 90s design timeframe that got good ratings was the W body vehicles (lumina, regal, century, Impala). That might partially be why the W body was one of the only 90s GM platforms to last well into the 2010s. The Blazer, 1500s, Venture, Astro, Cavalier, tahoe/suburban, trailblazer, malibu (including their various platform mates) were all poor performers in this era. I'd say the venture was the worse out of all of them. It wasn't until the early-mid 2000s that they started trying to make attempts on building safer cars. The last gen lesabre was probably one of the first non W body cars to rise in ranks. My opinion, gm got lucky with the W body. I don't think they really meant to make it safe, i think it might have been luck in many ways. They were probably just as shocked as the iihs when the lumina was rated good 🤣
That honda did a awesome job
And my 2012 vw passat was a safe car
The Venture is missing the Right-Rear-Tail-Light !
Thats what caused the A pillar to collapse, FACT !!
.
Chris Fixx, and Scotty Kilmer will back me up on this.
The Japanese were just so far ahead of everyone when it came to making good cars reliable and safe but not always the most exciting . I would choose honda or toyota cars over any other brand.
The U vans were absolute junk from a crash structure engineering standpoint. They were introduced for 1997 and sold thru 2005. Literally has to be the last mass-market car on the USDM without a decently engineered crush zone design, both introduction date wise and availability wise.
That said, the N-body was introduced later and crashed almost as poorly.
Everything else that was tested in the late 90s and performed similarly badly that I can think of was introduced years earlier than the U-body and also left the market earlier.
the replacement Chevy Upalnder passed 40 mph moderate overlap. The Chevy Traverse also passed.
@@normt5463 Uplander failed side crash test according to insurance institute.
It sucks but it's just a fact that US vehicles do not stand up to many of their foreign competitors when it comes to crash test ratings. Granted, this van has 18 year old engineering but even if you look at IIHS's 2019 top picks, only one US vehicle (Lincoln Continental) is in the running. The other 30 or so, from compact sedans to full size SUV's, are largely Asian (Toyota, Subaru, Honda, Kia, Hyundai). There's a few German ones in there too. Audi's and Merc SUV's and mid-size sedans.
European cars are generally the safest because they excel in emergency handling situations and are innovators in safety technology.
Age of engineering doesn't matter. 70's Mercedes and Volvos are worlds safer than this Trans Am, guarantee it, and those are 40 year old designs. The difference is that one was built with quality and safety in mind, the other was built as cheaply as possible.
Could have used those accord headlights. Bummer
I know right?!?! I was like *NNNOOOOOO!!!* lol
Imagine if none of the cameras were rolling
These vans had NO inner reinforcement in the rocker and floor area. That's why they folded up so bad. Unsafe design. I wonder how many people were killed because of it.
GM needs to hurry up and go out of Business and die already. Honda is Real American Company now and has been since 1970’s.
More of these pls
m proud of my choice to have this accord.
Looks like the crumple zone on the venture includes the cabin too lol
no wonder pontiac when out of business
This was under the brand's opel, Chevy, oldsmobile, Buick, and Pontiac. How is this Pontiacs fault. It's simply a rebadged version of the venture as the Montana or transport.
So misinformed
@@unluckyabsol the replacement Chevy Upalnder passed 40 mph moderate overlap.
@@normt5463 yup, I saw one ram into a pole at 50. Driver was shocked but walked away
no bruh i dunno they went bankrupt in 2009 and asked the gov't for a bailout but it had to let go of certain brands. Honestly, though they should've spared Pontiac and killed Buick.
The driver of the venture would have critical head and chest injuries as well as a broken leg
The accord driver would only have minor leg injuries and probably would have been able to walk away
wouldn't have walked away if going as fast as the venture. it would fold up just as deadly.
google "2004 accord head on wreck" pictures and you'll see the real life nasty results
Honda is always better.
That was violent
Accord for life