I was very impressed with the way the Ford Taurus and Ford Contour handled that test. The Taurus was relatively new at the time and had the stiffest body of any American car at the time except the Oldsmobile Aurora/Buick Riviera. The Taurus' structure is stiffer than its big sisters structure which it shares basic bones with, the Lincoln Continental. No surprise the Taurus did better than the Continental in the same test and cost half as much. 3,300lbs vs 3,900lbs. Proof that heavier cars aren't always better because their extra weight causes the structure to crush itself more than it should. You want a lightweight large midsized car with a very stiff body for the best results. The Contour dates back to 1993 when it was out in Europe sold as Mondeo. It had to undergo significant modifications to be sold in North America and it paid off. It's more of a large small car rather than a small midsized car. Ford advertised at the time, for both models, their "solid import car feel". The Chevrolet Lumina/Pontiac Grand Prix are sister cars and did very well as they were relatively new models too. The only reason why the Lumina scored slightly better than the Grand Prix is because it had the lighter narrower 60° 3100 V6 under its hood. The Grand Prix had rhe heavier wider 90° 3800 V6 under its hood. The wheelbase and bare bones are identical for both. Proof wider fwd engines cause more footwell intrusion as evidenced here. They did well though. The Toyota Camry/Avalon were next best. Relatively new models and very lightweight. The Honda Accord disappointed me with how its rear structure buckled. Surprising because it's all new for 1998 and only weighs 3,000lbs. The Nissan Maxima was a few years old and did acceptable in my opinion, but could have been better since it too weighs 3,000lbs. The Mazda Millennia was a few years old like the Max & it performed exactly like i thought it would. Not as good as the American brands but not as bad as the lighter Accord & Maxima. The Subaru Legacy, Mitsubishi Galant & Hyundai Sonata were the some of the oldest cars of the bunch and cheapest too. Proof you get what you pay for. Their all new models for 1999+ did perform significantly better. I was very disappointed with that Volvo 900 series. It is the oldest car of the bunch and didn't perform as well as Volvo's safety hype suggested it would back then. Again, its redesigned successor handled the same test with top marks.
Good: Chevrolet Lumina, Volvo 850, Ford Taurus, Toyota Camry & Volkswagen Passat Acceptable: Mazda Millenia, Subaru Legacy, Pontiac Grand Prix, Toyota Avalon, Nissan Maxima & Honda Accord Marginal: Saab 900 Poor: Chevrolet Cavalier, Chrysler Cirrus, Mitsubishi Galant & Hyundai Sonata
Another fun fact the 1995 tested on Volkswagen, Passat, Nissan, maximum and Honda Accord Nissan and Volkswagen poor rating on 1995 Hyundai is rated as acceptable on 1995
Sad how bad the Saab did structurally. Yes, it's a 1993 design, but the Volvo is an early 90s design too and looks (and performs) much better. I remember the 900 being not excellent in older tests against rigid barriers as well, so for me it's an example of GM ruining the brand.
@@gabesmath105 Overall evaluation P Structure and safety cage M Driver injury measures Head/neck G Chest G Leg/foot, left P Leg/foot, right P Driver restraints and dummy kinematics G
Taurus and Camry looks to of done the best
I was very impressed with the way the Ford Taurus and Ford Contour handled that test. The Taurus was relatively new at the time and had the stiffest body of any American car at the time except the Oldsmobile Aurora/Buick Riviera. The Taurus' structure is stiffer than its big sisters structure which it shares basic bones with, the Lincoln Continental. No surprise the Taurus did better than the Continental in the same test and cost half as much. 3,300lbs vs 3,900lbs. Proof that heavier cars aren't always better because their extra weight causes the structure to crush itself more than it should. You want a lightweight large midsized car with a very stiff body for the best results. The Contour dates back to 1993 when it was out in Europe sold as Mondeo. It had to undergo significant modifications to be sold in North America and it paid off. It's more of a large small car rather than a small midsized car. Ford advertised at the time, for both models, their "solid import car feel". The Chevrolet Lumina/Pontiac Grand Prix are sister cars and did very well as they were relatively new models too. The only reason why the Lumina scored slightly better than the Grand Prix is because it had the lighter narrower 60° 3100 V6 under its hood. The Grand Prix had rhe heavier wider 90° 3800 V6 under its hood. The wheelbase and bare bones are identical for both. Proof wider fwd engines cause more footwell intrusion as evidenced here. They did well though. The Toyota Camry/Avalon were next best. Relatively new models and very lightweight. The Honda Accord disappointed me with how its rear structure buckled. Surprising because it's all new for 1998 and only weighs 3,000lbs. The Nissan Maxima was a few years old and did acceptable in my opinion, but could have been better since it too weighs 3,000lbs. The Mazda Millennia was a few years old like the Max & it performed exactly like i thought it would. Not as good as the American brands but not as bad as the lighter Accord & Maxima. The Subaru Legacy, Mitsubishi Galant & Hyundai Sonata were the some of the oldest cars of the bunch and cheapest too. Proof you get what you pay for. Their all new models for 1999+ did perform significantly better. I was very disappointed with that Volvo 900 series. It is the oldest car of the bunch and didn't perform as well as Volvo's safety hype suggested it would back then. Again, its redesigned successor handled the same test with top marks.
15:49 deadly
Airbags kept the forces on the head and chest low
@@titan9259 nice
The 1999 Mitsubishi Galant now earn an acceptable rating
The 1999 Mitsubishi Galant now earn an acceptable rating
It's almost scary how I have memorized the ratings for most of these cars
OMG DAVID T
WTF Saab 900😭 If you want safe Saab looks like bigger Saab 9-5 is way to go.
Good: Chevrolet Lumina, Volvo 850, Ford Taurus, Toyota Camry & Volkswagen Passat
Acceptable: Mazda Millenia, Subaru Legacy, Pontiac Grand Prix, Toyota Avalon, Nissan Maxima & Honda Accord
Marginal: Saab 900
Poor: Chevrolet Cavalier, Chrysler Cirrus, Mitsubishi Galant & Hyundai Sonata
Fun fact the Mitsubishi Galant and a Hyundai Sonata earns both acceptable rating on 1999
Another fun fact the 1995 tested on Volkswagen, Passat, Nissan, maximum and Honda Accord Nissan and Volkswagen poor rating on 1995 Hyundai is rated as acceptable on 1995
Fun fact the 1997 Toyota Camry was tested on 1996 you can see the steering wheel was orange
the 1995 honda accord was rated acceptable as well as it's successor the 1998 honda accord
the 1995 nissan maxima was rated poor, while it's successor the 1998 nissan maxima was rated acceptable
Sad how bad the Saab did structurally. Yes, it's a 1993 design, but the Volvo is an early 90s design too and looks (and performs) much better. I remember the 900 being not excellent in older tests against rigid barriers as well, so for me it's an example of GM ruining the brand.
Swedish engineered 99/900 s were death traps as we're the rebadged mildly disquised Opel-Vauxhall Astra...which was called Saab 900, etc.
Saab was supposibly known for safety..i guess the fan boys thought so anyway...
berapa rating nya?
Wow Ford did good for 90s cars.
Except for the Contour which earned a poor rating
@@titan9259 only cuz of the foot intrusion. But stucturally acceptable
@@gabesmath105 marginal*
@@titan9259 i meant it looked ok
@@gabesmath105 Overall evaluation
P
Structure and safety cage
M
Driver injury measures
Head/neck
G
Chest
G
Leg/foot, left
P
Leg/foot, right
P
Driver restraints and dummy kinematics
G
saab 900
Marginal