I am so glad to hear you appreciate them. I lost a classmate to a car accident in 1997. It was my first exposure to a life being lost in that manner, and it shook me. Since then, I've been an advocate for safer vehicles and these videos helped whenever someone I knew was looking to purchase a vehicle. I convinced more than one person to change the vehicle they were looking at based on these tests and videos.
Amazing how much cars have improved. This doesn't seem that long ago but these cars would all be obliterated in a small overlap test; now basically everything new is acing both frontal IIHS tests.
@InvisibleMinority: I wouldn't say obliterated. They would maybe get a Marginal and definetly many would get Poor in the small overlap crash test. But more than half the cars manufactured and tested after 2012 did score Poor and Marginal anyway in IIHS's small overlap crash-test.
I used to love watching these videos, especially when the manufacturers would get defensive in their response letters. So even though the Maxima can break your legs, it still gets acceptable? Wow.
Because dummy movement was well controlled, the 96 Grand Caravan and 96 Grand Cherokee had the same problems but they got marginal ratings due to steering wheel problems
It actually should have gotten a Marginal. If you plug the individual ratings into their calculator, it comes out at just below the Acceptable threshold.
The Maxima being acceptable with two broken legs boggles the mind. How are two broken legs "acceptable" when the competition fairs significantly better? I know two people who have lost lower legs when the tire/wheel came back enough to crush them. I also know a couple who lost three legs between them from a crash in a VW bus. Their legs were the crumple zones.
@@titan9259 If I remember correctly, Nissan was redesigning the Pathfinder when the 1996 SUV episode aired, so it wasn’t tested at that time, but shortly after. I think the original Montero was tested around the same time because it also wasn’t included in that lineup. When Mitsubishi redesigned the Montero for 2001, it was shown on Dateline along with the first gen X5, new Xterra and redesigned Trooper. I used to have that episode, but sadly I can’t find it. It’s one of my faves.
Any vehicle that scores a Poor rating for the Head/Neck automatically receives a Poor overall rating. Under the current rating system, the Maxima should be rated Marginal. Being it was tested 22 years ago, the scale may have shifted since then.
@@carsandcrashtests I think that the force and deformation values for a specific rating is the same since 1997. No point in changing something which is perfectly thought out since the beginning.
@@carsandcrashtests yep, I was referring specifically to this test only. I think for today’s standards it would get definitely a Poor. Today’s cars safety cage barely deforms. I was impressed by how weak the Lincoln structure was.
@@ford2219 the Lincoln’s structure wasn’t weak, and it wouldn’t be rated poor, even today. The intrusion measurements verify that. Engineers have just learned to make structures even stronger.
No surprise that America's baby led the pack again like it did for its 1st, 2nd & 3rd generation models, the Taurus. Many people wish Ford jad spent more money beefing up its transmissions like it has done so well beefing up its body structure 😂😂😂😂😂. If you know, you know. That said, i dealt with the iffy transmissions because they're very safe and reliable cars nonetheless. Had 5 of them. The LS did better than i thought because it's a reskinned Jaguar. European cars do not perform as well as American cars in American style crash tests but Ford made sure to beef it up and it paid off.
I appreciate you sharing these videos. For years as a kid these were my go to videos, I was always so interested in car safety!
I am so glad to hear you appreciate them. I lost a classmate to a car accident in 1997. It was my first exposure to a life being lost in that manner, and it shook me. Since then, I've been an advocate for safer vehicles and these videos helped whenever someone I knew was looking to purchase a vehicle. I convinced more than one person to change the vehicle they were looking at based on these tests and videos.
I watch these videos add a kid too I was like seven and I probably binge watched it over and over I learn a lot about cars safety from these videos
Same here! I loved to watch these videos when I was younger and I still do today!
Amazing how much cars have improved. This doesn't seem that long ago but these cars would all be obliterated in a small overlap test; now basically everything new is acing both frontal IIHS tests.
@InvisibleMinority: I wouldn't say obliterated. They would maybe get a Marginal and definetly many would get Poor in the small overlap crash test. But more than half the cars manufactured and tested after 2012 did score Poor and Marginal anyway in IIHS's small overlap crash-test.
3:13 Lincoln LS
4:15 Toyota Avalon
5:07 ford Taurus
5:45 Nissan Sentra
6:36 Mazda mpv
7:52 Nissan maxima
9:06 Isuzu rodeo
Just found out that Chris Chan and the iihs are located in the same county
Ah great here I go watching this at 3:00 A.M. again...
I used to love watching these videos, especially when the manufacturers would get defensive in their response letters.
So even though the Maxima can break your legs, it still gets acceptable? Wow.
Because dummy movement was well controlled, the 96 Grand Caravan and 96 Grand Cherokee had the same problems but they got marginal ratings due to steering wheel problems
It actually should have gotten a Marginal. If you plug the individual ratings into their calculator, it comes out at just below the Acceptable threshold.
Yeah. It’s funny especially considering all the manufactures agree with the tests now.
@@justabarefootcollegeboy4934 because now their engineering has improved
😂
On the road you can tell cars don’t seem as thin
The Maxima being acceptable with two broken legs boggles the mind. How are two broken legs "acceptable" when the competition fairs significantly better? I know two people who have lost lower legs when the tire/wheel came back enough to crush them. I also know a couple who lost three legs between them from a crash in a VW bus. Their legs were the crumple zones.
This was 23 years ago. Back then if the car got a Marginal rating bc of that then the companies wouldn't count that as fair.
@@gamingwitharlen2267 Which is ironic since according to the IIHS rating calculator the 1995 Ford Contour shouldn't be rated poor but rather marginal.
Ok so what's your point?@@titan9259
Very cool videos!
Keep Going
More will be added soon 🙂 thx for subscribing.
@@carsandcrashtests thank U
@@carsandcrashtests What Else Do U Have ???????????
A seat airbag all the way back in 1999. (assuming they built a couple of those 2000 Maximas in 1999)
Why don’t you show the consumer alerts on the IIHS 5 mph bumper tests?
If I had those videos, I would. :-)
Wait.
Which Dateline Consumer Alert features the Pontiac Grand Am?
The Lincoln deformed in a weird way. But it looks nice. :D
Can you do 1999 Small SUV crashes?
I don’t have the 1999 Small SUV’s but I do have the 2002-2003 models.
@@carsandcrashtests Anything from the Pathfinder & Montero crashes?
@@titan9259 If I remember correctly, Nissan was redesigning the Pathfinder when the 1996 SUV episode aired, so it wasn’t tested at that time, but shortly after. I think the original Montero was tested around the same time because it also wasn’t included in that lineup. When Mitsubishi redesigned the Montero for 2001, it was shown on Dateline along with the first gen X5, new Xterra and redesigned Trooper. I used to have that episode, but sadly I can’t find it. It’s one of my faves.
@@carsandcrashtests the 96 Montero was tested in June 1996 and the Pathfinder was tested in January 1997
6:36 Dark Tunnel 6:21 Light Tunnel
I don’t get how the maxima got acceptable and rodeo got poor??
Any vehicle that scores a Poor rating for the Head/Neck automatically receives a Poor overall rating. Under the current rating system, the Maxima should be rated Marginal. Being it was tested 22 years ago, the scale may have shifted since then.
@@carsandcrashtests I think that the force and deformation values for a specific rating is the same since 1997. No point in changing something which is perfectly thought out since the beginning.
7:09 WTF!
?
?
?
@carsandcrashtests
The lazer brian used
?
The mazda mpv
?
?
?
?
?
TAURUS SUPREMACY 🦅🦅‼️‼️
43
6,729
@@carsandcrashtests 12,264
The Lincoln would never get a good plus a top pick on today’s standards. Look at that poor structural design. Looks so bad!
Today’s standards include a lot more than just moderate overlap performance, though.
@@carsandcrashtests yep, I was referring specifically to this test only. I think for today’s standards it would get definitely a Poor. Today’s cars safety cage barely deforms. I was impressed by how weak the Lincoln structure was.
@@ford2219 the Lincoln’s structure wasn’t weak, and it wouldn’t be rated poor, even today. The intrusion measurements verify that. Engineers have just learned to make structures even stronger.
@@ford2219 Even if it had acceptable structure it would still get a good
3:51 my father had a 2002 Avalon (XL with the leather and column shifter variety in sea foam green) god I miss that car
😂😅
Sport utility bullshit
Blame Isuzu
Another example of a Good structure not always being the solution.
No surprise that America's baby led the pack again like it did for its 1st, 2nd & 3rd generation models, the Taurus. Many people wish Ford jad spent more money beefing up its transmissions like it has done so well beefing up its body structure 😂😂😂😂😂. If you know, you know. That said, i dealt with the iffy transmissions because they're very safe and reliable cars nonetheless. Had 5 of them. The LS did better than i thought because it's a reskinned Jaguar. European cars do not perform as well as American cars in American style crash tests but Ford made sure to beef it up and it paid off.