https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/1981/august/consumer-highway-hazards/
Here is an article that points out the state of car safety and crashworthiness in 1981; which cars were safest and least safe, both in crash tests and the real world, including a list of ten cars with the lowest fatality rates and ten with the highest fatality rates. Here are the conclusions that I drew from reading it:
1) Big, heavy cars tend to be safer than small, light cars. No surprises here. This was in the days before whiz-bang metallurgy like boron steel, ACE body structures, and high-strength steel. Cars back then were built of regular old steel. Crumple zones were featured on many cars, but in a much more rudimentary state than they are now. The ten safest cars were all fairly large, while the ten least safe were all smaller models.
This holds true today as well. In a bigger, heavier car, mass is on your side. There's no better feature in a multi car crash than to have a car that's built like a sumo wrestler.
2) American cars were safest, then European, with Japanese bringing up the rear. Keep in mind that in 1981, a Japanese car was built in Japan; there were no Japanese-branded cars being built in America. Nine of the 10 most dangerous cars were Japanese-built (including three rebadged Mitsubishis sold as Dodges and Plymouths). It was surprising to not see a Volvo or Mercedes on the ten safest cars list, indeed all ten were American.
At the time, American cars, even subcompacts, tended to be built with stronger occupant compartments and more effective crumple zones than the Japanese cars, and this was shown in crash tests. Many of the Japanese cars' structures simply could not hold up to the 35 mph full frontal test that NHTSA was doing, whereas most American cars of the time could.
The idea that the average Japanese car is much less safe than the average American car would be considered laughable today. By the early 1990s, Japanese cars had caught up with American cars on safety. Today it's not uncommon to see them topping "safest car" lists. Also, within just a few years of this article being written, Volvo and Mercedes began making appearances on "safest car" lists and garnering stellar crash test ratings (for the time).
3) Driver demographics played their role, too. The Ford Mustang, despite being American and not a subcompact, had the ninth highest fatality rate largely due to its driver base being concentrated with young, aggressive male drivers. Most of the cars on the safest ten list were staid cars.
This still holds true today.
Here is an article that points out the state of car safety and crashworthiness in 1981; which cars were safest and least safe, both in crash tests and the real world, including a list of ten cars with the lowest fatality rates and ten with the highest fatality rates. Here are the conclusions that I drew from reading it:
1) Big, heavy cars tend to be safer than small, light cars. No surprises here. This was in the days before whiz-bang metallurgy like boron steel, ACE body structures, and high-strength steel. Cars back then were built of regular old steel. Crumple zones were featured on many cars, but in a much more rudimentary state than they are now. The ten safest cars were all fairly large, while the ten least safe were all smaller models.
This holds true today as well. In a bigger, heavier car, mass is on your side. There's no better feature in a multi car crash than to have a car that's built like a sumo wrestler.
2) American cars were safest, then European, with Japanese bringing up the rear. Keep in mind that in 1981, a Japanese car was built in Japan; there were no Japanese-branded cars being built in America. Nine of the 10 most dangerous cars were Japanese-built (including three rebadged Mitsubishis sold as Dodges and Plymouths). It was surprising to not see a Volvo or Mercedes on the ten safest cars list, indeed all ten were American.
At the time, American cars, even subcompacts, tended to be built with stronger occupant compartments and more effective crumple zones than the Japanese cars, and this was shown in crash tests. Many of the Japanese cars' structures simply could not hold up to the 35 mph full frontal test that NHTSA was doing, whereas most American cars of the time could.
The idea that the average Japanese car is much less safe than the average American car would be considered laughable today. By the early 1990s, Japanese cars had caught up with American cars on safety. Today it's not uncommon to see them topping "safest car" lists. Also, within just a few years of this article being written, Volvo and Mercedes began making appearances on "safest car" lists and garnering stellar crash test ratings (for the time).
3) Driver demographics played their role, too. The Ford Mustang, despite being American and not a subcompact, had the ninth highest fatality rate largely due to its driver base being concentrated with young, aggressive male drivers. Most of the cars on the safest ten list were staid cars.
This still holds true today.
Comments
Post a Comment