The Peugeot 504 and the 1997-2005 GM minivans (namely, the Pontiac Trans Sport, Pontiac Montana, Oldsmobile Silhouette, and Chevy Venture) are both infamous for being unsafe. But which was worse, given the time and expectations of the vehicle?
By the time it was tested in 1980, the Peugeot 504 was an old design having been launched all the way back in 1968. It was crash tested in the NHTSA 35 mph full frontal test, where it failed miserably. 35 mph into a full frontal barrier, instant death for both occupants. No side impact tests or offset tests were done (they were decades from being launched), but it's safe to say it would have performed terribly, especially considering the structure was already massively overloaded in the full-front test.
The second-generation GM minivans were launched in fall 1996 for the 1997 model year. Their performance was below-average in the full-frontal 35 mph crash test, but not the worst. Side impact safety was good for a design of the era, but little better than average given the van's height. It was the 40 mph IIHS offset test where the van failed, though. When the IIHS crash tested the van in late 1996, it was the lone vehicle out of 33 tested thus far where a fatal injury would be a strong possibility, as the dummy's foot was detached from the leg.
Seems pretty open and shut - in absolute terms, the Peugeot is far less safe than the GM minivans. The GM minivans are, in fact, far safer than anything that was on the market in 1968, when the Peugeot launched. They have airbags, side impact beams, and crumple zones. Both found themselves at the very bottom of safety rankings by quite a large margin.
But, a critical difference is where they were in their design cycles when these tests were done. The Peugeot was near the end of its production run* by 1980, and most of its competitors had designs that were 7 or more years newer. In 1968, when the 504 was launched, crash testing was relatively rare and the first federal safety standards were just being passed in the USA. By the late 1970s, when most vehicle designs tested in 1979-1980 were launched, most automakers were doing some internal crash testing, the NHTSA was already doing some testing for experimental and safety compliance purposes, and federal safety standards were much more comprehensive. Peugeot already had a next-generation model out in 1980, the 505, which had safety that was around average for the era in which it was sold. In summation, the 504's bad performance is more a consequence of being badly outdated rather than badly designed; most 1968-designed cars would do atrociously in a test designed to showcase the shortcomings of late-1970s safety design. (The later 505 models with the automatic seat belts were far less safe, but that's another story entirely)
The GM minivans were a brand new design for 1996 - and were made until 2005. The IIHS crash test in question involved 9 minivans - 1 of which got a Good rating, 4 Marginal, and 4 Poor. (None got the second highest rating of "Acceptable"). The other 3 Poor designs? The Ford Aerostar, Toyota Previa, and Chevy Astro, all old designs at the time. And, they weren't nearly as bad - though serious injury such as broken legs would be likely in those vans, at least you'd live. The NHTSA crash test linked above shows structural deficiency even in a full-frontal test. On top of all this, this was a minivan, a vehicle whose strong attributes typically include safety.
So, which one is worse? I'd have to go with the GM minivans. While launching a minivan in 1996 with such sub-standard crashworthiness was bad, producing it until 2005 was inexcusable. Remember, we're talking about 2005 here - a point at which vehicles had gotten so safe in that offset crash test that the IIHS was only a year from giving over the testing to the manufacturers. General Motors doesn't make minivans anymore for the USA market, and this is one of the reasons why. They launched the van in fall 1996. Within a few months, they knew how bad it did in this test. Yet they continued to produce this van for nine more years. For most of its production run, these minivans were a bad joke in a market that emphasized safety, especially for minivans. The Peugeot 504's atrocious safety was largely in an era where crash testing wasn't done yet.
General Motors' failure to improve the offset crashworthiness of their second-generation minivans during their entire 9-year production run told consumers that they didn't care. Years of thinking like this and "mixed-bag" safety - some '90s and early-'00s GM's were safety leaders, others were death-traps - was a major contributing factor to their bankruptcy in 2009. They began to move away from thinking like this in the mid-2000s, but it was too little, too late. Luckily, today's GM seems to care about safety on ALL of their vehicles.
*(for the USA and Europe, anyway)
By the time it was tested in 1980, the Peugeot 504 was an old design having been launched all the way back in 1968. It was crash tested in the NHTSA 35 mph full frontal test, where it failed miserably. 35 mph into a full frontal barrier, instant death for both occupants. No side impact tests or offset tests were done (they were decades from being launched), but it's safe to say it would have performed terribly, especially considering the structure was already massively overloaded in the full-front test.
The second-generation GM minivans were launched in fall 1996 for the 1997 model year. Their performance was below-average in the full-frontal 35 mph crash test, but not the worst. Side impact safety was good for a design of the era, but little better than average given the van's height. It was the 40 mph IIHS offset test where the van failed, though. When the IIHS crash tested the van in late 1996, it was the lone vehicle out of 33 tested thus far where a fatal injury would be a strong possibility, as the dummy's foot was detached from the leg.
Seems pretty open and shut - in absolute terms, the Peugeot is far less safe than the GM minivans. The GM minivans are, in fact, far safer than anything that was on the market in 1968, when the Peugeot launched. They have airbags, side impact beams, and crumple zones. Both found themselves at the very bottom of safety rankings by quite a large margin.
But, a critical difference is where they were in their design cycles when these tests were done. The Peugeot was near the end of its production run* by 1980, and most of its competitors had designs that were 7 or more years newer. In 1968, when the 504 was launched, crash testing was relatively rare and the first federal safety standards were just being passed in the USA. By the late 1970s, when most vehicle designs tested in 1979-1980 were launched, most automakers were doing some internal crash testing, the NHTSA was already doing some testing for experimental and safety compliance purposes, and federal safety standards were much more comprehensive. Peugeot already had a next-generation model out in 1980, the 505, which had safety that was around average for the era in which it was sold. In summation, the 504's bad performance is more a consequence of being badly outdated rather than badly designed; most 1968-designed cars would do atrociously in a test designed to showcase the shortcomings of late-1970s safety design. (The later 505 models with the automatic seat belts were far less safe, but that's another story entirely)
The GM minivans were a brand new design for 1996 - and were made until 2005. The IIHS crash test in question involved 9 minivans - 1 of which got a Good rating, 4 Marginal, and 4 Poor. (None got the second highest rating of "Acceptable"). The other 3 Poor designs? The Ford Aerostar, Toyota Previa, and Chevy Astro, all old designs at the time. And, they weren't nearly as bad - though serious injury such as broken legs would be likely in those vans, at least you'd live. The NHTSA crash test linked above shows structural deficiency even in a full-frontal test. On top of all this, this was a minivan, a vehicle whose strong attributes typically include safety.
So, which one is worse? I'd have to go with the GM minivans. While launching a minivan in 1996 with such sub-standard crashworthiness was bad, producing it until 2005 was inexcusable. Remember, we're talking about 2005 here - a point at which vehicles had gotten so safe in that offset crash test that the IIHS was only a year from giving over the testing to the manufacturers. General Motors doesn't make minivans anymore for the USA market, and this is one of the reasons why. They launched the van in fall 1996. Within a few months, they knew how bad it did in this test. Yet they continued to produce this van for nine more years. For most of its production run, these minivans were a bad joke in a market that emphasized safety, especially for minivans. The Peugeot 504's atrocious safety was largely in an era where crash testing wasn't done yet.
General Motors' failure to improve the offset crashworthiness of their second-generation minivans during their entire 9-year production run told consumers that they didn't care. Years of thinking like this and "mixed-bag" safety - some '90s and early-'00s GM's were safety leaders, others were death-traps - was a major contributing factor to their bankruptcy in 2009. They began to move away from thinking like this in the mid-2000s, but it was too little, too late. Luckily, today's GM seems to care about safety on ALL of their vehicles.
*(for the USA and Europe, anyway)
Comments
Post a Comment