I heard on the news (didn't actually see it) that the SRX had very bad crash test scores. I checked on www.nhtsa.com and there was no test on it, but I did find the DeVille had a 1 star frontal driver impact!!!! Luckily, the slade had a 4 star on most of em.

it was a cost issue, not a safety issue

http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/28/pf/autos/suv.reut/index.htm

it was a cost issue, not a safety issue

http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/28/pf/autos/suv.reut/index.htm


Thank you for pointing that out to him because Cadillac's are on par with the best in safety

What I saw on the evening news was about the bumpers, and that does not mean they are unsafe. Apparently the Honda Pilot only produced 400 dollars damage with a moderate "bump" However, the Kia Sorento, and SRX cost about 4,000 each to fix. I believe it was the Highway Safety Institute or ? and the mentioned that the bumpers are just too flimsy on these newer vehicles and therefore there is also fender, or body panal damage, when the bumper should be absorbing the impact. They tested at "fast walking speed."

It's a luxury car! It's expensive.....So?

It's a luxury car! It's expensive.....So?

So I suppose they were trying to imply that insurance rates and plates will be higher for these vehicles. That's why insurance companies rate certain vehicles higher, because it will cost more to fix them. Also, which cars are in more accidents like typically Trans Ams, Mustangs. It costs $1800 to put plates on a new Mustang GT here, where as a new DTS costs $1,100. This includes a $700 deductable.

It got the highest rating :banana:
http://www.detnews.com/2003/autosinsider/0312/01/a02-338481.htm

It got the highest rating :banana:
http://www.detnews.com/2003/autosinsider/0312/01/a02-338481.htm

WASHINGTON -- The Cadillac SRX and the Chrysler Pacifica were among eight midsize sport utility vehicles that won the highest safety rating in new high-speed crash tests, according to results released Sunday by an insurer-funded safety group.


Sure did!!!

Yes they are all safe, they all passed the government standards. The report was about how they are more damaged by a little impact on the bumpers that were called "flimsy."

Thanks for pointing that out, but I am afraid Ruben is wrong.
http://www.nhtsa.com/NCAP/Cars/2243.html
The 2001 model has a 3 star though...

Thanks for pointing that out, but I am afraid Ruben is wrong.
http://www.nhtsa.com/NCAP/Cars/2243.html
The 2001 model has a 3 star though...



I think you should go research some data for Benz, BMW, Audi and Infiniti. Not to mention some of the others in this class and tell me what you find. Like I said Cadillac is on par with it's competitiors.

First post....SRX....

The strange thing is, I checked my dad's new DTS on the NHTSA site 6 months ago or so, and it was 5 stars front and 4 side! What gives, why would it change?!

The strange thing is, I checked my dad's new DTS on the NHTSA site 6 months ago or so, and it was 5 stars front and 4 side! What gives, why would it change?!


Good question because I have seen the same ratings!

It's a luxury car! It's expensive.....So?
Why should a luxury car's bumper be less effective than otherwise? Why should there be $4000.00 damage to a luxury car's bumper and fenders as opposed to another car's bumper and fenders - of the same impact?

Why should a luxury car's bumper be less effective than otherwise? Why should there be $4000.00 damage to a luxury car's bumper and fenders as opposed to another car's bumper and fenders - of the same impact?


You know I use to ask the same question when I owned a Benz! I used to say why does it cost hundreds of dollars for a tune up and oil change? Why is a simple relay $250? Why does it cost $100 just to tell me that I have a fuse out and that is my problem?

I guess if I were to buy a Cavalier it would not cost as much as with a Cadillac or Benz. All of them have plastic bumpers but you are going to pay for the name.

Why should a luxury car's bumper be less effective than otherwise? Why should there be $4000.00 damage to a luxury car's bumper and fenders as opposed to another car's bumper and fenders - of the same impact?

They are just trying to save money where they can. Have you seen the new Chryslers, and some Fords, they use styrofoam under a simple piece of soft moulded plastic bumper. That news report simply stated that the bumpers are just "cheap." Many older cars had great bumpers (our Pontiac) that had little gas charged shocks built into the actual bumper to absorb impact, then they just pop out again! I was rear-ended 10 years ago, hard enough to shake me up pretty good, and NO damage. They tested the bumpers at a "fast walking pace" which is apparently the average speed for a traffic "fender bender" and many new cars failed the test! I think the reason for the failures are the new crumple zones. Once a dealer told me about the new Malibus and how just a little rear impact, for eg, caused a ripple right down alongside the entire length of the car, both sides! Damage=car totalled! Cars are now designed to completely absord the impact so the occupant doesn't! And IMO, this contributes to higher insurance costs, and a larger repair bill for you and me.

Well, if it comes down to me or the car absorbing the energy, I'll sacrifice the car. You are absolutely right about energy absorption. The car is designed to absorb the energy of a collision to protect the occupants.

The old style steel bumpers with the shock absorbers "absorbed" some energy, but mostly they slowed down the transfer of momentum to the car body. They worked, but they had one big problem. They were HEAVY!

Styrofoam, egg-crate plastics & other modern marvels do a better energy absorption job and weigh a whole lot less (better gas mileage). But they are the sacrificial lambs in a collision.

the car being a absorber should be a last resort, the bumper should take a 5-10mph crash without the whole thing crumpling

the comment about insurance companies charging more to insure because it costs more to fix. this is partly true, but fixing the car is nothing $$$ wise to fixing a person in a huge crash, id take a safer but more expensive car to fix, money is only money after all.

You poor lost souls in these test it is not an issue so much of the amount of damage that is done but rather how much it cost to fix what has been done. The SRX is not crumpling up in the front but to replace the bumper and such is expensive because the parts are and it is a luxury car.

The SRX may have less damage but may cost more that a substantially damage Cavalier because of parts and etc. will not be that high for a Cavalier.

i thought that was obvious though.

The quantity of production also has a lot to do with the price of parts. The less something is made, the more it usually costs. A bumper cover for a Cavalier that has a production of, say 150,000 should cost less than a cover for a Seville that had a yearly production of 24,000.

Good point El Dobro

El Dobro sounds liek hes got it staright sounds like a simple case of mass production and supply and demand.......Right?

What kills me about those tests is the one where they purposely back into a pole. :disappoin Then make NO MENTION that the SRX has a standard back-up sensor so this won't likely ever happen (unlike the competition). :rant2:

Yeah, how about it. You need to be an idiot to do that kind of damage.:want: :bighead: :rolleyes: :banghead: :banghead:

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has the SRX as a best pic. I even saw a special on the news about mid sized suv safety the SRX was best of 5 or 6 different competitors. As for the DeVille check mor closlye the late 2003 release has new crash test ratings of 4 stars frontal passenger and driver. I am aware of the 1 and 3 star for it earlier, which was shameful. I am glad though that it is not true anymore of the DeVille.