SRX-Unsafe? - Page 2
Cadillac
 

Cadillac Forums | Help Us Help You | Advertise | Cadillac Parts | Cadillac News | Cadillac Classifieds / (Old System)

Cadillac Technical Archive | Cadillac Dealers | Cadillac Reviews | Cadillac Dealer Reviews | Cadillac Vendors

CadillacForums.com is the premier Cadillac Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 16 to 26 of 26
Cadillac SRX First Generation Forum - 2004 - 2009 Discussion, SRX-Unsafe? in Cadillac SRX Forums; Originally Posted by Sal Collaziano Why should a luxury car's bumper be less effective than otherwise? Why should there be ...
  1. #16
    Ralph's Avatar
    Ralph is offline Cadillac Owners 10000+ Posts
    Automobile(s): Cadillac
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    16,028

    Re: SRX-Unsafe?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sal Collaziano
    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.

  2. #17
    eehoepp is offline Cadillac Owners Fanatic
    Automobile(s): 1994 STS - pearl white
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Bolton, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    140

    Re: SRX-Unsafe?

    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.

  3. #18
    Dubya is offline Cadillac Owners Fanatic
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    377

    Re: SRX-Unsafe?

    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.

  4. #19
    rueben44 is offline Cadillac Owners Fanatic
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    357

    Re: SRX-Unsafe?

    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.

  5. #20
    Dubya is offline Cadillac Owners Fanatic
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    377

    Re: SRX-Unsafe?

    i thought that was obvious though.

  6. #21
    El Dobro's Avatar
    El Dobro is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1,471

    Re: SRX-Unsafe?

    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.

  7. #22
    Brett's Avatar
    Brett is offline Watching the Watchers
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Tampa
    Age
    40
    Posts
    5,965

    Re: SRX-Unsafe?

    Good point El Dobro

  8. #23
    carjunkie14 is offline Cadillac Owners Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    wi
    Age
    24
    Posts
    33

    Re: SRX-Unsafe?

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

  9. #24
    Tiger's Avatar
    Tiger is offline Cadillac Owners Member
    Automobile(s): Flirtin' w/ an SRX...
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Da Ranch, CO
    Posts
    40

    Re: SRX-Unsafe?

    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).

  10. #25
    kippjones's Avatar
    kippjones is offline Cadillac Owners Fanatic
    Automobile(s): 2005 ESV & 2008 Escalade
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    206

    Re: SRX-Unsafe?

    Yeah, how about it. You need to be an idiot to do that kind of damage.

  11. #26
    majax's Avatar
    majax is offline 32V Northstar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    The Great Northwest
    Age
    25
    Posts
    2,354

    Re: SRX-Unsafe?

    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.

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Bookmarks

Cadillac Posting Rules

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Read about Lincoln | Buick | Kia Forte Forum
Need products for your Cadillac? Check out your options at the links below:

custom floor mats | Cadillac Chrome and Black Chrome Wheels | window tinting