NPR Cartalk - Suziki Swift deathtrap
 

Well it was interesting to hear this weeks CARTALK radio show on NPR. One of the callers mentioned a Suziki Swift. So the announcers CLICK & CLACK got all on his case (all subtle of course)about how unsafe the vehicle is; as their is barely anything to the constructed weight of this machine. The owner of the vehicle did mention getting 50MPG most days.

Does anyone know what a 1993 Suziki Swift was rated at for crash protection? I know it does not have an air-bag. What about later years of Geo Metros and their rated crash protection?

I suppose it is one step up for crash protection than driving a motorcycle (which I am sure some have thought about using to save gas).

That show tends to hate all older cars and tell people that anything without air bags is a death trap, I had my non air bag '84 civic totaled and was annoyed because it had to be towed and I was left hitching a ride home but was fine, I have a friend who was in a car acedent and would have been fine if he didn't have an air bag but instead the air bag broke his jaw and left him in the hospital for a few days and out of work for over a month.
From what I've read in books like The Death Of The Automobile (great book, very well researched) air bags are designed to work in those times that you are not wearing your seat belt, wear your seat belt in a non air bag vehicle and you will be fine.

You've got it a bit backwards. Airbags are designed to be used WITH a BELTED driver/passenger. Most airbag related injuries occur with unbelted people. Newer cars use sensors in the seat and buckle receivers to adjust the rate of airbag inflation to match body wieght and if the person is buckled, but early airbag cars don't have these safeguards.

Regardless of airbags, people need to be buckled up. :thumbup:

Airbags are very important to reduce neck /head injuries, but I wouldn't put them as my top safety device. Most important I would say are Seat Belts and Crumple Zones - these two work together, and without one the other serves no purpose. Airbags and headrests being adjusted properly are next and are about equal as far as safety in my book.
That said, Click and Clack do have reason to be suspicious of older cars in general, and the swift. Older cars don't have as well-designed crumple zones. Smaller cars (size / length, not mass) are more dangerous in general because they have less room to crumple. Arguing based on a car's weight is a bad argument IMO; it only matters in vehicle - vehicle crashes (mainly head-on) whereas size and design of crumple zones, seat belts, and air bags work no matter what you hit. If a large vehicle and a small vehicle are in similar accidents with a stationary object (tree, wall, etc..) the vehicle with the better design will win regardless of mass.

Swifts have a frontal impact rating of 3 stars/driver side and 4 stars/passenger side (out of 5).

1995-2001 Metros rate 4 and 4.

No side crash ratings on either model.

Do the math. The vast majority of cars and trucks on the road weigh in at 2 tons+. These cars weigh about 1800 lbs and have limited side impact protection. New side impact regulations in 2002 were a big reason why they were no longer imported to USA. A comparable Toyota Yaris coupe weighs 500 lbs more. :eek: Mostly due to safety improvements. You are much safer in a Swift/Metro than on a motorcycle, but newer cars are safer still. How you balance the safety/mpg equation is different for everybody. YMMV.

Doesn't mean anyone should use (or repeat) terms like "Death Trap". That's just the absolute meanest form of peer pressure that leads to bigger cars in my opinion. They don't really care about your safety if you drive a small car or bike, they just don't want their concept of what is safe to be challenged.

The 95 onward Swift was redesigned with its North American siblings: the Geo/Chevrolet Metro and the Pontiac Firefly.

I can't imagine that this last generation Swift was that different from a Honda Insight... the side impact standards changed significantly in 1997, the Swift met them... and the Insight was introduced in 1999, with two airbags... like the Swift.

Swift and Metro safety equipment included dual frontal airbags, optional anti-lock brakes, safety cage construction with deformable front and rear crush zones and five structural crossbars engineered to spread side impact loads throughout the car's structure... and DRL's -- the Generation III Metro was the first GM car to offer DRLs.

The chassis was 30% stiffer than Generation II, and at the time of its introduction, it was the smallest car in the world to meet the impending 1997 North American side impact standards.

On another note, the SMART CAR's safety cell is designed to "harvest" crumple from the "other guys" crumple zone. In other words, it has very little crumple zone of its own, but is designed to steal it from whatever it hits.

Have you seen the 3 Metro/Swift crash videos Peakster posted?

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ideos-611.html

The Swifts I've seen after low speed accidents seem to crumple fairly well. High speeds seem to equal death from the various forums I've seen. I take the don't get creamed approach to daily driving. Take the ditch over the back end of the car in front of you.

1992 Suzuki Swift Crash Tests & Safety Ratings at InternetAutoGuide.com

Mass is very important. A friend of mine was a forensic engineer in accident reconstruction and went through some of the physics of why a well designed crumpled up Smart car still can't cut it against a large mass vehicle. The light car experiences just most of the acceleration change which those crumple zones are designed to try and spread out over more time to help prevent the small car guys heart from detaching when his body stops from 60-0 instantly and his heart wants to keep going.

Without getting into the math, you can crumple an entire smart car at 60km/h (front to back as they are designed) and still not have had a big enough change in acceleration to set off the air bags off in the 7000lb. F150 that it hit. The better designed vehicle will not always win.

Think train vs. Mercedes... the change in acceleration of the train when it hits that Mercedes is next to nothing.

*edit* just saw the crash videos... 60mph looks like you're missing a few legs. 35mph in the old one seems to crumple in the back which mean energy is being absorbed there as well. I stick to my thought of avoid high-speed collisions. :)

I'm afraid that's the first thing I thought when I saw this buggy:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...t/E-tat039.jpg

Maybe an unfair example though.:D

The seat belt discussion - IIRC, Airbags were invented for a while before they were used, but they essentially came to popularity because in the US apparently, people didn't wear, or didn't like wearing seatbelts. I always thought that was fairly amusing.