[bdb55]

Hi, I was wondering if anyone knew when the Murano crash tests will become available. The NHTSA lists the Murano as TBT (to be tested). http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/ncap/Search.cfm Any predictions on how well it will do?

 

[8301]

My only guess is that it will do well in the roll over tests since it has a wide wheel base. I can't say for sure, since I havent taken many other things into account.

 

[darrylburke]

Hi, I was wondering if anyone knew when the Murano crash tests will become available. The NHTSA lists the Murano as TBT (to be tested). http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/ncap/Search.cfm Any predictions on how well it will do?

Well.. only after having the car 3 days , I had a bit of a crash test of my own.. 5 MPH offset head on with a 1993 GMC Saffari.. (the other guy wasn't looking and crossed lanes in a parking lot)

Occupant Damage : None
Motion Felt : None

Damage: Front left corner poped in (14" diameter dent) all lights (including fog light which was hit) intact..

Total Cost of replacement : $1300 CAD.

 

[Taylormade]

I hope you gave that guy a good lashing! :twisted:

 

[jaak]

That really sucks being in an accident when the vehicle is so new.

I was hit and put into a 60 MPH spin in my Maxima when it was six months old. I must admit, I was so happy to be alive after spinning across six lanes of traffic, including transport trucks, that it was hard to be mad at anyone, but it sucked to have my car smacked.

Make sure they do a good paint job, and don't take "That's the best we can do" for an answer.

 

[8301]

woo hooo, looks like I called it in regards to the roll over resistance rating:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/2003SUVs.html

very few suv's earned 4 stars

 

[Sassafras]

I messed up my posting on FA, but there was a segment on Sunday evening's Dateline where the IIHS crash tested the '03 Murano and gave it a good rating and Best Pick. I had incorrectly posted that it was the NHSTA which is the government safety group. The IIHS is the insurance consortium and a better measure IMHO. I believe the NHSTA has also now tested the Murano and given it a good rating as well.

 

[Enforcer]

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/2503.html
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/2003SUVs.html

 

[turbodog]

Folks, be aware that the rollover resistance rating is a calculation, not a test. Note that if there is no rating, it says 'not rated' instead of 'not tested' as it does in the other categories where they actually do the test. The NTSHA has adopted this calculation this year, after the IIHS introduced it 2 years ago.

I am not implying the Muano isn't relatively 'good' in this respect.

Now, the calculation may be a good one, but there are millions of details that can affect how well a simple math model represents a very complex reality.

Morale of this section: DON'T assume, based on this 'rating', that you can drive your Murano like a sports car. Bad things are likely to happen if you do.

I also have my doubts about the fundamental calculation validity(based on IIHS relative rating of 2WD S-10 Blazer vs. 4X4 S-10 Blazer and my extensive experience at driving both), but that is a personal bias on my part.

Speaking of personal bias, I feel compelled to say this:

The IIHS exists for one reason only. TO MAXIMIZE INSURANCE COMPANY PROFITS. Please consider this carefully when deciding how much you trust them, compared to a clumsy - but unbiased- government agency.

For example, all this hubub about SUV rollover danger. Who made this such a big deal? IIHS.
They used single-vehicle accident death statistics to support their position, stating that SUV occupants die at 4X the rate of non SUV occupants in single-vehicle accidents. Sounds bad, but consider: A single vehicle accident is just another way to say DRIVER SCREWED UP. The driver already has demonstrated failure to drive within his/her own limitations, road conditions, and, yes, vehicle performance limits...

Also, the same statistic database shows 75% of those occupants that died were NOT wearing their seatbelts, and 30% were drunk.

So, the stats were heavily biased toward BAD DRIVERS, yet the vehicle design is blamed. Why? Higher insurance premiums for vehicles with low 'rollover resistance' ratings. Never mind that drivers like me (and hopefully you) that 1. Have never had a 'single vehicle accident', 2. always wear seatbelts, and 3. don't drive drunk will in all likelyhood NOT roll their SUV, no matter how low it ranks in this calculation (I have well over 600k mi in the worst-rated vehicle, the S-10 Blazer, with no rollovers).

Whew. I feel better now. Thanks for listening.

 

[turbodog]

Oh, yeah, by the way....
back when traffic radar technology was undergoing a transition to K-band, and later Ka-band, the IIHS donated new radar systems to many states' highway patrols. Why do you think they did this? Higher insurance premiums.

At the time, This was a mixed blessing, as I was working in the radar-detector industry. Business was good......