It's a puzzle. It's fun (as macabre as it may sound).

It's an inexplicable, morbid fascination for me

Anyway, I agree with you, enjoy your weekend

Solving puzzle is my favorite pastime. Got bored on a lazy Sunday afternoon, need to do some workout on my brain, lest it goes rusty.

This post has been edited by E34E36E46: Jul 28 2013, 12:15 PM

Another angle of the golf

From the second photos, it should be hit by something narrow that is much narrower than the distance between the front and rear left wheels. If hit by the Vios on the left side, both of the left wheels could not have been spared the impact. Either one of the wheel would have been dislodged from the axle.

This post has been edited by E34E36E46: Jul 28 2013, 02:09 PM

I disagree. It simply wasn't a straight on side impact, but at an angle. I simply don't understand how it could have crashed into the side when it was a head on collision. That makes little sense to me.


That test is usually done at 50 km/h... looking at how crushed that Golf is the speed must have been much higher.

If it were a pole impact it would be more like this:

The car would have to have a much clearer mark. This test is done at 29 km/h, so at normal speeds on that sort of road the car should have been sliced through...

So what?

These two crashed into each other:



No chance of survival whatsoever in the Bel Air.

Wira:


Fiesta:


The point is to pick the car that, under the same circumstances, offers the (almost) best protection. Not all crashes are between lorry and car. And if you crash into a Wira for example, your chances of survival are simply much better in a modern safe car than a Wira or Iswara. There is no guarantee to survive, but the chances are higher. That was the point of this thread, and all that you have managed to show is that there can be freak accidents.

This post has been edited by kadajawi: Aug 3 2013, 01:31 AM

Comparing a 50s, 60s, 80s car with a newer Fiesta ? Wira r 80/90s tech car surely the safety standard is low, why not take once very famous conti car Traban to do a crash test then ? Or German icon the 60s VW Beatles ? I remember seen how bad VW Beatles end up in Euro NCAP crash test.
I do believed many would have bought a better car if they can afford one, then again merely been equips with safety gadgets is just one of the criteria in choosing a right car, reliability of the car is crucial, future maintenance cost, availability of parts, RV is too equally important for Malaysia consumer, as car here r expensive, some Conti car may says there gave this & that but how reliable that this & that would work during emergency or this & that would not fail, many Conti car r famous for electronic & electrical problems, isn't many of these so call safety gadgets r controlled electronically ? Eg. Would the infamous VW DSG problems actually cause accident while u driving ?
My point is reliability of the car r equally important if not more crucial than fancy tech safety gadgets.

It really does not matter how safe it is if you are not driving it safely.

The test is nothing to shout about when you compared the speed of the vehicles in the test versus real life F1 drivers out there. Even if the car can take it, are you sure your body can?

I didnt ask you to drive slowly, just safely.

with just 2 photos, everyone is now a crash analyst.

You just don't understand, or don't want to, right?

I am saying old cars in general are not safe. And by old I mean old designs. It doesn't matter if it is still produced. A 2013 produces Iswara would still be very dangerous. The same goes for an old Mercedes, Volvo, ... Any old car is dangerous, period. That is the point. I do have crash test results for the Wira, and it is a popular car in Malaysia. No point showing people a car they have never seen is unsafe. (btw. the Trabant isn't so bad... It simply won't reach a high enough speed ).

Did EuroNCAP really test the Beetle? Can you show me any proof? I'd like to see photos/videos of that. They only started testing in 1997... and cars that were already on the market and then tested were quite bad. Especially some small Rover which was essentially a car from the 70s with few visual changes.

DSG can hardly cause accidents. Toyotas are much more prone to that. Brake failure, accelerator stuck, ...

F1 drivers are strapped to ridiculously safe (and expensive vehicles). They are wearing proper gear that protects them. That's why they can survive. Look at MotoGP and how they crash there. Then look at how many bikers in Malaysia die in crashes that are nowhere near as bad. It is the protective gear...

The safety features are meant to make a car safe at reasonable (legal) speeds. Other cars without may not be. Being a safe motorist means driving attentive, at reasonable speeds, in a car that is safe. The combination of those things are what greatly improves your chances.

This post has been edited by kadajawi: Aug 3 2013, 01:34 PM

We encourage people to CHOOSE a car with more BASIC safety features in order to improve their odds of avoiding an accident or minimize their injuries in an accident.

Whatever their priority is, be it RV, FC, Reliability, Ease of Maintenance, Low Maintenance, Availability of Spare Parts, Occupants Safety or what have they. It will be their own decision.

We only wish they do not overlook the BASIC safety features of the car they are going to buy, that's all mate.

They still have to drive sensibly and safely. They must also take all the other necessary precautions to avoid involving oneself in an accident. They should not take those safety features as their tickets to drive dangerously or recklessly, thinking they are F1 drivers.

As somebody had said elsewhere: "Shit things" happen, BUT wouldn't it be more comforting if you can improve your odds by having something "soft" between you/family members and the "shit things" ?

This post has been edited by E34E36E46: Aug 3 2013, 02:49 PM

I believe ur quotes r similar to Marie Antoinette "let them eat brioche" do u think people here have choice ? car is expensive & salary r low in Malaysia, people may use a same car for 20 years.
Anyway Iswara & Wira alreadt cease production years ago, replaced by new Saga & Persona maybe even CPS Preve in case u donno.
Just seach for old beetle crash test in YouTube, if I am not mistaken old Beetle still in production in Mexico untill few years back, ...lol... lasting German tech indeed.
Imagine the whole gearbox jam in the middle of highway, should I said "Das Gefahr"

How should the gearbox jam in the middle of the highway? If that is possible, can't a torque converter jam up too? Stop dreaming up things that never happened, or give me any proof that the gearbox ever jamed while driving. If you are referring to that incident in Australia, well, that driver was driving a MANUAL car. The original article also referred to problems with diesel cars... which is again troublesome cause the car that crashed was a GTI. It doesn't run on diesel, it's a petrol.

http://www.carsguide.com.au/news-and-revie...elated_to_death
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/06/s...esel-injectors/

Oh and btw.? The driver who died seems to have been on her cell phone while she died. Maybe she shifted into the wrong gear while talking...? In any case, that incident had NOTHING at all to do with DSG problems.

Also, as for having a choice: There are owners of Wiras who are millionaires. Yet they refuse to upgrade to, say, a 208, Fiesta, Polo, Preve, Focus, Golf, Prius, Forte, ... those are not very flashy cars. They don't draw much attention. They are also not very expensive (to them). But yet they refuse to upgrade.

Also many buy a Vios, City, Altis, Camry for example (or for that matter an Elantra... though not many buy those), when there are alternatives that offer much better protection. Do you lose a bit in convenience? Yes, perhaps, though not so much with a Preve, and it depends on where you stay. Do you lose a bit in RV? Yes, depending on the model. A Camry drops like a stone too... compared to other D segment cars maybe not so much, but it isn't that good. And if you can afford a Camry... shouldn't you be able to pay a bit for servicing and be able to bear the drop in RV? If not... why buy an expensive car in the first place? If you can just afford a car, then you can't afford it.

The point is to simply take safety into consideration, and we are living in the year 2013. There are alternatives.

And yes, in some regions conti manufacturers are no better than the Japanese are here. Especially in Latin America VW etc. offer death traps under their brand. Thing is... we are in Malaysia. And here it is T&H who are the worst offenders (Perodua and in parts Proton too, but at least they are in a price bracket where there is no competition).

This post has been edited by kadajawi: Aug 3 2013, 05:16 PM

There's a reason I wrote REAL LIFE F1 DRIVERS....

It works both way...

Just like someone who drove Merc or BMW think they will fare better thus can afford to be a little reckless.

Then they will suffer. But to be honest I see more reckless kapcais, Myvis etc.

Different things protect the driver. An attentive driving style noticing what is going on around him, who drives appropriately and is prepared for emergency situations. Safety systems that pay attention and a car that handles good enough to react in emergency situations (ESP for example helps). Good passive safety that, if everything else fails will protect you as good as possible. Clearly the car is a part of it all.

Just look at the case that started this thread. The most innocent persons involved in the accident were the ones who died. Because they were driving the wrong car. So IF you have the chance then at least pay attention, inform yourself and chose wisely. Your budget is 80k and you want a Vios? Spend less and buy Preve CFE. Even if it is a but more costly to run, even if the resale value isn't so good and it is a bit more troublesome... You have spent less in the first place for a safer car.

And ideally one day the Vios will be at the same standard as all the other brands. If people boycott it for now.

That is why I said "They still have to drive sensibly and safely". Even though they thought they are driving a conti, they SHOULD NOT be driving recklessly.