Porsche safety.
Discussion
I should think a modern porsche is as strong as any other car of similar size. Obviously some of their race bred fibreglass shell jobs might be a bit weaker, and less considered, but in general I should have thought pretty good.
It's worth bearing in mind that if you hit a brick wall, or worse a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction, at any speed above 60 or so in just about any vehicle your chances of survival are extremely low.
I'm sorry about your friend.
It's worth bearing in mind that if you hit a brick wall, or worse a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction, at any speed above 60 or so in just about any vehicle your chances of survival are extremely low.
I'm sorry about your friend.
Porsches have always been robust, and the modern ones are packed with safety features - both active and passive.
However, supercars travel a lot faster than most other traffic, meaning an exponentially bigger smash if something goes wrong. They can be more difficult to drive and control in adverse conditions because of fat tyres, powerful rear wheel drive, hard suspension etc.
Plus, fast drivers (who may be more likely to crash) are attracted to Porsches considerably more than Vauxhall Merivas. So there are bound to be a few incidents.
All IMO.
However, supercars travel a lot faster than most other traffic, meaning an exponentially bigger smash if something goes wrong. They can be more difficult to drive and control in adverse conditions because of fat tyres, powerful rear wheel drive, hard suspension etc.
Plus, fast drivers (who may be more likely to crash) are attracted to Porsches considerably more than Vauxhall Merivas. So there are bound to be a few incidents.
All IMO.
Yep - commiserations for any grief.
When I read your post, I immediately dashed off to the NCAP website, expecting to see some data for sportscars. There is nothing, nada, zilch. Then went to the USA websites - the same, no actual crash test data. The only info that I found is shown below, in which the Porsches got an "Excellent" rating, but as you can see below it is based only on injury claims sent to insurance companies.
The lack of willingness of sportscar manufacturers to have their cars tested is a bit alarming, unless I'm missing some data. Maybe TUV testing in the Motherland includes crash tests?
www.crashtest.com/porsche/ie.htm
Injury Loss Payments - Insurance companies report Personal Injury Protection (PIP) claims to the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) who rank the vehicles based on Injury Loss Payments.
The HLDI uses the term "Loss Results" which we feel is confusing - Crashtest.com uses the term "Loss Payments" eg: payments paid out to victims for injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident, a much easier term to understand.
Vehicles with the highest injury loss payments typically have claim frequencies triple those with the lowest rating. Vehicles that receive the best rating are the largest, heaviest models, while those with the worst are usually the smallest and lightest. The additional payments associated with a marginal or poor rating would be reflected by a higher insurance premium for those makes and models. Results are based on the loss experience of 1992-98 models sold in the United States through June of 1999.
>> Edited by nel on Thursday 17th March 18:00
When I read your post, I immediately dashed off to the NCAP website, expecting to see some data for sportscars. There is nothing, nada, zilch. Then went to the USA websites - the same, no actual crash test data. The only info that I found is shown below, in which the Porsches got an "Excellent" rating, but as you can see below it is based only on injury claims sent to insurance companies.
The lack of willingness of sportscar manufacturers to have their cars tested is a bit alarming, unless I'm missing some data. Maybe TUV testing in the Motherland includes crash tests?
www.crashtest.com/porsche/ie.htm
Injury Loss Payments - Insurance companies report Personal Injury Protection (PIP) claims to the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) who rank the vehicles based on Injury Loss Payments.
The HLDI uses the term "Loss Results" which we feel is confusing - Crashtest.com uses the term "Loss Payments" eg: payments paid out to victims for injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident, a much easier term to understand.
Vehicles with the highest injury loss payments typically have claim frequencies triple those with the lowest rating. Vehicles that receive the best rating are the largest, heaviest models, while those with the worst are usually the smallest and lightest. The additional payments associated with a marginal or poor rating would be reflected by a higher insurance premium for those makes and models. Results are based on the loss experience of 1992-98 models sold in the United States through June of 1999.
>> Edited by nel on Thursday 17th March 18:00
I am a vehicle safety engineer and have worked in the industry for many years. In my experience of reviewing crash tests the structural crashworthiness of Porsches is extremely good. Not just for a sports car but when compared with saloons etc.
In general when reviewing crash tests, the Porsches retain their structural integrity, doors still open after the crash, and all airbags deploy in an effective and timely manner.
Amongst the best.
pp
In general when reviewing crash tests, the Porsches retain their structural integrity, doors still open after the crash, and all airbags deploy in an effective and timely manner.
Amongst the best.
pp
All Porsches of the last 20-odd years are very strong indeed in respect of the main chassis structure. In a head-on or similar accident, I'd say they give outstanding protection. Where there might be more of an issue is in side impact, as low-slung cars are more exposed here. If a Cayenne t-boned a 944, or vice versa, it's clear who would be walking away and who wouldn't in each situation. These big 4x4's are a cancer of the roads aren't they?
Obviously, with a cabrio of any kind, there are further additional risks.
Obviously, with a cabrio of any kind, there are further additional risks.
kevinday said:
These big 4x4's are a cancer of the roads aren't they?
Err no, you would be much worse off if you hit a lorry of any sort.
Imagine being hit by a Porsche lorry
That said, I used to advertise the Mercedes Actros 36 tonner. And that was quite a bruiser. Luckily it had ABS and all sorts of other safety stuff.
I am disappointed in you Dom.
I thought we were going to get a first hand account of your experience of Porsche safety.....not a reference to a 36 tonne Actress....
Do tell though, there must be a story there.....
Rgds
Mel
www.badgerbadger.com
>> Edited by Melv on Friday 18th March 12:03
I thought we were going to get a first hand account of your experience of Porsche safety.....not a reference to a 36 tonne Actress....
Do tell though, there must be a story there.....
Rgds
Mel
www.badgerbadger.com
>> Edited by Melv on Friday 18th March 12:03
Yeah, i was waiting for that.
And have you seen this:
www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/
Mushroom, MUSHROOM!
VS
And have you seen this:
www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/
Mushroom, MUSHROOM!
VS
LOL 
Speaking from experience, Porsches are indeed marvellous cars when you attempt to remodel them around roadside scenery (although the badgers don't like them so much).
I wouldn't like to roll an air cooled 911 without a cage though, as some pics on wreckedexotics show that the A pillars are a bit weedy.
Speaking from experience, Porsches are indeed marvellous cars when you attempt to remodel them around roadside scenery (although the badgers don't like them so much).
I wouldn't like to roll an air cooled 911 without a cage though, as some pics on wreckedexotics show that the A pillars are a bit weedy.
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff