|
Four Wheel Drive Crash Worthiness.
Monash University Accident Research Centre
has extended its previous study (see below)
of car safety based on real cars in real accidents,
to cover accidents between 1982 and 1995.
The ratings indicate the approximate probability of the driver
being killed or hospitalised in an accident.
A rating is not how likely a certain type
of car is to be involved in accident - which depends
very much on the driver.
Rather it indicates the chance of serious injury or worse
given that the driver has an accident in the particular type of car.
The ratings are based on data from real accidents
and all statistics carry a degree of uncertainty
particularly if the sample is small;
one should not take small differences in ratings too seriously.
Some of the ratings have moved a little since the last study
and some of this is due to statistical "noise".
The data was corrected for driver sex, age and speed limit.
The most accurate ratings are for common family cars.
However enough four wheel drives were included in the 332,000
crashes (ouch) to give ratings to many of them.
Insufficient statistics have been gathered on the most recent models.
Generally speaking it is safer to be in a big heavy car
if you are going to crash.
However some of the older four wheel drive designs
did not include all the modern safety features.
The most notable improver since the last report is the Holden
Jackaroo
(1984-95) at 1.32 beating the
Range Rover Classic (1982-95)
on 1.67 which topped the 4WD ratings last time.
The Nissan
Patrol now equals the Rangie.
(Note that in Australia, the Ford Maverick
is a rebadged Nissan Patrol GQ, but in Europe
the Nissan Terrano II
is rebadged as a Maverick - confusing!)
The risk in a small four wheel drive such as a
Suzuki Sierra
or a
Daihatsu Feroza
is more than twice that in the Jackaroo.
| Maker | Model | Years | Rating |
|---|
| Holden |
Jackaroo
| 1984-95 | 1.32 |
Nissan
Ford | Patrol
GQ
Maverick |
1988-95 | 1.67 |
| Rover | Range Rover
(Classic) |
1982-95 | 1.67 |
| Toyota | LandCruiser |
1990-95 | 1.9 |
| Nissan | Patrol
MQ
| 1982-87 | 2.1 |
| Toyota |
Hilux family
| 1982-95 | 2.54 |
| Toyota | LandCruiser | 1982-90 | 2.54 |
| Mitsubishi |
Pajero
| 1982-90 | 2.61 |
| Suzuki |
Vitara
| 1988-95 | 2.90 |
| Daihatsu |
Rocky
F70 - 80 | 1984-95 | 3.05 |
Suzuki
Holden |
Sierra
Drover |
1982-95
1985-87 | 3.40 |
| Daihatsu |
Feroza
| 1989-95 | 3.51 |
The leads that
the newer Patrol and LandCruiser have over their predecessors
indicate that designs are improving.
For comparison the car with the best safety rating is, you guessed it,
a Volvo 700 series (1984-92) on 0.94.
/4WD.html - 1997
1995:
Monash University Accident Research Centre carried out
an analysis of accidents in Victoria and New South Wales
that occurred in the period 1987-1992.
There were sufficient accidents to give good risk assessments
for sedans, vans, four wheel drives and other vehicle types,
and for many makes and models.
The study assessed injury severity and injury risk.
Injury severity was based on 45,000 driver injured in crashes
in the two states.
Injury risk was based on 220,000 drivers involved in crashes
in NSW where a vehicle was towed away.
The data were corrected for age, sex, speed-limit at the
crash site, and the number of vehicles involved.
Without this there might be biases due to the fact that
younger drivers tend to buyer cheaper, smaller, older vehicles
and have less driving experience.
The results included estimates of the risk of the driver
being killed or hospitalised in a tow-away crash.
It is important to note that the study was based on real
accidents and not on artificial crash tests.
It reflects real vehicles as they were really used and abused.
Serious injury
Rank Make and Model Year rate/100 drivers
---- ----------------------- ----- ----------------
1 BMW 5 series 83-92 1.12
2 Saab 900 83-92 1.21
3 Peugeot 505 83-92 1.23
4 Honda Accord 86-89 1.48
5 Range Rover 82-92 1.59 *
6 Volvo 700 series 83-91 1.61
7 Volvo 200 series 82-92 1.61
8 Mercedes Benz 2/300 series 86-92 1.65
9 Ford fairlane 88-92 1.70
10 Toyota Crown/Cressida 82-85 1.76
...
Avg' 4WD: 2.65
16 Nissan Patrol 82-92 1.94
27 Mitsubishi Pajero 83-92 2.24
37 Toyota LandCruiser 82-92 2.47
40 Toyota 4Runner/HiLux 82-92 2.59
70 Daihatsu Rocky F70/75 87-92 3.53
76 Suzuki Sierra 82-92 3.87
Four Wheel Drives.
Overall, four wheel drives performed about average,
ie. better than small cars, sports cars, vans and commercial
vehicles but worse than large cars and luxury cars.
The notable exception is the Range Rover - which is
both a four wheel drive and a luxury car.
It ranked fifth overall.
The results should be interpreted cautiously.
The uncertainty in an individual rating is typically +-0.5,
sometime more, sometimes less.
Since 1992, many four wheel drive models have been revised
or superceded and some have been fitted with air-bags.
The analysis does not say anything about the chance of
a given vehicle type having an accident; it analyses the risks
given that an accident has occurred.
However, if you want a low-risk car and do not have much money,
an old Toyota Crown or Cressida looks like a good bet.
If you also need four wheel drive,
you seem to require money (the Range Rover) or mass (the Nissan Patrol).
Further Reading:
| 
