[norbtx]

     Featured on BIMMERPOST.com

Not an M5 but the same body.

[khoa@x-ph.com]

[Namelss]

As a Volvo driver too, I love seeing this stuff.

[Greer]

" The car did its job" great to hear.

[M5Dan]

He has good taste 5 Series with M Sport Package at least

[BarlasaM]

This thing is built like a tank. Lost my G30 last year, guy made a Left turn on RED, and I ended up hitting him almost T-Boned him. I was doing around 40ish mph. Every thing all the safety systems worked as designed...no serious injuries. Kudos to BMW for making such a safe car.
The other car was bent in half.

[BLKD_OUT_BMR]

And for reasons like this, this is why I put my wife and newborn daughter in an x7. I used to work for BMW and know that these things are tanks. I want nothing but the absolutely safest car for the ladies in my life.

[BPMSport]

Glad he made it safely. I still remember the head on offset crash my mother was in with a Saab from nearly 20 years ago. I still get chills remembering the call and her telling me the car "went in the air". Fortunately they are built like tanks and she sustained no injuries. Thank you BMW.

[Poochie]

This is really not that surprising..

Modern BMWs could gracefully handle most front-end impact with little fanfare; they're engineered with well-thoughtout crumple zones designed to deflect force, plus a plethora of speed-sensitive supplementary restrain components working in tandem but if it's a direct side-impact collision, exactly to the point at where occupants are located, history has shown they don't fare too well in those instances. It then really boils down to luck and chance.. 😗

[LemonOne]

Reminds me of this video.
BMWs were pretty safe back then too.

[2022M550i]

Wow, the 5 series did really well. Does anyone know why there is no crash rating on our cars? At least on the window sticker, it's not rated.

[lago1974]

Wow. Chilling but assuring at the same time.

[mbanck]

But, but, the front overhang! Blasphemy!

[ResIpsaLoquitur]

Originally Posted by 2022M550i

Wow, the 5 series did really well. Does anyone know why there is no crash rating on our cars? At least on the window sticker, it's not rated.

"Low volume" cars are frequently not tested due to the cost of testing, or in the case of some super cars, the cost of a destroyed example is prohibitive. ROI on the testing is so low, it's not worth doing.

According to NHTSA and the IIHS, nearly 500k passenger cars and SUVs sold each year have not been crash test rated by the two organizations. Crazy that some higher volume cars, i.e., the Porsche Macan are not tested. You'd think based on the logic above, which many manufacturers use, that there are enough Macan's sold to (financially) "justify" testing on Porsche's part.

[KoenG]

I wouldn't brag too much with the honest intentions of BMW or which ever make. Only MB and Volvo or Saab maybe, but they just wanted to better the very poor competition to use it as a USP. They never needed to excel, just put a seat belt as standard equipment or have 'weak' deformation zones at front and in the back was sufficient.

Cars only became really better because there are institutions like EuroNcap or IIHS. During the 80-90's, consumers didn't ask for a save car, all was reflected to the "save driver". The safest car, was the one with the safest driver back then! Even car magazines here in Belgium wrote this kind of none sense! Manufacturers were united in discrediting these tests as being pointless and irrelevant in the late 90's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gph2nqDWk7A


These days, and even without IIHS and others, cars would probably have become a bit better anyway because the market asked for "stiffer" cars. This eliminates the flex out of the chassis and avoids that the car starts creaking and squeaking after a few months/years. Also high power versions like the F90 require very stiff chassis for better control.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by KoenG

I wouldn't brag too much with the honest intentions of BMW or which ever make. Only MB and Volvo or Saab maybe, but they just wanted to better the very poor competition to use it as a USP. They never needed to excel, just put a seat belt as standard equipment or have 'weak' deformation zones at front and in the back was sufficient.

Cars only became really better because there are institutions like EuroNcap or IIHS. During the 80-90's, consumers didn't ask for a save car, all was reflected to the "save driver". The safest car, was the one with the safest driver back then! Even car magazines here in Belgium wrote this kind of none sense! Manufacturers were united in discrediting these tests as being pointless and irrelevant in the late 90's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gph2nqDWk7A


These days, and even without IIHS and others, cars would probably have become a bit better anyway because the market asked for "stiffer" cars. This eliminates the flex out of the chassis and avoids that the car starts creaking and squeaking after a few months/years. Also high power versions like the F90 require very stiff chassis for better control.

Eh, I still go with the safest car is the one that the driver doesn't crash. Everything else is auxiliary safety equipment.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Poochie

This is really not that surprising..

Modern BMWs could gracefully handle most front-end impact with little fanfare; they're engineered with well-thoughtout crumple zones designed to deflect force, plus a plethora of speed-sensitive supplementary restrain components working in tandem but if it's a direct side-impact collision, exactly to the point at where occupants are located, history has shown they don't fare too well in those instances. It then really boils down to luck and chance.. 😗

Most all modern cars survive bad wrecks. BMW has no advantage in this game.

[norbtx]

I would say that the US government and Ralph Nadar had a lot to do with how safe cars are now. They mandated airbags, ABS, crash ratings, third brake lights, etc. Heck, in other countries you can still buy cars from the same manufacturers that sell cars in the US without these safety features. Might as well throw in emissions standards too, the US lead the world in implementing strict emissions standards. I doubt car manufacturers would have done those things on their own.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by norbtx

I would say that the US government and Ralph Nadar had a lot to do with how safe cars are now. They mandated airbags, ABS, crash ratings, third brake lights, etc. Heck, in other countries you can still buy cars from the same manufacturers that sell cars in the US without these safety features. Might as well throw in emissions standards too, the US lead the world in implementing strict emissions standards. I doubt car manufacturers would have done those things on their own.

I'd say the California Air Resources Board (CARB) had more to do with influencing emissions, and fuel economy standards. The Feds picked up the advocacy once President Nixon established the EPA in late 1970. Emission standards added with the 1973 OPEC embargo and 1979 oil shortage, nearly killed off the US manufacturers, who were drastically trying to redesign their product lines during the 1970's economic downturn.

If you review automotive history, seat belts, airbags, automotive ABS, fuel injection (greatly improved emissions and fuel economy) and more, were all invented by the auto industry in advance of the Feds mandating said technologies. The more recent examples are the Tire Pressure Monitoring System (TPMS) and rear backup camera.

And we can thank Ralph Nadar and his Center for Automotive safety for the pitiful non-diversity of model variation in today's automotive marketplace. No longer can Manufacturers afford to build affordable low-volume production models and meet corporate profitability targets. It is easy to ascertain the lack of diversity when a decade ago VW develops its MQB platform to produce 15 nameplate variations of the same basic car. Or worst, BMW platform-sharing the Z4 with Toyota and building FWD 1-series on a shared Mini platform. Wouldn't some of us love to have Chevrolet's 2022 model of the rear-engine Corvair selling for $32,000? What we have now is an industry full of CUV, SUV, and Crossovers, all of which are merging into one, powered by a CVT or 10-speed automatic bolted to a 2.0 L four-cylinder turbo utilizing the perfect stochiometric half-liter cylinder.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a1...engine-design/

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by LemonOne

Reminds me of this video.
BMWs were pretty safe back then too.

Love that video. I remember it well. Launch-Boy! LOL.

[MilehighM3]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Most all modern cars survive bad wrecks. BMW has no advantage in this game.

Except this car. Being in and around collision repair centers from time to time and how poorly Tesla's are put together, I will never own one or put my family in one. Very few spot welds and/or adhesive compared to other manufacturers. Yes they do well in frontal collisions do to the lack of an ICE and low canter of gravity, but in the even of a side collision they are terrible. Imagine having your kids in the car, then they're out in the street because your 100k SUV was split into pieces. No thanks!

https://www.thedrive.com/news/31911/...odel-x-in-half