Quote:
Originally Posted by BMWrules7
No. They used to focus on those things. But, then they found that a nice even collision is not anywhere near as catastrophic as one that is offset.
This is a huge blow to BMW. BMW focused on finding a way to give nearly all of the electronic gizmos available on the 7 and the 5 to the
3. Worse, BMW shaved away structural weight in the name of Eco pro and other nonsense.
Now, while it is true your little 4 banger beats the old model's 6, and it's true that the new model goes from 0 to 60 a tad faster, it is equally true that there was a hidden compromise and that was the safety of the BMW occupants.
|
At first I thought you were at least partly joking, but apparently not. Basically you are implying that by taking weight out of the F30 structure, they have made it less safe than the E90. To support this view you are using the results of a test for which no data exists for the E90, because it hasn't been tested (and probably never will be). Tell me again how you know that the E90 would perform better in this test and therefore is more safe than the F30?
If you look at the tests for which there is data for both models, you'll see that they both scored good in all measures on the front moderate overlap test, they both scored good overall for side impact but while the F30 has an acceptable for torso, the E90 has an acceptable for both torso and pelvis/leg, with all other measures being good for both. In roof strength, the F30 is rated good and the E90 acceptable. I hope they publish the photos/videos from those other tests so that we can compare.
Strength to weight ratio is constantly improving generation to generation for all makes, due to improved design and materials (greater use of high strength steel). Meanwhile, the IIHS keeps coming out with new tests because if every car aces all the current tests and they just call it a day, that doesn't challenge manufacturers to do better and ultimately move safety forward. It's fine for them to do this and I'm sure these manufacturers will respond, but your post is awfully alarmist for what actually happened. Note that while injuries to the left foot, ankle and lower leg were likely and the right leg possible, the risk of significant injuries to other body areas was low.