Four stars means Chevy Camaro falls short of Ford Mustang, Dodge Challenger crash tests
2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS - Click above for high-res image gallery
Modern muscle car buyers looking for reasons to purchase one machine over another may not be as easily swayed by safety ratings as horsepower figures and zero-to-sixty times. Regardless, Ford Mustang aficionados and Mopar enthusiasts high on the Dodge Challenger now have a bit of forum fodder against their arch rival from General Motors. How so? The 2010 Chevy Camaro has just been crash tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and it's only managed to earn a four-star driver and passenger frontal rating.
For the sake of comparison, the 2010 Ford Mustang and Dodge Challenger each came away full five-star report cards in this test. What does it all mean? According to NHTSA's website, the full five stars means the is a 10-percent or less chance of serious injury in an accident. Four stars means there's an 11- to 20-percent chance of serious injury in the same scenario. Click here to check out the official NHTSA stats.
Photos Copyright ©2009 Alex Núñez / Weblogs, Inc.
[Source: SaferCar.gov]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg "2011 Audi A8: Live from Miami")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
HotRodzNKustoms 9:11AM (8/08/2009)
Modern cars are so safe as it is who really cares if a car is rated 4 or 5 stars?
Reply
xenos 9:14AM (8/08/2009)
How can something so massive not get 5 stars? There is no excuse for that on a car this big. Again, we all know this cars was rushed out as fast as possible. However, they could have spent a bit more time on safety.
jcar302 9:43AM (8/08/2009)
kustom, are you saying that car companies need not make any effort to make cars safer anymore because modern cars are safe enough?
Safety should always evolve.
MajorGeek 9:55AM (8/08/2009)
Congratulations on the epic fail post of the day and it's not even 10:00 AM EST yet ;)
merlot066 10:07AM (8/08/2009)
If you read the post you would see that a 5 star rating means that there is a 10% or less chance of being injured in an accident, and 4 stars has 11-20% chance of being injured. I don't have any luck, so I'll keep my chances at 10%.
CB 10:34AM (8/08/2009)
@xenos
I agree that this boat should be 5 stars, but you think this thing was rushed? It seemed like it was 3 or 4 years ago when they first said it was going to production. If anything this thing should have been on the market much earlier.
Richard 11:08AM (8/08/2009)
I am with xenos on this...in terms of size...
I drive a 4-door GT with aluminum suspension and Bilsteins. You know - a 4-door!
I pulled up next to a Camaro yesterday at a light and the thing is positively MASSIVE! I mean, bigger than my Spec. B! How the hell can it be a sports car?!
And 4 vs. 5 stars on a car that was in gestation this long?! Just belies GM's problems and raises the cost of ownership on that POS! Insurance - you know!
dumblikeyou2 11:36AM (8/08/2009)
I get this feeling that, even though Autoblog is reporting the truth on all things auto, someone, somewhere within the bowels of Autoblog's offices take a very biased approach to reporting (bashing) GM no matter what they do.
There always seems to be a sarcastic tone that's subtly derogatory.
Tourian 12:17PM (8/08/2009)
@Richard
Have you ever pulled up next to a GT-R, they are huge. Would you also say that it can't be a sports car? What is your point?
PJ 12:25PM (8/08/2009)
I'm guessing that these results have something to do with the tight proximity of the interior surfaces to the driver. The Camaro may be massive, but if you're over 5'8", there isn't much crush space between the roof or dash and your face.
But then, we all wanted GM to keep the styling as close as possible to the concept, and those are the kinds of compromises you make.
alex 12:59PM (8/08/2009)
Oh my god you guys who are saying the Camaro should have done better because it's big are IDIOTS in need of a physics lesson. It's in fact quite the opposite. F=ma. I'd explain it more, but I don't want to waste my time since your simple brains probably wouldn't understand anyway.
Dave 1:16PM (8/08/2009)
"How can something so massive not get 5 stars?"
Let me try to explain.
"The vehicle crashes head-on into a rigid concrete barrier at 35 mph " - http://www.crashtest.com/explanations/nhtsa/usncap.htm
That means that the frontal crush zone has to absorb all of the kinetic energy of the mass of car/truck behind it. So, a larger vehicle naturally gets a lower score, because the front crush zone is tasked with stopping a much larger mass.
Imagine if you took a Honda Civic and crash tested it with 1000 lbs in the trunk. With the full trunk, the front of the car would suffer far more damage than if the car had an empty trunk. And, as a result more of the impact would be transferred to the passenger compartment.
AngeloD 3:27PM (8/08/2009)
"Again, we all know this cars was rushed out as fast as possible."
What are you talking about?? The Camaro was one of he longest development new car projects in living memory: almost 5 years from conception to roll out. It also had several quality holds after production started.
Still, the 4-star frontal rating is strange for a car that shares a platform with several Holden models that have been around for a long while and that have 5-star ratings.
The 4-star frontal rating is most likely due to some quirk of interior surface design, such as inedaquate knee bolsters or the like, and not anything structural.
HotRodzNKustoms 6:37PM (8/08/2009)
Well personally I still log quite a few miles in cars that if you look at them wrong will kill you. So I know dangerous. And I don't understand why me saying modern cars are very safe somehow gets me called an idiot and that I don't think cars should be developed to be safer and safer. All I'm saying is that does anyone buying a car like this really care about it's crash test rating once above passing? People who base their buying decision of a sports car on whether a car is very safe or very very safe should stick to reading consumer reports and buying Volvos and Toyotas.
Richard 9:51PM (8/08/2009)
Tourian,
Godzilla's fender arches and cowl aren't at the height of my nipples when I stand next to it and the Camaro's damn near are...and I am 5'9!
Ha! Ha!
While the GT-R is big and, yes, I have been next to one - and panting - the Camaro just looks like some giant sedan that has been chopped and shortened. Godzilla's proportions cowl height to roofline are more harmonious to my eye.
Richard 9:56PM (8/08/2009)
Of course, it could also be that I remember the Camaro from being a kid. So this new thing is just gi-f'ing-gundus compared to what it was...as is the Challenger! The 'stang always was a big, high CG beast anyway so the new one is...nothing new.
Frankly, all 3 of these bore the snot out of me - aside from the fact that we have seen pictures of them for YEARS. If they put a needle nose and high wing on the Charger, I might get interested.
Avinash machado 9:15AM (8/08/2009)
Anway it is far safer than the original sixties Camaro.
Reply
Richard 11:11AM (8/08/2009)
Brilliant thought!
But, with iPods, texting, satellite radio and the terrrible layout of its interior - the dangers of driving are far greater than "back in the day."
I guess it's all relative.
laser 9:16AM (8/08/2009)
A 4 star crash rating isn't necessarily a bad thing for the new Shamaro. Since it would be more likely the idiot who purchased the Shamaro might die or receive injury than a Mustang or a challenger owner, I believe this is a wonderful way to cull the herd. You'd think that after Government Motors took five or six years to develop the Shamaro, they'd have spent it on something - they didn't spend that time on the interior or on safety - and judging by the amateur exterior, they didn't spend the time there. I guess it takes several years to pick out exterior colors, wheel combinations, and how many recalls you can have with a new Government Motors vehicle.
Perhaps this 4-star rating was what Maximum Yutz was referring to when he called the new Shamaro a "smashing success"?
Reply
Obviously DaMinority 9:43AM (8/08/2009)
nice try...