CP

I did a search, but nothing meaningful came up. Here's my question: Besides the obvious accessories like ABS, air bags, or attributes like nimbleness (accident avoidance), is the 993 a safe car by design?

I imagine it does have side impact steel beams, (not verified by anything Google turned up), crumple zone front and aft, reinforced cook-pit, collapsable steering column (although air bag would render that a moot point), etc. etc.

As the car is relatively light (about 3,100#) and low (less visible to other drivers), the safety issue does enter my mind once in a while.

Education please.

Thanks.

CP

GrantG

I was driving in the mountains recently while deciding whether I would buy a 95 993 Coupe or 2000 BMW M Coupe. While I was in the M Coupe, I was being followed by the owner of the BMW driving the 993 (we were switching back and forth). Anyways, he lost control and drove off the side of a serious embankment, drove right over a medium sized tree and rolled the car while landing about 30 ft. down a very steep (almost cliff) incline.

I thought he would be dead for sure, but he had not one scratch on him. Morale of the story is that the 993 is safe in terms of its safety cage construction (in a coupe anyways - would've died in a cab), but its driving characteristics are not "safe" for a careless or inexperienced driver. He lifted in a corner and lost the rear end...

CP

Grant,

That's great testimonial. Glad the guy is ok. That's a scary event. Yes, RWD cars oversteer at corners if one goes in too fast, and instinct is to slow down, thus lifting. Yet that's exactly opposite to what he should do.

Thanks.

CP

ca993twin

Despite Grant's story, you gotta remember that the basic 911 structure was designed back in 1963. They do seem to handle damage very well, but they can't possibly have as stiff a chassis and "crumple" zones like a newer design (996, for example). They are strong, but ancient.

graham_mitchell

I think you need to split safety into the two groups of primary and secondary safety.

primary safety (avoiding the accident in the first place) is excellent due to great brakes, acceleration, handling and driving position/road visibility.

secondary safety seems to be pretty good too. You mentioned something about there being no crumple zone in the front. I would have thought that the Porsche boot would make an excellent crumple zone without the engine in the front (which tends to be pushed back into the passenger cell in front engined cars).

Jeff 993TT

CP, if you are concerned about being safe while driving, you should work on being a safer driver first, imho.

Yes, the car will protect you, but there's no substitute for good judgement and anticipating and avoiding hazardous situations.

CP

Jeff,

I do drive safely and defensively, and had done driving courses in emergency handling etc.

The root of this question came from my chat with my wife over dinner last night. I now have to drive a bit more for my job, trips to Sacramento, Redding etc. I told her that I would rotate between my M5 and the 993 RUF for such long trips. She realizes that the M5 is a very safe car,so she asked if the 993 is just as safe. I searched Rennlist and Google and nothing concrete came up.

We are not aggressive/reckless drivers by any means. Her worries are other drivers, especially trucks of all sorts and SUVs. Our nephew got ran off the road on I5 by a semi, passing another truck, not realizing his Civic is in his blind spot. So my wife is very adament about me drivning a 'safe' car. I could not drive my Miata for long trips for this reason. So I got rid of the Miata and up-grade to a RUF 993, arguing that I'm getting into a much 'safer' car.

Hey, whatever works.

CP

Jim

Safe compared to what? These are very solid and stiff cars, with all of the U.S. mandated safety equipment appropriate for the late 90s... And we've seen evidence of many accidents where the car held up very well. Knock wood. I'm with Jeff, learn to drive your car safely, stay clear of Hummers, these are safe cars.

STLPCA

I don't think there can be any serious debate that in an identical collision, the greater mass & weight of the M5, combined w/safety features that are at least the equal of a 993, makes the M5 "safer." In a head on between the two, I know which one I'd rather be in.

s2racer

upgrade from a miata to a ruf....nice upgrade. my 2 cents says a driver has to be able to anticipate the stupid moves of others on the road. by being aware of everything around us, we can avoid the dangerous manuevers of less skilled drivers....

Speedraser

The only "objective" data I have been able to find is at the Highway Loss Data Institute's site, which can be found at:

http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_rat.../ictl_0399.pdf

If the link doesn't work, you can access the site at:

www.hwysafety.org.

From the home page, click on "Vehicle Ratings."

Then scroll down to the bottom, and under "Consumer Publications" click on the link to "Injury, Collision and Theft Losses."
This page contains info on how to interpret the ratings.

Near the top there is a window under "Injury, collision & theft loss information for previous years. "
Select "1995-97 models: color" or 1996-98 models: color" to find the report that includes the 993.

Click on the little arrows to make the text size large enough to read, then scroll down to the bottom of page 3, where you'll see the box for "Sports Cars."

The "Porsche 911 Targa/Coupe" is listed. The column you're interested in is the left one, titled "Injury." This is a statistical rating of the frequency of injury based on actual claims, rather than a crash test. A score of 100 is average. The lower the number, the safer the car. The 993 has one of the absolute best ratings (lowest number) of any vehicle in any category. Note that the ratings are comparable across categories, e.g., you can compare a 75 for a small car to a 75 for a large car -- they would be "equally safe." The 993 scored a 39 in the '95-'97 list and a 43 in the '96-'98 list. These are better -- safer -- results than all but three or four other vehicles, including large sedans and SUVs. The ratings supposedly take into account various factors, such as driver age, that could otherwise skew the results.

While I do not consider this the absolute final word in crash safety information, I do think that a car that has such an extremely low frequency of injury rating must do a very good job of protecting its occupants in a crash.

Steve (ca993twin),
The 993's structure was not introduced in 1963 -- the '89 964 had an almost entirely new structure. The front and rear chassis sections of the 993/964 are completely different from the earlier cars (which also seem to hold up well when hit). The 993 sales literature clearly discusses crumple zones and passenger cages (my '81 911SC brochure does also).

CP,
993s do have door beams. Actually, every car sold in the US that was built after January 1973 has to have them -- the law required it. I'm sure that not all door beams are created equal, however. FWIW, Porsche put door beams in their RoW cars from 1985 (something to consider if looking at a pre-'85 grey-market car). Also, every 993 meets the US's stricter, new-for-1997 model year side-impact requirements.

Dan,
The greater mass of the 5-series is an asset if you hit another vehicle, but not if you hit a non-moveable object, such as a wall. The greater the mass, the greater the kinetic energy that must be absorbed at a given speed. All other things being equal, the heavier car will crush more. For example, if a bare-bones 525i hits a wall at 30 mph, it will crush less than the heavier M5 having the identical crash (ignoring, for the sake of illustrating my point, that the 525i has a longer straight-6 and the M5 a shorter V8, which will influence their crash behavior).

CP -- I hope this helps put your wife's mind at ease.

User 4621

Todd, thanks for the link to the objective data.

I also believe very much in active safety, i.e, accident avoidance. I have to, I ride a motorcycle.

However, I also understand that there are circumstances that prevent avoidance. There was a terrible accident on Hwy 17 near my house where an 18 wheeler lost it's brakes and slammed into stopped traffic. It was bumper to bumper on a downhill, no possible way to avoid, even if you saw it coming. I'm amazed that of the 30 or so cars destroyed, there was only a single fatality. So it's good to know our cars are safe.

Besides, it's all relative. When some of us were kids, cars didn't have seatbelts, and we even climbed up on the rear deck, or rode in the backs of pickups.

Speedraser

Pete,

I agree -- safety is a combination of active and passive. Certainly, the 993 excels in the active safety department, but it's nice to know that it appears to excel regarding passive safety as well. Most accidents are avoidable, but the prospect of an unavoidable one is very real, no matter how careful or competent we may think we are.

Many years ago, my father was sitting in line at a red light. A volunteer fireman, coming from the cross-street on the left, attempted to make a right turn, but was going far too fast. He slid through the intersection and broadsided my fathers car, hard enough to knock it over on its side. There was absolutely nothing anyone (except the fireman) could have done in that situation to avoid the crash. My father was lucky to escape basically uninjured.

STLPCA

Todd
Interesting reading. However, I'm not sure I'd conclude as much about the safety of our cars. The HLDI injury figures are not based on the frequency of injuries, but rather the frequency of injury claims made by an insured or occupant's of the insured's car against the insured's insurance company. That's an important distinction since the results are affected by the existence & quality of the individual's personal medical insurance, whether an injury claim is made against the other driver's insuror and the number of potential vehicle occupants. Moreover, they ignore the severity of the injuries and, indeed, exclude DOAs. In short, comparing a 1 occupant instantly fatal car crash w/another crash w/medical claims for scratches & sprains to 6 occupants, the later would have a HLDI result of 6 injury claims while the former would be zero.

Read the "Comparison With Death Rates" section of the HLDI report which has some sobering generalizations about sports cars consistent with my comments.

I recognize that greater mass loses its advantage vs immovable objects, but the vast majority of accidents involve other vehicles. My point was that in a growing sea of SUVs, we in our little gems are at risk. If a 3 ton behemoth, w/a bumper at the level of my chest, T bones my 993 at speed, no amount of engineering will re-write basic physics.

Derrick B.

An andecdote, if I may...

As the above discussion points out, "safety" is a complex issue that is hard to put a number on. By way of illustration, a story from my CHiP brother-in-law. He comes home from work early one morning, looking worse than usual. What's up? He told me there was a really bad fatality accident involving a Honda Civic coupe and a Lincoln Navigator. Rear ended on the interstate.

My mind pictured an economy car crushed beneath an SUV that weighs twice as much as the smaller car.

But I was wrong. The SUV driver was the fatality. He'd been driving in the fast lane, and moved over for some quickly approaching headlights. The Civic, travelling over 100mph, changed lanes without signalling to pass the SUV on the right. The Civic tagged the Navigator as it changed lanes, causing the sport-ute to sked sideways and then roll several times. The driver ( a father of two) was killed pretty much instantly. The driver of the civic walked from the wreckage into a waiting patrol car. I believe manslaughter was the charge.

Anecdotes aside, the stats need to be closely scrutinized. A few years back in the econobox category, the Plymouth Neon was one of the safest cars, while the Dodge Neon was one of the least safe. I belive it was single car accident fatality rates they compared, acutally. Turns out teens drive Dodges, while old folks buy Plymouths. Apparently their driving habits diffder somewhat.