Ian

guys, I was pondering the relative safety of driving my family around in my 1993 964 as a daily driver and started to get paranoid about the safety aspects.... anyone got any insight as to how safe these cars were built - I know this is a daft question in some respects...

I was kind of wondering what 'safety' items porsche included in the build, like side impact bars, stuff like that... before I give up the ghost and trade her in for a new 5-series bmw with big fat airbags.

The other half of my head is making me think that this was a 60K£ car when new and must have had some kind of safety stuff built in but I havent seen anything on any of the threads - anyone got any knowledge of it - or related experiences of crashing them and what happens to the passenger cell ....

Christer

Ian

This has been discussed before but I cannot remember what if anything the consensus was. One thing I do know is that these cars are built like brick s**thouses. Jeremy Clarkson tried to wreck one deliberately on one of his videos - it took him a long time. Structural strength is very high even by todays standards.

However, if you want the safest car for your family then I don't think you have a choice. There is no way that a 10 year old sports car is going to compete with a modern premium saloon of the current crop - at least from the point of view of airbag technology and so on. I think you have to look at your motivations behind this if you are going to keep the 964. What has made you think that there is going to be an accident? A lot of people get this, especially if they have not had an accident at all or a for a long time.

Years ago, friends of my parents decided that they had had too much good luck with regards to accidents and decided to do something about this. They purchased 2 Mercedes' with custom safety features - they both came at a premium of some 60% on the list price (we are talking serious safety options here). They also decided that they would never fly on the same plane together either.

I do not intend any affront here, but I have seen this many times especially when families are involved. I think we all think of the terrible things that COULD happen sometimes. I am not saying that this applies to you, but just have a think about it. Are you making a mountain out of a molehill? Naturally I am not suggesting that the safety of your family (and you) comes second to owning a particular car, just trying to point things out.

What you have to ask yourself is what do you need going forward? If you have a growing family, do you need to get rid of the 964 anyway?

All IMHO. FWIW, my 964 does not have an airbag.

Greg_L

I remember seeing Clarkson try to kill a 911 a few years ago. think it was an SC or a 3.2C ?

he poored acid on it, scraped it along a wall, drove into a wall and knocked half the wall down, then he dropped a piano on its bonnet - i remember his astonishment after all this carnage that it still drove straight! then he dropped it on a caravan from a huge crane.

That was the day i decided i hated clarkson.
Although he did prove just how tank-like the 911 is.

Andy Roe

He also shot it with the Shot Gun!!! I remember thinking that it was an early 70's car because it had a duck tale spoiler....

I don't understand what Clarkson has got against the 911. If they were as crap as he thinks, then surely Porsche would not have continued to build and sell them in large numbers for the last 30 years!!

The 911 Rocks!!

Andy

Andy

Ruairidh

Luckily US spec 964's do have the airbags (at least my (91MY does)- maybe you could retrofit them.

There is an additional thought here. Keep in mind that nothing is 100% safe.

And developing Christer's theme about what makes you think you are going to be in an accident: I'd add that there is more than one kind of accident. There are those you cannot escape and those you can. So we are talking percentages here not absolutes. And maybe the better car to have an accident in is not the best car to avoid an accident in.

It is the latter where I'd take the responsiveness of that lump of German metal behind my head and my 964 chassis anyday over a Saloon and - following the old Lotus adage - use that to get out of trouble.

Finally someone once made a pretty good case that increasing your sense of invulnerability actually reduced your ability to turn a potentially dangerous situation into an accident that you could avoid.....so increasing the % that you will have an accident.

Speedraser

Ian,

For something recent, look at the recent (Jan 2 2003) post by John H on this board, titled "Crash damage photos and questions" (sorry, I don't know how to post the link).

There was considerable discussion about crash safety on the 993 board during this past summer, but I can't find it. Anyway, there is substantial evidence that suggests 911s do a very good job of protecting their occupants in a crash. There is a chapter on safety in Tobias Aichele's book Porsche 911 Forever Young, and page 138 has a picture of a 964 Turbo after the 30 mph barrier crash test. Porsche started installing door beams in 1973 for the US market because it was required by law, and ALL RoW Porsches made from 1985 have door beams. They began doing frontal offset tests in '84, according to Aichele's book (there is also a picture of several cars that have gone through offset tests on pg. 138).

I don't have any data on the 964's real-world crash record, but the US's Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) publishes real-world insurance data for injury claims (as well as collision repair costs and theft losses) for 1995 and later model cars. The 993 is listed, and it has an extraordinarily good crash record regarding injuries. Cars are rated by a number -- the lower the better. "Average" is 100, and the '95-'97 993 scored a 39 -- one of the lowest (best) scores on the entire list. For comparison, the Benz SL got a 46, the S-class Benz got a 42, the BMW 7 series - 47, Volvo 900 series - 62, Jag XJ - 62, Saab 900 - 63, BMW Z3 - 65, BMW 3 series (2-dr) - 87, Mazda MX-5 - 90, Mazda 626 - 126, VW Golf (Mk 3) - 109, Hyundai Accent - 214 (these scores are all for '95-'97 model cars).

I think these ratings are quite informative, although they are influenced by driver type, driving style etc. (the HLDI tries to account for this by adjusting for the age of the drivers, but I'm sure that Mustangs and Camaros have terrible scores (127 and 113) partly because they are often driven by crazy and inexperienced 18 year-olds).

You can access this sight at <a href="http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ictl/previous/ictl_0399.pdf." target="_blank">http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ictl/previous/ictl_0399.pdf.</a> If the link doesn't work, go to <a href="http://www.hwysafety.org." target="_blank">www.hwysafety.org.</a> Look under Top Stories for "Injury, Collision & Theft Losses by make and model, 1999-2001 models" and click on "results." Then scroll to the bottom and you'll see the links to the results for cars back to the '95 model year. The 993 is under "Sports Cars."

Since the 964 is very similar to the 993 structurally, this information should be at least partially applicable. However, I know Porsche made some changes to the structure when they developed the 993 -- in the US, the 993 (all years) passes the stricter '97 side-impact standards, whereas the 964 (I think) does not.

AK

&gt;Finally someone once made a pretty good case &gt;that increasing your sense of invulnerability &gt;actually reduced your ability to turn a &gt;potentially dangerous situation into an accident &gt;that you could avoid.....so increasing the % &gt;that you will have an accident.

In college I had an econ prof that loved to talk about this. His example was how much safer we would drive if a sword came out of your steering wheel and impaled you instead of an airbag.

John Boggiano

That logic is applied by several local authorities in the UK. They arrange trees and shrubs to obscure the view when entering a roundabout (it's a funny, circular kind of junction - don't worry about it!) and junctions. This obscures the drivers' view and therefore makes it safer. (Not).

I wonder why they don't use the same logic instead of 'traffic calming'. If they abolished the speed-limits altogether, the pedestrians wouldn't dare go anywhere near the road in the first place.

Syd B.

Volvo and Saab have made it their business to market to those convinced they will survive the inevitable burning crash, due to their superior choice of cars. Porsche markets to those that think they will avoid the burning crash due to the handling aspects of their car and their superior driving skills. I believe the following quote is appropriate.

"An optimist is a person who sees a green light everywhere, while a pessimist sees only the red stoplight. . . The truly wise person is colorblind."

Albert Sweitzer