If you had to trade in the 993 due to safety
04-20-2004, 09:31 PM
#16
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Gemantown, TN
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maybe its just me, but the thought of explosive devices aimed at my head have never appealed to me. I always wear my seatbelt, and I put in an airbag cut-off swith a couple years ago (and have not turned them on since). I also think the best defense is a good offense - Porsches have great brakes and handling that can help you avoid accidents other cars (and SUV's) could only dream of avoiding. Just my .02 cents.
04-20-2004, 11:10 PM
#17
Rennlist Member
Mackenzie,
Is this your daily driver? If not, I wouldn't worry too much about the safety. Example: If you had a chance to own a Ferrari 275 GTB/4 with ultra thin (aluminum? Sorry, can't find my Ferrari book) body panels, non-ABS brakes and non-airbag, metal spoked steering wheel, would you really trade it in for a more modern car that has a higher theoroetical survivability rate, such as the M3 you're considering? (Okay, seven M3's.)
Enjoy your car, assuming, of course, you do love it. As Skip said, don't think of the negative; live for the joy of ownership and dash any thoughts of an actuarial existence, unless this is your business.
Life is too short.
Is this your daily driver? If not, I wouldn't worry too much about the safety. Example: If you had a chance to own a Ferrari 275 GTB/4 with ultra thin (aluminum? Sorry, can't find my Ferrari book) body panels, non-ABS brakes and non-airbag, metal spoked steering wheel, would you really trade it in for a more modern car that has a higher theoroetical survivability rate, such as the M3 you're considering? (Okay, seven M3's.)
Enjoy your car, assuming, of course, you do love it. As Skip said, don't think of the negative; live for the joy of ownership and dash any thoughts of an actuarial existence, unless this is your business.
Life is too short.
04-20-2004, 11:13 PM
#18
Rennlist Member
While I enjoy my 993 as much as the next guy, I am well aware of the limitations involved in driving a car that has safety technology from a decade ago.
To say that the safety advances of the last decade are inconsequential would be a disservice to those that work in the area of automotive safety. The truth is, automotive safety has advanced quite a bit since our cars were made.
Beyond the two airbags, which are now ubiquitous in cars, we’re now protected by side curtains, reinforcing rails in the doors, and headrests that self-adjust to prevent head and neck injuries. And in the case of Volvo, a boron steel rollcage in case of rollover. And beyond these active safety features is the increased scrutiny that the government and the media has applied to the topic of automotive safety. This in turn causes manufacturers to pay more attention to how safe their vehicles are.
Is it accurate to say that all modern cars are safer than the 993? Absolutely not, each car (or truck) should be judged based on its own features and benefits. However, it’s accurate the say that overall cars are safer now than ever before.
But here’s thing: if you don’t feel safe in your 993, or if you worry about the safety of your family in the car, then you should get something else. You’ll never really enjoy yourself being constantly concerned about your personal safety. Truth be told, there’s a lot of great brand new cars that are fun to drive and offer great safety ratings.
Thanks,
Peter
To say that the safety advances of the last decade are inconsequential would be a disservice to those that work in the area of automotive safety. The truth is, automotive safety has advanced quite a bit since our cars were made.
Beyond the two airbags, which are now ubiquitous in cars, we’re now protected by side curtains, reinforcing rails in the doors, and headrests that self-adjust to prevent head and neck injuries. And in the case of Volvo, a boron steel rollcage in case of rollover. And beyond these active safety features is the increased scrutiny that the government and the media has applied to the topic of automotive safety. This in turn causes manufacturers to pay more attention to how safe their vehicles are.
Is it accurate to say that all modern cars are safer than the 993? Absolutely not, each car (or truck) should be judged based on its own features and benefits. However, it’s accurate the say that overall cars are safer now than ever before.
But here’s thing: if you don’t feel safe in your 993, or if you worry about the safety of your family in the car, then you should get something else. You’ll never really enjoy yourself being constantly concerned about your personal safety. Truth be told, there’s a lot of great brand new cars that are fun to drive and offer great safety ratings.
Thanks,
Peter
04-21-2004, 02:59 AM
#19
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your concerns are valid, as ca. 50,000 persons a year are killed in auto crashes in the USA. As Anir and others have pointed out, drivers in this country are not required to have any particular level of demonstrated skills beyond a driving test (typically only at age 16) nor any demonstrated fitness to drive apart from some relatively loose vision and medical standards that are unevenly enforced. Our roads are generally constructed and maintained to an inferior standard as compared to European countries. Furthermore, police do not enforce most of the "rules of the road", such as following too close, excessive lane changes, or speeding in urban and congested areas.
An interesting study is referenced at Highway safety. This was done on 1990-1995 autos; some highlights include:
1) "As vehicle weight decreases, the number of occupants killed in crashes increases"
2) "In two-vehicle crashes involving cars, there are more deaths inside the cars than in the other vehicles they collide with. Only when the two heaviest classes of cars are involved are there slightly more deaths in the other vehicles. In contrast, in crashes involving pickups or SUVs there are many more deaths in the other vehicles."
However, the effects are still relatively small in comparison to the total death and accident rate. So you could buy the biggest SUV you can to commute (most of your busy, congested, work-a-day miles) and come out slightly ahead. But by moving closer to your workplace, if that is feasible, you could probably have a bigger overall risk reduction than you would achieve by buying a giant SUV or a Volvo with side air bags. In any event, you probably want to support your local legislator if he or she proposes that unsafe ride height modifications in SUVs and pickup trucks be prohibited.
Best, Mike
An interesting study is referenced at Highway safety. This was done on 1990-1995 autos; some highlights include:
1) "As vehicle weight decreases, the number of occupants killed in crashes increases"
2) "In two-vehicle crashes involving cars, there are more deaths inside the cars than in the other vehicles they collide with. Only when the two heaviest classes of cars are involved are there slightly more deaths in the other vehicles. In contrast, in crashes involving pickups or SUVs there are many more deaths in the other vehicles."
However, the effects are still relatively small in comparison to the total death and accident rate. So you could buy the biggest SUV you can to commute (most of your busy, congested, work-a-day miles) and come out slightly ahead. But by moving closer to your workplace, if that is feasible, you could probably have a bigger overall risk reduction than you would achieve by buying a giant SUV or a Volvo with side air bags. In any event, you probably want to support your local legislator if he or she proposes that unsafe ride height modifications in SUVs and pickup trucks be prohibited.
Best, Mike
04-21-2004, 03:21 AM
#20
Three Wheelin'
Mackenzie,
First, do a search. This has come up before, and a search should provide considerable input.
I, too, have given this a lot of thought. One very interesting site is www.hwysafety.org -- the IIHS website. The link below should (hopefully) take you to the report on '95 - '97 models that includes the 993. While they clearly have their own agenda, they publish the frequency-of-injury records of most cars, including the 993. Although this in no way provides the definitive answer to how safe a car is, I think it is a very informative guide since it comes from the frequency of injuries sustained in actual real-world crashes of all types, rather than from specific test crashes. Basically, the lower the number the better (you want to look at the column titled "Injury"). A score of 100 is the average for all vehicles. A score of 80 means that car did 20 % better than average, while a 120 means that car did 20% worse than average. The 993 scored a remarkable 39 (61% better than average), which was the 2nd or 3rd best result of ANY car, truck, or SUV. It did better than such things as all Volvos, Mercedes, BMWs, Suburbans, Land Cruisers, etc. Even though I don't think this resolves the issue completely, the 993 did so extraordinarily well that I think these figures have considerable significance. The link is:
http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_rat.../ictl_0399.pdf
One thing I wondered recently is, since these results are relative to an average and the average car has become safer (so that a score of 100 in the latest report presumably means a safer car than when the 993 was in the report), whether the 993's great result means less today. Fortunately, it appears that it has not lost its significance. Several cars that were in the 993's report are/were still in production for the latest report ('00 - '02 model year cars), such as the BMW Z3, and M-B SL. Their results are virtually identical in the latest report as they were in the '95 - '97 report, so it seems reasonable that the 993s results are still valid.
Of course, I wouldn't want to get hit in the side by an SUV (I saw those videos), but that is but one possible crash. Although the 993 has been around since '94, it has many of the safety features that the latest cars have. ALL 993s meet the new for '97 model side-impact standards. BTW, they do have door beams. In fact, all cars sold in the US built after 1/73 (yes, '73) have been required to have door beams (Porsche put door beams in their cars for all markets from '85). Of course, not all door beams are created equal. Also, the NHTSA (I think) tested various cars' head restraints some years ago, and if memory serves, the 993 headrests were among the very few that the NHTSA rated very well.
BTW, if I remember correctly, the later 996/Boxster side bags have a section that extends upwards that supposedly protects the head in a similar manner to curtain bags.
As far as the safety of SUVs is concerned, IMHO they're not so great overall. Yes, they do better in most truck vs. car impacts, but they do NOT do better than cars (on average) in protecting their occupants in single-car crashes. Moreover, they crash a lot; they generally have poor brakes (FAR longer stopping distances than cars, let alone Porsches) and they have very poor handling -- they cannot avoid many crashes that a decent car could. This is, obviously, a bad combination for safety, since one might need both handling and braking to avoid a crash. Further, poor brake performance increases the odds of needing the handling ability, which is also poor (and vice-versa). SUVs wind up upside down with startling frequency and often with dire consequences.
Overall, I believe the 993 is a very safe car.
Drive safe everyone.
First, do a search. This has come up before, and a search should provide considerable input.
I, too, have given this a lot of thought. One very interesting site is www.hwysafety.org -- the IIHS website. The link below should (hopefully) take you to the report on '95 - '97 models that includes the 993. While they clearly have their own agenda, they publish the frequency-of-injury records of most cars, including the 993. Although this in no way provides the definitive answer to how safe a car is, I think it is a very informative guide since it comes from the frequency of injuries sustained in actual real-world crashes of all types, rather than from specific test crashes. Basically, the lower the number the better (you want to look at the column titled "Injury"). A score of 100 is the average for all vehicles. A score of 80 means that car did 20 % better than average, while a 120 means that car did 20% worse than average. The 993 scored a remarkable 39 (61% better than average), which was the 2nd or 3rd best result of ANY car, truck, or SUV. It did better than such things as all Volvos, Mercedes, BMWs, Suburbans, Land Cruisers, etc. Even though I don't think this resolves the issue completely, the 993 did so extraordinarily well that I think these figures have considerable significance. The link is:
http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_rat.../ictl_0399.pdf
One thing I wondered recently is, since these results are relative to an average and the average car has become safer (so that a score of 100 in the latest report presumably means a safer car than when the 993 was in the report), whether the 993's great result means less today. Fortunately, it appears that it has not lost its significance. Several cars that were in the 993's report are/were still in production for the latest report ('00 - '02 model year cars), such as the BMW Z3, and M-B SL. Their results are virtually identical in the latest report as they were in the '95 - '97 report, so it seems reasonable that the 993s results are still valid.
Of course, I wouldn't want to get hit in the side by an SUV (I saw those videos), but that is but one possible crash. Although the 993 has been around since '94, it has many of the safety features that the latest cars have. ALL 993s meet the new for '97 model side-impact standards. BTW, they do have door beams. In fact, all cars sold in the US built after 1/73 (yes, '73) have been required to have door beams (Porsche put door beams in their cars for all markets from '85). Of course, not all door beams are created equal. Also, the NHTSA (I think) tested various cars' head restraints some years ago, and if memory serves, the 993 headrests were among the very few that the NHTSA rated very well.
BTW, if I remember correctly, the later 996/Boxster side bags have a section that extends upwards that supposedly protects the head in a similar manner to curtain bags.
As far as the safety of SUVs is concerned, IMHO they're not so great overall. Yes, they do better in most truck vs. car impacts, but they do NOT do better than cars (on average) in protecting their occupants in single-car crashes. Moreover, they crash a lot; they generally have poor brakes (FAR longer stopping distances than cars, let alone Porsches) and they have very poor handling -- they cannot avoid many crashes that a decent car could. This is, obviously, a bad combination for safety, since one might need both handling and braking to avoid a crash. Further, poor brake performance increases the odds of needing the handling ability, which is also poor (and vice-versa). SUVs wind up upside down with startling frequency and often with dire consequences.
Overall, I believe the 993 is a very safe car.
Drive safe everyone.
04-21-2004, 11:59 AM
#21
Instructor
Thread Starter
This was a great discussion for me to read and i appreciate it. i think this will eventually be a personal decision on where safety fits in my ranking of priorities and if current safety innovations are worth selling my 993 for.
thx again and if i sell the 993 i will let the board know because i just took it in the shop yesterday for a checkup and as Mark from Redline (santa monica california) says .....this car is in great shape .....and i will try to sell it to someone who will appreciate it like i have.
thx again and if i sell the 993 i will let the board know because i just took it in the shop yesterday for a checkup and as Mark from Redline (santa monica california) says .....this car is in great shape .....and i will try to sell it to someone who will appreciate it like i have.
04-21-2004, 02:09 PM
#22
Porsche's are VERY SAFE
I know from personal experience, the attached picture is of my Boxster S that I totaled. I used the insurance money to buy the 993. I had 2 injuries from this accident:
1) Minor scratches and poison Ivy on my arms and legs, from the weeds I fell into after I disconnected my seatbelt and fell to the ground
2) a twisted ankle that I sustained climbimg back down the embankment to retrieve personal items out of the car
other than this absolutely nothing, in fact other that the aches and pains from flipping over (not rolling just one flip) I sustained no injuries from the wreck itself. Once the car was up and on a flatbed, both doors worked, both power windows worked, Convertible top worked!, front trunk worked and the rear trunk would open a few inches. These cars are built right!
With the 993 you have a car that Porsche has been racing and wrecking since the early 1960's! By the time they made our cars porsche knew very well how to make them safe. I feel like my 993 is actually safer than the Boxster, like it is carved out of a singel piece of steel
Jon
1) Minor scratches and poison Ivy on my arms and legs, from the weeds I fell into after I disconnected my seatbelt and fell to the ground
2) a twisted ankle that I sustained climbimg back down the embankment to retrieve personal items out of the car
other than this absolutely nothing, in fact other that the aches and pains from flipping over (not rolling just one flip) I sustained no injuries from the wreck itself. Once the car was up and on a flatbed, both doors worked, both power windows worked, Convertible top worked!, front trunk worked and the rear trunk would open a few inches. These cars are built right!
With the 993 you have a car that Porsche has been racing and wrecking since the early 1960's! By the time they made our cars porsche knew very well how to make them safe. I feel like my 993 is actually safer than the Boxster, like it is carved out of a singel piece of steel
Jon
04-21-2004, 02:28 PM
#24
Intermediate
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: "Up-North", Michigan
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My answer to this question is heavily loaded, as I have had the lives of two passangers saved simply by being in an SUV. A while back a Dodge Ram truck failed to stop at a red light as I turned in in front of it. Earlier that morning I had made the decision between taking a two door coupe or the Jeep. Luckily I decided on the Jeep. Even with the added height and strength of the Jeep, the injuries were severe.
While it is important to be a good driver, and to take all the defensive steps possible; the reality is that there will be times when the actions of others will be unavoidable.
I do believe that it is safe to own and drive a car like the 993. However, I would only use it as a second car. The daily commute (I believe the most dangerous period on the road), and those times when bad weather will effect everyones driving can be reserved for the Jeep.
Just my 2 cents. I see the valuable arguments on both sides. IMHO having two cars makes life a little safer.
While it is important to be a good driver, and to take all the defensive steps possible; the reality is that there will be times when the actions of others will be unavoidable.
I do believe that it is safe to own and drive a car like the 993. However, I would only use it as a second car. The daily commute (I believe the most dangerous period on the road), and those times when bad weather will effect everyones driving can be reserved for the Jeep.
Just my 2 cents. I see the valuable arguments on both sides. IMHO having two cars makes life a little safer.
04-21-2004, 04:58 PM
#25
Three Wheelin'
James,
I agree that there are times when nothing can be done to avoid an accident. However, there are many accidents that are avoidable by a car (or sports car) that are not avoidable in an SUV, due to the significant differences in handling and braking abilities. This applies to the daily commute as well as any other time.
Unfortunately, there are no simple answers to this.
I agree that there are times when nothing can be done to avoid an accident. However, there are many accidents that are avoidable by a car (or sports car) that are not avoidable in an SUV, due to the significant differences in handling and braking abilities. This applies to the daily commute as well as any other time.
Unfortunately, there are no simple answers to this.
04-21-2004, 05:05 PM
#26
Instructor
Thread Starter
I think the bottom line is if side air bags were available for the 993 most of us would take it. there is no arguement that side airbags are of no value. So i am off thinking about swapping my 993 for a 996.
Doesn't solve everything, but if safety is important why not take advantage of what is available.
by the way i did not realize the 996 side air bag is engineered to protect the head also thus similar to the bmw's head curtain bags.
so now i am thinking 996 instead of m3 so the porsche sickness may continue even if i swap cars.
this is a passionate topic so i am glad i brought it up.
Doesn't solve everything, but if safety is important why not take advantage of what is available.
by the way i did not realize the 996 side air bag is engineered to protect the head also thus similar to the bmw's head curtain bags.
so now i am thinking 996 instead of m3 so the porsche sickness may continue even if i swap cars.
this is a passionate topic so i am glad i brought it up.
04-21-2004, 05:30 PM
#27
Originally posted by Jeff 993TT
I don't understand the argument that "I bought a Tahoe to feel safer".. Well, that's great for you, but what about the other guy? Pretty soon, we'll all be driving semi trucks if that mentality continues. It's a bit selfish to drive a big car like that in the name of safety, imho.
I commute about 2 hours every day in a little car. The stuff that I see everyday is shocking. Tailgateing, overly agressive driving, useless lane changes, cell phone talking, makeup application, eating, etc. Probably the biggest way to increase safety for everybody is to slow down.
I don't understand the argument that "I bought a Tahoe to feel safer".. Well, that's great for you, but what about the other guy? Pretty soon, we'll all be driving semi trucks if that mentality continues. It's a bit selfish to drive a big car like that in the name of safety, imho.
I commute about 2 hours every day in a little car. The stuff that I see everyday is shocking. Tailgateing, overly agressive driving, useless lane changes, cell phone talking, makeup application, eating, etc. Probably the biggest way to increase safety for everybody is to slow down.
04-21-2004, 05:31 PM
#28
Three Wheelin'
I would certainly take the side bag in the 993 if I could. Since I can't, and I much prefer it to the 996, AND it appears to be quite safe overall, I have to hope that I don't ever have the specific accident in which that airbag would matter.
The 996 bag, as I understand it, is part of the bag that emerges from the door. It has an extension that is supposed to inflate upwards; I believe it was developed as a way to provide some bag protection for the head for a convertible that, obviously, has no roof from which a curtain bag can descend. I have no idea how effective it is in comparison to the roof-mounted curtain bags. Don't take my word for this, though -- make sure I'm right before you buy.
The 996 bag, as I understand it, is part of the bag that emerges from the door. It has an extension that is supposed to inflate upwards; I believe it was developed as a way to provide some bag protection for the head for a convertible that, obviously, has no roof from which a curtain bag can descend. I have no idea how effective it is in comparison to the roof-mounted curtain bags. Don't take my word for this, though -- make sure I'm right before you buy.
04-21-2004, 05:33 PM
#29
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Durham, NC (Go Duke!)
Posts: 1,184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeff993tt and Sppedraser - right with you.
I would ad that people in this country are, in general, very poor drivers. It is our inalienable right to go trucking along at 80mph in a 6000 lb car, talk on the phone, and not understand the performance limits of our vehicles. Sorry, but a Jeep Grand Cherokee or Dodge Monstrosity is not a safe vehicle. It kills other people, sure, but it is not inherently safe. In fact, they really suck in crash tests. etc, etc.
What we need in this country is better and more stringent requirements for licensing. And we need to get rid of the SUVs bystandardizing bumper height and maximum weight across ALL non-commercial vehicles. And, for those who can't qualify for licenses, we need better public transporation. It is absurd that in my state a one-eyed person with 20/70 vision and more than a few degrees of visual field can get a license, but I can't find a bus to take to work and my kid can't ride her bike to school because the roads are not safe and there are no sidewalks (you know they removed bikeracks at the schools because of this issue?!)... BTW, I live less than 5 miles form work, and from her school. Can't get too much closer.
There ought to be much more stringent requirements, reflex/response testing, etc, etc before someone can go and strap in.
Just my rather PO'd opinion. Please take no offense. When I think of the idiots out there, I worry not for me, but for my little ones.
Done ranting.
I would ad that people in this country are, in general, very poor drivers. It is our inalienable right to go trucking along at 80mph in a 6000 lb car, talk on the phone, and not understand the performance limits of our vehicles. Sorry, but a Jeep Grand Cherokee or Dodge Monstrosity is not a safe vehicle. It kills other people, sure, but it is not inherently safe. In fact, they really suck in crash tests. etc, etc.
What we need in this country is better and more stringent requirements for licensing. And we need to get rid of the SUVs bystandardizing bumper height and maximum weight across ALL non-commercial vehicles. And, for those who can't qualify for licenses, we need better public transporation. It is absurd that in my state a one-eyed person with 20/70 vision and more than a few degrees of visual field can get a license, but I can't find a bus to take to work and my kid can't ride her bike to school because the roads are not safe and there are no sidewalks (you know they removed bikeracks at the schools because of this issue?!)... BTW, I live less than 5 miles form work, and from her school. Can't get too much closer.
There ought to be much more stringent requirements, reflex/response testing, etc, etc before someone can go and strap in.
Just my rather PO'd opinion. Please take no offense. When I think of the idiots out there, I worry not for me, but for my little ones.
Done ranting.
04-21-2004, 05:37 PM
#30
Three Wheelin'
Jeff,
Clearly, there are arguments on both sides of this. What about the notion that a Tahoe has poor brakes and handling relative to any decent car? If they hit something, they're relatively well-protected in the Tahoe, but they're also, IMO, considerably more likely to hit something in the first place, not to mention roll over. That's why my wife does NOT drive an SUV.
Clearly, there are arguments on both sides of this. What about the notion that a Tahoe has poor brakes and handling relative to any decent car? If they hit something, they're relatively well-protected in the Tahoe, but they're also, IMO, considerably more likely to hit something in the first place, not to mention roll over. That's why my wife does NOT drive an SUV.