texas911

Hey Mike, basically the modern day Suburban absorbed all the energy, that's why its all mangled and your car was hardly damaged.

STLPCA

The visibly cracked paint & small hole may be the tip of the iceberg. Hidden under the rear "cosmetic" bumper are components (2 shock absorbers, aluminum bumper, brackets, etc.) which I'll bet were damaged in the collision. If so, should you suffer a similar rear ender you've seriously compromised your protection.

If you haven't pulled the bumper to inspect for concealed damage & had the shocks tested, you should.

On topic: IMO travelling in an open top vehicle w/o roll over protection is nuts.

993Racer2

Look in carpoint there is a good story in it about hitting the wall without seatbelts. She ahs a bit of a point.

But lets face it. HTis is not a car for your wife. Some (I apologize) ladies are different. They are exceptional. But then againI didnt buy this car for my wife and she barely gets to sit in the left hand seat.

That's why well you know the stories..... Give her a cayenne

TheOtherEric

Midnight Rider, aka Blickie, dude you're way out of line with the name calling. Take your meds and settle down. If he reported your post, you'd probably get suspended for that.

Marv

Was that the reason they made the 996/997 larger? I find that surprising. Tell me more. I would think that there were many other factors, too.

Both the 964 and 993 had virtually nothing in/on them that came from the earlier 911.

Yes, the 993 is a 10 year old car and safety gets better every day. However, there is no better safety item than good judgement.

FGL28

Marv,

From what I understand the reason why the 996 / 997 are bigger than the 993 or the 962 is that it was needed to put more stuff in the car. And we are not talking about the huge size difference.

For our friends in the Lone Star State it is less than the difference between a Tahoe and a Surburban.

or

Less than th difference between a double and triple wide.

The best thing to do is buy an armored personal carrier to transport the child.

Please note the last part about the APC is a JOKE!

On a more serious note some of the most fun my daughter has had is going on errand running with Dad or with Mom in the 993. She is almost nine. It has created memories that, for me, will last a lifetime.

Good luck

ked

"...bigger than the 993 or the 962..."
ahhh, the 962 - now THERE was a large closed Porsche I wouldn't let my kids ride in...

mrsullivan

huh?.....

if you are going to poke holes, offer some data yourself... what jagbuff said makes a lot more sense to me than your wordy post...

maybe its because we are both from TX.... you know, we are a little s-l-o-w-e-r down here in the south...

FGL28

Ked,

Just seeing if you guys were paying attention.

The differences between the 901, 964, 993 and the 996/997 are small.

ked

fgl; indeed, 901 design evolution is a fine example of the rule of "the increasing importance of small differences". interesting to note (on topic) that the 962 was the safer version of the 956, as demanded by IMSA (US!) regulations.

Jonathan, sorry about the words, yet I don't feel compelled to pump data, just question generalizations. Texas slow pokes excepted. ciao.

ljugete

The windshield of a 993 is designed to function as a rollbar. With the top up you'll have some extra buffering as well. Adding a Das Sport Roll Bar would help but would compromise the entire backseating areas. With dual airbags I would avoid seating a small adult or child in the passenger seat.

As an E.R. Doc myself I concur with your concerns though believe the 993 is as safe (or safer) as your BMW. I have driven my young daughter in the backseat (top up of course) without issues and she has had a blast each time.

Good Luck!

Speedraser

Jimbone.

Try this link:
http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_rat.../ictl_0399.pdf

Scroll down to the Sports Car category, look at the "Injury" column, and look for Porsche 911 -- it's the result for the 993. The average for all cars is 100, and the lower the number the better. The 993 gets a 39 -- an EXTRAORDINARILY good figure.

This is the Highway Loss Data Institute's listing of injury frequency (as well as cost to repair and theft) based on actual real world claims made to insurance companies. It is not the be-all and end-all to this discussion, of course, however, it is based on what has actually occured on the roads.

Obviously, many factors produce these results, but undoubtedly both active and passive safety are prime factors. The 993's rating is SO good that I am confident it is quite meaningful. These are not raw numbers that are low because of the relatively small number of 993s on the road or miles driven, etc. -- the many differences among the many cars listed are, of course, accounted for as well as possible in calculating the figures.

Further, I have seen several wrecked 993s and I have been very impressed by their strucural integrity. Also, more than a few rennlisters have crashed ther own 993s and written about their misfortunes on this board, often with pictures. If you haven't already, do a thorough search.

Other than your car being a Cab w/o a roll bar (a significant issue, IMO), I would feel confident in the safety of the 993. The SUV vs car thing is unhappy no matter what the car is, but SUVs often have similar safety ratings to cars because SUVs crash more often -- poor brakes, poor handling, frequent rollovers, etc.

mborkow

very interesting! so according to the "injury" column you would be better off in an accident in the 993 coupe/targa than in the bmw 7-, 5-, or 3-series.

STLPCA

That would NOT be a correct assumption based on the report. This has been discussed previously when Todd last suggested that the cited study means a 993 is safer than a whatever. The key to any statistical study is understanding its parameters & purpose. The purpose of this study is to help the insurance industry determine its payment risk to its insured. It was not a safety study.

The "injury" figure is based on claims made under PIP coverage which the report defines as "first party no fault coverage" by insurance companies to their insureds or others in the insured's car.

It excluded injuries where payments were made by the other driver's insurance company, where inury costs were covered by a separate health insurance policy, driver only injuries where the driver either didn't have med-pay included in his car insurance or chose not to made a claim, passenger injuries covered by the passenger's health insurance, etc. It also excluded fatal accidents so, hypothetically, a car w/100% fatalities in accidents would seem "safer" than any other vehicle.

It didn't adjust for number of occupants so 5 minor injuries @ $500 each in an M5 hitting a 993 would be reported as "worse" than the sole 993 driver w/$2000 in injury claims. It didn't adjust for miles driven.

I could go on, but we're all presumably intelligent & can read the report & interpret it as we wish. That's the beauty of most statistical studies - there's something for everyone. For me, I don't worry about the safety of my 993, nor do I have any illusions about how I'd do in my precious little, low car w/o side/head air bags if I got T-boned by an SUV.

Speedraser

Not once did I suggest that this study provides the final answer to the question asked (I specifically stated as much). However, based on Dan's own statement, it IS a report that the insurance companies consider useful enough to them for a purpose that is VERY important to them -- the insurance companies' own risk. A large number of car accidents fit the paramenters of those included in the study, and there is no reason to think that if the study included injuries that were paid for by another's company that the RELATIVE results would be significantly different. These are RELATIVE from one car to another -- every car in the rankings is evaluated with the same parameters, and many issues are accounted for and adjusted for, such as age of the drivers.

As I have always said when I've referred to this study, I find it useful, nothing more and nothing less. It is the ONLY study that is based on actual crashes. I do personally believe that a car that has such an extraordinarily good result as the 993 (top 3 or 4, I think, on the entire list) probably earned it for some valid reasons. Look at the rankings -- for the most part, they "make sense." Big Benzes and BMWs do well, little Toyotas and Hyundais don't. The 993 and the M-B SL do well. The big SUVs do well. I've also compared this list to the fatality frequency list, and they are quite similar (obviously there are exceptions). The 993 isn't on the fatality frequency list.

It goes without saying that I wouldn't want to be hit by an SUV while in the 993. Size and weight are always factors, but neither are they the only factors. I wouldn't want to be hit by an SUV in ANY car (or in an SUV for that matter). However, I have seen several 993s that have been in very serious crashes (street and track), and I do believe that they have done an excellent job of keeping their occupants in one piece. I think the study provides further evidence that Porsche is as good as any company at designing and building a crashworthy car.