Sean Maisey

BTW - To give a little perspective, I grew up in a household where my father drove first a Lotus Elan and then a 914. In those days an aftermarlet co. made a padded "third seat" for the 914 center console. That is where I rode most of the time (no airbag no seat belt, no problem...)

Sean

Irishdriver

Sean,

The German TUV approved the use of the mid cushion in the 914 as an "emergency seat" back in 1970. I have this still in the papers of my 914/6's.

James-man

Sean,

That is funny. We just had our third child this year and I was very seriously considering cusom mounting the infant seat in place of the rear center console of our 928. I found mounting points to install "real" seat belt and there are good places for the frontal tie downs. There was ample room for my two small kids in addition the infant carrier set up. I was ready to head out to the generic autoparts store for the seatbelt, but the wife vetoed. I am personally comfortable with the safety of this and other set ups, however, this is one of the few areas where I give my wife all the leeway she wants. So, when I take all 3 kids, I guess the wife has to stay at home.

Speedraser

The Boxster (and 911) have outstanding safety records. For a look at actual injury claims to insurance companies, go to www.hwysafety.org and find your way to the injury records for sports cars -- you'll find the Boxster (and the 911 from '95 on). Their records are better than almost every other car and SUV on the road. I don't pretend that this is the final word on the subject, but I find it very encouraging.

machina

you didn't mention that the boxster did "substancially worse than average" in collision and "worse than average" in theft.

the numbers are misleading though. It really tells about the incedence based on who is driving the cars and how often.

My kids rides in the Yukon XL.

Speedraser

Synthesis,

I didn't mention the "collision" and "theft" stats because they have NOTHING to do with safety. The collision rating is about cost of repair, and theft is self-explanatory -- neither has anything to do with safety.

Any car on the list has to be numerous enough and cover enough miles to be included; this is why the 911 wasn't on the list until the mid-nineties. While I believe that "who is driving" has some influence on the stats, the agency "adjusts" for this in an effort to counter, for example, the high crash rate of 18-25 year-olds. Moreover, I have no reason to believe that a Boxster driver is any more "mature" than the driver of a Cadillac Seville, or an S-Class Benz, or a Jag XJ, or the various SUVs, or a Saab , or a Volvo, etc. In fact, as sports cars, it would seem that many Porsches are driven faster than most sedans or SUVs. Yet, the Porsches have a VERY low frequency of injury, which I believe is quite telling. As I said in my first post, the list doesn't answer the entire question, but I do believe it is useful and informative. I do believe that the "active" safety (handling, braking, etc.) of the Porsches contributes to their low frequency of injury, but without a safe structure, their rates wouldn't be as low as they are, IMO. Also, this active safety is pertinent to the likelihood of injury -- obviously, being less likely to crash in the first place is a good start to safety.

As far as your kids riding in the Yukon, that's great if you hit another car, but you're far more likely to have a crash in the Yukon (handling, braking, very high center of gravity, etc.) than you are in the Boxster. I've seen FAR too many rolled over SUVs to feel safe in one, personally. Also, with VERY few exceptions, SUV braking distances are HORRIBLE, and they cleary are incapable of anything like the kind of evasive, accident-avoidence maneuver that a decent car can perform, let alone a sports car. Have you compared the braking performance of the Yukon to the Boxster?

machina

todd,

check the ratings for the GM truck family like my Yukon XL, Suburban, etc. There as good or better than most, best rating on injury.

I understand the dynamics of driving a big heavy vehicle and I maintain the tires, brakes, etc. I will take my chances in the GM any day. When I got my SCCA license 3 years ago, John Paul Jr. (ex indy driver) took 8 of us around sebring in a suburban. You would be amazed at what that truck or any vehice for that matter can do in the right hands.

Speedraser

I have checked the ratings: the Boxster is 43, the 911 is 35 (36 for the Cabriolet), the Boxster is 43, and the Yukon/Suburban/Tahoe ranges from 38 to 52 (the lower the number, the better). I find it quite interesting that the 911 and Boxster have injury records that are equal to or better than a massive vehicle like the Yukon/Suburban. Expeditions, Explorers, etc., show greater frequencies of injury than the Yukon.

I have no doubt that you understand the dynamics of the Yukon. However, that has no bearing on the vehicle's absolute performance capability. As I'm sure you're aware, a track is very different from the street, and I know that a talented driver can make even a Yukon go much more quickly around a track than most would believe. Nevertheless, no matter how good you are, the Yukon takes a certain distance to stop from a given speed, and that distance is tremendously longer than the braking distance of a Boxster. The same goes for the handling -- a Yukon simply cannot execute an evasive maneuver that a Boxster can, obviously. If something happens right in front of you (which can happen no matter how good a driver one may be), the fact remains that a Boxster might have no accident, whereas the Yukon may have a massive one.

The 70-0 braking distance of a Boxster is approx. 160 ft., while the Yukon requires approx. 200 ft. That's an enourmous difference -- fully 25% longer. Let's say something happens while travelling at 70 and you hit the brakes. If the obstacle is 160 ahead, the Boxster has NO crash. The Yukon, however, would still be travelling at considerable speed. Since a Yukon requires about 35 to 40 feet to stop from 30 mph, and it would have needed another 40 ft to stop, the Yukon has a BIG crash when it hits the obstacle 40 ft before it would have been able to stop on its own.

Rolla

Here is my take on the whole child in a car with airbags story. First thing rear facing cars seats are a big nono unless you have a air bag deactivate child seat. as for my 2 year old who rides in a forward facing seat that uses the cars seat belts him sitting in this seat is no different than my 4'9" wife seating in the seat. in fact a short person adult or other wise is in more danger than my son if they are sitting too close to the dash to being with. But the Moral of the story is having an accident with children in the car is a bad thing and there is always risk. A couple of months a go a child die here in a car accident and was in a rear facing car seat in the middle of the back seat. Proving that while some places are safer than other no place is 100% safe.

ELUSIVE

Rolla - do you still have the airbag on with your 2 year old sitting there?
If so, then I believe the difference between your wife and your son sitting in the front seat is the strength of their neck. I've heard that an airbag getting deployed on an child would break their neck instantaneously.