watch out 95's! apparently your cars are dangerous!
 

man I found this article on canadiandriver.com....what a ****ty thing to have happen! Stupid nissan!



"Man awarded U.S.14.4 million for injuries in Nissan Maxima crash


Short Hills, New Jersey - A man who suffered paralyzing injuries after a head-on collision in his 1995 Nissan Maxima was awarded U.S.14.4 million dollars by a New Jersey jury on Friday.
On October 31, 1997, William Ziemer, a 45-year old husband and father of three small children, was driving his 1995 Nissan Maxima GXE when a car coming the other way crossed the centre line. The front driver's side of each car impacted.
Mr. Ziemer sustained permanent brain damage as well as extensive and severe lower extremity injury. He will never walk again and has the mentality of a child.
Product liability attorney Cynthia A. Walters of Short Hills, NJ, argued that the car was defective due to its lack of crashworthiness due to design elements that permitted unreasonable intrusion into the driver compartment causing the catastrophic injuries.
It was shown at trial that the identical car was sold in Europe with the reinforcements that would have protected Mr. Ziemer and that they were not added to US models until 1996.
"This verdict shows that automobile manufacturers who have the technology must use it to protect occupants of their cars," stated Ms. Walters.
The jury award consisted of U.S.$3.5 million for Mr. Ziemer's loss of enjoyment of life and pain and suffering; U.S.$4.2 million for future care and medical costs; U.S.$1.2 million in lost wages; U.S.$2.5 million for his wife and U.S.$1 million for each of the children. "

http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/020729-1.htm

that sucks...

if you see the crash test pictures for the 95/96 and 97-99, you can see the big difference.

ya, i remeber seeing hte pics of the 5MPH bumper tests and the 95-96 had dented bumper and the 97-99 had NO DAMAGE at all

Oh crap.

:nervous:

:repost: :wall:

Ya '95s don't have much reinforcement or whatever you wanna call it, but they are lighter ;).

well I'm sure glad that I swapped my entire 97 front end unto my 95, good heads up :thumbsup:

did u install the bumper re-inforcements or just the cover?
i thaught that the re-inforcements made hte front/rear ends stronger

I did the reinforcements...at least for the front
left the rear alone...looked the same

like 20-30 pounds lighter...



Eric

ill have to be careful then...espcially since short hills is only a few miles away from me...eep!

I'm pretty sure that won't help you much. The article mentions "driver compartment" intrusion which isn't reinforcement on the bumpers. It's more reinforcement on the firewall that keeps the engine and other parts off your lap.

http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle%5Fr...4_4_bumper.jpg
Rear bumpers on 1995-96 models allowed more than $2,000 damage in a 5 mph pole impact (left). Bumpers on 1997-99s are much improved. They allowed little damage in the same test (right).

http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle%5Fr...ml/97024.htm#4

http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle%5Fr...html/95012.htm

are you sure that the 96s dont have the same supports as the 97s? I mean according to the news story, the front supports were added in 96....perhaps the rears were too...

The only difference between 95-96 models and 97-99 is front and rear reinforcements.
In 95-96 models front and rear reinforcements made of aluminum, in 97-99 made of steel.
That is all, nothing else changed. We don’t know what kind of car was involved in the accident with that Maxima. Maybe it was an eighteen-wheeler.......jk

well, the wheels were different, so was the radio, centerconsole, digital odometer, steeringwheel... etc... I think there were a few more changes. FAQ lists them all.

Also, its not that the 95s are more dangerous but rather they arent as safe. :thumbsup:

I think some people need to understand that the even though the 95-96 is more suspetible to damage in low speed crashes, the 97-99 are no more safe in a REAL speed crash. Bumpers do pretty much what their name implies, they bump things. The only thing Nissan changed in the 97 was that they added stronger bumper reinforcements so that bumping into an object at low speeds wouldn't cause such big damage. Don't kid yourself into thinking that your 97+ is going to save you any better when the speeds go above 10mph.

With that said, I guess I could care less if my 96 gets more damage hitting a pole because:

1) I have full coverage

2) I pay attention when I drive and I don't bump into things :lol:


Dave

Very well said! :thumbsup:

If I'm not mistaken, there were footwell intrusion problems with the early 4th gens, especially driver side. I don't know what Nissan did, if anything, to fix the problem.
In the accident involving the lawsuit, what was the closing speed of the 2 vehicles? If the closing speed was high enough, it doesn't matter too much what kind of car you're in. I've worked some horrendous ones, and I never saw any one walk away from an accident with closing speeds in the triple digits (some were carried out on stretchers, but they sure didn't walk). Even saw an early 90's model Escort (can we say a Ford name here?) with its engine literally on and around the front seat occupants from a collision with a pole. Estimated speed at point of impact was only 75 mph. 4 died in that one.
Before I bought my first Maxima, I worked a 3 car accident involving a 4th gen. I was honestly impressed with the hit it took, and drove it on to the flat bed. The other 2 were not movable.
What it can really boil down to is speed and angle of impact. Cars generally don't do so well in straight on, high speed impacts.

Dave

**** lawyers. just shows with enough money you can win anything in an american court.

well according to the news story the drivers side of the car that went accross the median hit the drivers sie of the 95 max....Im sure they were going between 50-75 so....

I was in an accident with a parked car about 2 years ago with the max.... Yeah the cell phone was ringin, it was dark, and yes I was that guy that HAD to answer it RIGHT NOW. Looked down and BOOM!!! Totaled out a 1997 Cutlass Supreme, and the max only had $2900 damage. And most was paint (tri-coat pearl). I hit the car doing like 30-35 mph. So I am not scared. Yes if I was going 70-80 and hit the parked car, It would be different, but tell me a car in the price range of the maxima that wouldn't be in the hurt bag? Don't be scurred 95 owners. And everyone, stay off the phone while driving....It sucks. :slap: