Found some pics of 4th and 5th gens crash tests and ratings. I don't know if this has been posted before but man...95/96 is pretty bad
BTW, 00/01 Maxima was rated the lowest in it's class and Avalon was the highest.

95/96 Maxima
97-99 Maxima
2000-02 Maxima

Vehicle ratings

For a contrast, here's a test from 2001 Volvo S80
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/...00007_2001.htm

 

Yup, this is one of my reasons never to buy a maxima. The 97-99's did alright, but the 95-96s are absolutely aweful. No offense, but for all of you driving 95-96's I'd get outta that car as fast as I would after seeing those results. From their page:

"OVERALL EVALUATION: POOR Despite acceptable structural performance in the frontal offset crash test, there were major problems including footwell intrusion and significant forward movement of the seat because of track failure. In addition, this is one of the few cars the Institute tested with poor injury measures on both lower legs.

STRUCTURE/SAFETY CAGE: ACCEPTABLE The occupant compartment sustained moderate deformation in the offset test. The width of the driver door opening was shortened about 3 inches. All doors remained closed during the crash. The driver door required tools to open afterward, but other doors opened normally. Measured intrusion in the driver footwell area: 8.5 to 11 inches. Rearward movement of the instrument panel: 1 to 3 inches.

RESTRAINTS/DUMMY KINEMATICS: POOR In the offset test, the driver airbag deployed and was fully inflated before the dummy's face contacted it. About 4 inches of shoulder belt webbing were pulled through the D-ring near the upper anchorage. The driver seat came loose on its tracks and moved forward 8.5 inches on the right side, where the safety belt is anchored, and 3 inches on the left side. Both legs jammed against the instrument panel. The right knee hit the ignition key, producing a gash in the vinyl "skin" of the dummy at its knee.

INJURY MEASURES: POOR FOR BOTH LEGS/FEET AND MARGINAL FOR THE HEAD Neck and chest injury measures in the offset test were lower than published thresholds indicating that, in this test, likelihood of significant injury to these body regions was low. However, about 100 milliseconds into the crash the dummy's head experienced about 80 gs for 3 milliseconds -- indicative of possible head injury. The dummy's head appeared to "bottom out" the airbag when this occurred. Tibia indices and lower tibia bending moments indicated high risk of injury not only to the weaker ankles/feet but also to the large bones in both lower legs. Peak bending moments on both lower tibias were about 3 times the forces that have been related to ankle injury."

I'd be dammed if I got in a wreck and had my legs broken and pinned under the squeeky dash. Usually things get better as they get newer, but obviously this isnt the case seeing how the 00-02's are rated not only worse in their class but also lower then the 97-99's.

Where as the NHTSA test (the government "5 star" rating) tests are more demanding of the restraints, the IIHS tests are more demanding of the structure of the car. So here we can see just how strong the passenger cage is for the 95-96 and the 00-02s. Nissan engineering at its finest.

Not including the high speed crashes, the low speed crashes are just as pathetic. Look at the comparo between a 97-99 and a 95-96! Not to even mention the repair costs!



Source: IIHS web page

 

I'll have to be extra careful not to stuff my '95 in the front. Either that, or sell my car. This is most disconcerting. News like this sure makes a strong selling point for a big-brake upgrade, that's for sure.

I really enjoy walking, running and many other activities that require non-broken legs and ankles. Looks like one or both of these injuries are virtually guaranteed in a frontal impact w/ the '95/'96.

Yikes.

 

Very funny, LOL.. That's a good reason to have a safer car or at least to drive safely.

 

ahh the joys of owning a '97

 

holy crap...that is pretty scary...I'll think twice before going on any long trips in my friend's Maxima now!

 

ive been in 5 accidents in my life.

1. in a 911 turbo i hit a building and suffered minor breaks.

2. in an integra i got hit in the side and i had broken ribs.

3. in a mustang i had a head-on w/ a truck and suffered only minor injuries.

4. in a jeep i flipped 5 times down a hill into a tree and survived.

5. in my 96 max i had a head-on and walked away without a scratch.

conclusions: i am always in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong driver. the max crash was the safest and so even the test say otherwise, i trust my max with my life and always will.

chris

 

5 accidents, wow ... i've been in 4 and i think thats a lot ... glad to hear that you're OK ... i had a pretty bad accident in my 96 but it wasn't head on ... walked away with a sprained wrist ...

isn't that the truth, after that i'm definately thinking about the big brakes

 

Mt 95 SE was hit from behind and was totaled. I was a stop light and the guy was going about 30 mph. I suffered no injuries (thank God), probably because I was wearing my seatbelt and I'm built like a pack mule (meaning I didn't suffer wiplash). The car was completely crushed from behind, the entire trunk was destroyed. Do a search under my name and there might still be a pic of it. The scary thing is I drive a 96 now, which is no better.

 

'02 Max isn't too bad according the NHTSA. 4 stars all the way around.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/1882.html

 

What I do not get is how the 95/96 differed from the 97-99s. First of all, it is the same body, same engine, same interior, everything is the same except for the front bumper/grill, and rear bumper/trunk lid. Why do the results vary so widely? I figured that they would both be VERY close with ratings based on the same design they are based on.

 

maxedout2k1= I feel for you... You got a really bad streak going.. Ihave been in 2 accidents within 2 months within each other... its not a god feeling.. glad that your ok

Are there any safety results on the 3rd gen maxima..

 

renforced bumpers and supports , stronger trunk.. and a couple other things

 

where is russ who said the 5th Gen is safer than the 97 - 99?

 

ouch! look at that trunk! no wonder that ugly groove is there...its a crease spot so it bends in nicely!

 

watch it I happen to like that ooglie grove

...Welp...hope I don't get into a crash...dumb Minima

Do you guys think a 95 Max is still safer than a Camaro? Becuase that was another choice I had for a car...

 

IIHS did not test the Camaro. But NHSTA did. In NHSTA, a 95 Max gets 4 stars driver, 3 stars passenger. 95 Camaro gets 5 star driver, 5 star passenger. Go figure. This car sux.

 

Are you SERIOUS?? All this time my parents said no to a camaro becuase it's "not safe at all" and stuff like that...

Man are they going to be VERY surprised

 

I drive a 1997 Max now, but my parents each totalled a 1995 Max GLE. Both on the freeway. One striking a tree. One striking a concrete barrier straight on. Both walked away from both with nothing more than minor injuries (bumps/bruises mainly from seatbelt and airbags.) Both cars were totalled.

One thing that people don't often look at is the lowest fatality rates. Rather they look at injury ratings. You can have a car that has high fatality rates, but good injury ratings, and vice versa, high rates of injury but low fatalities.

According to the IIHS, the Maxima has a very low death rates. 49 people per million registered vehicles died in accidents. In incidences where multiple vehicles were involved, it was one of the lowest, 24 per million registered vehicle years. The only midsize cars to do better were the 1997 Camry and Volvo 850. In fact, these were better than vehicles such as the Crown Vic, Taurus, Lumina.

With all the hype surrounding the Explorer roll-over and death issue. Consider this. The Explorer has one of the lowest fatality rates of midsize/large SUV's. If 50 people died in Explorers, and 10 died in Isuzu Rodeos, does that make the Isuzu safer? No, because there could be more than 10x more Explorers on the road than Rodeos (Explorers sell like 300,000+ units a year vs a Rodea, maybe 30,000 units?)

Now consider this. The type of people that would buy a Camry vs the type that would by a Maxima. Demographics and target audience. How many people on the org drive hard. How many Maximas do you see at autocrosses vs Camrys? I don't think a 4cyl Camry can even hit 110mph, while the Max can hit 140mph. Chances are the Camry incidents happen at a much lower speed.

Below shows and article showing how the Maxima has a very low fatality rate. It is from the IIHS site.

http://www.hwysafety.org/srpdfs/sr3507.pdf

 

Right but the death rate or the demographics and statistics dont mean too much to me. The IIHS test, you almost never see them say "you're likely to die in this car" no matter how bad the result is. They say more like "you'll likely have a concussion and broken legs based on the tests." And the tests clearly show the Maxima being an under performer. Of course this single test will not be a reflection of all real world tests, but I do feel this test has value in showing a car's ability to take a high speed offset frontal crash. So to me the Maxima is still an unsafe, structurally weak and poorly engineered car.

 

Yeah just go to www.nhsta.gov and look them up. the maxima is considered a compact for some reason and the camaro a mid size. Another reason i hate this car, is because my insurance is only $200 a year more for a z28. And that will drop after I turn 21 as well. The maxima was defiantely a poor choice in car for me. Maybe I should start having kids, since my mom seems to project that image when they bought me a family sedan. I hate how parents can act the way they do sometimes.