25 Comments

  1. WedidLandONtheMOON
    Posted August 2, 2010 at 5:09 am | Permalink

    Thats Bullshit, the Ford Explore should have got a Marginal or even a poor, because of that Weak Structure. And the Jeeps Structure Held Up Good. It Should have got a acceptable.

  2. Htown20XX
    Posted August 2, 2010 at 6:02 am | Permalink

    some SUVs are made really flimsy A dodge ram made an illegal left turn and hit the front of my car it peeled the door and part of the bed off the truck and bent the trucks frame.

  3. LMFAOjon
    Posted August 2, 2010 at 6:15 am | Permalink

    @Motorfordtoyota
    lol my cousin gave me his 97′ limited 4runner (x
    its pretty good. just hope nothing happens to me.

  4. 2004NissanSentra
    Posted August 2, 2010 at 6:27 am | Permalink

    I’m glad I sold my S10 pickup when I did, looks like it did nearly as bad as the Trans Sport and the F-150. Very unreliable too, the pre-Ecotec 2.2 motor is a piece of junk. GM had plenty of reliable vehicles in the 90s that got good or acceptable safety ratings, but this is not one of them.

  5. CourtyardPigeon
    Posted August 2, 2010 at 6:52 am | Permalink

    I have the Land Rover and now I want to sell it

  6. bajabusta
    Posted August 2, 2010 at 7:04 am | Permalink

    @SteelCity1981along w/ many others

  7. bajabusta
    Posted August 2, 2010 at 7:30 am | Permalink

    @SteelCity1981 along w/ many others.

  8. bajabusta
    Posted August 2, 2010 at 8:26 am | Permalink

    @SteelCity1981 along w/ many others.

  9. SteelCity1981
    Posted August 2, 2010 at 8:57 am | Permalink

    Man GM sure had a lot of bad crash test ratings in the 90′s

  10. Motorfordtoyota
    Posted August 2, 2010 at 9:29 am | Permalink

    Glad that 4runner got a good rating! My sister is looking at buying a 97!

  11. demoskunk
    Posted August 2, 2010 at 10:17 am | Permalink

    @bajabusta Thanks, man! You are very knowlegeable and passionate about cars, so that’s a real compliment.

  12. the06bug
    Posted August 2, 2010 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    3:30 “Negative consequences for the protection of the head and chest.” What on earth are GM breathing? O_o

  13. SK8MG01
    Posted August 2, 2010 at 11:09 am | Permalink

    I love how anti-american these dumbasses are

  14. swedishiron
    Posted August 2, 2010 at 11:59 am | Permalink

    “The test is too fast” LIKE PEOPLE NEVER DRIVER 40MPH or HIGHER!!! Corporate Greed – VOLVO FOR LIFE!!!!

  15. bajabusta
    Posted August 2, 2010 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

    @demoskunk agreed, very well put. But try getting that message accross a very uneducated internet viewership!! Their way or now way!! LOL. Another great posting by demoskunk!!

  16. demoskunk
    Posted August 2, 2010 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

    Looking at “real world” results doesn’t give accurate, usable data. There are too many random factors. Only testing in a controlled environment, where proper measurements can be made, and the results can be repeated, do we get a real understanding of how a car performs in different situations and how to make it better.

  17. sampwell819
    Posted August 2, 2010 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

    @detboy600 the 4.0L is a legend…. not many engine can run longuer like the 4.0L

  18. seapeddler
    Posted August 2, 2010 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    Now what about an accident involving sliding on the side of the vehicle into a concrete wall at 40 mph? And hitting the roof ?
    Nothing that Ford Chev, Toyota, etc. makes is safe.
    If you can cut the steel with a body grinder, especially the safety cage material, this isn’t safe.
    Consider that Russian aircraft (Sturmoviks) had a bullet-proof titanium tub to protect the pilot.
    There is no difference between the automakers and the junkyard.
    The junkyard dog is smarter than an automobile engineer.

  19. TheStupidTrio
    Posted August 2, 2010 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

    3:02- Key word: SLOWER

  20. 1cuteRita
    Posted August 2, 2010 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

    @bajabusta engine? japanese and later korean cars used inline 4s and small V6s to generate as much power as from a huge gm v8, transmission? what about the aisin 4-speed used in the xc90 which breaks at 60kmiles? we own a Trail Blazer a Camry and a Sedona, GM is good but it doesn’t outmatch either Toyota or Kia,,, that’s the problem.. japanese and koreans have overwhelmed the market with well built aggressively priced fuel efficient designs, reminds me when they bankrupted AMC…

  21. bronz3321
    Posted August 2, 2010 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

    It’s all about kinetic energy if you think about it. The ZJ, with the 5.2L v8 has quite a lot of weight. What they test is a wall, a solid wall so the energy remains in the jeep. However, because most modern cars are lighter with quite a bit less mass than the jeep zj, the energy is displaced to the smaller vehicle. And substantially less damage to the jeep than in the test ratings. Hitting a tree or in this case a solid non? moving object is a horse of a different color though.

  22. sarzamineiran
    Posted August 2, 2010 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    Yeah? Search “Killing a Toyota” from Top Gear and you will know what i am talking about.

  23. corvetteboy10
    Posted August 2, 2010 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    Wouldn’t put money on that if i were you! haha

  24. superduck714
    Posted August 2, 2010 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

    25 ft lbs of torque isnt much more, considering most jeeps are lighter than the chevy’s with the 4.3. plus the 4.0 delivers the torque at much lower rpms than the 4.3. And i dont know where you are getting your reliability information from. the 4.0 is VERY reliable. These things can run for 3 to 400k miles. i would like to see a 4.3 do that.

  25. detboy600
    Posted August 2, 2010 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

    4.3′s are more reliable and have more torque than a 4.0

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>