Safety questions on cars from 80's and 90's

Does anybody have a good method for comparing safety of cars from the 80's and 90's? I'm looking at getting some sort of 2+2 sports car from that vintage so my toddler son can sit in the back, but am having trouble figuring out how safe any of these things are.

Assuming the vehicles are in good shape and driven by the same (defensive and paranoid!) driver, how do you compare the safety of say a 944 S2 Porsche and a Integra type R?

The 944 guys seem to think their car is pretty safe, and the ITR guys make it sound like the ITR is a tin can on wheels, but I can't find any objective testing data either way. 

Thoughts?

Depends on where you live.  If you live among the coal rollers driving giant lifted pickups, it really doesn't matter which one you choose.

I'm pretty sure that 944 bodies are galvanized. 

With regards to where you live, The amount of salt in the environment and potential rust of frame and subframes,  suspension components and mounting points will also matter as much as anything

I don't think it's going to make much difference.  Being 10 years newer the Honda probably had a slight edge when new, but at this point?  I agree with captdownshift that the condition is probably more important at this point.  Remember that "satisfying thunks" when you close the doors are superficial perceptions and don't actually translate to anything to much in terms of safety. 

Fundamentally, neither of them is going to be even close to a modern car in a crash.

To me the safety of cars before air bags comes down to how well they assist you in being a defensive driver - so theoretically the more responsive car with the better brakes, steering, grip, outward visibility etc is going to be the safer one. Since neither car is going to fare well in a collision, I would pick the one that's better at avoiding incidents 

In reply to captdownshift (Forum Supporter) :

Even though the bodies are galvanized, the steel parts underneath that bolt to the bodies are not.

So control arms, exhaust, torque tube, axle shafts, crossmembers, etc.

That said, the 944 is based on the 924 chassis, built starting back in the mid-70's and the ITR is a more modern design with newer safety solutions (the FWD solution actually helps a little with certain impacts over the RWD, especially one with a torque tube).

I have seen a 924S rolled on the street and the safety cell was completely intact, the driver and rescue crew were able to open the doors without issue. So there's some anecdotal evidence for you.

Basically, much like nearly any "classic" vehicle from the past, they aren't nearly as safe as modern vehicles and you have to plan accordingly with regards to putting your family into it.  Its also why Hagerty and similar insurers tend to be pretty tight about using older rides for more than the occasionally "fun run" or similar.

If you can afford an Integra Type R then by all means, get the Integra Type R.  

But, further more.  The Integra would be a 2001 and a 944 S2 would be a 1989.  The newer car would be subject to newer crash standards and should be safer on this merit alone. 

The 1989 would have no airbags (became law in 1990) and the Integra would have both driver and passenger airbag (passenger bag became law in 1995.) 

Also ABS in the newer.  I know this is not "crash" but it is "avoidance" of a crash.  

There have been generational leaps every 10 years or so in vehicle safety in regards to both structure and restraint systems.

A car from the 80s doesn't really compare with one from the 90s and there was a similar leap for the 200x's and 2010+.

There are some comparison crash tests out there, but the star evaluation criteria has evolved over time to reflect the state of the market, so it wouldn't give apples to apples.

That said, I would start here https://www.iihs.org/ and here https://www.nhtsa.gov/ratings with the understanding that a 4 star from the 90s absolutely doesn't compare with one from now.

(I work as an automotive engineer)

Basically a 90s Sentra (continued production in Mexican market) vs a 2016 versa... See how you feel about it...

maj75 (Forum Supporter) said:

Depends on where you live.  If you live among the coal rollers driving giant lifted pickups, it really doesn't matter which one you choose.

I know it's not the kind of car the OP was considering, but a local guy was killed 5 days ago when his MG was rear ended by a yahoo in a newish Chevy pickup.

Duke said:

maj75 (Forum Supporter) said:

Depends on where you live.  If you live among the coal rollers driving giant lifted pickups, it really doesn't matter which one you choose.

I know it's not the kind of car the OP was considering, but a local guy was killed 5 days ago when his MG was rear ended by a yahoo in a newish Chevy pickup.

 

Back in college my 1970 GT6 was rear-ended at (maybe) 20mph by a late-model (so, early 90s) Ford Escort. The Escort had pretty much no damage at all. The GT6 was smashed in heavily, shattered the hatchback, did all kinds of damage.

I fixed the car, but finally sold it a few years ago because I simply didn't feel safe driving around in a car that was both 1) so small and 2) so lacking in any kind of safety features or structure - and I'm a freaking competition stage rally driver!

Incidentally, the car I replaced it with was a Porsche 924S. And while it's also pretty damn small, I do feel substantially safer in it (even though it's essentially also 1970s safety tech......though the GT6 was probably like 1950s tech). Maybe because it was designed and built by a bunch of Germans for autobahn speeds and not by a bunch of half-drunk Brits for 60kph UK byways. IDK. I don't pretend the Porsche is a "safe" car. But as small vintage cars go I have more confidence in it than others I've owned.

Considering the average size/weight of the modern vehicle (even the CUVs), and how much smaller/lighter basically ANY older car was (1970s land yachts aside), the law of sheer mass also applies. 

A European car will be sturdier than a Japanese car, all else being equal.  Newer gets better. 

Don't hit stuff, and you'll be fine.

Every decade newer is safer. Keep in mind that's not by production date, but by model introduction date.

As noted above, the safest cars are European; Swedish, German and then the rest in order of best to worst.

American cars come next.

Asian cars after that (with some exceptions like Subarus being above average).

Russian cars are dead last (pun intended).

Modern cars it varies far less as most have been designed to pass the IIHS crash tests. I see very few fatalities in my insurance work these days.

Older vehicles aren't as safe as newer vehicles in numerous ways, but there were absolute quantum leaps made in side impact safety. 

The potential accident that terrifies me the most in older stuff is getting T-boned. The thin B-pillars and airy cockpits are largely thanks to there being little or no crash structure on your sides.

Starting in the 90's with the Volvo SIPS system things got a lot better but before that most stuff was generally just not made to meaningfully protect anyone in that kind of accident. My BMW E28's B-pillars were like pencils...

There really aren't any structural parts on a 944 that can rust other than the struts/shocks/springs. Bodies are galvanized and built like tanks, most other components are aluminum (early cars had steel control arms but you don't want an early car anyway) or hefty steel. They also were some of the earliest cars to have both driver and passenger airbags, though I wouldn't really trust 30 year old airbags.

I'd say that's one of the better choices but honestly I'm not sure there's any 80s/early 90s car I'd call legitimately safe by today's standards.

In reply to pointofdeparture :

Honestly, recent testing has shown small overlap to be pretty awful on anything older than 2010. Testing took a major evolutionary turn for that and there isn't as much data on older models. Everything gets designed to pass the tests of the day and the tests have been doing a pretty decent job of evolving. It's the more likely crash mode to worry about.

If it's a truck/suv rollovers are the big killers as they just weren't good for it going back.

Both NHTSA and iihs have published some good stuff going back that isn't too hard to find.

Streetwiseguy said:

A European car will be sturdier than a Japanese car, all else being equal.  Newer gets better. 

Don't hit stuff, and you'll be fine.

Fully agree with this, years being equal, but it's hard to control what others hit.

Thanks for the responses everybody-especially the industry knowledge. 

I guess what is confusing for me is that I don't think the selection of either car really increases the likelihood of kiddo getting hurt in an accident in the next 10 years by that much. At the same time it's pretty obvious that cars have gotten a lot safer over the years. 

So it could easily be true that picking the Type R (over something post-2010) could double the odds of him getting a concussion or breaking a bone in an accident, but it's also true that the odds of that happening are really small-maybe .01% every year...so doubling the odds to .02% really doesn't matter that much. OTOH if something does happen I'll never forgive myself for not wrapping him in the latest volvo or whatever...

I know your concern well.  Although I don't have a child to put in the back, a couple of years ago some yahoo  blew an onramp and then panic stopped for no reason, in front of my VW Beetle. This causes me to panic stop and start skidding sideways, all with some Brodozer breathing down my back bumper. Luckily everything physical was unharmed, but mentally I almost couldn't continue the trip home.  It's been sitting in the garage ever since.  It came out once last year, and not at all this year.

I don't think statistics exist that are going to help you resolve your dilemma . The real question is what level of risk do you feel comfortable exposing your child to.  It's somewhere between, never let them leave the house and let them ride on the back of your motorcycle while lane splitting at speed. 

As others have said automotive safety has generally improved steadily over the years.  Is exposure to the joys of an older car worth the risk?  No one can answer that for you.  Personally, I'd be comfortable with strapping my child into the back seat of just about anything made after 1965 or so.  I'd add belts so that I could do it correctly.  However, I've never actually had a child and if I had my opinion might very well be different.

Speaking of which, have you actually tried strapping a car seat into the back of a small 2+2 coupe yet?  It's kind of a giant pain in the ass.

In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :

1997 Mustang, yeah..  anything rear facing that covers the 6 months to about 2 years age isnt really possible. I would be smashing their face into the roof to get them into the seat.  Once they are forward facing, fine and dandy.  This is why my fully operational mustang has been parked elevated out of the way on my 4 post lift all year. My youngest cant ride in it and its not worth moving car seats around for the few times I am driving only my 3yo to the park or wherever. 

Had a conversation with my wife the other day regarding my 61 bugeye sprite. It's a 4 wheeled motorcycle. There isnt really any fixing that beyond a full cage and wearing a helmet all the time. A part of me is tempted to cage it for that, but then it would lose a lot of the flavor of the car.

I would go with whichever of the two cars (944 or ITR) that's in the best shape as neither one is near modern crash standards, I'm not sure it will matter.

I'm still hanging on to memories of my Dad throwing three unbelted kids into the back seat of a '70 Cuda and hitting 100 before pulling onto the Interstate.  So really, safety is relative.  But with today's traffic and stupidity density being what it is, I understand wanting a higher margin of safety.  The off-road trucks around Colorado are my nemesis.