Used car safety information?

June 1, 2009 9:15 PM

I didn't find this thread helpful. Does anyone have new information related to obtaining car safety information for older cars? I am considering purchasing a 1989 Subaru Loyale, a car I owned prior to having children and loved. I currently drive a newer 1998 Honda Civic, but I really miss my old Loyale. I don't want to move back in time if it will jeopardize the safety of my children.
posted by jeffmac to Shopping (8 answers total)

9 years is a very long time in terms of crash safety. It is very unlikely that any car is safer than one that is 9 years newer (of comparable type - not a 2004 Yugo versus a 1995 Ford Explorer or anything daft). The advances in vehicle handling and suspension design in that period alone could well be a significant drop. Being as standards will also have changed within that period, it could be very difficult to equate any standards to give you a meaningful metric, anyway.

I think it's pretty safe to say that it will certainly be a drop in crash safety, but whether it jeopardises them will be more dependent on their ages, method of seating in the car (age appropriate seating, etc) and your driving habits and methods. If you drive only once a week in a deeply rural area, at pedestrian speeds, then the difference in safety will be effectively marginal. If you drive through rush hour and enjoy the fast lane, it's a completely different story.

In short - yes, it will be a backward step. Will it be enough of a backward step to head into the 'jeopardise' territory? That is a judgement call for you, really, but every parameter will need to be judged in context.
posted by Brockles at 9:39 PM on June 1, 2009

The biggest danger will be to your kid's egos, if they are old enough to be embarrassed by mom or dad picking them up in a dilapidated (try finding one in good shape, I dare ya) 20-year-old budget Subu.

As far as safety, of course your 98 civic will be safer. It has nearly 10 years of engineering and auto safety legislation over the Subaru.

That said, I like cars, and I can see being attracted to an old love, but honestly, there are better options out there. Subaru has made wonderful cars in the intervening years. Cars which no doubt have the charm that attracted you to your Loyale, but with modern engineering and safety features.

I've driven several modern Subarus over the past year or two and found them all to be really likable cars. I totally get why they have a huge following. But aim for something modern if you can. It's so much less hassle than trying to rely on a "vintage" car.

I just saw a super clean 2002 WRX wagon sell for $8,000. It was immaculate and at that price an incredible value for the money.
posted by wfrgms at 10:00 PM on June 1, 2009

A lot has happened in 20 years. Don't fool yourself with nostalgia, anything you really liked about the Loyale will hopefully have carried on in newer models of Subaru.
posted by Null Pointer and the Exceptions at 10:45 PM on June 1, 2009

The difference in safety between a 20 year old compact car and a modern compact car is almost immeasureable. Look at it this way: Your new car has impact absorbing crumple zones built into the structure of the vehicle to keep you safe.
A 20 year old compact IS a crumple zone.
In a new car, you can still open the doors after a significant front end collision. The body of an older car can deflect enough to prevent that.

A newer car will have anti-lock brakes, airbags, pretensioning seatbelts, crumple zones, wider tires and all sorts of advancements in handling.

Also, Japanese steel (from the 80s and early 90s) is notoriously rusty, depending on your climate. I've failed a 15 year old Honda at inspection because I can put my hand through the rusty frame. Keep that in mind, too.
posted by Jon-o at 5:53 AM on June 2, 2009

The Australian Government has an extensive and expensive advertising campaign running ot try to convince people not to buy older cars, due to safety concerns.
posted by wilful at 6:11 AM on June 2, 2009

Agree with above. A newer car, even 10 years old, ought to have a lot more safety features: Antilock brakes are invaluable in many poor weather conditions, never mind airbags, better seatbelt designs, and the various other safety innovations mentioned above. You don't need the newest car out there, but it's worth it to have a car with at least basic antilock brakes and airbags.
posted by davidnc at 7:02 AM on June 2, 2009

I sold my beloved '67 Beetle for that very reason. Never did find much data on the subject, though. Searching again, I find this stat:

Fatality rate per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled:
1994: 1.73
2007: 1.36

So I'll play devil's advocte and say "For all the hype, cars really aren't much safer than they were 15 or 20 years ago; only 25% safer".

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Trends/TrendsGeneral.aspx
posted by at at 11:28 AM on June 3, 2009

Yeah, it's not just about whether you die or not (although 25% is a pretty massive improvement in seven years, given the normal design process lead time for a car) but it is also about the severity of injury for a given accident.

You are less likely to crash in a more modern car if the accident can be avoided because the vehicle handling (primary safety) is improved.

If you DO have an accident, you are now 25% less likely to die and also stand a much better chance of not being so badly injured if you don't die.

You're not playing Devils advocate, you're just turning your nose up at a 25% improvement in safety and not mentioning all the other factors.
posted by Brockles at 12:07 PM on June 3, 2009