recommend a safe small car

Old Jim

Can you recommend a small car for my wife, who is pregnant. Was thinking of going to England in the next few weeks to get a 03/04 car for post-july registration.
The requirements would be:
- no boot, small engine(<1.3 Petrol, <1.4 Diesel), safety e.g. a few airbags
She is fairly new to the whole driving thing so performance doesn't matter. She thinks her current 1.0l car has loads of power!
Top of list at the moment is the 1.4D Fiesta. For a small car, it looks fairly big.
Any other suggestions?

Anan1

How about a Punto. It'll be newer and safer than most other cars you'd buy for the same money.

Stinkah

Can vouch for this as a result of recent experience - something which surprised me a lot. That said, it doesn't mean it's a reliable car - it's a fiat after all.

My wife was hit, when she was 7 months pregnant, at ~100km/h on the Naas Road outside Indo News Papers building by a 40 foot truck. She was in the outer lane (nearest the hard shoulder) and the truck driver didn't see her in his blind spot. He went to drop into the outer lane from middle lane and hit my wife's car sending her into a 360 degree spin. The truck contacted with my wife's car side on, at the drivers door and miraculously she didn't even have a scratch on her, and baby is no born and well - there was no problems found at the time of the accident either.

So, suffice to say, I'd support the punto's safety all day long anyway

BnA

I was in the same position a few years ago. My wife had been driving a Micra for years. She was pregnant and I decided that because of the fact that when you are sitting in the back seat, your head is practically touching the back window, it is not a safe car for a baby seat.

We bought an Octavia back then and are happy out with it. Now, I know you are not looking for a big car, but an Octavia is a lot like a small car. It's a 1.4 Engine so it's piddle cheap to tax\insure\run. It is an easy car to drive. It's reliable.

In terms of Safety, it has the airbags etc, but the main reason I went for it compared to a focus, astra etc was I just felt you had a good bit of metal between and the gombeens on the road these days.

moomoo2007

Toyota Yaris are nice safe car, and a nice size, only 1L so insurance wouldnt be much and new shape look good.

Cionád

I'd go slighly bigger, '04 model Focus if you can stretch the budget

http://www.euroncap.com/tests/ford_focus_2004/204.aspx

or possibly,

http://www.euroncap.com/tests/citroen_c4_2004/203.aspx

moomoo2007

bigger than the yaris yea i never looked at post just read the title and thought id have my input, a hatchback corolla would be ideal or a peugot 306 hatchback

Biro

Don't be fooled by the bigger is safer thing either. It's more accurate to say newer is safer. Practically all cars now are excellently safe in an impact. They're down to giving marks now for little warning lights and buzzers for seatbelts etc to seperate the cars at the top. While these things are good, they're no help in a smash! But my point is, as new as you can afford for safety really. The Punto is good, as stated. And the 1.3 multijet diesel is excellent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I
See that video above for an example of perceived saftey versus actual safety!

BrianD3

Biro wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I
See that video above for an example of perceived saftey versus actual safety!

Off topic but how retarded are the comments posted for that video. "there was no engine in the Volvo", "a Volvo 240 would have done better" and crap like that. It's funny how badly people react when their perceptions are shattered.

As regards a rear impact and heads being close to back windscreens - a few years ago the ADAC did a rear end crash test with a VW Polo classic saloon and a Polo hatch. The saloon was rated safer but not dramatically safer. The rear of the Polo hatch was solid and did not crumple/shorten by much whereas the rear of the saloon crumpled a lot. It looked like VW had made use of the extra metal in the saloon to provide a longer, softer crumple zone.

E92

Yes indeed. The Volvo in question is based on a design that came out in the early 80s. It's like comparing a modern 2.0 diesel Avensis with say a BMW 524td, a car that was once believe it or not, the world's fastest diesel.

I'd much rather be in any modern Volvo than a Modus, I know that, 45 stars or not. Try the 940 vs say a 19 or something and let me know how that gets on. All that said pretty much all modern cars are extremely safe. Volvo have long since lost the monopoly on that, Merc are probably the best there along with Renault these days.

People should also realise that NCAP marks smaller cars that bit easier than bigger ones too.

BrianD3

E92 wrote:

I'd much rather be in any modern Volvo than a Modus, I know that, 45 stars or not.

Well all all modern Volvos are larger than the Modus so they should be safer. A modern, NCAP tested large car should be safer than a modern NCAP tested small car with the same rating. I'd rather be in a Vel Satis than a Modus etc. That said the difference between small and large is not that great. Take a look at the crash test that was done between a VW Phaeton (larger and heavier than any Volvo saloon) and a VW Polo - the Polo stood up to it very well.

Try the 940 vs say a 19 or something and let me know how that gets on.

Most would assume that the 19 would get "demolished" by the Volvo but what's this assumption based on. Volvo marketing hype mainly. Both the R19 and Volvo 740 did well when offset tested by Auto Motor und Sport, this was well before EuroNCAP started.

People should also realise that NCAP marks smaller cars that bit easier than bigger ones too.

They don't mark them easier though, parameters for the dummies are the exact same. It is not easier for a small car to get a high rating. However a small car with a high rating is likely less safe than a large car with the same rating.

Lobster

the 1.4d4d corolla looks impressive, anyone drive one?

VH

BrianD3 wrote: »

Most would assume that the 19 would get "demolished" by the Volvo but what's this assumption based on. Volvo marketing hype mainly. Both the R19 and Volvo 740 did well when offset tested by Auto Motor und Sport, this was well before EuroNCAP started.

Saw a pic of a head on test between a modern Civic and an old Merc barge a few years ago. The Merc was mangled and the Civic came out not too bad. Now, old Merc barge vs old Civic would be the other way around.

Biro

E92 wrote: »

Yes indeed. The Volvo in question is based on a design that came out in the early 80s. It's like comparing a modern 2.0 diesel Avensis with say a BMW 524td, a car that was once believe it or not, the world's fastest diesel.

I'd much rather be in any modern Volvo than a Modus, I know that, 45 stars or not. Try the 940 vs say a 19 or something and let me know how that gets on. All that said pretty much all modern cars are extremely safe. Volvo have long since lost the monopoly on that, Merc are probably the best there along with Renault these days.

People should also realise that NCAP marks smaller cars that bit easier than bigger ones too.

That's not the point of my post. My point was that people's perception of "bigger is safer" and "cars aren't made as solid as they used to be - sure you'd be killed in any of those small little yokes now-a-days" is just incorrect.
Also, for a given sum of money, a newer designed small car is probably safer than a similar priced but older model bigger car. (generalising a bit, but reinforcing my point).

Biro

BrianD3 wrote: »

However a small car with a high rating is likely less safe than a large car with the same rating.

True. Both at the same speed into a solid wall may fair out the same, but in real world conditions, with equal safety ratings, the larger car will have more momentum (provided the speed of the two are the same), therefore the smaller car will have to absorb more of the shock of the impact. Almost like going from 30mph down to minus 2 mph in the small one where the big one goes from 30mph to plus 2mph in the same time.

BrianD3

Biro wrote: »

True. Both at the same speed into a solid wall may fair out the same, but in real world conditions, with equal safety ratings, the larger car will have more momentum (provided the speed of the two are the same), therefore the smaller car will have to absorb more of the shock of the impact. Almost like going from 30mph down to minus 2 mph in the small one where the big one goes from 30mph to plus 2mph in the same time.

Another factor is the rigidity of crumple zones on large and small vehicles. It was more of a problem on older vehicles though, modern restraint systems/technology allow the structure of small cars to be made more rigid. See the attached PDF which is about crash compatibility and has data on a crash test between a Renault Laguna and a Cratch micro car
some quotes

The reasons for the higher injury risk for occupants
of small vehicles can be found in the low mass,
which results in a higher total change of velocity in car to
car collisions, and, in comparison to heavier cars, in a
usually lower stiffness of the crush zone and the cabin
structure.

COLLISION MECHANICS
GENERAL - A small, light car will always experience
a higher deceleration level in a real car versus car
collision compared to its heavier opponent, as the deceleration
for each of the colliding cars can be calculated
with a simplified model from the crush load at the interface
of the two cars. Both cars experience the same
crush load vs. time curve with this simplified model.
deceleration = crush load / car mass
Furthermore, this type of frontal collision will
subject the lighter car to a higher total change of velocity.
The velocity change of both cars can be calculated with
the law of conservation of momentum. In real collisions,
the observed Dv lies 5 - 10 % above the theoretical value
due to residual elasticity of the deformed structures.
Dv1 = m2 * ( v1+ v2) / (m1+ m2)
Dv2 = m1 * ( v1+ v2) / (m1+ m2)
As this paper shows, the main reason for the
higher injury risk for the occupants of currently circulating
small cars in frontal collisions is not intrinsic in these two
physical constraints. Instead, it is given by the lack of
compatibility in frontal collisions among cars of different
size and weight.
The restraint system of any car will only be able
to deploy its effectiveness if the passenger compartment
does not collapse in a collision. Intrusion of structural
components into the cabin and deformation of the passenger
compartment must be kept small. An extremely
important parameter for the development of the restraint
system is the mean deceleration level of the car cabin
with its restraint system interface points and surfaces
impacted by the body of the occupant during the
collision.
Current crash test standards still encourage to
design the car front stiffness for moderate cabin deceleration
pulses, allowing the use of conventional restraint
system components. This approach creates car front
stiffnesses that are more or less proportional to the car
mass. A low mass vehicle, designed in such a way, will
be disadvantaged twofold in case of a collision with a
heavier vehicle. Not only will it experience a higher Dv
due to the mass ratio, but its frontal deformation space,
which is relatively soft (according to the reasons mentioned
above), will be crushed before significant deformation
of the heavier car even starts.
In conclusion, the frontal structural stiffness of a
low mass vehicle must be at least equal or slightly higher
than the stiffness of its heavier counterpart [7] [8].

Soarer

What about one of the newer type "I see you baby, shaking that ass" Renault Megane's?

I'm in a very simialr situation with the wife being preggers, and I'm also looking at getting her something safe. She already has an older type Megane, and she's a creature of habit (aren't they all! ).

Anyways, was thinking of heading to England to pic up a 1.5dci Megane. Supposed to be pretty safe, and do the guts of 60mpg!