Legacy crash tests on dateline NBC...

[IwannaSportSedan]

[quote name='IIHS'] Legacy earns top rating in frontal test: The driver space was maintained with little intrusion into the occupant compartment. Dummy movement was well controlled, and all injury measures were low. "The Legacy performed well across the board in the frontal test and earns a good rating and a 'best pick,'" Lund says. Subaru recalls Legacy after side impact test: The Institute conducted two side impact crash tests of the Legacy. In the first test, the standard side curtain airbag deployed improperly, so the driver dummy's head was hit by the intruding barrier. Subaru found that the side airbags weren't folded correctly at the factory where they were produced. Subaru corrected the problem and recalled Legacy models manufactured earlier. When the Institute tested another Legacy with the modified airbags, the driver side curtain inflated properly. "The heads of the front and rear dummies were protected by the airbag," Lund says, "but other measures taken from the driver dummy indicated the likelihood of rib fractures and internal organ injuries plus the possibility of pelvic fractures. These kept the Legacy from earning a higher than marginal rating." The Institute recently tested 13 midsize car designs, and only the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry with optional side airbags earned good ratings. The Chevrolet Malibu with side airbags was acceptable. The rest were poor. [/quote] While pelvic fractures, broken ribs, and organ damage are no light matter, unless unattended for a long period of time, usually are not fatal. Could be much worse. People get hurt in car accidents, and short of building bumper-cars that are limited to 10mph, there isn't much that can be done to mitigate that fact. IF that is all that keeps the car from getting a "best pick", and a SUV is the only one that does get a double best pick, I'd say the Legacy isn't doing too badly. Especially considering that some of their darling little RAV4s (which are taller, and probably weigh more than a Legacy) come without the side airbags, and their ratings drop from best to POOR! That tells me that the test depends greatly on side airbags. All legacies/OBs come with such airbags. Look at the results of just the side impact testing on midsize sedans, pretty much everything got "acceptable, and the rest were poor." That tells me that the rest of the 04-05 feild of compact-to-midsize sedans are even worse off than the legacy. check back when some of these other cars are tested with this "act of god" double impact test is conducted on more cars. Two vehicles, a small SUV, and a midsize sedan are hardly a scientific sample. I revise my previous odds estimate. The odds of a frontal AND side impact in short succession, is probably higher than getting struck by lightning. So X% of accidents are side impacts... How many accidents happen in a year, 10,000? 50,000? There are how many serious accidents in that number? How many "double impacts?" There are how many drivers in this country alone? ~200 Million? (2/3rds of the US population, give or take) The odds are looking pretty steep to me. I have to say it again. There are risks in life. I know not all accidents are avoidable, and some people will be in them. I have said as much in this thread. But new cars are as safe as cars have ever been, and good driving helps your odds of survival even more. And no offense to the couple who were just in an accident, but if anyone is mortified of getting in an accident in a new car, to the extent that a single test result of a new and extremely unlikely test would turn you off of the car otherwise being considered for purchase, in favor of some other car that hasn't been through the same test, then one should consider exclusive use of public transportation. I really don't mean to sound callous or mean, and I really do hope that people find the vehicles they are looking for, and satisified with. I am not saying that everyone should buy a legacy, despite the test. If you take this testing at face value, and decide accordingly, I wish you and everyone else the best with your new cars, whichever you choose. I am CERTAINLY not saying that Subaru doesn't need to take this under advisement and improve their design. I just think that this crash test story has a good percentage of fear mongering to it. Buying a legacy makes you no more or less likely to get into an accident, and doesn't neccessarily give you any worse chance of being fatally injured. What happens when everyone is so afraid of everything, that no one is able to function in the real world? To listen to these crash reports, and the news stories that are written about them, you'd think that cars are actually GETTING MORE DANGEROUS! They are getting safer every year, and have been for decades. All these "new tests" and "double impacts" only tell me that they are having to invent ways of crashing new cars even worse than before, because cars are stronger and safer than ever! Can't people be happy with that continuing trend?

[TAckhouse1]

It is not a special one-two punch. The cars are tested in each area separately, the RAV4 was the first vechicle tested to earn the top pick in each type of crash. [quote]NEW CRASH TEST RESULTS: SMALL SUV FROM TOYOTA IS 1ST TO EARN 'DOUBLE BEST PICK' DESIGNATION FOR BOTH FRONT AND SIDE CRASHWORTHINESS ARLINGTON, VA -- The 2004 Toyota RAV4 equipped with optional side airbags is the first vehicle to earn good ratings and "best pick" designations for both front and side impact crashworthiness tests conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety -- a "double best pick."The Institute rates vehicles on how well they protect occupants in front and side crashes, assigning each vehicle a rating of good, acceptable, marginal, or poor. The better performers among the good vehicles in front and side tests are designated "best picks." Vehicles that earn "best pick" designations in both tests are "double best picks." "Results for this small SUV show manufacturers can provide good protection for occupants in the two most common kinds of serious crashes," says Institute chief operating officer Adrian Lund. "Unfortunately Toyota hasn't made side airbags standard, and the RAV4 without side airbags is still rated poor for side impact protection." The Institute also tested the Subaru Legacy, which earned a good rating and a "best pick" designation in the frontal test but a marginal rating in the side impact test. This midsize inexpensive car was redesigned for the 2005 model year. The RAV4 was tested because of the recent addition of side airbags and because Toyota made some changes to this vehicle's front-end structure to improve frontal crash performance. Both the RAV4 and the Legacy belong to groups of vehicles that the Institute evaluated in earlier front and side crashes. In the Institute's frontal offset test, a vehicle strikes a deformable barrier at 40 mph. The vehicle is offset so that only 40 percent of the front end strikes the barrier on the driver side. In offset tests, a smaller area of the front end must manage the crash energy than in full-width tests. Injury measures are taken from a dummy representing an average-size male (50th percentile) positioned in the driver seat. In the Institute's side impact test, a moving deformable barrier strikes the driver side of a passenger vehicle at 31 mph. The barrier weighs 3,300 pounds and has a front end shaped to simulate the front of a typical pickup or SUV. In each side-struck vehicle are two instrumented dummies the size of a short (5th percentile) female. One dummy is positioned in the driver seat, and one is in the rear seat behind the driver. RAV4 improves in both tests: This is the third version of the RAV4 evaluated in the Institute's frontal test. "In the first frontal crash test in 1998, the RAV4 was a marginal performer," Lund says. The dummy's head hit the window frame during the crash. Its knee hit a metal flange under the steering column, which punctured the dummy's vinyl "skin." High accelerations were recorded on the dummy's head and chest. There also was a likelihood of injury to the left leg. The RAV4 was redesigned in 2001, and its performance improved. "But it still was rated only acceptable in the frontal test," Lund says. High accelerations were recorded when the dummy's head struck the steering wheel through the driver airbag, and forces on both legs indicated the possibility of injuries. For 2004 model RAV4s manufactured after December 2003, Toyota made structural modifications to improve offset test performance. "RAV4s with the modifications are much improved," Lund says. "The dummy's movement during the crash was well controlled, and injury measures taken from the head, neck, and chest all were low. The new RAV4 is now a good performer and a ‘best pick' in the frontal test." RAV4's side test results improve with side airbags: In the Institute's first set of side impact tests of small SUVs, the 2003 RAV4 was among seven designs that earned the lowest rating of poor. Only the Subaru Forester with standard side airbags and the 2001-04 Ford Escape with optional side airbags earned good ratings. The Hyundai Santa Fe with standard side airbags was rated acceptable. "In 2003 you couldn't buy a RAV4 with side airbags," Lund points out. "The side structure was rated marginal, and because there were no head protection airbags the driver dummy's head was struck by the intruding barrier. Measures also showed the likelihood of major torso injuries and pelvic fractures. The 2004 RAV4 equipped with optional side airbags is a huge improvement. The structure is better, but side airbags with head protection made the biggest difference compared with the old RAV4." Forces recorded on the driver and passenger dummies were "dramatically lower," Lund adds. "This time, the driver dummy's head was cushioned by the curtain airbag and wasn't struck by the barrier." A torso airbag deploying from the seat also helped to reduce injury forces on the lower body of the driver dummy. "When the Institute began frontal offset crash testing in 1995, manufacturers made big improvements in the protection vehicles provide to occupants in frontal crashes," says Lund. "The side impact test is now driving similar improvements in protection for occupants in side crashes. But only buyers of RAV4s who opt for the side airbags get good protection in side impacts. All manufacturers should provide side airbags with head protection as standard equipment." Side airbags are reducing risks in real-world crashes: Institute research shows that in vehicles with side airbags to protect the head, the risk of a fatal injury is reduced by 45 percent among drivers of cars struck on the driver side. Side airbags that protect the chest and abdomen, but not the head, also are reducing deaths but are less effective (about a 10 percent reduction in deaths). Before the availability of head-protecting airbags, there was virtually nothing to prevent people's heads from being struck by intruding vehicles or rigid objects like trees or poles in serious side impacts. Legacy earns top rating in frontal test: The driver space was maintained with little intrusion into the occupant compartment. Dummy movement was well controlled, and all injury measures were low. "The Legacy performed well across the board in the frontal test and earns a good rating and a 'best pick,'" Lund says. Subaru recalls Legacy after side impact test: The Institute conducted two side impact crash tests of the Legacy. In the first test, the standard side curtain airbag deployed improperly, so the driver dummy's head was hit by the intruding barrier. Subaru found that the side airbags weren't folded correctly at the factory where they were produced. Subaru corrected the problem and recalled Legacy models manufactured earlier. When the Institute tested another Legacy with the modified airbags, the driver side curtain inflated properly. "The heads of the front and rear dummies were protected by the airbag," Lund says, "but other measures taken from the driver dummy indicated the likelihood of rib fractures and internal organ injuries plus the possibility of pelvic fractures. These kept the Legacy from earning a higher than marginal rating." The Institute recently tested 13 midsize car designs, and only the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry with optional side airbags earned good ratings. The Chevrolet Malibu with side airbags was acceptable. The rest were poor. How vehicles are evaluated: The Institute's frontal crashworthiness evaluations are based on results of frontal offset crash tests at 40 mph. Each vehicle's overall evaluation is based on three aspects of performance -- measurements of intrusion into the occupant compartment, injury measures from a Hybrid III dummy positioned in the driver seat, and analysis of slow-motion film to assess how well the restraint system controlled dummy movement during the test. Each vehicle's overall side evaluation is based on injury measures recorded on two instrumented SID-IIs dummies, assessment of head protection countermeasures, and the vehicle's structural performance during the impact. Injury measures obtained from the two dummies, one in the driver seat and the other in the rear seat behind the driver, are used to determine the likelihood that the driver and/or passenger would have sustained serious injury to various body regions. The movements and contacts of the dummies' heads during the crash also are evaluated. This assessment is more important for seating positions without head-protecting airbags which, assuming they perform as intended, should prevent injurious head contacts. Structural performance is based on measurements indicating the amount of B-pillar intrusion into the occupant compartment. Some intrusion into the compartment is inevitable in serious side impacts, but any intrusion that does occur should be uniform both horizontally and vertically and shouldn't seriously compromise the driver or passenger space.[/quote] [url]http://www.iihs.org/news_releases/2004/pr072504.htm[/url]

[outahere]

[quote name='IwannaSportSedan'] While pelvic fractures, broken ribs, and organ damage are no light matter, unless unattended for a long period of time, usually are not fatal. Could be much worse. People get hurt in car accidents, and short of building bumper-cars that are limited to 10mph, there isn't much that can be done to mitigate that fact. IF that is all that keeps the car from getting a "best pick", and a SUV is the only one that does get a double best pick, I'd say the Legacy isn't doing too badly. Especially considering that some of their darling little RAV4s (which are taller, and probably weigh more than a Legacy) come without the side airbags, and their ratings drop from best to POOR! That tells me that the test depends greatly on side airbags. All legacies/OBs come with such airbags. Look at the results of just the side impact testing on midsize sedans, pretty much everything got "acceptable, and the rest were poor." That tells me that the rest of the 04-05 feild of compact-to-midsize sedans are even worse off than the legacy. check back when some of these other cars are tested with this "act of god" double impact test is conducted on more cars. Two vehicles, a small SUV, and a midsize sedan are hardly a scientific sample. I revise my previous odds estimate. The odds of a frontal AND side impact in short succession, is probably higher than getting struck by lightning. So X% of accidents are side impacts... How many accidents happen in a year, 10,000? 50,000? There are how many serious accidents in that number? How many "double impacts?" There are how many drivers in this country alone? ~200 Million? (2/3rds of the US population, give or take) The odds are looking pretty steep to me. I have to say it again. There are risks in life. I know not all accidents are avoidable, and some people will be in them. I have said as much in this thread. But new cars are as safe as cars have ever been, and good driving helps your odds of survival even more. And no offense to the couple who were just in an accident, but if anyone is mortified of getting in an accident in a new car, to the extent that a single test result of a new and extremely unlikely test would turn you off of the car otherwise being considered for purchase, in favor of some other car that hasn't been through the same test, then one should consider exclusive use of public transportation. I really don't mean to sound callous or mean, and I really do hope that people find the vehicles they are looking for, and satisified with. I am not saying that everyone should buy a legacy, despite the test. If you take this testing at face value, and decide accordingly, I wish you and everyone else the best with your new cars, whichever you choose. I am CERTAINLY not saying that Subaru doesn't need to take this under advisement and improve their design. I just think that this crash test story has a good percentage of fear mongering to it. Buying a legacy makes you no more or less likely to get into an accident, and doesn't neccessarily give you any worse chance of being fatally injured. What happens when everyone is so afraid of everything, that no one is able to function in the real world? To listen to these crash reports, and the news stories that are written about them, you'd think that cars are actually GETTING MORE DANGEROUS! They are getting safer every year, and have been for decades. All these "new tests" and "double impacts" only tell me that they are having to invent ways of crashing new cars even worse than before, because cars are stronger and safer than ever! Can't people be happy with that continuing trend?[/quote] Sorry, but part of your argument doesn't hold much water, because it is based on two false assumptions. One, that the IIHS does a "double impact test" and two, that only two vehicles have been subjected to the side impact test by IIHS. There is no double impact test. And I counted around 25 cars and SUVs that are in IIHS database, tested in the new side impact protocol they adopted in 2003. As for organ damage not being fatal, you can bleed to death pretty quickly from a lacerated liver, I would think. You contradict yourself when you state that "People get hurt in car accidents, ........ there isn't much that can be done to mitigate that fact", and also state "They are getting safer every year, and have been for decades." If nothing much can be done to mitigate people getting hurt in their cars, how can cars be getting safer every year?

[racerdave]

[quote name='apexjapan']Part of the answer to these questions has to do with America vs. Australia and Japan in terms of vehicles on the road. Australian and Japanese crash testing assumes you will be hit by another car. The American test in question assumes you will be hit by a SUV. Thus, the point of impact changes. Which is possibly why the Forester did better than the Legacy, and why an Outback would likely do better than the 2.5i Legacy as well - because they are higher off the ground, and the point of impact by a SUV would be more "normal". To answer some other questions - the article that started this thread was of a "new" testing method that is indeed a double impact - front of the car is hit, then the side. The only two cars tested were a RAV4 and new Legacy. As the side impact is still a "SUV", the higher riding Forester would likely do better again. But in the real world, I know for certain that as good as the Forester is (I'd buy one without hesitation), the new Legacy is better in terms of crash protection (and I bought one without hesitation). Which car you buy depends on what test you think is most important. If you feel that your chances of being t-boned by a SUV while you are parked in an intersection is fairly high, go for the outback. ;) Cheers, Paul Hansen[/quote] [img]http://forum.e46fanatics.com/images/smilies/whacky10.gif[/img]

[IwannaSportSedan]

[quote name='outahere'] Sorry, but part of your argument doesn't hold much water, because it is based on two false assumptions. One, that the IIHS does a "double impact test" and two, that only two vehicles have been subjected to the side impact test by IIHS. There is no double impact test. And I counted around 25 cars and SUVs that are in IIHS database, tested in the new side impact protocol they adopted in 2003. As for organ damage not being fatal, you can bleed to death pretty quickly from a lacerated liver, I would think. You contradict yourself when you state that "People get hurt in car accidents, ........ there isn't much that can be done to mitigate that fact", and also state "They are getting safer every year, and have been for decades." If nothing much can be done to mitigate people getting hurt in their cars, how can cars be getting safer every year?[/quote] I picked up this quote this morning from a freind (not the person who said it), which I thought was particularly appropriate: "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden The double impact test sure sounds like what IIHS was describing, but I'll admit that I may not have been understanding it correctly. My skepticism still stands, though. The article said that most other mid-size cars didn't do much better, and most worse, than the Legacy in side impact, anyway. As for the contradiction; it is not contradictory, but rather a matter of degree. Cars are getting safer every year, and that is a fact. Why do you think that cars cost so much? Piston engines and steel body construction are not new technologies. We pay for the R&D that goes into making these cars safer every year. Car companies are certainly not going out of business trying to pay for it! To listen to the raw results of these tests, without context for past standards, feild appliciability, accident survival rates, and accident rates in general is to miss vital data. To listen to the fear mongering journalists who report on this stuff, one might think that cars are unsafe, bad, and should be done away with. Such is the media, since fear gets ratings. People wouldn't be nearly as afraid if they knew the WHOLE story. highway fatalities have been decreasing for years on average, and are as low as they have ever been. Now I just said that "Cars are getting safer every year, and that is a fact." Here's where it gets complicated: A car, no matter how safe, can't completely protect you from all circumstances, at all times. Even a new car, safer than any that have come before, is still governed by the laws of physics. The laws of physics say that two objects made of matter cannot occupy the same space at the same time. There is nothing the Government, The Insurance Institute of Highway Safety, any car manufacturer, or anyone else can do about that. It isn't like breaking the speed limit, you cannot break that law, even if you want to. As our "risk management" culture gets more invasive, we keep raising the bar. That is usually a good thing, and we should keep doing that, but "perfect safety" is not an acheiveable goal. The risk inherent in driving a car, or simply living in the physical world can't be completely removed, and it is fallacy to think that it can be. Most extreme measures of risk management involve the removal of free will, anyway. Sometimes the odds play out. That is what "Insurance" is for anyway, right? Insurance, including IIHS's tests, can't keep you out of an accident, it can only help you and/or your loved ones cope with the effects. The only thing that can keep you out of an accident is yourself, either by competent driving, which is no guarantee, or by staying home in a little padded room. There will unfortunately always be car accidents that hurt and kill people, even if they are in the safest cars, possibly even puncturing livers, and causing good people to potentially bleed to death. Accidents, and some pretty severe ones will continue to happen, until cars are replaced with something else. Then that method of transportation will have a whole new set of risks. It sounds like a bad deal, but it's really just the risks people have to deal with, and to a certain extent, ignore, for our own sanity. Most people call this "discretion." All we can do in the end is massage the odds in our favor a bit. I am not saying that we shouldn't try to, just that we are each mortal, after all is said and done.

[outahere]

[quote name='agctr']All the crash test analysis completed here in Oz has been really good as Im sure like you do, we have side intrusion bars. It would be interesting to get further data on this.[/quote] I took a look at the Australian ANCAP tests of the 2004 Liberty (Legacy) wagon. They tested 2 versions of the wagon, one with only front airbags, and one with front and side bags. They did have this to say about the side impact results in the front airbag only wagon: "The vehicle scored 15.05 out of 16 in the side impact crash test. There was a high risk of serious chest and abdomen injury for the driver." And they had these comments about the wagon with the full airbag package: "The vehicle scored 16 out of 16 in the side impact crash test. A further 2 points were scored in the optional pole test and three points were awarded for advanced seat belt reminders. With these extra points the Liberty reached a total of 35.52 points - the highest scoring vehicle assessed by Australian NCAP. Despite these significant differences in side impact results, they gave both wagons the same overall score of 5 stars. Seem to me they should have given the front airbag only wagon a lower score of 4 stars. The ANCAP side impact test is an easier test to score well on, because they use a 2094lb sled running at 31mph, instead of the 3300lb sled (at 31mph) used in the IIHS test. Plus I believe ANCAP runs the sled at a lower height.

[il collaudatore]

Can somebody explain to me why isn't the torso airbag bigger? Is it feasible to make it bigger? [img]http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/side/photos/s0411_2_33.jpg[/img] Does anybody know if the frame is made with reinforced steel in certain areas to increase the strength of the body?

[outahere]

[quote name='il collaudatore']Can somebody explain to me why isn't the torso airbag bigger? Is it feasible to make it bigger? [/quote] For comparison, can you post photos of the torso airbags from the 2004 Accord and Camry?

[jk]

I suggest that EACH INDIVIDUAL member of this forum go to subaru.com and use the "contact us" feature to express concern about this issue. Enough separate, individual messages will catch their attention.

[NoblePrawn]

[quote name='outahere'][quote name='il collaudatore']Can somebody explain to me why isn't the torso airbag bigger? Is it feasible to make it bigger? [/quote] For comparison, can you post photos of the torso airbags from the 2004 Accord and Camry?[/quote] Here is the similar picture from the 2004 Honda Accord EX: [img]http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/side/photos/s0319_2_37.jpg[/img] I do not believe they have tested the Camry with the SUV like impact. -NP

[NoblePrawn]

So now looking at the images side by side, it doesn't appear that bigger is necessarily better. Guess it matters how you use it. -NP

[racerdave]

And the Accord is better? From those pics it's tough to tell...

[Dr. Zevil]

First.. this is silly, I would never have thought that there would be 3-4 threads about results that PASS and exceed government testing. :lol: Personally, If I get hit in the side of my car at speed, then I am expecting to get injured. If I just found this forum, I would get the impression that the legacy is the most unsafe car in the US, WHICH ISN'T THE CASE! Things need to be put into perspective. The car is very safe! ...show me the standard for this new testing method and I will decide whether or not it is safe.

[NoblePrawn]

[quote name='racerdave']And the Accord is better? From those pics it's tough to tell...[/quote] Yup. Accord manages a Good in the side impact. -NP

[NoblePrawn]

[quote name='Dr. Zevil']First.. this is silly, I would never have thought that there would be 3-4 threads about results that PASS and exceed government testing. :lol:[/quote] Uhm lots of cars pass the government standards and aren't safe. You can't see a car that doesn't. Just remeber the exploding pinto passed in its day too, the government bar just isn't very high. I'll take the crash statistics developed test of the IIHS any day. [quote name='Dr. Zevil']If I just found this forum, I would get the impression that the legacy is the most unsafe car in the US, WHICH ISN'T THE CASE![/quote] Correct its 3rd safest of the ~27 or so tested? [quote name='Dr. Zevil']Things need to be put into perspective. The car is very safe![/quote] Yes just not as safe as it should be given the safety systems it employs. Other cars with the same systems are getting good results not marginal ones. Why is this? [quote name='Dr. Zevil']...show me the standard for this new testing method and I will decide whether or not it is safe.[/quote] Look through the other threads. Its up near the top. You can also look at all the absolute numbers on the IIHS site. -NP

[il collaudatore]

[quote name='Dr. Zevil'] Things need to be put into perspective. The car is very safe! [/quote] Is it a safe car? Overall, yes it is... but that poor rating in the torso area is a sticking point. If it were marginal instead of poor, there would be 1 thread on this forum. And I think most people here buy into the fact that the Legacy is the start of Subaru going upscale. So expectations for the car will be higher. In spite of all the threads, I don't think Subaru will make any changes and this really won't affect too many buyers. You might have a few defect to Volvo but that would be marginal. It's just a bit disappointing is all.

[Dr. Zevil]

I can agree that it's a bit disappointing.. it must just be my perspective, I don't have kids and I bought the car for different reasons. I guess that this is a good sign, very few other problems with the design and implimentation of this new model year car.

[agctr]

Sorry to say this boys, but I got a BIG tap on the rear tonight on the way home and the Liberty stood upto the pain. Being either hit in the rear and the front are the cars strongest points. I think on any car, the doors can be the week point. Have to say the Scooby did me proud and not sure if I really want to post pics but still going thru the pain of it all. My neck is a little sore to say the least but I walked away which is the main thing.

[Dr. Zevil]

[quote name='agctr']Sorry to say this boys, but I got a BIG tap on the rear tonight on the way home and the Liberty stood upto the pain. Being either hit in the rear and the front are the cars strongest points. I think on any car, the doors can be the week point. Have to say the Scooby did me proud and not sure if I really want to post pics but still going thru the pain of it all. My neck is a little sore to say the least but I walked away which is the main thing.[/quote] Yikes! Sorry to hear about the accident. I am glad that you are ok though. Any details as to how hard the colision was?

[apexjapan]

Mate, I feel for you. Went through a big love tap to the rear of one of my twin-turbo's - two weeks after buying it, via a volvo. I've formed the theory that people that buy volvo's do so because they *know* they will get into an accident. Simply, I *know* the pain you are going through towards the car. But look beyond it for a bit, and concentrate on your neck. More importantly, get your neck and your entire back checked out. My love tap didn't hurt that much, I thot, then found out my entire lower back was tweaked, and to be honest, it really hasn't been the same since. The new Legacy is better than the older ones for that, so it is likely you are better off than me - yet still, get it checked, and check thoroughly. Cheers, Paul Hansen

[agctr]

Thanks for the comments Dr... I was at a standstill in traffic with my foot on the brake, just about to take off when it happened. I suppose i would have been hit at say 60Km, maybe more, the headrest really saved my neck heaps from the whiplash which is good, leather seats you have to love em..... It was actually a 3 car pileup, I was at the front but didnt hit anyone at the front luckily. The skid mark was atleast 35metres long so he was really moving. The boot, spoiler has been pushed back up into the back window and I have a few creases in the back right hand pillar so the chasis has been bent a bit, as most of the damage is in the rear but to the left side. My exhaust system is well not the best.... the back bar, well its skinner than the real JDM bar, all my lights on the left hand side are smashed but besides that, she is in good shape, good enough to drive home atleast. So for me the safety is pretty good. Considering the guy behind me caused all that damage, enough to punture his sump in some way, his AIRBAGS on both sides didnt go off. With such a big impact, that is a bit strange for mine?

[agctr]

Thanks Paul for the words of support, greatly appreciated. Im booked in for tmrw afternoon with the Dr. and going to have my back checked out as well. The pain hasnt gotten worse but havent been to bed yet either. The car can always be fixed and just thankful that I was able to walk away and the other ppl too. Im so thankful also that I didnt put my order in for the new GT 8 weeks ago, otherwise well, you know what I mean. Anyway, I will let you all know about the outcome in the following days and will get some pics posted too. Thanks for the support everyone. Adam

[apexjapan2]

Woh Adam, that is very bad news...but good news the car protected you. Hope you recover fine/100%. Legacys must have a magnetic effect, coz I got a tap from bloody big Nissan minivan last year. If I'd had my foot on the brake/handbrake on the damage woulda been huge - instead the car moved forwards, releasing lots of the energy, but I still got woosy afterwards. Get yourself looked after well, then let the insurance sort the metal out. Cheers :)

[PPower]

Just thought I'd put a quick line in that this thread is crazy. I will no longer look at this thread since I see that it's going nowhere. Do I wish that the car got the best ratings on the side as well? Yes, and we wouldn't have scrutinized their test procedure if it turned out that way. Will I still be looking to get a Legacy? Yep, and actually solidified on the wagon seeing how it has performed better in side crashes than the sedan in the past. If this has been the determining factor to nix the Legacy until this issue is fixed, then just lurk until then or just drop this topic. Goodbye NoblePrawn.

[Ken S]

Adam, Sorry to hear about the accident. I'm glad to hea you walked away from it. Ken