No wonder new alfas are not in U.S.

[DaveC]

Got this site from the digest. The Alfa looks like the worst car in the lot. Even Hyundai did better.


Euroncap

[Alex Csank]

Hmmm....she don'ta looka so good!

[Mr. C.]

It looks to me as though each of the cars and trucks are a total loss. So the question is how bad were the occupants hurt? I don't think we can tell from the pictures.

[smestas]

If you look at the cars in the same section as the 147 none of them have a buckled roof like the AR.

Looks like the 147 didnt do too well.

[John M]

Oh yeah.

It did bad....looks very bad. Frame buckled.

Best Regards,
John M

[sidewaysalfa]

But, folded car = absorbed energy.
Energy that would not have been transmitted to the passerger(s).

It does look pretty bad, though.

[GianniB]

Ugh. The fact that you can't see the front wheel makes me wonder if the crash dummies legs have a few more joints in them now. Compare it to the Mini.

[Gubi]

Quote:

Originally posted by sidewaysalfa But, folded car = absorbed energy. Energy that would not have been transmitted to the passerger(s).

[John M]

I am with Gianni and Gubi on this. I suspect that GTVMAN's chop top might do better. That is really sad performance for a modern car.

Best Regards,
John M

[alfanfl]

Check out the Volvo's. Amazing! I guess you might say, "reputation confirmed".

[GianniB]

Here's more detail on the test. I don't think the dummy feels too well anymore:

"The driver’s head moved past the airbag and struck the fascia, increasing his chances of severe injury. There was also criticism because the steering wheel pushed rearwards and to the right. Hard areas under the fascia put the driver’s knees and upper legs in jeopardy. Finally, the centre rear seat was equipped with a static, lap-only belt. This gives less protection than a three-point belt."

The full report is here:


http://www.euroncap.com/content/safe...?id1=2&id2=108

[NikosF]

Wow - that's put me off 147s. Take a look at the Fiats' ratings as well - also very poor.

My girlfriend in London was thinking about a 147 to replace her Golf - I was hoping to persuade her to get a 147GTA, but I don't think that's going to happen after seeing those results. Really poor (Fiat) engineering! No point having a really great engine if the rest has been designed so badly.

[164QV]

Well, of course cars should be constructed in order to be as safe as possible on impact - but if it should be as safe as a Volvo - maybe it would look like a Volvo....? If you are that concerned about safety - maybe you should even buy a Volvo.
The 147 along with the rest of the Alfa range has passed european legislation in the area - which is enough for me. My reasons for driving an Alfa are not based on the safety, nor the fuel consumption, size of the boot or number of beverage holders. (none in the 156 )
Lets face it; no 105-series car would do as good as any modern Alfa - least of all a Spider. Should that mean that we wouldnt drive them? I dont think so.

[NikosF]

Jorgen,

What puts me off isn't the absolute safety of the car (I certainly wouldn't be driving a 37 year old Spider if I were).

It's the poor engineering that the crash tests suggest that put me off.

It doesn't need to look like a Volvo. Comparing the crash data between the VW Golf and the 147 - which are similar sized and spec'd cars - shows the Golf being much better designed.

I think on this one it's possible to get one's cake and eat it.

Another reason why Alfa should be given increased independence from the rest of cost-focused Fiat Auto.

[Gubi]

Quote:

Originally posted by NikosF It doesn't need to look like a Volvo. Comparing the crash data between the VW Golf and the 147 - which are similar sized and spec'd cars - shows the Golf being much better designed. I think on this one it's possible to get one's cake and eat it.