:iagree: (p.s. the MB E didn't do great either, but thats no excuse)

The Benz is a very safe car thou, I also need to look at the A6, I feel when I'm spending this much money my safety DAMN WELL better be protected

No, the E-Class only got "Acceptable" not "Good" in the side impact tests.
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=703

Top Picks for large cars are the A6, Taurus, Sable, and S80.

What a non-story. Good example of the media making up reasons to sell papers.

It is a safe care, as are the others tested. To ignore all of the dynamic safety features such as DSC, ABS, etc, the entire subject of frontal impacts, and to focus only on one test run of a side impact from a sledge, in a specific location, at a specific angle, at a specific speed, and draw a conclusion out of that on vehicle safety, is ludicrous. They note that changing the seat position would impact the result. Of course it would. I am 6'4", the seat is all the way back, and the armrest is nowhere near my ribs.

This is just like the Hyundai (or whatever it was) advertisement where their new car is faster than a 525. So what?

Not sure which is worse, the IIHS publishing this test and the news release, Fox writing a story on it, or me wasting time thinking about it. Do people actually make purchase decisions on information like this?

/rant over

YES people do, the POINT is that people spending this much money on a car that is branded and marketed as safe shouldn't have broken ribs in a marginal impact side crash, I suspect your ranting because you own a 2008 5 series and refuse to accept it is in fact not as safe as you felt it was when you bought it

No, the POINT is that the car is safe in the broader sense, and this is a single data point. Picking a new car on a single report like this seems just plain silly.

I am not ranting just about the study, I am ranting about the wringing of hands and general whining posted above about whether BMW design engineers are doing their job or not. You claim that BMW doesn't build safe cars any more? Really? Over-react much?

FWIW, I don't own a 2008 E60 yet, but I will soon. The IIHS has absolutely no impact on my car-buying decision. Empirical evidence of people dying in real accidents at rates higher than the other cars listed would matter to me. How some people can feel better (or worse) about their purchase decisions because of info like this is just not something I can relate to.

I suspect you would have been a fan of Ralph Nader's Unsafe at Any Speed, and that you think Audi was negligent with their design of gas pedals as well.

Carry on.

Yes, we do. Safety is very important to the American buyer. The car companies know this, which is why they follow (and react accordingly) to these test results; the dealers know this, which is why they post stories like these all over their walls. I garantee you that every Kia dealership will have this report plastered all over -- "Kia safer than cars costing twice as much" -- something to that effect.

The test results may be a "single data point," but it is a very respected single data point. It is also the defacto (and accepted, I might add) safety measure -- at least here in America. The last thing BMW, or any car maker for that matter, wants is to have the largest market in the world thinking that their cars are not safe.

Luxury car buyers may accept occasionally-spotty reliability or quality issues. Luxury car buyers will NOT, however, pile their kids in cars they deem unsafe. With all the choices available in the luxury market space, poor safety is the one thing buyers will not accept.

Juan

I agree a lot with what Juan said, as far as perception an possibly sales go. However, I personally would take a car with average grade safety capabilities and outstanding handling/braking/stability control (aka AVOID the accident), then a vehicle with great safety on impact that has no ability to avoid the impact. Again all IMO.

And of course Kia and others will drum up this success (they should), as would BMW it had results saying it bashed the crap out of Audi, MB and Porsche. IMO this test is very accurate and simply comparing "crash reports" is not as there are bound to be far less luxury cars then average cars on the road, therefore changing the percentage and proportion in results.

I would venture as far as saying that people who buy a BMW thinking they end up with the safest of all vehicles are misguided, to such an extent that it borders on ignorance.
Yes, BMW does well in crashes, but that is only because their products are expensive and that they can afford to slap on some safety features for good measure. But - that is all they do - A BMW engineer told me once that 'at BMW safety is a panicked afterthought that happens after we've built a car.'
Like - the X5 - they had the devils own time figuring out how to deploy the HPS airbags. At one point they came to the conclusion that they would use steel-wire to rip the siding on the pillars apart, until someone realised that if a head was in the way, that would be undesireable.

So - would you be safer in an audi? Probably - but - are we really buying these cars because we think they are hyper-safe? Or is safe-enough good enough to make up for the other atributes of the cars? I think so.

If BMW can engineer a car to handle well why can't engineer a very safe car?