Amazing how they tried the belittle the IIHS importance back then. Now, most if not all manufacturers rely on the IIHS to market their vehicles as the safest option. This story has come a long way!
I was thinking the same thing. It was shocking to see the difference back then. And that they denied making safer cars was worth the added cost because of there not being a lot of high speed wrecks...@40mph. Crazy
Unsurprisingly, GM lied in their letter to the show. Here's how we know: Engineers from GM's (at the time) Opel division were present at these crash tests and voiced their concerns. They knew exactly how unsafe the car was, but executives chose to ignore these concerns. The results were buried and the car was released in Europe as the Opel and Vauxhall Sintra - where it performed so poorly in this exact crash test and caused so much public outrage, they stopped selling the car. They continued selling it in the US, with no improvements to its safety, for several more years however.
I knew in my heart that GM faked the minivan performing well in their letter. I could smell the attempt at repairing their PR when they said what they said.
This VHS recording is very good. I wish better recordings of some of the other Dateline IIHS reports existed; several of them on RUclips have tracking issues and buzzy HiFi audio
Wow. I never would've guessed which minivan was the "safest" according to the IIHS. These tests were all done at 40 MPH. Most of these vans tested so bad at 40, I couldn't imagine if these were done at 55+ MPH. It would be guaranteed fatal.
The GM trio ( Venture, Silhouette and Transport/Montana was assembled in Doraville , Georgia (Northeast of Atlanta) and the Opel Sintra and Buick GL8 was assembled there too.
Astonishing how far vehicle safety has come in the last 25 years, thanks in large part to the IIHS. My in-laws bought a Previa in the 90s because it had side impact beams so they thought it was the safest - I guess they hadn't seen this video!
GM Declined Datelines request to show specific offset crash test results and video .🤔 that a bit suspicious 🤨 of gm declining about specific data of there own offset test on the minivans
Point blank proof that these big companies are not in the interest of saving lives. Especially GM. If they spent more time owning up to the problems and fixing it instead of pretending nothing is wrong with their cars, maybe they could’ve been the leader, but no. That new van design was just as bad as the first from 97 to 2006.
They should be ashamed for to talk trash about the IIHS. They are not only trying to cut insurance costs but their trying to save lives. Also, 40mph isn’t ultra high speed, its real world. GM’s minivan may have survived at 35 but what about the real world? And if it can’t even preform good at the AVERAGE then think about a higher speed. You would think they would make a family vehicle the safest vehicle on the road but I guess money is more important then life.
@jzimmerman28 I have a 1998 gmc safari bought it new and it’s been 23 years and the only thing It needed over the years where oil breaks and and good old pony tune up every now and then
Stories like this are all part and parcel of how safety has improved. I could say more about what I consider a “vehicular dark ages” that made up the second half of the 20th century, when vehicles went from works of art to mass produced efficiency but not-good-at-it-yet. The 1990s was an era of progressive innovation, not just from within the auto industry, but also from pressures placed on it from external forces like IIHS
it frightens me that GM kept that design of the Venture and TransSport up until the 2010s with the uplander... they said the tests went well, well heres two vans that fell apart structurally. Toyota got rid of the Previa that same year and introduced the Sienna
two Nissan Quest minivans were crash tested 1 was red the other one green its kind of obvious there was a problem with the crash test of the green Nissan Quest
@John Smith John there are older caravans as well a newer ones, literally everywhere. In some areas there are more of them than anything else. MN and ND are loaded with these older ones, yet you won't find an older Toyota. Also, we have had a 2015 Caravan and a 2014 Sienna, sorry but the Caravan wins in just about every aspect, we have spend a small fortune on the Sienna.
No one asked but the trans sport and Montana, as a kid i wrote to Pontiac stating they needed to put AWD on it and get the drivers side sliding rear door to stay competitive and win. I was hype on a fucking minivan frfr, lol. I for real thought they would immediately do it and praise my insight. Though they eventually did, no credit given, of course. 😂😂
How can these tests be too fast? The car is doing 40mph into a stationary object... in the real world the other object would also likely be doing 40mph, that's like hitting a stationary object at "80 mph". I don't think any of these vehicles would look good after that crash; and neither would the occupants.
No, that's not how this works. Remember Newton's Third Law? It states that for every force there is an equal and opposite reaction. Colliding into a stationary object at 40mph is the exact same thing as if another vehicle of the same mass is traveling in the opposite direction at the same speed. This test simulates a head-on collision. You're also forgetting about the square-cube law. Twice the speed means four times as much energy.
Yeah. Its shocking how bad the Previa performed. Being a Toyota, you'd think they would've exceeded in crash safety. I guess its more design over function.
Toyota is one of a handful of manufacturers that takes IIHS's testing seriously and improves the safety of their vehicles. The 1998 Sienna that was later tested was the best performing minivan at that time.
If designed properly, a car can perform very well no matter the engine placement. Also engine being in front doesn't make you safer. Crumple zones and proper safety cages do. Also engines can possibly make the car less safe if the car isn't properly designed.
Amazing how they tried the belittle the IIHS importance back then. Now, most if not all manufacturers rely on the IIHS to market their vehicles as the safest option. This story has come a long way!
I was thinking the same thing. It was shocking to see the difference back then. And that they denied making safer cars was worth the added cost because of there not being a lot of high speed wrecks...@40mph. Crazy
Unsurprisingly, GM lied in their letter to the show. Here's how we know: Engineers from GM's (at the time) Opel division were present at these crash tests and voiced their concerns. They knew exactly how unsafe the car was, but executives chose to ignore these concerns. The results were buried and the car was released in Europe as the Opel and Vauxhall Sintra - where it performed so poorly in this exact crash test and caused so much public outrage, they stopped selling the car. They continued selling it in the US, with no improvements to its safety, for several more years however.
I knew in my heart that GM faked the minivan performing well in their letter. I could smell the attempt at repairing their PR when they said what they said.
This VHS recording is very good. I wish better recordings of some of the other Dateline IIHS reports existed; several of them on RUclips have tracking issues and buzzy HiFi audio
The one with the 97 Luxury cars is HD
Wow. I never would've guessed which minivan was the "safest" according to the IIHS. These tests were all done at 40 MPH. Most of these vans tested so bad at 40, I couldn't imagine if these were done at 55+ MPH. It would be guaranteed fatal.
And you never would've guessed what happened to one of them 2 years later
@@titan9259 The 1999 Nissan Quest did even worse than the 1997 model.
The windstar was their best pick, nah, the caravan stayed more solid
@@gabesmath105the Caravan injured the legs much more than the windstar
It's striking to see how blatant GM was with their BS claims.
@John Smith no, you're meaning shocking. Striking by the fact they didn't hide it like they usually do.
If only there was a Dateline 1999 small SUV crash tests or Dateline 1998 pickup trucks tests
The GM trio ( Venture, Silhouette and Transport/Montana was assembled in Doraville , Georgia (Northeast of Atlanta) and the Opel Sintra and Buick GL8 was assembled there too.
Astonishing how far vehicle safety has come in the last 25 years, thanks in large part to the IIHS. My in-laws bought a Previa in the 90s because it had side impact beams so they thought it was the safest - I guess they hadn't seen this video!
I finally get a full version of this video, I’m excited and now it’s on my favorites. Thanks for the upload!
1:43 "I believe that that foot is seperated from the leg" :-/
GM Declined Datelines request to show specific offset crash test results and video .🤔 that a bit suspicious 🤨 of gm declining about specific data of there own offset test on the minivans
Point blank proof that these big companies are not in the interest of saving lives. Especially GM. If they spent more time owning up to the problems and fixing it instead of pretending nothing is wrong with their cars, maybe they could’ve been the leader, but no. That new van design was just as bad as the first from 97 to 2006.
"The safety cage holds"
Safety cage proceeds to crumple.
"There's plenty of damage but O'Neill says it's distrubted around the driver, not into him"
@@titan9259 Standards are significantly higher now. By current standards, all of them would have failed this test.
@@no1DdC Windstar is still rated good on the moderate overlap test the IIHS website, it would fail any other newer test.
You know it’s old when Lea Thompson says that the Pontiac Trans Sport is new
4:06 Unknown cyan Nissan Quest ✌.|•͡˘‿•͡˘|.✌
They should be ashamed for to talk trash about the IIHS. They are not only trying to cut insurance costs but their trying to save lives. Also, 40mph isn’t ultra high speed, its real world. GM’s minivan may have survived at 35 but what about the real world? And if it can’t even preform good at the AVERAGE then think about a higher speed. You would think they would make a family vehicle the safest vehicle on the road but I guess money is more important then life.
They all performed horribly. We've come a long way in 25 years.
Windstar: Am I a joke to you?
@@titan9259 yes, yes it is. That van did horrible compared to modern day cars
@@WooferCooker Because it's approaching 30 years old. But if it was 1995 I'd gladly driive it.
GM didn't run 72 tests lol
Those tests were dropping 72 feathers
@@titan9259 and the off set test was not at 35 mph it was 0.35 mph
@@beamboi2775 ok?
@@titan9259 yes
@@titan9259and it was a 5 MPH test
Lmao GM said our minivans did well in the test then said no when ever they asked for the evidence.
And opel/vauxall sintra
the Chevy astro is still my all time fav
You have to own one my friend to say those words
@John Smith I’ve been driving an 05 AWD for years, it’s never left me stranded and it fucks up the snow
@jzimmerman28 I have a 1998 gmc safari bought it new and it’s been 23 years and the only thing It needed over the years where oil breaks and and good old pony tune up every now and then
@jzimmerman28 the thing starts in -17 degree weather like it’s 30 degrees out I tell you they don’t make them like they used to
@John Smith So was the iconic Fiat 126
3:18 plz upload that as a crash test!
It's not available
An IIHS test of the updated 1999 Ford Windstar: ruclips.net/video/r7Ht6RQy9VU/видео.html
@@titan9259 nooooooooooooooooooooooooo ;( that’s sad it’s true
In any of these GM minivans, you are the crumple zone.
Stories like this are all part and parcel of how safety has improved. I could say more about what I consider a “vehicular dark ages” that made up the second half of the 20th century, when vehicles went from works of art to mass produced efficiency but not-good-at-it-yet. The 1990s was an era of progressive innovation, not just from within the auto industry, but also from pressures placed on it from external forces like IIHS
7:44 WTF
9:00
?
it frightens me that GM kept that design of the Venture and TransSport up until the 2010s with the uplander... they said the tests went well, well heres two vans that fell apart structurally. Toyota got rid of the Previa that same year and introduced the Sienna
The Quest got restested in 1998 with surprising results.
If you search 2008 Chevy Uplander iihs crash test it ends up scoring a moderate so they made bunch of safety changes before it got to the 2010s
I remember watching this as a kid when it originally aired.
''soccer mom''
Didn’t See That One Coming
The dodge structure actually held up the best all but the foot area
Which is why it had acceptable structure
And the previa looked pretty good, kept it's survival space.
But yeah, the feet and steering wheel of course.
two Nissan Quest minivans were crash tested 1 was red the other one green its kind of obvious there was a problem with the crash test of the green Nissan Quest
Apr 1. 2012
Currently driving this exact year of aerostar lol
Typical General Motors where the stock price comes first.
The ford windstar is a ultimate tank
I use reactive armour on my van, so when someone crashes into me they gets blowed up okay
1996/1997 what an AMAZING time to be alive…. America is ruined now 😢
Even though the Toyota is a deathtrap, it’ll be the only one still running in 2022.
💀
Theres a ton of these dodges roaming around
Try again, there are literally none of these Toyotas left, yet there are a ton of Grand caravans fro this age !
@John Smith they are everywhere around here same model shown in the video and even more of the newer ones
@John Smith John there are older caravans as well a newer ones, literally everywhere. In some areas there are more of them than anything else. MN and ND are loaded with these older ones, yet you won't find an older Toyota. Also, we have had a 2015 Caravan and a 2014 Sienna, sorry but the Caravan wins in just about every aspect, we have spend a small fortune on the Sienna.
When i was a kid we sat in the back of these mother truckers and survived. Lbvs 😂😂
In todays world 40 mph is low speed crash so if people still have these vans then
No one asked but the trans sport and Montana, as a kid i wrote to Pontiac stating they needed to put AWD on it and get the drivers side sliding rear door to stay competitive and win. I was hype on a fucking minivan frfr, lol. I for real thought they would immediately do it and praise my insight. Though they eventually did, no credit given, of course. 😂😂
I knew the GM products would preform horribly before I even watched this. My favorite vans were the Dodge/Chrysler/Plymouthand the ford windstar
We almost bought the Pontiac bought this came out
I USED TO DRIVE MINIVANS AND I WASN'T A MIDDLE AGE MAN..I WAS IN MY 30'S AND I NEVER CRASHED
American manufacturer’s were in denial. Deluded. A 2005 Renault Espace performed much better in Euro NCAP tests. European cars are usually much safer.
How can these tests be too fast?
The car is doing 40mph into a stationary object... in the real world the other object would also likely be doing 40mph, that's like hitting a stationary object at "80 mph".
I don't think any of these vehicles would look good after that crash; and neither would the occupants.
No, that's not how this works. Remember Newton's Third Law? It states that for every force there is an equal and opposite reaction. Colliding into a stationary object at 40mph is the exact same thing as if another vehicle of the same mass is traveling in the opposite direction at the same speed. This test simulates a head-on collision.
You're also forgetting about the square-cube law. Twice the speed means four times as much energy.
Lol "40mph is a ultra high speed test". What a crock of shit, that's the lower end of the speed limit in any given multi lane city street.
DiamlerChrysler Did Not Did Good
Never will buy a GM vehicle
The reason why the Toyota Previn failed to do so good was that there was no front engine.
Yeah. Its shocking how bad the Previa performed. Being a Toyota, you'd think they would've exceeded in crash safety. I guess its more design over function.
Wow yet more conspiracies theriosts here thinking that the engine is what saves you in an accident
Toyota is one of a handful of manufacturers that takes IIHS's testing seriously and improves the safety of their vehicles. The 1998 Sienna that was later tested was the best performing minivan at that time.
@@CarPro1993, my family has a 2021 version of the Sienna.
If designed properly, a car can perform very well no matter the engine placement. Also engine being in front doesn't make you safer. Crumple zones and proper safety cages do. Also engines can possibly make the car less safe if the car isn't properly designed.
GM trying to justify their cheap, crappy vans.
12:29 "Ultra" High speed at 40 MPH!