Chrysler Chrysler Voyager. The perfect car for Nihilist parents.

[Kowalski]

OMG!

 

[Giannis]

What is it supposed to mean? That the Chrysler Voyager is no longer considered safe with today standards?

 

[bum-man]

It's about to be replaced.

 

[MikeJ]

The interesting thing with the Voyager's poor result was that the RHD version scored only two stars whereas the LHD got four.

 

[bmer]

http://www.euroncap.com/images/results/mpvs/car_277_2007/Chrysler Voyager datasheet.pdf

 

[Mr. M]

OMG!

Is this a real advertisement? Thumbs down if it is.

 

[MikeJ]

Mirage, it says "NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT" on top of the picture.

 

[Mr. M]

Mirage, it says "NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT" on top of the picture.

Oh dang, thanks.

 

[PanterroR]

And people are still buying it... Just because it's big and spacey...

How stupid can you be?? :

 

[bum-man]

And people are still buying it... Just because it's big and spacey...

How stupid can you be?? :

People still buy the 5er despite it's 4 star crash test rating.

 

[Kowalski]

People still buy the 5er despite it's 4 star crash test rating.

People still will buy the Chinese cars despite, their utter abysmal failure in crash-tests.

 

[bmwrules]

If people are going to buy a minivan they should get the Honda Odyssey. I used to have a previous generation Odyssey and it was a good car. The new version is even better. It routinely beats all other vans in comparison tests.

 

[bmer]

People still buy the 5er despite it's 4 star crash test rating.

And they still buy SLK despite the fact it's not as safe as the Z4. (EURONCAP crash test overall points: SLK=26 , Z4=31)

 

[bum-man]

And they still buy SLK despite the fact it's not as safe as the Z4. (EURONCAP crash test overall points: SLK=26 , Z4=31)

Too bad that was the old SLK. Nice try though bmer.

 

[bmer]

Too bad that was the old SLK. Nice try though bmer.

Well, let's not forget the previous generation ML and A-Class both sold good even they were quite horrible overall and not very convincing in safety either.

 

[Kowalski]

OK folks...let's not nitpick at each other.

We all know that even the greatest brands screw up sometimes. Still despite of all their screw-ups, we still love them, because they always had an ace up their sleeve to compensate the previous mistake.

Now let's stick to the topic and bash Chrysler, shall we?

 

[Habitual Speeder]

For those that don't know, this "ad" is from sniffpetrol.com.

 

[cawimmer430]

OMG!

I knew this was from Sniffpetrol, I knew it.

 

[mercmad]

People still buy the 5er despite it's 4 star crash test rating.

HAHA good one and dont forget first time round it got 3 stars!

 

[Kowalski]

We all expected the 5-Series E60 to get five stars, but instead it got four stars just like the 5-Series E39 which also got four stars. That's good; both of them are safe cars.

This is from the EuroNCAP:

Comments:

The Voyager did so badly in the frontal impact that it earned no points, making it the worst of the group by some margin. The body structure became unstable and the steering column was driven back into the driver's chest and head. The Voyager acquitted itself better in the side-impact test, but there was still a fair risk of the driver injuring his abdomen. Chrysler chose the child restraints used in the tests, but the company makes no set recommendations to buyers. Euro NCAP believes it is the manufacturer's responsibility to provide proper restraint for every occupant and is surprised that Chrysler do not recommend a child seat for the Voyager.

Front impact:

The steering wheel and air bag were forced upwards and into the driver's face, hitting his head hard and putting strain on his neck. The driver's chest also hit the steering wheel, increasing risk of injury. His knees were poorly protected too, and the chances of him injuring his left thigh were very high. The footwell spilt open and his lower legs and feet were poorly protected. The passenger also ran a considerable risk of chest injury.