Rusty Cars Probably Not As Safe As New Ones, Says Surprising Study
If you’ve ever been driving around in a car you know is hellishly rusty underneath and wondered exactly how safe you’d be in a crash, you’re about to find out.
Well, actually, you’re not, because while a few old, rust-eroded cars have been crashed at the UK’s Thatcham Research Centre on behalf of two safety-minded Swedish companies, the results are pretty inconclusive.
The initial idea from insurance company Folksam and a homeowner’s organisation called Villaägarnas Riksförbund was to show how much less safe a rusty old car is than when it was new. Indeed, the headline Villaägarnas Riksförbund used in its press release states that, in a crash, you’re 20 per cent more likely to die if your car is badly rusted. However, it’s not that simple.
Two MkV Volkswagen Golfs and two MkI Mazda6s, all from the mid-to-late-2000s and definitely at least 10 years old, were crash-tested for frontal and side-impact safety. The results were compared with the cars’ scores when these models were new. Surprisingly, the Golf barely lost any ground on its as-new performance, scoring 32 points instead of 33. The rustier Mazda dropped from 26 points when new to 18.
The Mazda’s figure is where that ‘20 per cent’ claim comes from. As noted first by Jalopnik, though, the study does say that it’s by no means certain that any other rusty Mazda6 would behave in exactly this way. Also, much of the rust was ultimately judged not to have impacted the car’s front- and side-impact safety at all.
On the other hand, the way the Mazda has ‘de-bonded’ in the places where its rust is particularly heavy, where chassis parts and the floor have separated, indicates that driving a car with rusty guts might not be all that sensible anyway, the bottom line being that you simply don’t know how well it will handle an impact.
Comments
wow
and in a new study, wearing seatbelts reduce deaths!
And people who drive in left lanes are Americans
Ah, the times when Mazda used Fords materials…
Who cars about safety, it’s free weight reduction!
Safety third! The fact it runs is number one, and the fact that it’s usable is number two!
Datsun owners are screwed
This rusty underside seems to be a common issue on the first gen Mazda 6. My parents had one from 2005 and when they sold it in 2016 with just 90.000km its underside was completely rusted. At the same time i sold my 1998 Opel Astra with 217.000km on the clock and it had absolutely nor rusts besides from a small spot on the rear right fender that was scratched and dented. Both cars were always kept in a garage. And I thought Opel had a problem with rust.
Although these examples are so unappealingly rusty, I still feel triggered by seeing this video. I had this gen Mazda 6 as a daily and loved it. Breaks my heart to see them destroyed, especially the rarer blue one :( On the other hand, that car has 8 airbags and didn’t crumple as badly as the headline lead me to believe
Really… you don’t say? I mean, surely, the loss of structural integrity should save your life, right? I mean… it’s natural weight reduction, bro! I mean… H-frame cranes are much sturdier than X-frame cranes, right? Right???
At least you can work on old cars
David glad you took that choice,imagine if you smashed onto a car with the bimmer
mister no valves I reject your right to roast me about my car’s condition
Mazdas in the 2000s get crazy rusty.