Which is safer?

A

Allof75

NAXJA Forum User
Location
California
Is a '95-96 with one airbag and higher crash test ratings or a '97+ with dual airbags and lower crash test ratings safer?

I'm in the market for an XJ right now and I'd like to get your opinions on this.

The '95-96 faired better (4 stars) than the '97+ (3 stars) in frontal offset tests, BUT the '97 has dual airbags and a more modern interior (as well as better axle choices, but those are another subject).

Are these tests even relevant? Has anyone had personal experience in an accident with either?

Which one should I choose?

Thanks.
 
Not sure what, if any structural changes were made between '96 and '97. My guess is the lower rating has more to do with a change in the testing protocol then any change in the vehicle. It's a personal opinion, but from an all out safety standpoint, I'd say get one with NO air bags and remember to wear your seat belt.

As you're choosing between one air bag in front of you(the driver) and two air bags(one still in front of you) I'd say go with the updated interior.
 
Get the 97+, I am agreed with ttburg. There isnt much changed unibody wise between those years, but safety standards change all the time.
Or buy the Volvo.
 
Yeah, but the 98-99s are nice!
 
Get the newer (97+) one.

IIRC, the 97+'s added a reinforcement beam to the doors to help in side impacts. Other than that I don't know of any structural changes in the newer XJ's.
 
Allof75 said:
Is a '95-96 with one airbag and higher crash test ratings or a '97+ with dual airbags and lower crash test ratings safer?

I'm in the market for an XJ right now and I'd like to get your opinions on this.

The '95-96 faired better (4 stars) than the '97+ (3 stars) in frontal offset tests, BUT the '97 has dual airbags and a more modern interior (as well as better axle choices, but those are another subject).

Are these tests even relevant? Has anyone had personal experience in an accident with either?

Which one should I choose?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Strictly comparing results is meaningless - how often do they change the overall tests?

That said, I'd like to toss out a couple of points:

1) The single greatest thing you can do to improve survivability of a roads incident is easy enough - don't get in one. This takes training, practise, and attention.

2) If you're dead set on crash test ratings, check the surplus market for something like an older MRAP or an M113 Gavin - just buy a tank and be done with it (I'm constantly tempted to get an old M113 and throw a pair of 4BTs in it, converted to greasel. It's not my driving that I worry about - it's the rest of the idiots out here that worry me.)

I don't get hung up on "Crash Safety Ratings" - and I prefer older vehicles (1970 and earlier) anyhow, given a choice. Big metal trucks - my crumple zone is your car, so don't run into me...
 
I thought the 97+ also had some better roof support? Not enough for what any of us do with them for sure though.
 
Why would you Not want an airbag? I thought they are pretty proven to save you. Or, is it something along the lines of the people who say seat belts kill because they trap you in the vehicle.
 
iwannadie said:
Why would you Not want an airbag? I thought they are pretty proven to save you. Or, is it something along the lines of the people who say seat belts kill because they trap you in the vehicle.
Click to expand...

Airbags are generally only effective for a certain size range of individual - outside of that range, you can get injured by the airbag just as bad as the incident - or moreso.

I think with the "first-gen" airbags, that was 5'4" to 5'10", and under 200#. I could make an argument for disabling those airbags - at 6'3", 275#, and for my 5'2" wife (she'd get whiplashed from the airbag in the face, and my head would flip overtop of the thing.)

I think they've expanded that range for second-gen airbags up to about 6'0"-6'1" and maybe down to 5'2" - but I did once date a fully-growed woman (all 4'9" of her...) that would still require the airbag to be disabled for her own safety (same woman drove an automatic with both feet, and wondered why I had to do four wheels' worth of brakes on her car every six to eight months.)

Problem I've got with the whole thing is that the very best way to reduce injury in a roads incident is simply to not get in one - seems that most roads incidents these days are caused either by a lapse in attention or a failure to maintain the vehicle (very few of them are truly "accidental" - that's why I call them "incidents." Kinda like how there aren't any "accidental discharges" anymore, they're all "negligent discharges.")

And I've got my theories on how to handle that - very few of them have to do with vehicle design or electronics.
 
iwannadie said:
Why would you Not want an airbag? I thought they are pretty proven to save you. Or, is it something along the lines of the people who say seat belts kill because they trap you in the vehicle.
Click to expand...

No its more along the lines that they (often enough) wont deploy on impact, they usually deploy right as you are unbuckling your seatbelt with your head turned to the side.

When they do deploy on impact its still not an ideal situation. How often are your arms at the perfect 10 and 2 positions? If you hold the wheel with one hand like 99% of people out there your arm is very likely to be broken at the same time it either breaks your nose.

In 4 years of being a Fire Fighter I have seen way to many injuries from the airbags in accidents where people would have been uninjured if there were no airbags. I have not disabled the new jeeps airbags yet but I will when I get the time.

Do you really want this blowing up in your face?



Seatbelts are a completely different matter where IMHO it depends on the situation whether or not they help/hurt.
 
Allof75 said:
I'm pretty sure they did reinforce the sides in '94 and in '95 with the drivers airbag.
Here:
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/1990-to-1996-jeep-cherokee-7.htm

I understand not getting into an accident is a priority but, it's not me I'm worried about, it's other people hitting me. (running a red-light for instance)

Thanks thus far!
Click to expand...

Your right they did start the door beams in 94 along with the airbags and 3rd brake light. I think it was a mandatory safety thing that they do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Anak
Project Scope Creep (alfred): Rear Axle Swap turned into Shackles&Relocation Brackets
2
Replies
28
Views
6K
Johnnie Walker
Johnnie Walker
G
XJ info of a general nature
Replies
12
Views
549
jdxj
jdxj
Demonoid369
s10/dalota leafs: real date for bastard packs
Replies
16
Views
3K
Demonoid369
Demonoid369
2
1984 - 2001 specs
Replies
4
Views
2K
2001JeepXJNS
2
OutkastBoss
XJNewb Crash Course
Replies
12
Views
929
Red91Laredo
R
Back
Top