Jump to content

14th Annual SoCal Vintage BMW Meet 2021! “All couped up”

Registration is still open. Rally from NorCal is scheduled for Friday. Post your event photos.

SoCal Vintage is Here! 

Post your photos!

Did you know that the 2002 is "an extremely unsafe car&


mcompact
 Share

Recommended Posts

It is almost worth becoming a member of the forum just to tell the guy how my daughter and I were whacked from behind in my '72 by a massive Dodge diesel pick up truck. It sounded like the car was hit with a sledge hammer. Aside from that, and getting bumped forward, we were fine. We barely felt a thing. The rear end of the car was crunched.... so unlike a new Dawoo or other goofy 'modern cheap' car, i'd say that BMW had impact and safety on their mind in 1972.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife was 8 months pregnant with our now 15 year old when she was hit in the rear of out 74 2002. While it wasn't a 2000 Camary it was a 97 Acura and the Acura had 3800.00 dollars in damage. I cut the exhaust off between the muffler and the big bumper(pushed in on the driver's side) and drove that puppy home. Muffler, driver's side shock and side cover. Think we paid around 450 bucks and that was to have it all installed as well. Accident was Acura Passenger side front to 02 driver's side rear. She was going about 45 and my wife had slowed to make a right 90 turn. Hell, my wife still drives one every day(well, she is in withdrawal because her 02 is getting another retrofit). That 02 was still on the road in 2007. IT may still be. It was in Charlotte, NC. Inka with black interior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

It's true, of course, that the '02 is smaller, lighter, and has no airbags.

But one safety factor that is underestimated is the car's visibility -- it is the only car I've driven with no blind spots. The driving exp. is also very immediate, so the driver is generally more aware of what's going around them than someone in a car with automatic, power-steering car, tinted windows. I actually feel safer in my -02 in city driving than in my Camry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would wonder if some of the "experts" on that board have had a chance to actually drive some of the latest newer small cars as well as a well maintained stock 2002.

I have to rent cars occasionally for business, so I get to see what these cars are really like off the TV and outta the magazines their manufacturers advertise in.

Then they'll be able to see what pieces of crap many new small cars really are in terms of visibility, traction, handling, braking and steering feel, etc. Especially when you have to drive them at highway speeds or in bad weather.

Much of their "crashworthiness" is based on design to score well in the standardized accident testing. A visit to junkyards will give one a chance to see what actually happens to them in real life.

Oh, and their mileage isn't too good for their size, weight and engine size, either. My stock, 230k mile 1990 BMW 525i manual routinely gets 27-30 miles per gallon on the highway at the speed limit. Now look at the EPA number for some new cars, many with 4 cylinders. Yes, really, go ahead and look.

20 years later...might they be subpar in other areas too?

For the technology available when the 2002 was designed, it was, and still is, far better than many newer cars.

Isn't that why we like them so?

vince

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"chances of getting into an accident are greater"

what, than being brain- dead enough to buy a Camry?

Sorry, the car itself offers little more protection than a motorcycle,

but damn, the visibility is almost that good, too.

The e36 might adjust its wipers to road speed, but the

2002 doesn't have any blind spots. And it's a damn sight more

agile.

That said, you drive a 2002 like a bike- 'they don't see me and I can't

survive a hit' and you do just fine...

When I started driving one, people kinda gave you a bit of extra room, like-

well, he's gonna go fast, let him go first.

Now, I just pass them on the left, down the middle, on the right

whenever i get pulled out in front of.

I will die soon.

t

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, the car itself offers little more protection than a motorcycle,

but damn, the visibility is almost that good, too.

That said, you drive a 2002 like a bike- 'they don't see me and I can't

survive a hit' and you do just fine...

These are old cars. There's nothing to prove.

That pretty much sums it up. There was a chart posted a few months ago showing the deceleration G's of a 60mph crash and the 2002 spiked somewhere near 42g's while an E36 was down in the 20's. There's a lot of sheet metal in the back to crumple during a rear end collision but if you get t-boned or roll in one of these at any significant speed you're screwed.

I drive mine like I ride a bike in traffic, always alert to what's around me. Compare that to my dad's toyota matrix which has truly horrible visibility, but I know what if I get hit I'll be fine and the car is quick and easy to replace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first 76 2002 was hit by a city bus almost head on. It crumpled the passenger side all the way over to the drivers side. Did I mention that I was driving it at the time? I saw motor oil and antifreeze pour onto the pavement and mix together into a pool of death, but I digress. In short, I got out and pulled my gym bag from the trunk an walked away, unscathed and not a scratch. I paid $2500.00 for it twelve years prior with 95k miles on it. It was killed (totaled) and I received $4800.00 with 275k miles on it. That's why I have another one. I would rather drive my 34 yr old 2002 without an airbag than any of the newer model Fiberglas autos any day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elbrus,

Yes you are right that the BMW is cruising while the 4 cylinder is pushing while on the highway, but it is a surprising shame that a 20 year newer car, smaller and lighter even, cannot match the fuel economy on a regular 60-70 mph level highway cruise. Around town, the newer car gets about 3-5 mpg better at best. But the new car manufacturers sure don't want people to be aware that the new cars are anything but the most fuel efficient, safest cars on the road. I worked in the ad business years ago on a car account and learned not to believe the hype.

My stock '69 2002 got about mid 20s around town and a bit better than 30 on the highway. Yes, there was no collision protection from the bumpers like there is with later cars, but if you rearend a 2002 above the bumper with a SUV from 40 mph, then hit a Toyota Yaris sedan (last vehicle I rented) in the same place above the bumper, the 2002 will suffer more damage, but the Yaris will also need quite a bit of work too.

While the newer cars are undoubtedly safer in any collision, the majority of collisions are not major, and this is where the new cars are simply not so impressive, imho.

As for the car/bike comparison, I think a collision on any of my cycles would be far worse than in a 2002, even with all the gear, all the time, lol.

vince

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...