Old fart #1 = Me Old fart #2 = Good mate

Argument: OF2 reckons that the body shell of the TS/TR series (with RISE architecture) is stronger and safer in an accident than any series 3. OF1 (Me) reckons that the series 3 also has RISE and is equally as strong, despite the piddly three star ANCAP rating given to the TJ. Opinions?

Third gen is weaker in the roof area due to no door frames.
In a roll over I'd prefer to be in a second gen - no scrap that, I'd prefer a Lancer which has 7 airbags and VERY solid doors and window frames!
The Lancer would certainly come out best in the Top Gear "Drop a piano on a car from a great height" test!
http://www.mynrma.com.au/motoring-services/reviews/ancap/large-cars/mitsubishi-magna-20032005-es-sedan.htm

1995 Magna TS has a 2 star rating.
http://www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au/1995/Mitsubishi/Magna/

Watch the roof in this one! (TJ, 3 stars)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K66bSGLtl2k

Just for comparison, the Lancer! (5 stars)
https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/mitsubishi/lancer/5f3cfb


Basically, newer = safer!

If you are relying on the door frames in a rollover, you are fooling yourself. For a start, they are likely to spring open, and for another, having no door frame means that the roof structure must be capable of supporting the whole car, without relying on any additional support. I think that the more modern design of the Gen3 Magnas would almost certainly be stronger than the previous models.

having no door frame means that the roof structure must be capable of supporting the whole car, without relying on any additional support.

Must it? Please quote the appropriate ADR regulation!
If you have ever had the headlining out of a third gen, you are fooling yourself if you think it is designed to be rigid enough to support the whole car in a rollover. Maybe with a roll cage.There is no ANCAP test for roof strength anyway.

Side impact strength doesn't look too good either.
http://media.apnarm.net.au/img/media/images/2011/10/12/LNS_13-10-2011_EGN_01_Accident%20casino_fct1025x631x89_t620. jpg

Max...watching that TJ video was just alarming. The passenger cabin deformed markedly. If you watch video of most "5 star" cars there is minimal, if any, deforming of the passenger compartment and often doors will open as if nothing happened. I suppose that video explains why Mitsubishi quickly offered side airbags in the last Magnas and, I believe, they installed more bracing in all the doors.

Max...watching that TJ video was just alarming. The passenger cabin deformed markedly.

Yep. Death trap on wheels. I can see why it got 3 stars only. The way the front door moved tells me the whole body bent.

From what I can gather these offset tests are usually done at around 65kph* into a stationary deformable barrier to absorb the impact in much the same way as hitting another car. So, in effect, it's like two cars heading towards each other at the mind-numbingly slow speed of about 32kph each. In reality, at that speed, both drivers would, in most cases, have plenty of time to avoid each other. At the far more likely speeds for such an accident to occur of 60, 80 or 100kph (each car, ie. 120, 160 and 200kph at impact!!!) there would be very, very few cars that wouldn't be total "death traps". In other words, at those speeds you're pretty much f&@ked, and whether you're driving a 2nd or 3rd Gen Magna makes very little difference.

* I don't know the speed of the TJ in the (truly disturbing) video you posted Max. Any clues?

Side impact strength doesn't look too good either.
http://media.apnarm.net.au/img/media/images/2011/10/12/LNS_13-10-2011_EGN_01_Accident%20casino_fct1025x631x89_t620. jpg[/QUOTE]

I think that car hit that pole pretty hard Max, sometimes no safety items will save people, I'm sure most cars that have the highest safety rating would end up looking like that Magna hitting a pole at high speed, I guess the P plater died in that smash it looks horrific

If you are relying on the door frames in a rollover, you are fooling yourself. For a start, they are likely to spring open, and for another, having no door frame means that the roof structure must be capable of supporting the whole car, without relying on any additional support. I think that the more modern design of the Gen3 Magnas would almost certainly be stronger than the previous models.

Erad, I heard something similar. The pillar-less windows mean the roof is stronger.

Is a TL/TW safer in a roll over crash then a TJ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x3UTROQajk
Skip to 5:45 for the van then a VB commodore, I did hear that the commodore was fitted with cement blocks in the boot, it was used to test the crash test equipment

Basically what I'm saying is be careful out there! ANCAP ratings mean Jack Sh7t if you roll your Magna or go sideways into a pole or tree at speed.

As for which roof is stronger, I've seen the metal reinforcing in the roof of a first, second and third gen Magna, as I've done the roof lining job on each, and all are pretty much the same. Go check at the wreckers for yourself if you want to.

No incentive for strength there, as there were no ANCAP tests for roof strength when the Magnas were tested.

Those didn't start until 2014:

"ANCAP are also introducing a roof crush test to test for roof strength in a rollover - this will be in place from 2014."

FROM: http://www.fleetcare.com.au/news-info/fleet-beat-blog/june-2012/ten-things-you-might-not-have-known-about-ancap.aspx

No ADR rules for roof strength either:
http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mellor.nsf/story2/5257C4703271880ACA2576F5001EAA29

Erad, I heard something similar. The pillar-less windows mean the roof is stronger.

Is a TL/TW safer in a roll over crash then a TJ?

I'd love to know where you "heard" that!
TL/TW have side air bags, TJ doesn't.

From what I can gather these offset tests are usually done at around 65kph* into a stationary deformable barrier to absorb the impact in much the same way as hitting another car. So, in effect, it's like two cars heading towards each other at the mind-numbingly slow speed of about 32kph each. In reality, at that speed, both drivers would, in most cases, have plenty of time to avoid each other. At the far more likely speeds for such an accident to occur of 60, 80 or 100kph (each car, ie. 120, 160 and 200kph at impact!!!) there would be very, very few cars that wouldn't be total "death traps". In other words, at those speeds you're pretty much f&@ked, and whether you're driving a 2nd or 3rd Gen Magna makes very little difference.

* I don't know the speed of the TJ in the (truly disturbing) video you posted Max. Any clues?

I saw an episode of Mythbusters recently where they 'proved' that two cars colliding head on at say 60 km/h each is NOT the same as one car hitting a solid object head on at 120 km/h.
In fact the damage to each car of two cars hitting head on at 60 km/h each is identical to that of a single car hitting a solid object at 60 km/h.
They explained the basic physics and why this is so at the end, but I forget the details. Something to do with momentum and conservation of energy.

I'd love to know where you "heard" that!
TL/TW have side air bags, TJ doesn't.

I "heard" that from an AMC WA member. And a very knowledgeable one at that

I've seen 3 third gen magna's stacked on top of each other with no issues with the pillars giving way whatsoever. Having some piddly door frames there isn't going to make it any stronger in a roll over.

I saw an episode of Mythbusters recently where they 'proved' that two cars colliding head on at say 60 km/h each is NOT the same as one car hitting a solid object head on at 120 km/h.
In fact the damage to each car of two cars hitting head on at 60 km/h each is identical to that of a single car hitting a solid object at 60 km/h.
They explained the basic physics and why this is so at the end, but I forget the details. Something to do with momentum and conservation of energy.

I prefer to never find out, actually. lol

The average person has no idea how much damage a car sustains even in a minor collision. Front and rear sections are designed to crumple and increase time of the deformation, reducing G forces on the wet bags (aka people) in the car.

The RISE (Reinforced Impact Safety Evolution Body) body structure of Mitsus is nothing special, it is an idea common to most modern cars, basically it is the perimeter of the passenger structure, with solid beams across the back (look in the boot under the rear screen, basically a box section with holes), side intrusion bars in the doors, and a roll cage like structure inside the dash and reinforced firewall to convince the engine and transmission to slide under the car rather than intrude into leg space.

In a successful front/rear ANCAP 5 star crash test, the passenger compartment should be intact, ie roof not deformed, doors still working correctly.
The car may be pancaked up to the front or rear screens in the tests, but the passenger compartment should remain intact.
Most 5 star rated cars look like that after the test.

Camry, 5 star, frontal: (some roof deformation)
http://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.ancap.com.au/app/public/assets/f7644c1fb38b84025a1b2fc911c5dc0a2ea4de6e/large.jpg?1416969168

2010 Lancer, 5 stars: (roof, doors intact)
http://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.ancap.com.au/app/public/assets/c91355871574a099622ff2e53504a453bc24dc00/large.jpg?1416970689

The TJ fails dismally there! Hence the 3 star ANCAP rating.

I prefer to never find out, actually. lol

The average person has no idea how much damage a car sustains even in a minor collision. Front and rear sections are designed to crumple and increase time of the deformation, reducing G forces on the wet bags (aka people) in the car.

The RISE (Reinforced Impact Safety Evolution Body) body structure of Mitsus is nothing special, it is an idea common to most modern cars, basically it is the perimeter of the passenger structure, with solid beams across the back (look in the boot under the rear screen, basically a box section with holes), side intrusion bars in the doors, and a roll cage like structure inside the dash and reinforced firewall to convince the engine and transmission to slide under the car rather than intrude into leg space.

In a successful front/rear ANCAP 5 star crash test, the passenger compartment should be intact, ie roof not deformed, doors still working correctly.
The car may be pancaked up to the front or rear screens in the tests, but the passenger compartment should remain intact.
Most 5 star rated cars look like that after the test.

Camry, 5 star, frontal: (some roof deformation)
http://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.ancap.com.au/app/public/assets/f7644c1fb38b84025a1b2fc911c5dc0a2ea4de6e/large.jpg?1416969168

2010 Lancer, 5 stars: (roof, doors intact)
http://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.ancap.com.au/app/public/assets/c91355871574a099622ff2e53504a453bc24dc00/large.jpg?1416970689

The TJ fails dismally there! Hence the 3 star ANCAP rating.

Well I would hope that in 10 years the safety would be better.

To answer the original question:

Q: Is the second gen safer in a crash than a third gen?
A: Not really.

Unasked questions:
Q: Which car is safest?
A: Anything newer with an ANCAP rating of 5!

Q: I wonder what the ANCAP rating for a 380 is?
http://www.mynrma.com.au/media/ancap_mitsubishi_380_2006.jpg
A: 4 star! Notice the much better performance of the roof and doors compared to the TJ?

Q: Should I junk my 3 star TJ and buy a 4 star 380?
A: Nah, already have a 5 star Lancer!

Good info guys...I now feel safer in my Lancer CJ. :)

Good info guys...I now feel safer in my Lancer CJ. :)

Congrats!
A lot of people in this forum are so focussed on the Magnas and 380s, they don't realise that Mitsubishi, and car design/safety have come a long way since then!
I rate the CJ as a better car than any Magna, on par with the 380. Better is some respects. Went shopping in the CJ yesterday, got 8.3 L/100 km (33 MPG) out of it. Try that in any Magna or 380!

I saw an episode of Mythbusters recently where they 'proved' that two cars colliding head on at say 60 km/h each is NOT the same as one car hitting a solid object head on at 120 km/h.
In fact the damage to each car of two cars hitting head on at 60 km/h each is identical to that of a single car hitting a solid object at 60 km/h.
They explained the basic physics and why this is so at the end, but I forget the details. Something to do with momentum and conservation of energy.

I saw that episode too, and they were completely correct in their assessment based on hitting a solid object (which was the word Jamie unfortunately chose), however the ANCAP tests in the video are not into a solid object. The barrier is a crushable aluminium block that simulates the 'crushability' of a car, thus the impact is absorbed by both objects, thus the Mythbuster's findings don't apply in this case. The ANCAP test simulates running into a parked car at (eg.) 64kph which is the equivalent of a head on between two cars travelling at 32kph each.

Q: Should I junk my 3 star TJ and buy a 4 star 380?
A: Nah, already have a 5 star Lancer!


You might get some enlightenment here, they talk about large and small cars by the same manufacturers in comparison.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXunnaaYtz0



A 4 star large class car is usually safer than a 5 star small car.

It's all about the bonnet length.

Your passengers would get hurt a lot more....



BTW...have a look at this rating based on real world crashes of the 380.....uprated to 5 stars...

http://www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au/2008/Mitsubishi/380/

The Monash Accident Research Center data is what this is based on. The 380 is a very solid car based on many real world accidents and the Monash data has pretty small standard deviations for common cars (the 380 standard deviation is small). ANCAP results don't always correlate with the real world results. 2005 Swift 4 stars, Monash data shows terrible safety. We had one, glad its gone!

4 star 380 versus 5 star lancer? I think you'd find the 380 would win in a frontal crash. Lancer in a side impact would protect heads better though.

For second hand car safety rating, look at the NRMA ones based on actual real life accidents from Australia and NZ. The TE to TJ suffered badly from crumpled roofline above the front doors. The 2nd gens and TE to TJ 3rd gens all rated the same. Don't forget that the 2nd gens have things like side intrusion bars in the doors which I don't think the TE to TJ have. The TL and TW added side airbags, strengthened roof line and re-introduced side intrusion bars in doors. There was a video showing the TL/W in crash testing and the roofline hardly buckled. All of these had the primitive RISE technology. The L and W did use stronger steel likewise the 380. Both missed out on the next-gen RISE.


From NRMA:
2nd gen Magna/Verada: 2 stars
3rd gen pre TL: 2 stars
3rd gen TL/W: 4 stars
380: 5 stars (not given safety pick as it did not come with ESC).


Note I strongly stress that these ratings are not from ANCAP testing but from real life accidents. That is when accidents are unavoidable.

Don't forget that the 2nd gens have things like side intrusion bars in the doors which I don't think the TE to TJ have.

Side intrusion bars were fitted in TE-TJs; the TL & TW had an additional beam fitted to the front doors, along with slightly thicker steel panels and high tensile steel in areas.
Side intrusion bars have been a ADR requirement since about 1991, if I recall correctly.

http://i881.photobucket.com/albums/ac19/rons105/tj%20magna/DSCF3882.jpg

TJ door, see the tube inside the door? That's the intrusion bar!

It just happens to be at hip height when the door is shut, for obvious reasons.

Gratuitous puppy picture:

http://i881.photobucket.com/albums/ac19/rons105/tj%20magna/DSCF4039.jpg (http://s881.photobucket.com/user/rons105/media/tj%20magna/DSCF4039.jpg.html)

I don't see any lateral beams. I remember my KS v6Xi had two on the front doors and one on the rear doors.

Hey Max...the puppy is CUTE! What's its name? Breed? Looks a bit Staffy/Mastiff to me. I have a Staffy-Jack X. She's just going on thirteen. All the build of a Staffy with longer legs and Jack white/brown colouring. She's just the best dog I've ever owned...affectionate and loyal. She had a soft-tissue sarcoma (cancer) removed from her side two weeks ago. I was worried I was going to lose her but the histopathology result showed no spread...all contained within the surgical margin, thank God! Now she has half her hair shaved off but is happy that the Elizabethan collar is off and the stitches are out. Bless her!

Staffy, old pic, she is now 3 years old.
Cute and affectionate.

The TJ series 1.5 and 2 Magnas had a much smaller side pocket in the doors due to the intrusion upgrade.

Two old farts should stop arguing, - from the oldest fart of all!
Born in 1948.

Two old farts should stop arguing, - from the oldest fart of all!
Born in 1948.

Lol!lol I almost match you...not quite.

You know what it's like...having a chinwag with a mate. The mate says something you know is bull. Then the tit for tat starts. All friendly and bloody funny at times.:happy:

Just mentioning something I forgot to mention before. It is not uncommon that a manufacturer does not improve or worsens the crash safety of a new model or a completely new series of a car. Take for example the following:


Land Rover Range Rover Evoque - completely new car: 4 stars ANCAP although all their other current models have 5 stars ANCAP
BMW 2 - completely new car: 4 stars ANCAP and again every other car has 5 stars ANCAP
Mini Cooper: 07-14 = 5 stars ANCAP but the latest release have 4 stars ANCAP


Manufacturers like Toyota, Honda, Hyndai to name a few are also now not fitting rear reinforcement bars to their light vehicles. That is a very bad move. Back seat passengers of late model Corollas have died from being rear-ended. They get squashed up to the front seat backs.

Manufacturers like Toyota, Honda, Hyndai to name a few are also now not fitting rear reinforcement bars to their light vehicles. That is a very bad move. Back seat passengers of late model Corollas have died from being rear-ended. They get squashed up to the front seat backs.

That is a great idea because that is the one thing that has stopped me several times from looking at small cars. Getting rear ended is the most common accident I believe. I even sold of my wifes old pulsar as soon as we could. I don't care if a large car uses more petrol :P

Land Rover Range Rover Evoque - completely new car: 4 stars ANCAP although all their other current models have 5 stars ANCAP
BMW 2 - completely new car: 4 stars ANCAP and again every other car has 5 stars ANCAP
Mini Cooper: 07-14 = 5 stars ANCAP but the latest release have 4 stars ANCAP


Could it just be that the ANCAP tests are including more safety related aspects of the car as time goes by?
A car may be rated 5 stars one year, then the test includes something like reversing sensors or front sensors with adaptive braking which neither the old or the new model have, and the new model now only gets 4 stars?

I'm sure that a second and third gen Magna would rate much lower if tested under the current ANCAP criteria.

As for deleting side or rear intrusion protection - that would show up in the side/rear impact tests, unless some other form of impact protection was being used?

There is only so much designed in crash protection can do, smack a car hard enough from the rear and rear occupants would still die.

Could it just be that the ANCAP tests are including more safety related aspects of the car as time goes by?
A car may be rated 5 stars one year, then the test includes something like reversing sensors or front sensors with adaptive braking which neither the old or the new model have, and the new model now only gets 4 stars?

I'm sure that a second and third gen Magna would rate much lower if tested under the current ANCAP criteria.

As for deleting side or rear intrusion protection - that would show up in the side/rear impact tests, unless some other form of impact protection was being used?

There is only so much designed in crash protection can do, smack a car hard enough from the rear and rear occupants would still die.



If you looked at the actual test results, the 2 series BMW scored 11.34 out of 16 for frontal offset compared to 15.45 out of 16 for the 1 series. The 2 series actually replaces the 1 series and is only slightly better at side impact (16/16 vs 15.88/16).


Likewise, the older Mini Cooper scored better side protection at 14.49/16 compared to 12.19 of the new model. The new model had better front protection at 14.60/16 compared to 13.02/16.


The star ratings are based on scores of the following only and nothing else:
* Front impact
* Side Impact
* Pole
* Seat Belt Reminders


In fact the older 5 star Mini Cooper had ESC as optional and poorer pedestrian protection and whiplash protection was not tested.


Now when you compare the 380, TL Magna and CJ Lancer:
TL Magna Front: 10.71
TL Magna Side: 11.49
380 Front: 11.40
380 Side: 15.69
Lancer Front: 15.56
Lancer Side: 14.00
Lancer Pole: 2


Small narrower cars generally have poorer side impact protection. The Lancer did much better at front protection due to the inclusion of knee airbags.

All I'm getting from this discussion is that it is probably a really, really good idea not to run into anything or have anything run into you.

If you looked at the actual test results, the 2 series BMW scored 11.34 out of 16 for frontal offset compared to 15.45 out of 16 for the 1 series. The 2 series actually replaces the 1 series and is only slightly better at side impact (16/16 vs 15.88/16).


Likewise, the older Mini Cooper scored better side protection at 14.49/16 compared to 12.19 of the new model. The new model had better front protection at 14.60/16 compared to 13.02/16.


The star ratings are based on scores of the following only and nothing else:
* Front impact
* Side Impact
* Pole
* Seat Belt Reminders


In fact the older 5 star Mini Cooper had ESC as optional and poorer pedestrian protection and whiplash protection was not tested.


Now when you compare the 380, TL Magna and CJ Lancer:
TL Magna Front: 10.71
TL Magna Side: 11.49
380 Front: 11.40
380 Side: 15.69
Lancer Front: 15.56
Lancer Side: 14.00
Lancer Pole: 2


Small narrower cars generally have poorer side impact protection. The Lancer did much better at front protection due to the inclusion of knee airbags.


ANCAP ratings are only relevant between vehicles in the same class.

A Lancer and a 380 are in different classes , so the results are bordering on meaningless when comparing across classes.

Where does it say that? Current commodore front impact is 14.06 and side impact is 16 compared to a 380. VE commodore had 11.45 for front and 15 for side. 2006 Camry had 12.29 front and 14.84 side. These are absolute results for injuries sustained test dummies.

You cannot compare a small car with a big car in a crash as weight plays a big roll, however ANCAP test results, the points given to front and side impact protection are derived from same tests. They don't use a softer or light barrier for a smaller car. True that two 5 star rated cars, one small and one big collide, the occupants of the larger car will fair well but in single car accidents, the heavier car may fair worse.

In summary, you cannot just rely on the number of stars to see which car is safer, especially if they differ in size. You need to look at the three test results: front, side and pole impacts. Up to 3 points are awarded depending on how many seat belt reminders are fitted so one car may have 5 stars because it has seat belt reminders for driver, front passenger and rear passengers, scoring full 3 points but fair slightly worse than a car with 4 or 4.5 stars which did not have or only have drivers seat belt reminder but faired better in the three impact tests. In a crash, the car with less stars will be safer than the car with more stars. It used to be that you get brownie points for having the 2 hour rest reminder but I don't think that plays an important role any more. Remember at one stage the current shaped Camry received 4.5 stars compared to the Aurion all because it did not have the rest reminder even though they are eseentially the same cars. It is important to look at the results of the test as quite a lot of cars with curtain airbags did not have pole test performed so missed out up to two points and that could be the difference between a 4 and 5 star rating.

Another item which determines the star rating is a simple thing such as a seat belt alarm. Both my 2013 vehicles have annoying alarms which beep at me until the belts are done up. OK - I use the belts all the time, but when you get in the car and start it up, the bloody thing beeps at you before you even start to move. But this gives a higher rating. Incidentally, the rear seat belts are not alarmed - only the front.

Not too hard to go:

Key in, seatbelt on, start car, no chime
rather than:
Key in, engine on, swear at chime, put seat belt on?

There are pressure sensors in the seat cushions of both front seats, but I haven't thought of (heaven forbid) disconnecting them.

Anyway, it is fun to play with the warnings you get if you do dumb things, like leave the headlights on when you get out of the Lancer, leave the handbrake on when driving off, or take the seatbelt off while moving. Big Brother is Watching!
It is smart enough to tell you which particular door, or boot or bonnet isn't closed though, which is great.