>According to the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
>(NHTSA), the DRIVER of the Vanagon has a greater than 45% chance of
>sustaining life-threatening injuries from a frontal collision (a
>single-star, "POOR" rating).  This test is performed by driving dummies head
>on into a concrete barrier at 35 mph.
>
>By contrast, the same (frontal) collision in an '87 Volvo 740 is rated at
>"EXCELLENT", five stars, a 10% chance of life-threatening injury for the
>driver.
>
>And then, on the other hand, you get written testimonials like Adam Brooks'.
>
>So what's the deal here, people?  Are Vanagons as bad as their crash test
>ratings say they are?  Thoughts anyone???

In the real world the Vanagon proves itself safe. The Caravelle vs Volvo
760 test says it all. Note too thsat this was an offset impact, which makes
the damage far worse. And on top of that, its handling allows it to AVOID
accident situation in the first place (provided it's not an unbalanced
camper).

Andrew Grebneff
<andrew.grebneff@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
Phone: 0064 (3) 473-8863
Fax: 0064 (3) 479-7527
165 Evans St, Dunedin, New Zealand
Fossil preparator, shell collector, Macintosh and VW & Toyota van nut
1984 Volkswagen Type 25 Caravelle GL (to be fitted with Subaru EG33 engine etc)
1986 CE80 Toyota Corolla DX diesel 1.8 sedan
1989 CE96 Toyota Corolla DX diesel 1.8 van
1989 CT170 Toyota Corona Select 2.0 diesel sedan
1992 CXR10G Toyota Estima Lucida 2.2 turbodiesel (=narrow-bodied Previa)