It will be badly built and may not be the safest car but maybe you just like it? Worse case, if it really pisses you off, sell it, put it down to experience and buy something else. They are not the most expensive to buy in the first place anyway.
If you really like the Voyager why don't you just go for it?
The third section is particularly impressive.....
I think the XC90 would be back with the X5 somewhere here:
[quote=peachy;161236]
I challenge anybody to name a Chrysler that is either a marvel of engineering or is assembled properly.
quote] Can't resist that easy challenge. Chrysler Crossfire - easily the best Chrysler on the road.
If that was the case then NCAP would not go to the trouble of pointing out that LHD models are appreciably safer than right hand drive models or have I missed something!
If safety is paramount then without any doubt buying a new (max 18months) old car will provide far improved features in comparison to anything 10 years old. The bar has moved up in this area a great deal.
The new Voyagers have also been designed to meet the strictest safety tests anywhere and I would be very interested to read the NCAP report when and if they get round to testing it.
But with regard to this whole thread, there are very few unsafe cars on the road and most of those that are, are old. All manufacturers are aware of the standards they must achieve and how to get there. I would not like to think that a manufacturer was creating their car to withstand artificial conditions when in reality the conditions on the road are somewhat more relevant.
Add to that the standards are continually increasing and you have a situation where a company that achieved a 5 * in 2000 would not achieve 5 *s today unless they add features to the car (which they normally do of course) meaning all the NCAP test just give an indication of safety and true comparisons can only happen if the cars are tested at more or less the same time.
As I said I have no real preference and can see the advantages of both the voyager and the espace but personally decided that neither was the right one for me...
Yet there is only one maker that has a huge database of based on real accident analyses and builds accordingly.... while the other ones build for NCAP.
Do you have a link for this?
I have searched the NCAP site, and while they do state which side the steering wheel is on. I was of the impression that this is a representative of the LHD and RHD models. When the cars are factory built as LHD and RHD structurally there should be and in most cases I am aware of is no difference. The other options such as ABS, ASR, ESC, Airbags, etc are usually up to the importers to decide if they will be standard or not. From this respect a RHD car bought in Ireland may not be considered as safe as the same RHD car bought in Switzerland but this is down to fittings level not how the car stands up to an accident.
I too believe in the real world situations, that is why I consider handling as a safety feature, and you will notice the NCAP now states on their tests if ESC is available on the car or not.
No test can 100% replicate real world, but in the absence of something better NCAP is a reasonable interpretation. The dummies installed in the car give an indication of the force which a human would receive in a similar accident, and it is possible to estimate if an injury has a likelihood of being minor, severe or fatal from this.
How about putting an EF ranking for large MPV. My take is
1- Espace
2- Sharon
3- Galaxy
4- Voyager
5- Peugeut/Citroen 807
6- Kia Carnival
7......
Are they actually any good?
Saw three brand new Voyager 2.8CRD in Auto Zurich West costing around 45k. Surprisingly they have folding seats too.
It is actually written into the test report detail.
The rules of NCAP testing are that the manufacturer needs to guarantee that the cars delivered in each region are of the same basic build and contain the same basic options or at least are deliverable with these options at extra cost. If an "option" is not available then the car cannot be tested containing this, but must take the worst solution. ie lowest common denominator. In this case right hand drive cars had various "omissions" in comparison to the lhd cars and as such the right hand drive car was tested. A lot of the safety of cars today is in active safety systems which are not common to the structural safety of the car. Hence you can get different safety reports if they look at rebadged models (eg Seat Alhambra, VW Sharan, Ford Galays(old)). If it was simply down to the structure you would not get this.
And finally, if you are driving a car such as a Voyager what is most important to you? Children? And which car comes out with top marks!
As far as handling is concerned I cannot agree with you more. It is better to avoid the accident than be "safely" forced into it...
And anyway I drive a Viano which does not get tested because in some countries this is registered as a commercial vehicle...But if it was would get 5 stars...
It's considerably more expensive than the others mentioned here too (for a reason admittedly)
Fully laden with people, me included as a back-seat occupant, and I am not tall, I found the lack of room terrible and the ride was bad. Would never consider such a car. In fact I was shocked it had Volvo written on it. I would take the Espace any day of the week.
Just to add my $0.02 to the conversation:
We had a Dodge Grand Caravan as our family rig in the US, bought it used, loved it, great minivan.
Here we opted for an Opel Zafira, 2.2 l TD, small, doors instead of sliding doors, but it was available, reasonable, reliable. Dumb idea.
To the Chrysler-bashers - please realize that the minivans for the European markets are made in Graz, Austria by Magna, and their output quality is the highest of all DaimlerChrysler plants. Inside info here.
Also - crash tests in the US (NCAP ratings) for the latest Chrysler T&C (same model) are a solid 5-star rating (except for the only 4 stars in the rollover category).
http://www.safercar.gov/Index2.cfm?m...ecific+vehicle
Get the Chrysler, be happy.
Well, um, err, I suppose I better concede that point... You need to spend 10K to get it reasonable but you can get good second hand models, honest...
No offense intended to any American, but do you really need an "Automatic Crash Notification"? Can you not tell on your own?!
No offense to you, Richard, but do you know what Automatic Crash Notification even is?
Daimler have sold Chrysler AFAIK.
Is the highest quality of all Chrysler plants something to be proud of?
Have not got a clue but if it is something really good such as a mechanism to inflate the airbags or the like they could choose better words. In straight English it tells me that there is a system that will automatically let you know if there has been a crash - which "should" be obvious, shouldn't it?
Ah I see, it rings the emergency services. Good idea I suppose but I still think the wording is funny...
Not really TBH, many cars or parts are made at the same factories but to different levels of quality. If the cars are manufactured to such a high standard why have I never seen it? (Richard, rightly, pointed out the crossfire is pretty good but that is about 95% Mercedes)
I'm not trying to attack somebody for wanting a Chrysler, or for liking them, I'm simply amazed that anybody would try to sell Chrysler on the grounds of build quality.
I bought a new car in the last 3 months and considered everything irrespective of style/prestige value. The 5 years free service on many new Chryslers was very tempting, until I looked inside and was greeted by a flimsy plastic dash, flimsy switchgear etc etc. The annoyances of driving a badly built car are too much for me, maybe it will never break down but I want door trim to stay attached to the door etc.