26th Aug 2006, 01:01
Couple of points here.
First, Chevrolet/Daewoo does NOT test the vehicle on behalf of NHTSA, the Administration crashes the car itself and draws its own conclusions, so far as I know. Chevy cannot lie to inflate the Aveo's safety rating.
Second, as of '06, all Aveos have side-impact airbags, which is a huge step towards a safer vehicle and resulted in a four-star side impact rating to go with that already-impressive five-star front rating.
Third, if you were to tear the exterior of the car off and look at the passenger compartment on its own, you'd find that the Aveo's cabin is essentially a great big steel box designed in every way to redirect impact force from the occupants. NHTSA says that if I'm hit by anything short of about 3000lbs, the odds are better than 90% that I will not suffer any serious injury. Sounds fine to me. Yes, a 250-series truck CAN ruin my day. But that's an issue no matter what I'm driving.
The Aveo is about as safe as it can be. Bottom line is, I needed a new car for under $10,000, and I got it. Maybe when I have money to throw away in buying an excessively large vehicle with hauling capacity I don't actually need and fuel economy 1/3 of what I'm getting now, I will.
2nd Sep 2006, 12:20
Yes, this whole safety argument is amusing. No one questions SUVs being safe, even though they are the ultimate death traps. You are 43% more likely to die or be injured in an SUV than in any given car (yes, even an Aveo) in any given accident, and that's according to independent statistics from both the insurance industry and other record keepers.
Or maybe you just didn't notice all the huge warning stickers in SUVs stating "driving this vehicle is not like driving an ordinary car".
But it's the old Titanic argument - if it looks safe it must be safe.
3rd Sep 2006, 09:35
The latest Autoweek listed ratings for "teen friendly" cars such as the Aveo, Corolla and such based on NHTSA crash test results. The Aveo got four or five stars in all categories, the same as the larger Accord and Camry, and MORE than the Ford Fusion. And, of course, no SUV gets five stars in anything given how unsafe they are.
23rd Oct 2006, 14:56
With regards to insurance company policies on the declaration of a total loss. If the amount of repair exceeds (depending on independent company policies) 70, 80 and sometimes 90% of the vehicle value it is declared a total loss. A unitized monocoque body construction is very costly to repair and this car is not worth much money wise. Do the math $8500.00 of body, frame, suspension, airbag, paint, towing, labour, mechanical costs = total loss. Doesn't mean this car is any more or less safe than any other car on the road. Driving is more dangerous than automobile manufacturers want consumers to know, people die in crashes every day.
28th Oct 2006, 19:51
My son and I experienced a crash in a 2005 SVM last month. we walked away with only abrasions from the seat belts. The car was totaled out, as it had heavy front end damage.
Today I took the insurance settlement and bought a 2007 SVM hatchback.
The storage area will hold my mountain bike and it gets 35 mpg. For a work car and a payment under $200 the decision was easy.
The ride is OK, but I'm only in it for a 25 mile drive twice a day.
Chevy now covers 100K miles under warranty.
20th Nov 2006, 10:01
A car being totalled in the realm of today's car market is not a sign of the safety of the car. Most cars involved in a head on collision will be totalled afterwards, regardless of make or price. They're designed to work that way. They're called Crumple Zones. The front end on the car will look like an accordion, but the driver and passengers will walk away.
I've driven small cars like these for most of the last seven years, including a good bit of highway driving. The only thing really "dangerous" about cars in this size category is the effect of side winds. It's a function of the car being light, not being small.
While you could argue that it's a downside to the subcompact market, the fact is that more and more manufacturers are making their cars lighter and lighter, regardless of size. They're using more plastics and aluminum to decrease the weight of the car and improve fuel economy.
Virtually every car on the market, unless it's a mini-van, SUV or full sized family car weighs under 3k pounds. As long as the design is sound and the aerodynamics are up to par, weight is a lot less relevent than it used to be.
21st Nov 2006, 14:09
Sorry, but the Nov 20th comment could not be more wrong. Today's cars weigh significantly more than similar cars of 10 or 20 years ago (depending on model). The reason is mainly due to the safety factors. Airbags, crumple zones/safety cells, and the rest add weight.
I know. I owned a Ford Festiva and now own an Aveo. There is a huge difference in their "substantialness". Same thing with the 89 Civic Si I owned and a 2007 Civic Si.
The substitution of lighter metals and plastics cannot mitigate all the safety equipment needed and their associated weight.
23rd Nov 2006, 10:33
While your point is well reasoned, it is still flawed. Yes, in a true head on collision the larger vehicle wins. But the reality is that SUVs and especially pickup trucks are 40+% more likely to kill or maim their occupants in any given accident, even with a subcompact car. Safety is, in fact, an illusion with these large vehicles. You simply can't defeat the laws of physics.
And the American cars of yore are simply myths. Why do you think highway deaths were so high in the 1950s? Not because the cars were safer and certainly not because people are better drivers today. It is simply the Titanic argument - if it looks safe, it must be: but it isn't.
Glad you have a Festiva. Fun as hell and amazingly reliable. It is smaller than the Aveo although its interior room is comparable.
The 1990 Civic Si is the same model as the 1989. They changed (for the worse) in 1992.
23rd Nov 2006, 17:43
I agree completely about the lack of safety in SUVs. Although, much of that comes from three reasons.
First, until recently, more attention was payed to cars than trucks and SUVs with respect to safety.
Two, most people simply don't know how to drive a SUV properly. While most APPEAR to ride like cars, they're not. They're designed differently and, as such, need to be driven differently.
The third, which falls under your comment about the laws of physics, is that SUVs fall under the height versus width problem (and are inherently made worse by the desire to lift them with higher suspensions and bigger wheels than stock).
It should be pointed out, however, that many "sub-compact" vehicles are running the risk of falling into this situation as well, as the current designs seem to think narrower and higher is perfectly acceptable.
29th Dec 2006, 09:08
Sorry, but just check out the statistics behind crashes involving SUVs and those involving cars and you will find SUVs are, on average, 43% less safe.
You're simply living a myth.
20th Aug 2008, 17:49
Well considering the Aveo is an up to date Daewoo Lanos, I wouldn't expect it to be too bad of a car. Since I own a 2000 Lanos.
Chevy bought the Daewoo company in 2002 after Daewoo went bankrupt and then decided to make the aAveo. I don't drive my Lanos too much since I only have 37000 on her, but she's been good to me so far for what I needed her for. With a few small problems that where faults of my own.
I paid 10.000 for her new, and with eight years gone by I can't complain...
26th May 2009, 15:55
I owned a 2004 Aveo 4 door 5 speed. It had just over 100,000 miles on it when it was totaled in March 2009 when rear ended by a jacked up Jeep that hit us at 35 MPH while we were sitting still. The car did sustain major damage, and the rear end and trunk were folded up almost in to the back seat, but the back seat passenger compartment was not crushed, and my wife, who was in the back seat, sustained only minor injury from the force of the impact.
We took the insurance money and purchased a 2006 Aveo hatchback 5 speed.
24th Aug 2006, 13:14
I agree with the person calling it a death trap, sub-compact vehicles when involved in an accident are almost always totalled.
I seriously doubt the manufacturer is providing a concise truth in reference to crash testing.
A sub-compact is like an aluminium beer can that will fold up in the very same manner.
I owned a subcompact and accidentally drove over a very low curb causing complete undercarriage damage, the car was rendered totalled.
I would never put my life or my family's life in a sub-compact, they should not even be allowed on the road.