Crash Test 1997 - 2005 Pontiac Transport / Montana , 1997 - 2005 Chevrolet Venture , 1997 - 2004 Oldsmobile Silhouette (Frontal Impact) IIHS "Narration"

Pontiac Trans Sport/Montana
1997-2005 models

results also apply to: 1997-2005 Chevrolet Venture | 1997-2004 Oldsmobile Silhouette
FRONTAL OFFSET TEST

OVERALL EVALUATION: Poor
Structure/safety cage Injury measures Restraints/dummy kinematics
Head/neck Chest Leg/foot, left Leg/foot, right
Poor Poor Good Poor Poor Marginal

Important: Frontal crash test ratings can be compared only among vehicles of similar weight.
Test details:

The Pontiac Trans Sport (renamed Montana in 1999), the Chevrolet Venture, and the Oldsmobile Silhouette were redesigned for the 1997 model year. The Silhouette was dropped after the 2004 model year, and a limited number of Pontiac Montanas and Chevrolet Ventures were manufactured for the 2005 model year.

Restraints/dummy kinematics — Dummy movement wasn't well controlled. After moving forward into the airbag, the dummy's head and neck were snapped rearward as the steering wheel intruded. Then the dummy's head was hit from behind by the seatback and head restraint as they tilted forward because of floor buckling. The seat continued moving forward and pushed down on top of the dummy's head, bending its neck back even farther.

Injury measures — Measures taken from the chest indicate low risk of injuries to this body region in a crash of this severity. Forces on the neck indicate that injuries to the neck would be likely. Forces on both tibias indicate that injuries to the lower legs would be likely. The forces on the left lower leg were so high that the dummy's metal foot broke off from its leg at the ankle.

Category:

Autos & Vehicles

Tags:

• Crash
• Test
• 1997
• 2005
• Pontiac
• Transport
• Montana
• Chevrolet
• Venture
• 2004
• Oldsmobile
• Silhouette
• (Frontal
• Impact)
• IIHS
• Narration

[adrbro13]

They make them alot better now....

[tellmem3]

There were reasons GM should have failed...... Making cars like this that is absolutely unacceptable with any standard. And of course, people were uneducated enough to buy this? Screw you GM for making a car like this. However GM is a better company now but they were forced to be.... What the hell kind of company is that. Don't you think common sense would be to build a safer car to protect your friends and family and not be told by the government you had to make a better car. Jack Knobs!

[peas1337]

only china cars can top this

[BABIAM]

" As you can see, the forces on the driver are devastating, there's a likely hood of neck injury, as well as injury to both of the drivers legs"

I would say Death would be very likely!

[fortressofcomfort]

Its a good thing Obama saved GM. Wait. No, screw GM and screw Obama! Santorum for 2012!

[playstationNerdwork]

gmminivans9968 is full of baloney. he said it was really (un)safe. LOOK AT THIS VIDEO YOU DORK!!!

[crispy1995]

@MADDOG6400 There's a Dateline vid floating around, and the IIHS' president says, "You don't need injury readings from a dummy to tell you that a fatality is likely in a crash like that."

[boy638]

the door is like made out of paper....:O

[WalterSwartz]

@JackAttack1000 Probably not much difference. Many automotive companies form partnerships. "Way back then," as you put it , was as late as 2009. If you are implying that GM disintegrating its partnership with Toyota at NUMMI somehow hurt the company more than decades of mismanagement, you would be wrong.

[MADDOG6400]

Likely to injury? Looks more like likely for death!