Daz_FTO wrote:IMO I beleive that safety point is for two reasons... One which has been mentioned befroe - FTO vs Range Rover at speed - no matter how good intrusion bars are, etc... u will prolly ome off second best due to the weight differences. If you own the airbag version of the FTO u would have a higher safety rating than one without obviously. I think the second reason is more to do with the type of drivers that have sports cars. More people kick the bucket in sports cars coz they drive them faster and harder - and therefor run the risk of hitting something harder and faster

Thats exactly what I think they where getting at too daz and rxboy. It's funny but in the book pretty much a car without side intrudion bars, airbags, and at least webber grabbing seat belts gets bat ratings.
Don't forget that this is a book for the very basic reccommendation of cars to most people. Not to people like us that enjoy driving and don't all want to drive a camry or something like that. For this reason I'm still impressed by the FTO ratings. A lot of other 90's Japanese sport cars don't get similarly good ratings.
And hey, my current ride, (a modified 86 TX3) is pretty well outlined as a death trap and although I never thought I would be safe in a crash at 60 against a Land Cruiser or something, it's still a little harsh I feel. Mind you most of the imformation is based on crash test. It's a scary world when you think of what happens to most cars in a frontal impact at 60 or above.
I find in interesting to see how quickly this topic became about tyres and some people talking about Nankangs, as a part of safety avoiding a crash is a big thing, sure but not all crashes can be avoided. Maybe a lot of these people using the cheaper tyres are aware of the risk that they run

but hey, like a lot of things in life, it can be a trade of can't it.