Jump to content

BOXSTER SAFETY FEATURES DISCUSSION


tonyplymouth

Recommended Posts

Three design/layout features of the Boxster are significantly different to most cars on the road in UK and have particular safety implications: 

a) Fuel tank at the front, only inches away from occupants’ feet.  The majority of collisions are frontal but the front tub and structure are intended to provide protection.  What is known of the safety record of the 986 in regard to the fuel tank I wonder?

 b) Open/convertible car.  The windscreen frame/A pillars are specially strengthened and the car has a roll over bar. But in practice I wonder how much protection this gives occupants wearing ordinary lap/diagonal seat belts in the case of a roll-over onto (i) a hard surface and (ii) a soft surface/ditch/field etc? 

 c) Mid to rear mounted engine/transaxle only a few inches from the back of the seats. I wonder how effective are the engine mounting arrangements at preventing the engine penetrating the cabin space in the case of a frontal or rear impact?

On one hand these cars have positive safety features of good handling and brakes, a low centre of gravity, and are driven generally by more experienced drivers.  Perhaps against this, they tend to be driven more "enthusiastically" than many other cars.

 For discussion, opinions and, most of all, practical experience please ……

 (It could be that Steve Strange is the best person to contribute as he seems to have the largest proportion of written-off 986 cars in the UK?!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Porsche have a racing heritage and are probably used to safety design and requirements more than most manufacturers. A 1.1 Clio is not likely to go round (and come off) the Green Hell.

Several here have crashed their Boxsters, a few have rolled them (I only remember KITT). Obviously they've survived to write about them. Don't know how many were killed and didn't come back to say so. What we know is it's unwise for tall people to drive a 986 and roll it, the hoops aren't high enough. Swapping to 987 seats (lower) helps this.

Never heard of a fuel tank rupture. Never heard of the engine flying forward.

A discussion by Steve Strange of observations over the years could be fascinating.

 

I did start a thread asking for pics of crashed Boxsters for the same reason, to learn of strengths and weaknesses, but didn't get much response. I think there was one where the windscreen had caved on the pax side, so the driver was lucky on that one.

Edited by Menoporsche
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve Strange buys salvage from the likes of Copart but isn't involved in the incident that gets the car to him per se. 

Is there any comparative data to show a relative score ranking for those criteria you cite though? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On point c) there is an additional safety cable installed to prevent the engine moving forward in a high energy frontal collision.  On points a) and b), it would not get road homologation/type approval if it didn't pass the necessary tests, particularly as the US test for a convertible are pretty tough, and the structure of the cars is the same in US and RoW cars.  Also the fact they they do not cost a fortune it insure indicates they are not a high risk vehicle as well as generally being drive by allegedly lower risk drivers by virtue of age if nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Menoporsche said:

Porsche have a racing heritage and are probably used to safety design and requirements more than most manufacturers. A 1.1 Clio is not likely to go round (and come off) the Green Hell.

Several here have crashed their Boxsters, a few have rolled them (I only remember KITT). Obviously they've survived to write about them. Don't know how many were killed and didn't come back to say so. What we know is it's unwise for tall people to drive a 986 and roll it, the hoops aren't high enough. Swapping to 987 seats (lower) helps this.

Never heard of a fuel tank rupture. Never heard of the engine flying forward.

A discussion by Steve Strange of observations over the years could be fascinating.

 

I did start a thread asking for pics of crashed Boxsters for the same reason, to learn of strengths and weaknesses, but didn't get much response. I think there was one where the windscreen had caved on the pax side, so the driver was lucky on that one.

The last time I spoke with Steve, he had 1040 986's in stock.

Kitt, is that someone on here? They managed to roll a 986, unbelievable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Odd topic, what's the reason? Bit dull to talk about safety on a 25 year old soft top. 

My cousin saw his friend roll on his mx5, just bruises. Since then he has had a bug up his ar*e about safety and wouldn't buy a convertible for years. When he did eventually by an mx5 he spent a fortune on a roll bar and lowering the seat. Just in case! 

I just don't get it, if I had that mentality I would never leave my house. 

Edited by Daboy3000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, rowbos said:

Fair play!  No matter how much abuse I have thrown at a Kart, I've never been close to rolling one!  😬

It was a one off. I've never tried or come close since 🤔😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the baron:  More important, the driver and passenger "stood up extremely well" after the roll-over!

Found this paper too: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342392201_Crash_rates_of_convertible_cars   Reflects American experience where roads are generally wider with fewer roadside hazards but generally reassuring stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I discussed the safety of the Boxster with a mate last night who asked my why I moved away from TVRs and safety or lack of was one of the reasons I fell out of love with the Chimaera. 
Using the Boxster as a daily driver then getting into the TVR makes you realise how safe the Boxster is and that roll over crash proves it.
I just accepted that I could die if it went wrong, which was good for the concentration!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A general question / comment - any reason you use all caps in your thread titles @tonyplymouth? Makes it difficult to read.

Re point a): Porsche have been doing this for decades with the 911, and from the A-pillar forward, a Boxster is exactly the same as its contemporary rear-engined brethren.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, K.I.T.T. said:

A general question / comment - any reason you use all caps in your thread titles @tonyplymouth? Makes it difficult to read.

Re point a): Porsche have been doing this for decades with the 911, and from the A-pillar forward, a Boxster is exactly the same as its contemporary rear-engined brethren.

Are you the member who rolled a 986? 

If so, I do hope all occupants survived the accident and none were badly hurt.

I am intrigued, as I am sure a few on here are also, how you managed to do this? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...