I guess that this belongs in body and interior... Ok, here goes: My wife is somewhat...reluctant...to let the kids ride in the Camaro. Particularily the baby. She claims that, because the child safety seat cannot be put in the middle (no middle seat or seatbelt as we all know), it is not safe for the baby to ride in the car because she would be at a higher risk in an accident, particularily if the camaro was hit in the side. She also does not want to let our 9 year old ride up front. I said that it is safer for her to ride up front in the Camaro than it is in our Escort because the Camaro has no air bags, as opposed to the Escort, which has driver and passenger side air bags. (I'm sure that you all have heard the reports of children being injured by airbags.) I know that the safest place to put a child seat is in the middle, but is it really THAT much worse to put it on the side? The kids rarely ride in the Camaro anyway, it is "my" car, while the Escort is the "family" car, but I do occationally take the two older children (5 and 9 yrs old) on rides with me.

 

I am not sure of the exact ratings. However historically these cars are not really that bad. As far as the kid on the side, I wouldn't worry about it. That's probably the most structually secure area of the car.

BTW I read somewhere that the safety ratings were pretty good. 4 star I believe.

 

Can't offer an opinion on the baby seat; might not win that one... mother's intuition & all.

If the 9 year old rides up front in the Escort, I can't see any reason not to let he/she ride up front in the Camaro. Seems to me the doors of the Camaro are larger/thicker then the Escort's doors. Is it just the word "Camaro" that scares her? People always think sports cars are death traps, or very small, or very flimsy... might be the case for a Mazda MR-2, but not for an 82-92 Camaro/Firebird.

Haha, reminds me of when my dad first found the Firebird for me, back in December of 1993. We went to look at it, and when we went back again, we took my mom to see what I was going to buy. The whole way down she was saying "I don't know if it's a good idea for him to be in such a small car." When she got up to the car, she realized it wasn't small at all.

I totalled my '86 a few years ago; went underneath an illegally parked pickup truck. Smashed the whole front subframe to hell; it required a frame and windshield swap from a parts car. Anyway, I came out without any damage. People saw the car and were amazed. Now, if I didn't have my seatbelt on, my head would've definately kissed the windshield. If I was in a tiny little car- including an Escort- my head would've kissed that pickup trucks' bumper. Our f-bodies have really long hoods.

 

3rd gen Camaro safety ratings: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Search.cfm

Too bad they don't go earlier then '90... '91 was the first year for air bags, right?

 

90 was the first year.

4 Star rating.

I'd rather take a hit in a Camaro than an Escort.

Air bags are bad for children under a certain size & weight. Also, it'd take quiet a hard *** lick to do some damage to the back seat of a 3rd gen...

 

IF your using a car seat I would put it on the Passenger side back seat. Statistically speaking, accidents tend to be more likely to occur on the driver side.

As for the front seat, children under something like 14 in some states are not allowed to sit in the FRONT seat of any car with a passnger side airbag. If there is no airbag, its legal from my understanding. The reason is the impact from the airbag can be more severe on a child because of thier size.

As far as safty, I think our cars are pretty stout, you ever look at the thickness of our doors in comparison to the thickness of your escort?

hope that helps.

John