car dealers claiming my car is dangerous to drive

LincolnshireYokel

jase1 wrote: »

Saxos by any chance?

That has more to do with the car's 1980s heritage than anything else (Saxo is essentially a 106, which is in itself a development of the old Citroen AX).

(EDIT: Weird, I seem to have chosen virtually the exact words Wikipedia used to describe the 106's heritage. Ho hum).

At least its not a Trabant.

jase1

LincolnshireYokel wrote: »

At least its not a Trabant.

I wasn't slagging the car off, I was defending it.

All small 1980s cars were bad in a crash. The AX was no better or worse than anything else really.

And yes, the Trabant, being a 1950s design was a hundred times worse for safety (and just about everything else -- I don't even think it had the Lada's saving grace of being tough and durable, did it?).

Mrs_Ryan

jase1 wrote: »

Saxos by any chance?

That has more to do with the car's 1980s heritage than anything else (Saxo is essentially a 106, which is in itself a development of the old Citroen AX).

(EDIT: Weird, I seem to have chosen virtually the exact words Wikipedia used to describe the 106's heritage. Ho hum).

erm nope... the car that hit us I believe was a C2, the car Mitch was killed in was a C3 and I think the other one was a C2 as well. I do know someone with a Saxo who has been trying desperately to get rid of it and he cant...

jase1

Well then it's coincidence, and/or the crumple zones doing their job.

Modern Citroens are no worse than anything else for safety. The whole question of safety has become somewhat moot -- apart from the obvious physical fact that a larger, heavier car will cause a lot of damage to a smaller, lighter one, for the most part all mdern cars in a given class will perform similarly in a crash.