autoMedia Auto News Blog : Crast test

IIHS Names 2010 Top Safety Picks – Fewer Than Before

admin — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 04:00:00 GMT

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has announced 19 car and eight SUVs as Top Safety Picks for 2010—far less than the 94 vehicles that earned the accolade for 2009. The IIHS has made the requirements to be named a Top Safety Pick more stringent by adding a roof strength test to measure protection in a rollover accident. In addition, the Picks also factor performance in front, side, and rear crashes the Institute performs, as well as the availability of electronic stability control. Subaru again shines in IIHS tests, being the only manufacturer that has winning products in all four categories for a total of five awards. Ford and subsidiary Volvo have six winners, and Volkswagen/Audi has four. Chrysler earns four awards, continuing recent trend of improving the crashworthiness of its vehicles. This marks the second time the Institute has raised the bar for Top Safety Pick status since the awards were introduced in 2005. As with its other tests, it is expected that the rollover rating will push automakers to improve their vehicles ahead of federal mandates. And there is good motivation; The Institute estimates rollovers kill more than 9,000 people in passenger vehicles each...(read more)

autoMedia CARnival 8/7/09: This week in the auto blogs

Brandy Schaffels — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 17:00:00 GMT

It's the week ending August 7, and we've browsed our favorite automotive blogs all week long to gather a collection of what we feel is the highlight from each. The biggest news this week continues to be discussion of Obama's Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) program, as websites discussed the outcome of the program's first week, as well as plans for its next installment.

Thanks to AutoBlogGreen for the latest update clarifying the mysterious status of the Car Allowance Rebate System legislation, telling us it looks set to continue for at least another month. Apparently, the Senate confirmed the House's $2 billion funding of the incredibly popular program yesterday in a 60-37 vote, Obama is expected to sign it into law soon, and the money should last through Labor Day. Note: If you're considering making a purchase based on CARS rebates, don't delay, as it's not expected to be extended again.

A report at Edmunds Auto Observer, which was heavily based on information obtained from a Hyundai press release, states that these new purchases could result in a 59-percent fuel economy improvement between the new and old vehicle of the early clunker trades. In fact, according to their report, Hyundai estimates individual fuel consumption will decrease by 275 gallons per year, reducing fuel costs by nearly $680 annually at current gas prices. According to Hyundai's calculations, this first round of trade-ins could potentially decrease annual fuel consumption across the U.S. by 69 million gallons, reducing spending by a total of nearly $170 million on gasoline and cutting CO2 emissions by more than 600,000 metric tons.

A deluge of car shoppers purchased nearly 185,000 vehicles within the first week of activity: Consumer Reports shared data showing what participating consumers were trading in and then buying with their rebate dollars. As expected, the vehicles most often cashed in are popular SUVs and pickup trucks, with small and midsized sedans dominating the new-car purchases. They also include lists of the top vehicles purchased (Toyota Corolla was the number one most purchased car) and the top ten vehicles traded in (Ford Explorer 4WD wins that dubious honor).

With nearly all gas-electric hybrid cars qualifying for the Cash for Clunkers vouchers, hybrid sales in July grew to 3.55 percent of the new car market--its largest market share ever. According to HybrdCars.com, new car dealers sold 35,429 hybrids, with more than half of the sales coming from the Toyota Prius. Hybrid sales jumped by 35 percent in July compared with last month and a year ago--while sales of conventional new vehicles rose 15.4 percent for the month and were down 13 percent from July 2008.

Finally, there's been lots of greenwashing on this subject, but Bill Basore over at AutomotiveTraveler has the courage to explain, in painful detail, all the reasons why the Cash for Clunkers program is bad. While many consumer and industry insiders may quietly agree with him, nobody has written anything that so clearly explains why it's so clearly bad. Plus, all the videos demonstrating how they disable what appear to be perfectly reliable cars are just tragically sad.

Sick of Cash for Clunkers news? Okay, let's move along....
We already know those snarky guys over at Jalopnik love cars. They love movies, too. Would it surprise you to hear they also love movies about cars? Well, we all know there are some really great car flicks out there, as well as some really pathetic car flicks. Click this link to view Jalopnik's list of 12 of the greatest car flicks of all time. Or click this link to view their list of 12 of the worst.

If you're one of those folks who's always on the move, check out this article at The Detroit Bureau explaining a new generation of wireless technology that provides Internet access via cellular data networks for devices in a moving vehicle. With in-car internet service like this, your kids may soon start asking, "Already?" rather than, "Are we there yet."

Automotive journalists drive a lot of cars. And since most of that time is spent sitting in the driver's seat, certain things tend to annoy them more than others. AutoBlog has compiled a slideshow of interior annoyances, gripes, and grievances. Not everyone will agree with all the choices, but some of them are especially problematic. What do you think?

I hate to report it myself, so I'll let the folks at MotorTrend.com say it: The Chevy Camaro got a 4-star crash test rating in front driver and passenger tests. :( Now that the NHTSA put the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro through four crash tests, the Mustang has another minor selling point over its main rival: Compared to the Mustang coupe's five stars all around, the Camaro only received five stars for the side driver and rollover tests. According to the article, the Camaro continues to outsell the Mustang, and in July, 7113 Camaros were sold to 6686 Mustangs.

The 15th Annual Woodward Avenue Dream Cruise is taking place next weekend! Are you going? Whether you'll be there or not, you'll want to check out this collection of billboards that Chevrolet has commissioned to be displayed in the Detroit area as part of the festivities. Happy Cruising!

Thanks for joining us for this week's autoMedia.com CARnival! Have you got something of interest you want us to include in a future carnival? Then fill out our online form so we can be notified of your interesting entry to our weekly blog CAR-nival. Check back next week for another installment--until then, have a great weekend!

Brandy Schaffels, Contributing Editor

IIHS Tests Midsized Sedan Bumpers, Finds None Good

admin — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:19:00 GMT

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has tested bumpers on several midsized family sedans for repair costs, finding not one of the six models earned a top rating of Good. This is the second group of vehicles the Institute has evaluated under a new bumper ratings protocol based on repair costs averaged and weighted to reflect real-world damage and insurance claims frequency. (See “Small Cars Can Be Costly to Repair.”)

A series of four tests were conducted: front and rear full-width impacts at 6 mph and front and rear corner impacts at 3 mph. These tests are designed to drive bumper improvements, though they also highlight the potentially significant costs of a minor bump.

Bumpers on 2009 models of the Honda Accord, Hyundai Sonata, Mazda 6, and Nissan Maxima performed better than their 2007 predecessors in low-speed crash tests conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Bumpers on the 2009 Chevrolet Malibu and 2010 Ford Fusion did worse than earlier models. None of the six popular midsize sedans earns the top rating of Good in a recent series of tests designed to assess and compare how well bumpers resist damage in everyday fender-benders.

Bumpers on 2009 models of the Honda Accord, Hyundai Sonata, Mazda 6, and Nissan Maxima performed better than their 2007 predecessors in low-speed crash tests. However, bumpers on the 2009 Chevrolet Malibu and 2010 Ford Fusion did worse than earlier models.

Weighted average repair costs / ratings
Mazda 6 - $871 / Acceptable
Honda Accord - $1,133 / Marginal
Hyundai Sonata - $1,265 / Marginal
Nissan Maxima - $1,687 / Poor
Ford Fusion - $2,207 / Poor
Chevrolet Malibu - $2,329 / Poor

The designs of 10 other midsize cars haven’t changed since their bumpers last were tested in the 2007 model year. Performance in those tests earns the Mitsubishi Galant and Toyota Camry Marginal ratings. The Chrysler Sebring, Nissan Altima, Pontiac G6, Saturn Aura, Subaru Legacy, Volkswagen Jetta, Volkswagen Passat, and Volvo S40 earn Poor ratings.

“Consumers buy midsize cars for practical reasons. There’s nothing practical about a $1,000-plus repair bill after a minor bump in commuter traffic,” says Joe Nolan, Institute senior vice president.

The results indicate how repair costs could influence insurance premiums, though there are many other factors that guide prices and should influence a purchase decision. Long-term, the IIHS tests of this nature will pressure the industry to be mindful of ownership costs when engineering product. For now, drivers should take this as a reminder to be careful. Even a small bump can be expensive.

Learn what you need to know about car insurance before you buy.

Smashing: IIHS Crash Tests Small Coupes

admin — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 01:59:00 GMT

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has released crash test results on five small two-door models, marking the first time the safety organization has tested coupes. The Chevrolet Cobalt, Ford Focus, Honda Civic, Scion tC, and Volvo C30 were each run through the organization’s front, side, and rear tests. Two models emerged with Top Safety Pick accolades—Focus and C30—and the others had solid performances.

Of the tested vehicles, all except the tC earned the highest rating of Good in the 40-mph frontal offset test. More variation was seen in the side-impact crash test, which simulates the impact from an SUV at 31 mph. Here, the Focus and C30 were the only coupes to earn a Good. The others were rated as Acceptable.

"All five cars in this group, from relatively inexpensive to moderately priced, have head-protecting side airbags as standard equipment,” says David Zuby, Institute senior vice president for vehicle research. “In 2003 automakers pledged to voluntarily put side airbags in their vehicles as standard equipment by the 2010 model year. They're making good on this pledge."

Simulating a low-speed impact, the rear crash test evaluates the risk for neck sprain or strain, the most frequently reported crash injury among U.S. insurance claims. Here again, all scored Good with the exception of the tC, which earned just a Marginal rating.

Through this test, the IIHS confirmed that crash test performance can vary between two- and four-door versions of a given car, making it essential for car shoppers to check the ratings for the specific body style they are interested in buying.

Crash test ratings can be found in the autoMedia buyer’s guides.

Learn more about how the IIHS performs crash tests.

IIHS Report: Small Cars Can Be Costly to Repair

admin — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 02:13:00 GMT

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) reveals that small cars may save on purchase price and fuel, but there is a real reason why their insurance premiums aren’t also tiny—accidents cause significant damage and consequently injury risk. In its latest test-based report, the IIHS found that none of seven small cars rated “good” under a new system to evaluate repair costs necessitated by low-speed impacts, putting a dollar value on common accident scenarios. (Learn how the IIHS conducts crash tests on new cars.)

These are the first bumper test results released under a new Institute ratings protocol that's based on repair costs averaged and weighted to reflect real-world damage patterns. The new ratings protocol represents the common damage that insurance claims centers process daily, and it is based on four bumper tests representing full-width and corner crashes at low speeds. Weighted average repairs must be less than $500 for a good rating, less than $1,000 for acceptable, and less than $1,500 for marginal. Repairs of $1,500 or more earn bumpers a poor rating.

With the rules established, the tests identified the Kia Rio as the worst performer with $9,380 total damage, earning it a poor rating. The Rio's repair bill is worse than those of most other small and midsize cars and minivans the Institute has tested. This minicar racked up about $3,700 damage, or 30 percent of its purchase price, in the full-front test alone. The Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit, Hyundai Accent, and Mini Cooper also earn poor ratings for bumper performance.

The Smart Fortwo is best overall, with $3,281 total damage in four tests. Costs are relatively low for this microcar because its prepainted plastic body panels are dent-resistant, inexpensive, and easy to replace. The Chevrolet Aveo, a minicar, is next best, with $4,490 total damage.

Bumper performance in low-speed crash tests: VEHICLE REPAIR COSTS
	Rating	Front full	Front corner	Rear full	Rear corner	WEIGHTED AVERAGE
Smart Fortwo	ACCEPTABLE	$1,480	$663	$631	$507	$899
Chevrolet Aveo	MARGINAL	$1,071	$1,437	$1,370	$612	$1,155
Mini Cooper	POOR	$2,291	$2,637	$929	$743	$1,637
Toyota Yaris	POOR	$1,688	$1,167	$3,345	$474	$1,951
Honda Fit	POOR	$1,124	$1,216	$3,648	$999	$1,960
Hyundai Accent	POOR	$3,476	$839	$2,057	$831	$2,123
Kia Rio	POOR	$3,701	$1,758	$3,148	$773	$2,705

"You should be able to drive your car home after a low-speed crash, but too often vehicles are sidelined by only minor impacts," says Institute senior vice president Joe Nolan. "Damage to sheet metal, air-conditioning condensers, and safety equipment like headlights should never happen when your car is bumped at just three to six miles an hour. Bad bumpers add up to one big headache for consumers."

Any accident can be expensive, inconvenient, and dangerous. Safety should play a key role in choosing your next vehicle, placing special emphasis on crash-test performance and key equipment: ABS, side and side-curtain airbags, and stability control. (This information is available in the autoMedia buyer's guide.) Repair cost is an interest consideration, though more difficult to compare.The IIHS does have some data available on vehicles, separated by class. (See an expanded list of repair costs from IIHS.)

Before buying, always consult with your insurance company to get an estimate of annual premiums. These will be influence by repair costs, as well as vehicle cost and average driver claim risk. (Learn what you need to know about car insurance before you buy.)

Big Versus Small Cars - Looking Beyond the Crunched Sheetmetal

admin — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 01:35:00 GMT

The latest study from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) shows that bigger is better for safety, with new crash tests showing that small cars take the brunt of the impact when struck by larger vehicles. This laboratory scenario plays out in the real world, as well.

IIHS cites the death rate per million 1-3-year-old minis in single-vehicle crashes during 2007 was 35 compared with 11 per million for very large cars. Even in midsize cars, the death rate in single-vehicle crashes was 17 percent lower than in minicars. The lower death rate is because many objects that vehicles hit aren't solid, and vehicles that are big and heavy have a better chance of moving or deforming the objects they strike. This dissipates some of the energy of the impact.

Some proponents of mini and small cars claim they're as safe as bigger, heavier cars. But the claims don't hold up. For example, there's a claim that the addition of safety features to the smallest cars in recent years reduces injury risk, and this is true as far as it goes. Airbags, advanced belts, electronic stability control, and other features are helping. They've been added to cars of all sizes, though, so the smallest cars still don't match the bigger cars in terms of occupant protection.

The report has created some online buzz, with columnists such as John McElroy, pointing out that Europe has a good safety track record, despite most passenger cars being small. Likewise, there are criticisms levied at the IIHS for being supported by the insurance industry—a fact that is quite public.

The results from the IIHS report put numbers behind a basic truth: Big cars crush little ones. While the IIHS may ultimately have the insurance industries interests at heart, the reality is, their efforts support making cars safer. It is true that injuries can lead to expensive medical bills and potential lawsuits, avoiding them all together would seem to help everyone. Ultimately, the economy and fear of fluctuating fuel prices will encourage the American fleet to downsize over time. Meanwhile, safety structures and availability of advanced safety features will improve over time.

Bottom line, car buyers are wise to consider the full safety implications of their choices. Seek models that perform well in crash tests and remember the basic laws of physics. Ultimately, a more comfortable (and therefore more luxurious) model is often slightly larger, and perhaps, that is not such a bad thing.

Research new cars and check their safety ratings in the new car buyer’s guide.

IIHS Study Shows Bigger is Better for Safety

admin — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 01:05:00 GMT

In its latest physics experiment, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) tested the impact of size on vehicle crashworthiness in a frontal collision. By analyzing the results from midsized cars careening into mini and micro cars, the IIHS has confirmed what Cosmopolitan readers have long known: size matters.

The Honda Fit, Smart ForTwo, and Toyota Yaris are good performers in the Institute's frontal offset barrier test, but all three are poor performers in the frontal collisions with midsize cars.

The structure of the Honda Accord held up well in the crash test into the Fit, and all except one measure of injury likelihood recorded on the driver dummy's head, neck, chest, and both legs were good. In contrast, a number of injury measures on the dummy in the Fit were less than good. Further, intrusion into the Fit's occupant compartment was extensive. Overall, the Fit was rated poor in the front-to-front crash, despite its good crashworthiness rating based on the Institute's frontal offset test into a deformable barrier—representing a head-on with a same-sized vehicle. On the other hand, the Accord earns good ratings for performance in both tests.

The ForTwo faced off against the Mercedes-Benz C-Class with predictable results. The smallest car the IIHS has tested, the Smart went airborne and turned around 450 degrees upon collision. This contributed to excessive movement of the dummy during rebound — a dramatic indication of the Smart's poor performance but not the only one. Multiple measures of injury likelihood, including those on the dummy's head, were poor, as were measures on both legs. In contrast, the C-Class held up well, with little to no intrusion into the occupant compartment. Nearly all measures of injury likelihood were in the good range.

With the Toyota pair, there was far more intrusion into the occupant compartment of the Yaris than the Camry. The minicar's door was largely torn away. The driver seats in both cars tipped forward, but only in the Yaris did the steering wheel move excessively. Similar contrasts characterize the measures of injury likelihood recorded on the dummies. The heads of both struck the cars' steering wheels through the airbags, but only the head injury measure on the dummy in the Yaris rated poor. Like the Smart and Fit, the Yaris earns an overall rating of poor in the car-to-car test. The Camry is acceptable.

The IIHS does acknowledge that smaller vehicles tend to use less fuel, though there is a clear trade off in crash protection. (It is worth noting the diminishing returns with an SUV, which introduces an increased rollover risk.)

At time when car-buying budgets are strained in many households, it is still worthwhile keeping safety a key concern. Often that may mean buying a midsized car rather than a subcompact. In addition to gaining extra protective sheetmetal, a midsized car is more likely to include stability control and side-curtain airbags – two essential safety features. Addressing budget concerns, remember the latest family sedans offer thrifty four-cylinder powerplants and money can often be saved by buying used, though in today’s market, a great price can often be had on a new model with a low finance rate to boot.

Safety ratings can be found on all models in our new car buyer’s guide. Learn more about car safety in our DriveSmart section.

New IIHS Roof-Crush Test and Ratings

admin — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 01:33:00 GMT

From a group who take the saying “keep the shiny side up” to heart, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has released its latest roof-crush test result and announced that such testing will play a key role in naming future Top Safety Picks.

Roof crush is the next major safety challenge the IIHS, having made significant strides in front and side-impact safety. More than 10,000 people a year are killed in rollovers. When vehicles roll, their roofs hit the ground, deform, and crush. Stronger roofs crush less, reducing the risk that people will be injured by contact with the roof itself. Stronger roofs also can prevent occupants, especially those who aren’t using safety belts, from being ejected through windows, windshields, or doors that have broken or opened because the roof has deformed.

“We anticipate that our roof strength test will drive improved rollover crash protection the same way that our frontal offset and side impact consumer test programs have led to better protection in these kinds of crashes,” says Institute president Adrian Lund.

This new rating system is based on Institute research showing that occupants in rollover crashes benefit from stronger roofs. Vehicles rated good must have roofs that are more than twice as strong as minimum federal safety standards require.

Twelve small SUVs were run through this stringent test protocol with decidedly mixed results. IIHS found that the Volkswagen Tiguan has the strongest rated roof and the Kia Sportage has the weakest among the 2008-09 models evaluated. The Tiguan, Subaru Forester, Honda Element, and Jeep Patriot earn good ratings. The Suzuki Grand Vitara, Chevrolet Equinox, Toyota RAV4, Nissan Rogue, and Mitsubishi Outlander are rated acceptable. Roofs on the Honda CR-V and Ford Escape are marginal, and the Kia’s is poor.

In addition to reviewing the results from these new IIHS tests, new car shoppers should seriously consider electronic stability control (ESC) on their next vehicle, as that important life-saving feature can help prevent rollovers from even happening.

Learn more about car safety.

Top Safety Pick: 2009 Hyundai Genesis

admin — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 02:51:00 GMT

Hyundai has been having a banner year, with sales remaining strong in tough times, a successful Assurance Plus program bolstering consumer confidence, numerous awards for the Genesis sedan, and now, Top Safety Pick accolades from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS).

To qualify for a Top Safety Pick, a vehicle must earn the highest rating of "good" in the Institute's front, side, and rear tests and be equipped with ESC. Criteria to win are tough because the award is intended to drive continued safety improvements such as top crash test ratings and the rapid addition of ESC, which is standard on the Genesis. Top Safety Pick status is applicable for all 2009 Genesis models built after November 2008.

A good car with excellent safety marks – all the making for a sales success and a smart purchase decision.

Read our Hyundai Genesis review, and research Hyundai models in the 2009 new car buyer’s guide.

Pickup Truck Crash Tests – Not All Trucks Created Equal

admin — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 03:27:00 GMT

Pickup trucks are engineered to tackle serious work chores, but test results from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) show that not all provide good, or even marginal, protection in side impacts. The IIHS recently tested crew-cab pickup trucks and found shortcomings with the Chevrolet Silverado 1500, Dodge Ram 1500, and Nissan Titan. (Learn about the IIHS and government crash tests.)

“The size, weight, and height of these large pickups should help them ace the side tests just like the other large pickups we’ve tested. Not these three,” says Institute senior vice president David Zuby. “They perform worse than many cars we’ve evaluated.”

The Silverado, Ram, and Titan should have an advantage in side crash tests over smaller vehicles, not just because of their size and weight but also because the dummies’ higher seating positions put their heads and shoulders above the striking barrier. Occupants of cars, for instance, are more vulnerable because their bodies are in line with the fronts of vehicles, especially tall ones, which might hit them in the side.

“These large pickups don’t have to work as hard as smaller vehicles do to protect their occupants. Even with their characteristic advantages, the Ram, Titan, and Silverado still miss the mark when it comes to occupant protection in side crashes,” Zuby says.

With the Silverado, IIHS attributes the results to a combination of a poor side structure plus the
lack of side torso airbags. The truck’s optional side curtain airbags are designed to protect occupants’ heads, and these worked well. But occupants’ upper bodies remain unprotected even with the optional side curtains.

In contrast, the Ram and Titan’s side structures are designed to better limit intrusion. The Ram’s side structure/safety cage earns a good rating, while the Titan’s earns acceptable marks. The Ram has standard head-protecting side curtain airbags but not torso airbags. Both curtain and side torso bags are optional in the Titan. Adding torso airbags might improve the Ram’s side
protection.

IIHS Pickup Truck Crash Test Results

Shown in rank order of ratings. Click names to research further.

Honda Ridgeline
Front: Good
Side: Good
Rear: Good
Front and rear head-curtain airbags and front torso airbags.
Front and side: 2006-09 models
Rear: 2009 models

Ford F-150
Front: Good
Side: Good
Rear: Good
Front and rear head-curtain airbags and front torso airbags.
Front, side, and rear: 2009 models.

Toyota Tundra
Front: Good
Side: Good
Rear: Good
Front and rear head-curtain airbags and front torso airbags.
Front, side, and rear: 2007-2009 models.

Dodge Ram 1500
Front: Good
Side: Marginal
Rear: Good
Front and rear head-curtain airbags.
Front and rear: 2009 models
Side: 2009 models (mfg. after September 2008)

Nissan Titan
Front: Good
Side: Marginal
Rear: Acceptable
Optional front and rear head-curtain airbags and front torso airbags.
Front and side: 2004-09 models
Rear: 2005-09 models

Chevrolet Silverado 1500 / GMC Sierra 1500
Front: Good
Side: Poor
Rear: Acceptable
Optional front and rear head-curtain airbags.
Front, side, and rear: 2007-2009 models.

Nissan Titan
Front: Good
Side: Poor
Rear: Acceptable
Without optional side airbags.
Front and side: 2004-09 models
Rear: 2005-09 models

Chevrolet Silverado 1500 / GMC Sierra 1500
Front: Good
Side: Poor
Rear: Acceptable
Without optional side airbags.
Front, side, and rear: 2007-2009 models.

Learn more about car safety from our DriveSmart articles.

Small Car Crash Tests

admin — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 03:46:00 GMT

Most new small cars now earn good ratings in frontal crash tests but not when it comes to side and rear crashes, according to the latest crash tests conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). The Institute just released the results of front, side, and rear tests of seven 2009 model small cars: Chevrolet HHR, Chrysler PT Cruiser, Ford Focus, Hyundai Elantra, Saturn Astra, Suzuki SX4, and Toyota Matrix. All performed well in frontal impact protection, however the results were mixed in side and rear crash simulations.

Just 11 of the 21 current small car models the Institute has rated earn good ratings
for side protection. Where the frontal impact test represents an offset collision with a same-sized vehicle, the side-impact test simulates the perpendicular impact from a midsized SUV – putting small cars as a category at a disadvantage. Only the SX4 and Matrix and its twin Pontiac Vibe also earn good ratings for protection in side crashes. The worst performer was the PT Cruiser, the vehicle also distinguished as having the oldest design. In general, newer vehicles tend to perform better, but as you’ll see below, results may vary.

Safety equipment can make a difference, with antilock brakes, electronic stability control, and side- and side-curtain airbags all proven to save lives. These vehicles were all tested with side airbags – just imagine the consequences of buying a car without this protection. It ain’t pretty.

Suzuki SX4
Front: Good
Side: Good
Rear: Marginal
Front and rear head-curtain airbags and front torso airbags.
Front, side, and rear: 2007-2009 models.

Pontiac Vibe / Toyota Matrix
Front: Good
Side: Good
Rear: Not tested
Front and rear head-curtain airbags and front torso airbags.
Front, side, and rear: 2008-2009 models.

Ford Focus
Front: Good
Side: Acceptable
Rear: Marginal
Front and rear head-curtain airbags and front torso airbags.
Front, side, and rear: 2008-2009 models.

Chevrolet HHR
Front: Good
Side: Acceptable
Rear: Marginal
Front and rear head-curtain airbags.
Front, side, and rear: 2006-2009 models.

Hyundai Elantra
Front: Good
Side: Marginal
Rear: Acceptable
Front and rear head-curtain airbags and front torso airbags.
Front, side, and rear: 2008-2009 models.

Saturn Astra
Front: Good
Side: Marginal
Rear: Acceptable
Front and rear head-curtain airbags and front torso airbags.
Front, side, and rear: 2008-2009 models.

Chrysler PT Cruiser
Front: Good
Side: Poor
Rear: Poor
Front and rear head-curtain airbags and front torso airbags.
Front, side, and rear: 2008-2009 models.

Learn more about car safety from our DriveSmart articles.

Bumper Crop: Small Cars = Big Repair Bills

admin — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 01:12:00 GMT

In a series of crash tests, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) recently assessed how well the bumpers of 20 small car models would protect the vehicles from damage in low-speed collisions. The worst performers were the Hyundai Elantra, Toyota Prius, and Volkswagen Rabbit, each sustaining about $4,000 damage or more in a single test. The Ford Focus performed the best, with about one-third that amount of damage in its worst test.

"Small cars are supposed to be economical, but there's nothing economical about three or four thousand dollars in repairs after a low-speed collision," says Institute Senior Vice President Joe Nolan. "Ford did the best job of putting bumpers on a small car that largely do what they're supposed to do. In 3 of the 4 tests, the bumpers on the Focus protected sheet metal and most other expensive parts from damage."

To assess and compare bumper performance in low-speed impacts, the Institute conducts a series of 4 crash tests -- full front and rear into a barrier designed to mimic the front or back bumper on another vehicle plus front and rear corner impacts. The full-width impacts are conducted at 6 mph while the corner impacts are run at 3 mph.

Bumpers have to be tall enough to engage, and to stay engaged with the bumpers on other vehicles in collisions, even during emergency braking. Otherwise the bumpers bypass each other when the vehicles collide, overriding and underriding so that crash energy goes right through and crumples the vehicle body.

According to the IIHS, the front bumper of the Focus is tall enough to do a reasonably good job in the full-width test. Repairs cost less than $600. In contrast, damage to the Elantra of nearly $5,000 in the same test is equal to almost one-third of the car's sales price.

"The Focus shows that decent bumpers don't have to be heavy or costly," says Nolan. "Many consumers are turning to small cars for better fuel economy, but damage in our tests approached luxury car territory. Savings at the pump could be more than offset by a single low-speed collision in one of these so-called economy cars."

This, of course, assumes the owner would pay repairs out of pocket. Reviewing annual coverage rates, we find that small cars are often $200-300 more a year to insure than larger vehicles. Ultimately, it is not just the repairs that lead to the higher rate, but also the greater risk of injury or fatality.

The IIHS does make the point with this latest study that for an incremental cost, the reinforcement behind the bumper cover could be extended side to side and provide added protection, without sacrificing cosmetics.

The list below ranks the total repair costs incurred in the low-speed IIHS tests.

$3,031     Ford Focus
$3,697     Scion xB
$4,135     Scion xD
$4,859     Mazda 3
$4,908     Nissan Sentra
$5,322     Dodge Caliber
$5,693     Subaru Impreza
$5,851     Suzuki SX4
$5,898     Saturn Astra
$6,152     Nissan Versa
$6,378     Mitsubishi Lancer
$6,805     Toyota Corolla
$6,853     Chevrolet Cobalt
$6,879     Honda Civic
$7,417     Chevrolet HHR
$7,589     Kia Spectra
$8,261     Chrysler PT Cruiser
$8,976     Hyundai Elantra
$9,070     Toyota Prius
$9,511     Volkswagen Rabbit

Learn more about automotive safety.

Small SUV Crash Tests – Hybrids Good

admin — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:03:00 GMT

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) recently completed crash test evaluations of eight small SUV models finding most provide good protecting in front-end collisions, but decidedly mixed results from side and rear crashes. The best performers, earning the Institute's Top Safety Pick award, are the 2009 Ford Escape, 2008 Mitsubishi Outlander, 2008 Nissan Rogue, and 2009 Volkswagen Tiguan. These models earn good ratings in Institute's frontal offset, side, and rear evaluations, and all are equipped with standard electronic stability control and side airbags. The Escape's ratings also apply to the hybrid version, as well as corporate siblings Mercury Mariner and Mazda Tribute.

“This is a huge change from just five years ago when most small SUVs were rated either marginal or poor in our side test, and standard side airbags and electronic stability control were rare," says Institute president Adrian Lund.

Consumers now have multiple hybrid SUVs earning Top Safety Pick to choose from. Others include the midsize Saturn Vue and Toyota Highlander, which the Institute evaluated earlier.

Jeep and Chevrolet models did not perform as well. The Jeep Wrangler and Chevrolet Equinox are the only two vehicles tested this time around without standard side airbags—and the results again prove the merits of side protection. The Jeep Patriot does have standard curtain airbags, but additional torso airbags designed to protect an occupant's chest and abdomen are optional.

When side airbags are optional, the Institute's policy is to test without the option because this is how most of the vehicles will be sold. A manufacturer may request another test with the optional airbags if the automaker reimburses the Institute for the cost of the vehicle. General Motors didn't request a second test of the Equinox, also sold as the Pontiac Torrent. After completing tests of this group of vehicles, the Institute learned that curtain airbags will be standard in the 2009 Equinox. This vehicle will be tested later in the year.

Chrysler didn't request another test of the Wrangler with the optional side airbags, but this automaker did request a second test of the Jeep Patriot with optional torso airbags.

Crashworthiness, as ranked by IIHS:

Volkswagen Tiguan
Front: Good
Side: Good
Rear: Good
Front and rear head-curtain airbags and front torso airbags.
Front, side, and rear: 2009 models.

Mitsubishi Outlander
Front: Good
Side: Good
Rear: Good
Front and second-row head-curtain airbags and front torso airbags.
Front, side, and rear: 2007-2008 models.

Ford Escape, Mazda Tribute, Mercury Mariner
Front: Good
Side: Good
Rear: Good
Front and rear head-curtain airbags and front torso airbags.
Front and rear: 2009 models.
Side: 2008-2009 models.

Nissan Rogue
Front: Good
Side: Good
Rear: Good
Front and rear head-curtain airbags and front torso airbags.
Front, side, and rear: 2008 models.

Suzuki Grand Vitara
Front: Good
Side: Acceptable
Rear: Marginal
Front and rear head-curtain airbags and front torso airbags.
Front, side, and rear: 2006-2008 models.

Jeep Patriot
Front: Acceptable
Side: Good
Rear: Acceptable
Front and rear head-curtain airbags and optional front torso airbags.
Front, side, and rear: 2007-2008 models.

Chevrolet Equinox, Pontiac Torrent
Front: Good
Side: Marginal
Rear: Marginal
Front and rear head-curtain airbags and optional front torso airbags.
Front: 2006-2008 models (built after January ’06)
Side and rear: 2005-2008 Equinox, 2006-2008 Torrent.

Jeep Patriot
Front: Acceptable
Side: Marginal
Rear: Acceptable
Front and rear head-curtain airbags, but without optional front torso airbags.
Front, side, and rear: 2007-2008 models.

Jeep Wrangler
Front: Acceptable
Side: Marginal
Rear: Acceptable
Without optional side airbags.
Front, side, and rear: 2007-2008 models.

Learn more about car safety from our DriveSmart articles.