How safe is your Hatchback?

bazil · July 2002

I wonder if it's just me, or are red cars magnets for people to rear-end? I previously drove a 1984 Celica Hatchback (red, of course), and I was rear-ended in it about 5 times. Four times at the exact same spot, a really bad freeway entrance where you had to merge onto a lane of people exiting the freeway. You had to yield to the traffic coming off the freeway, and invariably some moron wanting to get on the freeway in a hurry wouldn't even notice that I was in front of them, and step on it. Nonetheless, even at these medium speed rear-enders, there was no damage to my car! The fifth rear-ender was on a bridge, with a large Chevy Suburban or some other such useless machinery, still no damage. I wonder if it's because the sheet metal was so much heavier. It was one heavy car. Now I drive a 1999 Honda Civic, and have been rear-ended twice, with no damage except a small scratch on the bumper. It is frustrating, though, to feel like such a target on the road. Maybe people react to the red like bulls, and just want to charge right through : )

vooch · July 2002

I had an 84 Celica about 8 years ago and was in a head on collision. I was going around 40 before I slammed on the brakes - I don't know how fast the other car was going but it was less than 40mph. I walked away from it and the car could be driven onto the tow truck. But there were 84 Celica and Nissan sentra guts all over, poor things. My back was sore for a while but thats about it. I turned around and bought another 84 Celica

And now I want to buy an 84/85 Supra. I love those mid 80's models and they seem to hold their own in collisions.

nippononly · September 2002

Best years of the celicas and supras...we need supras back, along with RWD celicas.

corolla_grl · September 2002

Here is my info on HB's and honda civics in general.

My professor was rear ended by a Nissan that was going aprox. 28-32 mph while she was stoped in traffic and her hb was totalled. The damage was more than what the car was worth even though it was only 4 yrs old so she got cash for it.

My husband owned a honda crx hb and we were t-boned by a car going 64-68 mph and the car was completely totalled. You could not even tell that it was once a honda civic crx...let alone a car. So my husband got 8,000 for it from his insurance.

My bro in law was rear ended in his crx by a man going 36 mph and the entire back end ended up in the front seat crushing my bro in law between the dash board, window and seat. He was injured pretty bad and his car was also totalled.

I was rear ended in a honda civic dx and the cars back end was completly totalled. Cost over 7,000 to repair.

Bottom line...honda does not make good solid cars. Yes they can pass the government crash test for 10-15 mph rear and side impacts but when you get up over 20 they fail misserably! They are cheaply put together. I mean you think it was made out of aluminum or something that easily bends and breaks. And you think they would make the back windows like the front to where they do not shatter but bend and give. The back windows in all the accidents were completely gone. The only window left was the front....pathetic.

Thats why insurance companies charge you more to own a civic of any type. One they are stollen a lot and two they suck in crashes. They need you to pay more to cover your butt for injuries and replacing the car or repairing the damage.

I myself just got rid of my honda civic dx. With no accidents on it it was already falling apart. It seems that nothing on that car was put together right and it was always in the shop for something. And with a baby on the way I needed a safer back seat. The back seat middle section is so small and narrow you have to put towels rolled up on the sides of the car seat so it doesnt rock side to side. Plus its rather hard to find a car seat that fits in that small space between the back seat and front seats.

So to me...no honda is worth my money again.

doire · September 2002

corolla_grl,

Your assumption that Hondas are no good in crashes because they are totalled afterwards is flawed. The reason they are totalled afterwards is precisely because they ARE good at protecting their occupants.

They save the occupants lives by crumpling at the front and rear (the engineers spend millions designing these 'crumple zones') which absorbs the energy of the impacting vehicle and converts it primarily to noise and heat. The idea is that the rest of the car can disintegrate (thus dissipating the crash energy) while the passenger cabin stays intact. The fact that your husband was T-boned at 68mph and is still alive is testimony to that fact.

Ever seen a race-car disintegrate when it crashes? It's by design.

lngtonge18 · September 2002

All these Hondas she is mentioning are very small and light and most would appear to be of 80s vintage. The CRX?? That thing is puny and light. Of course it would crumple up like a tin can if anything larger hits it (which would be almost every car on the road). Small cars in the 80s and early 90s were not designed with safety as the utmost concern. The current Civic is one of the best in the class, passing all crash tests with flying colors. I think someone needs to look at cars in this decade before claiming they all are unsafe.

muffin_man · September 2002

Sounds like those cars did pretty well. When you live through a crash, it is because the car saved you. Who cares about how much it cost your insurance company to fix it, that is what insurance is for.

By the way, there is probably no car that would not be totalled after being t-boned at 64-68 mph, especially one as tiny as a CRX! I doubt that even 1% of drivers would survive such a crash into the drivers side, but of that 1%, I think that most people would be writing that story and finishing with, "Honda saved our lives, I'm sticking by them." You should be thankful that you and your husband are still alive, and in good health.

anonymousposts · September 2002

I just had an accident in my 2002 Civic SI and I walked away without a scratch (only one slight bruise from where the seatbelt tightened up). I was going approx. 45MPH or so when a Grand AM made a left hand turn in front of me .. I hit her pretty much head on.

A few years ago I was rearended by a 95-96 Camry while I was in my 94 Integra hatchback. The guy was probably going abou 30 MPH when he hit me but again I was OK. The car sustained $5,000 worth of damage.

A little before that while I had a 91 Integra a woman in a Buick Century wagon made a left hand turn in front of me and I clipped her passenger side rear end (she turned into a driveway with a gate closed and could not get completely in) while I was going about 40MPH ... again I wasn't hurt.

So before you say that Hondas aren't well built you should do your research first. Research would show that current Hondas get some of the highest safety ratings out there and my own experience backs this up. A Camry only gets 2 stars in side safety ratings does that mean that all Toyota's are poorly built?

And if Hondas were so bad why did you keep buying them? If you wanted another car because you had a strippo Civic then just say so. If you went out and got pregnant and the car wasn't big enough then just say that. But don't bring false propaganda in here when it's very easy to prove that it's false. If you are going to make stuff up at least make it something good.

I saw a Suburban that had been t-boned by another Suburban and the car seat in the back didn't look too good. That baby might or might not have lived. So that goes to show you that no car is going to protect you from bad driving. At any moment an Excursion could come up and t-bone your Corolla and then you probably won't even be able to see that there was a car there let alone recognize what kind of car it was.

badtranny999 · December 2002

Americans generally do not like hatchbacks because they suggest cheapness. Many tiny cars in Europe are hatchbacks--they provide maximum space utilization. And personally, I prefer hatchbacks. My 86 Escort was a hatchback--I could fit huge furniture or half a dozen trash bags back there......but the fact is, hatchbacks are NOT quite as structurally rigid as their sedan/notchback counterparts. The structural difference is not particularly noticeable, but people may PERCEIVE that rigidity is inferior because--as I mentioned above--most hatchbacks are on small cars. And small cars are at a huge disadvantage in a crash...........In my opinion, the Geo Metro/Honda CRX/Civic/Insight hatchbacks are the most dangerous cars on the road. But astonishingly, I hear so many stories of people allegedly surviving huge high-speed crashes in them. It's all nonsense. If you get rear ended in a Metro, or T-boned in a CRX, at any speed over 30 mph, you're road pizza, plain and simple. The only crashworthy small hatchbacks are the Acura Integra/NSX, the VW Golf, and the VW Beetle.........I dread the coming crash horror stories with the new Mini. That thing should not be allowed on the road.

anonymousposts · December 2002

If you look at nhtsa results the Civic SI is rated 5 stars in frontal impact and 4 stars in side impact without side airbags. It actually does equal to or better than the Golf and Beetle. The Metro I might agree with you about.

muffin_man · December 2002

How exactly did you pick those 4 cars? I think the Si rates higher than all of them.

muffin_man · December 2002

Glad you're ok, sorry to hear about your accident. I assume they'll total the Si (if you were going head on at 45), will you buy another one?

cartagram · December 2002

This article on fatality rates at the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (http://www.iihs.org/sr_ddr/sr3507.htm) is interesting because it calls out the Civic's low fatality rate:

"Consider the Honda Civic's rate of 47 deaths per million registered vehicle years, which is much lower than rates for many other small four-door cars. The Nissan Sentra's rate of 100 per million, for example, is much higher, as are rates for the Geo Prizm (125 per million), Dodge/Plymouth Neon (129), and Kia Sephia (148).

The upper confidence bound for the Civic's death rate is below the lower confidence bounds for the other four cars. This means the lower rate for the Civic isn't due to chance, and it seems likely that differences in the designs of the vehicles play a significant role in the differences between the Honda Civic and the other small cars."

anonymousposts · December 2002

Actually muffin_man the accident happened back in August. I had only had my first SI for 3 weeks when it happened. And yes, the other woman's insurance company did total the car. And yes, I already bought another one. Accident happened on Friday, had my settlement on Tuesday and had my new SI Wednesday night. Geico was actually easy to work with it was just getting the at fault party to contact them. I gave them all the information they had, I called that night and followed up on Saturday & Sunday to see if they had reached her and they said no. So I called her, didn't get an answer, then she called me wanting to know why I was calling her. I thought it funny that she could call ME back when I didn't leave a message but wouldn't call the insurance company back when they were leaving messages. So on Monday I got a call from her insurance company saying that yes my car was totalled but they still had to talk to the woman to establish liability. So that afternoon I got a copy of the police report and faxed it to Geico and they called soon thereafter to tell me a settlement decision would be reached within 24 hours. Next day it was all over with.

Most important was that no one was seriously injured but I was also glad I didn't have to hassle with an insurance company who would try to give me peanuts for my new car. It all worked out in the end. Not that you asked for this long story .......

muffin_man · December 2002

cartagram - great article, thanks for the link

anonymousposts - shows how good _I_ am at reading dates. Still glad everything worked out.

revka · July 2003

Since it's been slow here for quite some time, this discussion will soon be closed and archived. If you come across this discussion and would like it to be re-opened, please send me an email. Revka@edmunds.com

Revka

cosador · September 2003

I've been rear ended in my 1992 Integra twice. The first was from a woman in a van. Hit me hard at a traffic light. The only damage, her license plate number indented on the bumper. The second was a semi truck that took a corner to short and his trailer wheel caught the corner of the back bumper on the drivers side. Only damage, knocked out a piece of the black plastic strip that runs around the bumper. Still have the car with the same bumper. I think this has been a great car and put together rather well!

squalus · October 2003

I was rear ended by a drunk guy driving a '90 cadillac sedan in july. He hit me at more than 50 mph. Needless to say my probe was totaled buy i was almost perfectly fine. I was bumped on the back of the head by my old stereo receiver so the ambulance had to take me in. If someone was in the back seat they would have been in the hospital for a while as the back seats were crushed by the spare tire and trunk floor. i don't know if it was less damage than a trunk though, but i was just fine.

How safe is your Hatchback?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles