New CR shows Dodge Dart as worse-than-average reliability? Last month it was "much better than average". They must be updating their 'sampling' monthly, or it's another editing goof of some sort.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I like it, mechanically it has been flawless, no electronic issues either. Only real quirk in the car is a design flaw - rear deck occasionally creaks and makes noise. The materials used don't play well together. I thought my car had an assembly issue, but I then drove a few other current model year cars, and heard the same thing. I suspect many people don't notice. But overall, I am pleased. It's a great road trip car, and I think it is good looking. I won't be buying it at the end of the lease though, residuals are too high, and I am not madly in love with it (which was kind of the point of leasing, less attachment). It will become a nice low mileage CPO car that someone will be happy to find. I have the old car money earning interest for a purchase, or another lease - haven't decided yet. If I do lease again, it will probably be another subsidized MB, so I will help keep the brand strong in the US market
@tlong said:
Wow, time flies - seems like you only got it a few months ago. How have you liked the E-class?
@fintail said:
I like it, mechanically it has been flawless, no electronic issues either. Only real quirk in the car is a design flaw - rear deck occasionally creaks and makes noise. The materials used don't play well together. I thought my car had an assembly issue, but I then drove a few other current model year cars, and heard the same thing. I suspect many people don't notice. But overall, I am pleased. It's a great road trip car, and I think it is good looking. I won't be buying it at the end of the lease though, residuals are too high, and I am not madly in love with it (which was kind of the point of leasing, less attachment). It will become a nice low mileage CPO car that someone will be happy to find. I have the old car money earning interest for a purchase, or another lease - haven't decided yet. If I do lease again, it will probably be another subsidized MB, so I will help keep the brand strong in the US market
Well,s there's always the CLA . I suspect that wouldn't be your choice...
I don't hate it like some (the "real MB" line has come up on MB forums), but it's not my cup of tea - I don't like the melty rear end. It'd have to be an AMG.
What I'd like is a C250 Bluetec 4Matic wagon, but we probably won't be getting that, instead getting more dopey CUVs.
@tlong said:
Well,s there's always the CLA . I suspect that wouldn't be your choice...
I agree I don't really care for the looks of the CLA, at least in pictures. Have not seen one in person. I do like the current look of the C-series. Haven't yet decided on the new C-series looks that are due to come out.
@tlong said:
I agree I don't really care for the looks of the CLA, at least in pictures. Have not seen one in person. I do like the current look of the C-series. Haven't yet decided on the new C-series looks that are due to come out.
I've seen about a dozen CLA's over the past couple of months. IMHO, it looks better in pictures.
BTW, not one of the ones I've seen have been driven by younger folks - lots of gray in those cars.
I think the 2015 C looks pretty decent - baby S-class. I don't care for the static tablet style COMAND screen, but it's nice otherwise. It will be a hit, especially if it has the improved tactile interior feel as found in the 2014 S and E.
Regarding youth in CLA, one with expected amenities will still be a good 35K - not what most young people can or want to pay for. It's not the huge downmarket move some make it to be.
@tlong said:
I agree I don't really care for the looks of the CLA, at least in pictures. Have not seen one in person. I do like the current look of the C-series. Haven't yet decided on the new C-series looks that are due to come out.
"All told, BMW has 100 different models and versions—about double what it sold two years ago. Porsche, in addition to its dozen Cayenne versions, makes the 911 sports car in 15 different forms, including turbo, convertible and a new Targa with a head-turning automated sunroof.
BMW is looking to set up centralized fleets so shoppers can test-drive them all. The idea: dealers won't have to stock each version."
More models = more sales. Maybe. With BMW and MB being at war (the latter also having more models than ever), it's an amusing arms race of sorts.
Speaking of variants, the E-class might be the closest thing to an old American car. Being offered in a sedan, hardtop coupe, convertible, and wagon, with several engine choices from mileage champions to performance.
Old American car or current US pickup. Regular cab, supercab, King cab, long bed, short bed, six engine choices and after all that you get to pick your rear axle ratio.
Into probably the early '80's, even the cheapest Big Three brands produced a dizzying array of models, bodystyles, options, colors. That is something I absolutely, positively miss about the old days of car buying.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
@uplanderguy said:
Into probably the early '80's, even the cheapest Big Three brands produced a dizzying array of models, bodystyles, options, colors. That is something I absolutely, positively miss about the old days of car buying.
Yeah, but I think that the "dizzying array" of choices also hurt the big 3 when the imports started showing up in big numbers. They built only a few trim levels (DX, LX and EX for Honda, as an example), which simplified the car buying experience - and, eventually, made for more transparent pricing.
Indeed. I have no data to support it, but I suspect the E is MBs highest margin car - and it is made in a dizzying array of configurations for the global market, much more differentiated than any pickup IMO. There's no reason to be forced into 3 trim levels and 4 color choices like some makers think it should be.
@robr2 said:
True but with new manufacturing methods, the cost is much less than in previous times.
Two oddballs that were in our family: my Dad's '73 Nova coupe, six, no PS or PB, three-speed on the floor, bench seat, Rally Wheels, whitewalls, and Exterior Decor Group (bunch of outside moldings). And my first new car, '81 Monte Carlo, optional V8, posi, two-tone paint, intermittent wipers, FM radio, and no air. Both cars were in dealer inventories.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
AC and PS/PB weren't as common then as today. Also, dealers often kept a few option-lite cars in inventory so that they could use them as bait and switch in print ads.
Back then, you never...and I mean NEVER...saw two identical cars sitting in dealer's inventory. Now I see them sitting right next to each other, and the window sticker verifies the 'identical' part.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Chevrolet Spark top and only of minicars to get acceptable rating.
The Chevy Spark bucked the trend with an acceptable overall rating, along with good marks in the IIHS's four other crashworthiness evaluations. (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety)
Chevrolet Spark: Acceptable
Mazda2: Marginal
Kia Rio: Marginal
Toyota Yaris: Marginal
2014 Ford Fiesta (built after August 2013): Marginal
I don't think it's good news that so many vehicles on the road now can't pass this test. I'm sure car manufacturers will be working overtime to fix this situation. Honda claims the 2015 Fit will pass. I'm sure others will do likewise.
Well, the insurance group did move the goalposts so it's not unexpected that fewer vehicles will pass. There's some concern that the automakers just build for the tests too.
@Stever@Edmunds said:
Well, the insurance group did move the goalposts so it's not unexpected that fewer vehicles will pass. There's some concern that the automakers just build for the tests too.
It's kind of like schools teaching to pass standardized tests (which also get changed on a regular basis).
Heck, I think if the feds backed out of it we'd be better off. Standardized tests don't reflect creativity or critical thinking. I think all the gov intervention has done is led to more wasted time with mandated teacher meetings and training, so less classroom time end up available to the students with all of these early dismissals so the teachers can attend meetings...and test scores aren't moving up much, well hello - schools are being bureaucratized.
Honda has promised that the 2015 Fit will meet or exceed all crash test standards. You know, there ARE small cars that do very well in crash-testing. They aren't all "death traps".
To compare standardized testing to improved crash ratings is really odd. We are talking about life-saving changes that will hopefully reduce our appalling crash death totals. Yes. Move those goalposts and make safer cars.
@MrShift@Edmunds said:
Honda has promised that the 2015 Fit will meet or exceed all crash test standards. You know, there ARE small cars that do very well in crash-testing. They aren't all "death traps".
For all of the minicars, even the Spark, they are pretty bad. It's basic physics.
@suydam said:
To compare standardized testing to improved crash ratings is really odd. We are talking about life-saving changes that will hopefully reduce our appalling crash death totals. Yes. Move those goalposts and make safer cars.
wasn't comparing the importance. Just commenting on the point that manufacturers are designing to pass a specific artificial test, not create an overall safe package. from that perspective, they are similar concepts.
@stickguy said:
wasn't comparing the importance. Just commenting on the point that manufacturers are
designing to pass a specific artificial test, not create an overall safe package. from that
perspective, they are similar concepts.
I respectfully disagree. Every time IIHS moves the goal, they are building upon previous tests raising overall safety with every new test. This new small overlap test doesn't replace the offset test - it supplements it. Vehicle makers now have to pass both tests.
BTW, these new tests aren't sprung on the manufacturers. I reached out to the IIHS when the small overlap test was first done last year and so many cars failed. Their reply was that the auto makers get about 18 months notice of the new tests and they realize that many cars will fail as the auto makers won't modify an existing car to pass the test. But it gets them to strive to pass the test with the next version of the car.
The criticism is that you can't test for every scenario and it's the insurance industry pushing this set of tests, not the NHTSA. So naturally people wonder if the insurance companies are trying to safeguard people and save on medical costs or if the unspoken emphasis is on saving on sheet metal repair costs.
That's true - you can't test for every scenario. But the IIHS has the most data as to how accidents happened so they are the ones that know best how to test.
As for safety vs repair costs, IMHO it is about safety. AFAIK, the IIHS has never released results on high speed tests based on repair costs - it's always about safety. After looking at the high speed tests, I can't see how they would score based on repair costs - those are totaled.
Now they aren't being altruistic - they push for safer cars to reduce the possibility of injury or death. Those outcomes cost them much more than the repair cost.
@berri said:
Heck, I think if the feds backed out of it we'd be better off. Standardized tests don't reflect creativity or critical thinking. I think all the gov intervention has done is led to more wasted time with mandated teacher meetings and training, so less classroom time end up available to the students with all of these early dismissals so the teachers can attend meetings...and test scores aren't moving up much, well hello - schools are being bureaucratized.
So true! Teaching to the test is now SOP in many schools, with the negative effects you so aptly summarized. Class time and critical thinking skills suffer as a result.
@imidazol97 said:
Chevrolet Spark top and only of minicars to get acceptable rating.
The Chevy Spark bucked the trend with an acceptable overall rating, along with good marks in the IIHS's four other crashworthiness evaluations. (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety)
Chevrolet Spark: Acceptable
Mazda2: Marginal
Kia Rio: Marginal
Toyota Yaris: Marginal
2014 Ford Fiesta (built after August 2013): Marginal
There goes the resale value on my 2013 Fiat 500! would I have bought it last year if I had had prior knowledge of these test results? I'm not sure, but maybe, probably. It'll be interesting to see whether the next redesign fares better, and, if so, whether it's "marginal" or "acceptable."
I'm very pleased with my 500, but since frontal crashes are, to a great extent, within the driver's control, the test result serves as an incentive to drive more carefully...and to stay awake at the wheel.
@robr2 said:>
Now they aren't being altruistic - they push for safer cars to reduce the possibility of injury or death. Those outcomes cost them much more than the repair cost.
My guess is that there are a lot more minor fender benders than injury accidents. Then again, if you build to protect occupants, that would mean more sheet metal to crumple.
@hpmctorque, my Quest came in less than stellar (3 stars iirc) on crash testing six months after we got it. After looking at the test photos, I figure my left leg will be toast in a frontal collision. That's the problem with getting a new model I guess. At least resale wasn't a concern going in.
@hpmctorque said:
There goes the resale value on my 2013 Fiat 500!
But in all the other tests, the 500 scores "Acceptable" - the highest score possible.
Again, it's a case of the goal being moved. When the 500 was designed, it was done so with the existing tests. I'm sure the next 500 will score high marks on the tests.
@MrShift@Edmunds said:
But you know, many of those combinations went begging. The reason some 70s and 80s cars are very rare is because nobody ordered them.
Another reason there were so many options, in the 1970's at least, is because of California's stricter emissions requirements that sometimes caused the manufacturers to offer some engines only in CA and high altitude areas, and other engines in the remaining areas.
For instance, my '76 LeMans came with the choice of 6-cyl (A Chevy 250) or FIVE different V-8 options. They were the Olds 260, Pontiac 350-2bbl, Pontiac 350-4bbl, 400-4bbl, and 455-4bbl. The 350-4bbl, which my car has, was a CA/high altitude engine, as the 2-bbl version couldn't meet the stricter CA standards.
Also, in those days, you pretty much had the choice of fuel economy or performance, but rarely both at once. Plus, a car had to be more of a jack of all trades in those days, able to be a solo commuter car, something to haul a family of six around, perhaps even tow a trailer on occasion. Plus station wagon variants if you tended to haul a lot of cargo/passengers. So that predicated a wider choice of engines. So, all of that pretty much required a wider choice of engines.
Nowadays though, most people buy a truck or big SUV if they need to tow, and a minivan, crossover, or again, big SUV, if they need to haul a big clan around or cargo around. And, since they can get passable performance even out of the base engines, and respectable fuel economy out of the larger engines, they can usually get by with just 2-3 engine choices for a car these days.
It looks like the automakers are continuing to weed out unnecessary engines, as well, for cars and trucks. For instance, in 2012 when I bought my Ram, the engine choices were a 3.7 SOHC V-6, a 4.7 SOHC V-8, or the 5.7 Hemi. They were all EPA-rated the same...14 city/20 highway. Well, I could understand offering the V-6 for entry level models. But, you could get the Hemi so cheap that it made the 4.7 seem redundant.
Well, for 2013 they started using the 3.6 DOHC for their V-6, and it was a lot more powerful than the old 3.7. It made the 4.7 seem even more unnecessary. So, for 2014, according to the EPA's website at least, it looks like the 4.7 has been dropped, leaving just the 3.6, rated at 17/25, and the Hemi, rated at 14/20 with a 6-speed or 15/22 with an 8-speed.
" in those days, you pretty much had the choice of fuel economy or performance, but rarely both at once."
You're right, in terms of economy and performance for the time. In reality, though, by today's standards you got neither economy nor performance after 1971 through the '70s, or even by the standards of the '60s.
Toyota Beats GM, VW in 2013 as 3% Growth Planned in 2014
Toyota Motor Corp. (7203) outsold General Motors Co. (GM) and Volkswagen AG (VOW) to lead the global auto industry for the second straight year and forecast more than 10 million in sales for 2014 on rising demand in the U.S. and China.
@MrShift@Edmunds said:
It's not just physics, it's cost. Race cars are small and light and very safe.
Let's say cost and weight. Manufacturers can't sell small cars with the tech, weight, and tiny roll cage that a race car has. Then there are all sorts of standards and requirements that constrict many design elements.
@MrShift@Edmunds said: It's not just physics, it's cost. Race cars are small and light and very safe.
Any thoughts regarding the effect these new safety ratings will have on sales of the models rated "poor?" My guess is that'll it'll help sales of the Chevy Spark, which is otherwise quite mediocre, but I don't have any historical example that might shed light on how much damage this latest test may have on the sub-marginal performers.
Ford owns Automotive Loyalty Awards, Audi and Subaru are king of conquests
Customers are a commodity in the automotive industry, and like any other commodity, automakers trade them back and forth. Only nobody wants to give up their customers – just to keep the ones they have and try to attract others.
That's what the Polk Automotive Loyalty Awards are all about. Every year the industry research body names the automakers, brands and models that manage to keep their customers coming back for more – and attract buyers to switch from other makes. Ford usually does pretty well, but this year it rose above even its own track record.
Not only did Dearborn win the Overall Loyalty to Manufacturer award, but also the Overall Loyalty to Make. Ford also took the African American category, and the F-150 was named the top full-size half-ton pickup in customer loyalty. Ford COO Mark Fields (pictured above) accepted the awards and gave the keynote address at the awards ceremony.
@hpmctorque said:
any thoughts on effect on sales ratings>
I doubt it. It's a new test and it will take time for manufacturers to adapt. I wouldn't consider a Spark over a Honda Fit. It might make some folks wait a year or so before purchase though if they can.
Perception always lags reality, sadly. I do think Ford owners tend to be proud of themselves, that Ford didn't take any bailout money. And there's nothing wrong with that.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I think crash test results are important in a buying decision IF the dealer touts them as a selling point, but I don't think the average car buyer keeps this information in his head for very long prior to shopping for a car.
And I doubt 1 Ford owner in 1000 remembers, or cares about, who took what bailout. People may go into the showroom with various prejudices, but they usually end up buying the car they like. Price, styling and the dealer experiences have to support the sense of "loyalty" or else loyalty goes out the window.
How many people say "Well, I know this car is inferior to all the others, and it costs more, and I hate the dealership, but you know, I'm a Ford guy so I'm going to buy it".
Comments
New CR shows Dodge Dart as worse-than-average reliability? Last month it was "much better than average". They must be updating their 'sampling' monthly, or it's another editing goof of some sort.
I like it, mechanically it has been flawless, no electronic issues either. Only real quirk in the car is a design flaw - rear deck occasionally creaks and makes noise. The materials used don't play well together. I thought my car had an assembly issue, but I then drove a few other current model year cars, and heard the same thing. I suspect many people don't notice. But overall, I am pleased. It's a great road trip car, and I think it is good looking. I won't be buying it at the end of the lease though, residuals are too high, and I am not madly in love with it (which was kind of the point of leasing, less attachment). It will become a nice low mileage CPO car that someone will be happy to find. I have the old car money earning interest for a purchase, or another lease - haven't decided yet. If I do lease again, it will probably be another subsidized MB, so I will help keep the brand strong in the US market
Well,s there's always the CLA
. I suspect that wouldn't be your choice...
I don't hate it like some (the "real MB" line has come up on MB forums), but it's not my cup of tea - I don't like the melty rear end. It'd have to be an AMG.
What I'd like is a C250 Bluetec 4Matic wagon, but we probably won't be getting that, instead getting more dopey CUVs.
I agree I don't really care for the looks of the CLA, at least in pictures. Have not seen one in person. I do like the current look of the C-series. Haven't yet decided on the new C-series looks that are due to come out.
I've seen about a dozen CLA's over the past couple of months. IMHO, it looks better in pictures.
BTW, not one of the ones I've seen have been driven by younger folks - lots of gray in those cars.
I think the 2015 C looks pretty decent - baby S-class. I don't care for the static tablet style COMAND screen, but it's nice otherwise. It will be a hit, especially if it has the improved tactile interior feel as found in the 2014 S and E.
Regarding youth in CLA, one with expected amenities will still be a good 35K - not what most young people can or want to pay for. It's not the huge downmarket move some make it to be.
Alphabet soup for lunch?
"All told, BMW has 100 different models and versions—about double what it sold two years ago. Porsche, in addition to its dozen Cayenne versions, makes the 911 sports car in 15 different forms, including turbo, convertible and a new Targa with a head-turning automated sunroof.
BMW is looking to set up centralized fleets so shoppers can test-drive them all. The idea: dealers won't have to stock each version."
BMW, Audi, Lexus and Others Are Producing So Many Variations That Dealers Can't Stock Them All (WSJ - registration link).
Looks like you linked to a subscription site Steve. I'd like to read it though if you wouldn't mind paying for me.
If you Google "Luxury Auto Makers Fill Lineups With Dizzying Array of Models" you might be able to read the article.
More models = more sales. Maybe. With BMW and MB being at war (the latter also having more models than ever), it's an amusing arms race of sorts.
Speaking of variants, the E-class might be the closest thing to an old American car. Being offered in a sedan, hardtop coupe, convertible, and wagon, with several engine choices from mileage champions to performance.
Old American car or current US pickup. Regular cab, supercab, King cab, long bed, short bed, six engine choices and after all that you get to pick your rear axle ratio.
Into probably the early '80's, even the cheapest Big Three brands produced a dizzying array of models, bodystyles, options, colors. That is something I absolutely, positively miss about the old days of car buying.
Yeah, but I think that the "dizzying array" of choices also hurt the big 3 when the imports started showing up in big numbers. They built only a few trim levels (DX, LX and EX for Honda, as an example), which simplified the car buying experience - and, eventually, made for more transparent pricing.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and let us know! Post a pic of your new purchase or lease!
MODERATOR
2015 Subaru Outback 3.6R / 2024 Kia Sportage Hybrid SX Prestige
I'm sure all those options also raised production costs for the D3. They did not build cars very efficiently.
True but with new manufacturing methods, the cost is much less than in previous times.
Though, I cared about my shopping experience more than how that made it more expensive for the manufacturers.
If you weren't there to order a car, you can't imagine how many more choices there were than now...in passenger cars, anyway.
But you know, many of those combinations went begging. The reason some 70s and 80s cars are very rare is because nobody ordered them.
Indeed. I have no data to support it, but I suspect the E is MBs highest margin car - and it is made in a dizzying array of configurations for the global market, much more differentiated than any pickup IMO. There's no reason to be forced into 3 trim levels and 4 color choices like some makers think it should be.
Two oddballs that were in our family: my Dad's '73 Nova coupe, six, no PS or PB, three-speed on the floor, bench seat, Rally Wheels, whitewalls, and Exterior Decor Group (bunch of outside moldings). And my first new car, '81 Monte Carlo, optional V8, posi, two-tone paint, intermittent wipers, FM radio, and no air. Both cars were in dealer inventories.
AC and PS/PB weren't as common then as today. Also, dealers often kept a few option-lite cars in inventory so that they could use them as bait and switch in print ads.
Back then, you never...and I mean NEVER...saw two identical cars sitting in dealer's inventory. Now I see them sitting right next to each other, and the window sticker verifies the 'identical' part.
Chevrolet Spark top and only of minicars to get acceptable rating.
The Chevy Spark bucked the trend with an acceptable overall rating, along with good marks in the IIHS's four other crashworthiness evaluations. (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety)
Chevrolet Spark: Acceptable
Mazda2: Marginal
Kia Rio: Marginal
Toyota Yaris: Marginal
2014 Ford Fiesta (built after August 2013): Marginal
2014 Mitsubishi Mirage: Poor
Nissan Versa sedan: Poor
Toyota Prius c: Poor
Hyundai Accent: Poor
Fiat 500: Poor
Honda Fit: Poor
From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140122/AUTO01/301220027#ixzz2r853dLnX
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I hate the Spark (and others of that ilk), but this is pretty good news.
I don't think it's good news that so many vehicles on the road now can't pass this test. I'm sure car manufacturers will be working overtime to fix this situation. Honda claims the 2015 Fit will pass. I'm sure others will do likewise.
'24 Chevy Blazer EV 2LT
Well, the insurance group did move the goalposts so it's not unexpected that fewer vehicles will pass. There's some concern that the automakers just build for the tests too.
...and they moved them more than just a little!
It's kind of like schools teaching to pass standardized tests (which also get changed on a regular basis).
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Heck, I think if the feds backed out of it we'd be better off. Standardized tests don't reflect creativity or critical thinking. I think all the gov intervention has done is led to more wasted time with mandated teacher meetings and training, so less classroom time end up available to the students with all of these early dismissals so the teachers can attend meetings...and test scores aren't moving up much, well hello - schools are being bureaucratized.
Honda has promised that the 2015 Fit will meet or exceed all crash test standards. You know, there ARE small cars that do very well in crash-testing. They aren't all "death traps".
To compare standardized testing to improved crash ratings is really odd. We are talking about life-saving changes that will hopefully reduce our appalling crash death totals. Yes. Move those goalposts and make safer cars.
'24 Chevy Blazer EV 2LT
For all of the minicars, even the Spark, they are pretty bad. It's basic physics.
wasn't comparing the importance. Just commenting on the point that manufacturers are designing to pass a specific artificial test, not create an overall safe package. from that perspective, they are similar concepts.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I respectfully disagree. Every time IIHS moves the goal, they are building upon previous tests raising overall safety with every new test. This new small overlap test doesn't replace the offset test - it supplements it. Vehicle makers now have to pass both tests.
BTW, these new tests aren't sprung on the manufacturers. I reached out to the IIHS when the small overlap test was first done last year and so many cars failed. Their reply was that the auto makers get about 18 months notice of the new tests and they realize that many cars will fail as the auto makers won't modify an existing car to pass the test. But it gets them to strive to pass the test with the next version of the car.
The criticism is that you can't test for every scenario and it's the insurance industry pushing this set of tests, not the NHTSA. So naturally people wonder if the insurance companies are trying to safeguard people and save on medical costs or if the unspoken emphasis is on saving on sheet metal repair costs.
That's true - you can't test for every scenario. But the IIHS has the most data as to how accidents happened so they are the ones that know best how to test.
As for safety vs repair costs, IMHO it is about safety. AFAIK, the IIHS has never released results on high speed tests based on repair costs - it's always about safety. After looking at the high speed tests, I can't see how they would score based on repair costs - those are totaled.
Now they aren't being altruistic - they push for safer cars to reduce the possibility of injury or death. Those outcomes cost them much more than the repair cost.
So true! Teaching to the test is now SOP in many schools, with the negative effects you so aptly summarized. Class time and critical thinking skills suffer as a result.
There goes the resale value on my 2013 Fiat 500! would I have bought it last year if I had had prior knowledge of these test results? I'm not sure, but maybe, probably. It'll be interesting to see whether the next redesign fares better, and, if so, whether it's "marginal" or "acceptable."
I'm very pleased with my 500, but since frontal crashes are, to a great extent, within the driver's control, the test result serves as an incentive to drive more carefully...and to stay awake at the wheel.
My guess is that there are a lot more minor fender benders than injury accidents. Then again, if you build to protect occupants, that would mean more sheet metal to crumple.
@hpmctorque, my Quest came in less than stellar (3 stars iirc) on crash testing six months after we got it. After looking at the test photos, I figure my left leg will be toast in a frontal collision. That's the problem with getting a new model I guess. At least resale wasn't a concern going in.
But in all the other tests, the 500 scores "Acceptable" - the highest score possible.
Again, it's a case of the goal being moved. When the 500 was designed, it was done so with the existing tests. I'm sure the next 500 will score high marks on the tests.
Another reason there were so many options, in the 1970's at least, is because of California's stricter emissions requirements that sometimes caused the manufacturers to offer some engines only in CA and high altitude areas, and other engines in the remaining areas.
For instance, my '76 LeMans came with the choice of 6-cyl (A Chevy 250) or FIVE different V-8 options. They were the Olds 260, Pontiac 350-2bbl, Pontiac 350-4bbl, 400-4bbl, and 455-4bbl. The 350-4bbl, which my car has, was a CA/high altitude engine, as the 2-bbl version couldn't meet the stricter CA standards.
Also, in those days, you pretty much had the choice of fuel economy or performance, but rarely both at once. Plus, a car had to be more of a jack of all trades in those days, able to be a solo commuter car, something to haul a family of six around, perhaps even tow a trailer on occasion. Plus station wagon variants if you tended to haul a lot of cargo/passengers. So that predicated a wider choice of engines. So, all of that pretty much required a wider choice of engines.
Nowadays though, most people buy a truck or big SUV if they need to tow, and a minivan, crossover, or again, big SUV, if they need to haul a big clan around or cargo around. And, since they can get passable performance even out of the base engines, and respectable fuel economy out of the larger engines, they can usually get by with just 2-3 engine choices for a car these days.
It looks like the automakers are continuing to weed out unnecessary engines, as well, for cars and trucks. For instance, in 2012 when I bought my Ram, the engine choices were a 3.7 SOHC V-6, a 4.7 SOHC V-8, or the 5.7 Hemi. They were all EPA-rated the same...14 city/20 highway. Well, I could understand offering the V-6 for entry level models. But, you could get the Hemi so cheap that it made the 4.7 seem redundant.
Well, for 2013 they started using the 3.6 DOHC for their V-6, and it was a lot more powerful than the old 3.7. It made the 4.7 seem even more unnecessary. So, for 2014, according to the EPA's website at least, it looks like the 4.7 has been dropped, leaving just the 3.6, rated at 17/25, and the Hemi, rated at 14/20 with a 6-speed or 15/22 with an 8-speed.
" in those days, you pretty much had the choice of fuel economy or performance, but rarely both at once."
You're right, in terms of economy and performance for the time. In reality, though, by today's standards you got neither economy nor performance after 1971 through the '70s, or even by the standards of the '60s.
Toyota Beats GM, VW in 2013 as 3% Growth Planned in 2014
Toyota Motor Corp. (7203) outsold General Motors Co. (GM) and Volkswagen AG (VOW) to lead the global auto industry for the second straight year and forecast more than 10 million in sales for 2014 on rising demand in the U.S. and China.
It's not just physics, it's cost. Race cars are small and light and very safe.
Let's say cost and weight. Manufacturers can't sell small cars with the tech, weight, and tiny roll cage that a race car has. Then there are all sorts of standards and requirements that constrict many design elements.
Any thoughts regarding the effect these new safety ratings will have on sales of the models rated "poor?" My guess is that'll it'll help sales of the Chevy Spark, which is otherwise quite mediocre, but I don't have any historical example that might shed light on how much damage this latest test may have on the sub-marginal performers.
Ford owns Automotive Loyalty Awards, Audi and Subaru are king of conquests
Customers are a commodity in the automotive industry, and like any other commodity, automakers trade them back and forth. Only nobody wants to give up their customers – just to keep the ones they have and try to attract others.
That's what the Polk Automotive Loyalty Awards are all about. Every year the industry research body names the automakers, brands and models that manage to keep their customers coming back for more – and attract buyers to switch from other makes. Ford usually does pretty well, but this year it rose above even its own track record.
Not only did Dearborn win the Overall Loyalty to Manufacturer award, but also the Overall Loyalty to Make. Ford also took the African American category, and the F-150 was named the top full-size half-ton pickup in customer loyalty. Ford COO Mark Fields (pictured above) accepted the awards and gave the keynote address at the awards ceremony.
GM Leads Not!
http://www.autoblog.com/2014/01/23/ford-polk-automotive-loyalty-awards-audi-subaru-conquests-study/#continued
I doubt it. It's a new test and it will take time for manufacturers to adapt. I wouldn't consider a Spark over a Honda Fit. It might make some folks wait a year or so before purchase though if they can.
'24 Chevy Blazer EV 2LT
Perception always lags reality, sadly. I do think Ford owners tend to be proud of themselves, that Ford didn't take any bailout money. And there's nothing wrong with that.
I think crash test results are important in a buying decision IF the dealer touts them as a selling point, but I don't think the average car buyer keeps this information in his head for very long prior to shopping for a car.
And I doubt 1 Ford owner in 1000 remembers, or cares about, who took what bailout. People may go into the showroom with various prejudices, but they usually end up buying the car they like. Price, styling and the dealer experiences have to support the sense of "loyalty" or else loyalty goes out the window.
How many people say "Well, I know this car is inferior to all the others, and it costs more, and I hate the dealership, but you know, I'm a Ford guy so I'm going to buy it".