Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Low End Sedans (under $16k)



  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    Hmmn. Except, the Accent was tested with its standard side airbags and curtains and managed only 4/3 stars for driver and rear passenger (respectively) in the NCAP, whereas many cars you mentioned above were tested WITHOUT that equipment, including the volume selling Altima and Camry. So, for example, the Camry's score of 4/3 was achieved without the added supplemental restraint system... with potential improvement. Accent? What you see is what you get, no potential improvement.

    Also, you should disclaim that although your cross weight class comparison is VALID for the side impact tests of the IIHS and NHSTA, comparisons across weight classes in FRONTAL impacts ARE NOT DIRECTLY comparable. A 5 star frontal performance of the Accent is not necessarily equal to a 5 start frontal performance of the Camry due to the weight discrepancy, though they are both top notch scores within their respective classes.

  • germancarfan1germancarfan1 Posts: 221
    One can imagine what the Accent would have scored without side airbags...1 star?
    If it were me, i'd take a car with a strong structure over a car with a flimsy, weaker structure like the Accent bolstered only by some bags of air.

    Ever press your hand against the side of the new feels like tin foil. Compare that with the feeling you get from the new Honda Fit (just drove it, magnificant!). I'd glady pay $1-1.5K more for that safe feeling.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,906
    Since the NHTSA side tests don't incorporate head injury in their "star" scoring, and the side curtains serve mainly to keep the passenger's head from going out the window or striking something, it's possible the Accent would have received 3 stars even w/o the side curtains.

    Did your test of the Accent include taking off the door's outer panel to look at the crash protection inside? The outer skin of the door doesn't provide much protection in crashes. The steel beams inside the doors and the "safety cage" of the car frame does that.

    I am not sure why you think the structure of the Accent is "flimsy" and "weak" when it achieved better NHTSA side impact star scores than many larger, heavier cars, and its frontal impact star scores are as good as any car in its weight class.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    Speculation of the Accent's scores without Side Curtains is MOOT. They're not sold this way, so who cares. The point is, backy, that for many of the cars you mention, its possible for those vehicles to be sold achieving a higher side impact rating. Hyundai should be lauded for making that extra safety equipment standard, however, it simply hasn't produced impressive results in this test. The disappointment is compounded by the fact that the outgoing Accent scored BETTER in this test than its replacement.

    Hopefully the IIHS tests will give us some better information on structural integrity. I would certainly agreee that anecdotal evidence based on "touching" a door panel and extrapolating that into crashworthiness borders on the absurd.

  • germancarfan1germancarfan1 Posts: 221
    "Did your test of the Accent include taking off the door's outer panel to look at the crash protection inside?"

    I didn't need to. The doors felt like they weighed half as much as what the Honda Fit's doors weighed. It wasn't a good sign that when I closed the door in my test drive, it sounded similar to my friend's Yugo back in the day ;) Either way, I ran away shuddering at the thought of a SUV broadsiding me during the test drive.

    Let me ask you a question: why do you continually try to support and defend a car that has and is sub-par? Is it because of such a strong brand loyalty to Hyundai that you refuse to ackknowledge its short comings? Can Hyundai do no wrong? I own an Elantra, and while its a decent car, I have no problem identifying its major problems. And I have no problem calling the Accent for what it is, a poorly designed POS.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,906
    :sick: :sick: :sick:

    I don't need to disclaim anything since you stepped right up and did it for me. Thanks.

    As for the Accent managing "only" 4 stars for frontal side impact with side bags, note that is as good or better than 2006 MY cars tested with SABs such as:

    Acura RSX and TL
    BMW Z4
    Buick Lucerne
    Cadillac CTS and DTS
    Chevy Aveo
    Ford Taurus
    Honda Accord and Civic
    Hyundai Tiburon
    Jaguar S-Type and X-Type
    Kia Optima, Rio, and Spectra
    Lincoln LS
    Mazda RX-8
    Mini Cooper
    Nissan Maxima
    Saab 9-2X
    Subaru Impreza
    Suzuki Verona
    VW Golf (2 dr.)
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,906
    I have no specific brand loyalty. (Maybe if I did have one, my handle would be something like "hyundaicarfan1"). I've owned lots of brands. The Fit is at the top of my list right now for my next new car. But I don't consider the Accent to be a poorly designed POS, so when someone else says it is, I will disagree. I have examined the Accent closely on at least four occasions and have taken it on a long test drive. To me, the Accent seems like a solid, quiet, quality little car. I've read many reviews on the Accent and I haven't seen one yet that disagrees with my opinion. You don't agree, and that's fine. But I will call 'em as I see 'em.

    If you think that I believe Hyundai can do no wrong, you haven't been around Town Hall very long.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    Ahh, details. You misquote me. I stated in post 3556 "only 4/3 stars for driver and rear passenger". I never explictly stated ONLY 4 stars for driver, I took issue with the performance of both tested passengers, as I am aware that many vehicles have scored 4/4, which isnt bad at all. 3 stars... gives pause for concern.

    Go back over your list and whittle it down to vehicles, with side protection that only mangaged 4/3. Suddenly, your list shrinks. Significantly.

    And since the side impact scores are directly comparable across weight classes, I'll also go as far to say that the Accent's disappointing performance is not only worse that its predecessor's, is also among the very worst of ALL vehicles tested with supplemental side airbags, whether optional or standard.

  • kagedudekagedude Posts: 407
    I'm suprised by your friends's car. The 2002 Accent received some of the lowest scores from any car in recent years.

    Don't be surprised. Its a real world scenario. Maybe the NHTSA tests are more harsh and stringent. All I care about is that all the passengers got out unscathed and that little POS did its job... even with the right rear door open before impact. :D
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,906
    I am kind of surprised you are so concerned about the NHTSA scores. I got the impression that you didn't put much stake in them, based on earlier posts, and you favor the IIHS tests because they include head injury in their scores and the NHTSA does not. For example, the Accent got only 3 stars on the NHTSA rear side impact test, while the Maxima got 4 stars, but the head injury score on the Maxima was almost twice that of the Accent. Am I incorrect on your opinion there? Do you feel the NHTSA crash tests are valuable now?

    I agree a 3 on a side impact test is not good. But there is reason for hope. Note that some of the cars that have good IIHS crash test results didn't do much better than the Accent on the NHTSA side impact crash tests. For example, the Subaru Impreza wagon and Saab 9-2X (really the same car) are IIHS "Gold" picks and got a top score on the side impact crash test despite the 4/4 result in the NHTSA testing. Their NHTSA head injury scores were higher than those on the Accent on the rear crash, 613 to 439. So I would like to see the IIHS tests on the Accent before I strike it off my "potentials" list.

    Anyway, I think you are incorrect that the Accent's NHTSA performance is worse than its predecessor's. The 2005 Accent 4-door got 4/4/5/4. The 2006 got 5/5/4/3. That looks like a tie to me, with the '05 doing one star better in each side test and the '06 doing one star better on the two frontal tests.
  • joe97joe97 Posts: 2,248
    Let's hold on a sec and wait for all tests are done and then compare. Keep in mind rear seat (per recent discussions) tests for the subcompact class are still TBD for other subcompact such as Yaris, Fit, and Versa. In my opinion, Accent's 5/5/4/3 score is adequate.

    germancarfan1, as mentioned earlier, it's a moot point to speculate Accent's rear seat rating without SAB - NHTSA and IIHS tests cars with standard equipment. If you want poor rating, the upcoming 2007 Aveo has been rated by the Europeans @ 1 1/2 star.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    I am not concerned about the NHTSA scores, you're right, I place much more value on the IIHS tests.

    I just feel you are misrepresenting the facts, which is why I bring up points like disclaiming the difference between comparing vehicles of different weight classes in frontal and side impacts; as stated with frontal you can't directly do so, but in side impacts you can. Also, I felt it important note that many vehicles that achieved similar ratings to the Accent were tested WITHOUT side airbags, so the "Star" ratings for those could potentially improve.

    It's not that I'm not hopeful regarding the Accent's side impact test by the IIHS, whenever that occurs. But a 4/3 isn't a great baseline; you make the comparison between the Impreza and 9-2X... scores of both 613 and 439 are easily survivable, clearly the questions for the Accent is how thoracic injury will be mitigated, which is after all, why the Accent received a 3 since, as noted, the Accent did well in HIC for the rear passenger. That said, Hyundai has yet to field an entry that IIHS rates as "Good" in the side impact.

    Again, please consider the context of my statements. The new Accent's NHTSA SIDE IMPACT, as MEASURED BY NHTSA is worse than it's predecessors. This is not arguable; both driver and rear passenger fell by an entire star. I did not make the statement "worse than predecessor's" in relation to the frontal test, because- hello- its not true.

  • iluvmysephia1iluvmysephia1 Manson, WAPosts: 6,915
    and nitpicking tiny crash-test results basically puts one in a position to be a crash-test nerd in which the dreaded accident may never occur. If one does, the angle might be such that a "bad" accident in which injuries might occur may not ever happen. Too many hairs split here and too little interest in the desired "fear" results. If agonizing over what might happen is tantalizing or brain-engaging, well, have at it.

    The customers lost from these crash test results are negligable, IMO, but one can agonize all they want to, I spose.

    Drive responsibly. :)

    2011 Kia Soul Sport 5-speed

  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,906
    Misrepresenting facts and fogetting to mention facts are very different things. I already did the mea culpa on forgetting to mention in my post that frontal crashes (which aren't the main subject of this thread anyway) aren't directly comparable outside of weight class. (I have mentioned that before on other posts on the subject of crash tests.) If you want to keep bringing my mistake up because it makes you feel good, be my guest.

    It would help if you are clear in your statements, because you didn't differentiate between frontal and side crashes when you said the Accent was worse than its predecessor. Since you were discussing both frontal and side tests, I thought you meant worse overall.

    Anyway, I am not the only one who makes mistakes so maybe you would like to cut others who do some slack. Hyundai does have an entry that the IIHS rates "Good" in side impact. In fact, it rates "Good" in all three crash categories and is an IIHS "Gold" (best) pick. I won't beat you up over this mistake, but if you want to go check out the IIHS web site to find out which Hyundai this is and learn more about its excellent IIHS results, go right ahead.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    Backy, you asked if my position on the NHSTA tests had changed, and I stated that I hadnt. I did not assail you personally, and I even preceded my statements by the words "I feel.." which clearly indicates an opinion and not a personal condemnation.

    "It would help if you are clear in your statements, because you didn't differentiate between frontal and side crashes when you said the Accent was worse than its predecessor. Since you were discussing both frontal and side tests, I thought you meant worse overall."

    Actually, its pretty clear given the CONTEXT of the paragraph in which the statement appeared:

    "And since the side impact scores are directly comparable across weight classes, I'll also go as far to say that the Accent's disappointing performance is not only worse that its predecessor's, is also among the very worst of ALL vehicles tested with supplemental side airbags, whether optional or standard."

    You are indeed correct, and I apologize for my mistake. The (not yet on dealer lots) Hyundai Entourage does receive top rating from the IIHS based on the tests of the Kia Sedona. Neither of those is a sedan, however, and Hyundai (under the Hyundai or Kia label) has not yet offered a sedan that achieves a 'Good' rating in the side impact, though the potential remains for the Azera and Accent (Better, yes?).

  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    "The customers lost from these crash test results are negligable, IMO, but one can agonize all they want to, I spose."

    I don't know if I agree with that. Hyundai certainly advertises its impressive standard safety equipment as a strong competitive advantage, so the company must see some important marginal benefit of being able to advertise good test results.

  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,906
    The Entourage is going home to buyers right now, according to the chatter in the Entourage discussion. So I guess that means it is on dealer lots--unless buyers are taking them right off the trucks. ;)

    It's not the words but the repetitious beating on a mistake that was made and corrected that I don't think is really necessary--do you?

    You didn't specify sedans before, but if you want to narrow it down now, fine. The only current Hyundai sedans that has been tested by the IIHS for side impact are the Sonata (Acceptable) and the six-year-old Elantra, which is being replaced with an all-new design in a few months. So there is a lot of potential here, with the Accent, Azera, Elantra, and the other recent all-new Hyundai designs like the Entourage, Tucson, and Santa Fe.

    Overall the low-end sedan class is full of "potential." Only one low-end sedan has received a "Good" score on the IIHS side impact test--the barely-low-end Civic (in stripped DX trim).
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,906
    Update: there were five Entourages on the lot of my local dealer when I stopped by last night. One had a side door open so I poked around inside.

    There were also several new Accents there. One with manual locks had a rear door unlocked, so I poked around inside that car for awhile to make sure my earlier impressions about its comfort and solidity were not imagined. They weren't. Exceptionally comfortable driver's seat, with the dual-knob height adjuster and fold-down armrest. Smooth controls--the fan control actually felt smoother to me than that on the Sonata GLS V6 (one of those had a door open too). I slammed the doors and they closed with a solid "thunk"--nothing tinny in the sound to my ears. I noticed the doors have triple seals, which I think all Hyundais do (not sure about that--I know my Elantra has them). The sheet metal on the doors felt about as thick as any other car I've rapped on lately. Not like a Mercedes, but this is a $13k car.

    Bottom line is that I like how the Accent looks, sits, and drives. It doesn't handle like a Fit, but it's smoother and quieter on the road and has a much more comfortable driving position for me, and I think has a nicer interior (although the Fit's gauges are really sharp). So I hope the Accent receives decent scores from the IIHS so I can still consider it.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    Neat post review. The Accent disappoints in a few areas for me- mainly power/acceleration an (in)efficiency. 11.8 seconds to 60 as tested by isn't really excusable given the mediocre for the class fuel efficiency. I also disagree about the Fit's interior- its much more attractive and the materials are near the top of the class, in my eyes.

    Can the IIHS PLEASE TEST SOMETHING SOON? It's been awhile since they've done a big round of side impacts....
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,906
    I'm not planning on any road races. When I drove the Accent AT it had plenty of oomph for me for around-town driving.

    The Fit has some very nice interior details, including the gauges, steering wheel, and shift knob. The hard plastic surfaces are nice looking. But overall I prefer the feel and features of the Accent's interior. I am impressed by all the little touches Hyundai puts into their low-end car, things like fold-down armrests front and rear, dual lighted vanity mirrors, dual seatback map pockets, 8 cupholders, damped grab handles, dual power outlets, durable and (IMO) nice-looking tweed upholstery, decent carpeting, comfy dead pedal, smooth controls (including electronic recirc button), 6-speaker stereo, padded cloth door panels, remote control fuel door, and of course the 8-way adjustable driver's seat. The quietness of the interior is outstanding for such an inexpensive car also--it was the quietest small car in C/D's recent 7-way comparo and was as quiet at 70 mph as the Accord EX V6. All this makes me feel like I am not driving an econobox.

    The IIHS is pretty SLOOOOW sometimes, isn't it? The fact that automakers can now run some tests on their own doesn't seem to be accelerating the reporting process much. But then, there are some cars that the automakers can't test themselves--e.g. models that didn't do well in previous frontal impacts. It appears the Accent falls into this category, or I would have expected a result for at least the frontal test by now.
  • johnnyvjjohnnyvj Posts: 112
    I also disagree about the Fit's interior- its much more attractive and the materials are near the top of the class, in my eyes.

    I agree with you. Sitting in a Fit on the dealer lot, I was very impressed and how nice and even 'Acura-like' the Fit's interior was.

    Pretty much the new benchmark for econocar interiors, I'd say. I sure haven't seen anything nicer in the class... maybe the Civic? Though that car is starting to be priced above econocar. :shades:
  • tsgeiseltsgeisel Posts: 352
    The IIHS is waiting to coordinate with NBC for a Dateline special on crash safety. So I wouldn't expect updated results until the new tv season starts, and they want to start up with an, ahem, bang.

    Ok...I'm only guessing on this. But the IIHS is not a government agency. They have no mandate to release their information in a timely fashion.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,906
    Have you seen the Versa's interior? Very plush for an econocar.
  • crimsonacrimsona Posts: 153
    Quick comparison:
    Car - Frontal driver/Frontal Passenger/Side Front/Side Rear
    Honda Fit - 5/5/5/3
    Hyundai Accent - 5/5/5/3
    Honda Civic Sedan - 5/5/4/5
    Scion xA - 4/4/4/4
    Scion xB - 4/4/3/4
    Toyota Yaris - Unrated
    Toyota Corolla - 5/5/4/4
    Toyota Matrix - 5/5/3/4
    Toyota 04 Echo 4/4/3/4
    Chevy Aveo - 5/5/4/4
    Mazda3 Sedan - 4/4/3/3
    Kia Rio - 4/5/3/3
    Dodge Caliber - 5/5/NA/NA

    The Fit's side tests just came out. Not terrible, but not the best either. Interestingly, exactly the same as the Accent. The Civic definately is ahead of its class though.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,906
    You misread the test scores--the Accent got 5/5/4/3. Still it is interesting that the Fit got a 3 in the side rear impact also.

    The Civic is actually a class above cars like the Fit and Accent in size and weight.
  • randydriverrandydriver Posts: 262
    The civic is a larger car than all the others, why is it listed?
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    Well, actually the Caliber isnt really in the same weight class as a Fit or a Yaris... it weighs nearly 3000lbs!!

  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    The thing I dont get about NHTSA tests is why there's so much varience from year to year as well as model to model. Does it make sense that the Accent scores better on front and side impact than the Rio? I don't know. With the last generation Camry, I recall.. there was wide varience in the side impact test performance. In '02 rear passenger was 5 stars, but by '05 it was 3 stars. Why? I'm fairly certain Toyota didnt change the door structure in a way it felt would negatively affect crashworthiness... in fact, I'm not aware of any changes to the rear door structure at all.

    The Fit's 3 star rear rating (obviously thoracic only) is unexpected and a bit disappointing, but then, with the NHTSA tests, I guess nothing should surpise.

    As backy has already pointed out, a vehicle needn't be Quad 5 star rated vehicle to excel in the IIHS offset frontal and side impacts. Time will tell...

    In addressal of a previous post, there have been several rounds of crash testing released in the summer- check out the former press releases- so I'm not quite sure that NBC would be the prohibitive factor.

  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,906
    As for the Accent and Rio (which are low-end sedans), they actually are different cars (e.g. front ends are different, rears are different, sides are different) on the same platform. So it is possible that there are enough differences in the body structure to account for the NHTSA test differences. Similar to the test results for the Elantra and Spectra--same platform, but different NHTSA results: 5/4/5/4 for the Elantra, and 4/4/4/3 for the newer Spectra (and note the Spectra has 6 airbags and the Elantra 4).
  • randydriverrandydriver Posts: 262
    True, I am so trained to look for small cars I missed it.
Sign In or Register to comment.