By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
The outcome is determined by many other factors besides Head Injury, and is precisely the reason why designs like the Hyundai Elantra- which received a "Good" for head injury, still fail the test. You are right in that the structure, per se, does nothing for the brain- only the curtains do, which is why cars without side inflatable protection cant pass this test. SUVs may [pass], as the non-airbagged CRV got a "Marginal", for example.
As noted, the test is done at 31 MPH. NOT 40+. And previous tests have shown that MANY vehicles can pass this test, easily... with side curtain airbags. Among the lower cost ones- Chevy Malibu, Toyota Camry, and ALL new (2005) Accords. The Chevy Cobalt and Toyota Corolla, rated acceptable, also qualify.
Not for anything, but the dummies used by the IIHS are sophisticated. I understand your argument about internal head trauma, but seriously, for there to be internal head trauma, there must be a force acting on the skull externally. The lower that external force, the lower the likelihood of internal trauma. I dont know about you, but I've never witnessed or heard about anyone getting a concussion from sitting and talking on the phone, for example. Well designed SACs largely mitigate the brutality of the impact.
And to your point, why bother crash testing at all? Its not as if frontal tests can measure what you are talking about if side impacts cant. GET REAL!!
Aside-I definitely believe that the average speed of 2 vehicle crashes is 20MPH, as most crashes are fender benders in which airbags dont even inflate. However, it is the more severe crashes that are obviously more deadly.
~alpha
ever play football? most concussions come regardless of the helmets or soft grassy ground, and without a direct hit to the head.
Toward the end of the year, I'll be able to confirm the above. Usually 6 months prior to something being released, the orders start being made. And now since the supplier parks are onsite, such switches can be made in much less time.
Hyundai Sonata, Kia Optima, Saturn Ion, Suzuki Forenza, and Kia Spectra WITH side airbags got a poor rating. I certainly would consider this when making a vehicle choice. If a car offers side air bags they should test it with them. Should test with and without them, if they are optional.
IIHS description of side impact test states:
"The test configuration resulting from this research is a 31 mph (50 km/h) perpendicular impact into the driver side of a passenger vehicle. The moving deformable barrier that strikes the test vehicle weighs 3,300 pounds..."
Regarding the other side impact tests, the NHTSA says:
"The side crash test represents an intersection-type collision with a 3,015 pound barrier moving at 38.5 mph into a standing vehicle. The moving barrier is covered with material that has "give" to replicate the front of a vehicle."
According to IIHS: "These federal tests don't assess the risks of head injury from impacts with vehicles like SUVs and pickups." (Which is what the IIHS test is designed to simulate).
Sort of getting a CVT along with AWD, combo.
But back to the Fusion, ant would be able to answer this. Did they beef up the structure from the 6, as it got a poor structure rating?
In other words, is C1 Focus structurally that different from the current C170 Focus to make a difference in this test? No.
Structurally, does the C1 Focus improve in other areas. Yes. Specially frontal collisions, at the firewall area. Between the rear seat and trunk area for rear impacts.
Yes, the Fusion is substantially improved for side impacts, over the Mazda6. There's quite some rework of the B-pillar, and underbody structural elements, to help with impact forces and divert them elsewhere in the structure.
"The fact is the Fusion and the Five Hundred will fail the test without side airbags..."
Alpha and jasonj734, I don't know how much of a difference there is between the NHTSA crash tests and the IIHS we've been discussing here, but I thought it was worth mentioning that the Five Hundred has already received 5 star ratings for both front and side impacts WITHOUT the optional side airbags in the NHTSA tests.
One test has very little to do with the other. The IIHS crashes are far more severe....yet still do not really reflect reality in a car/SUV crash. As has been pointed out, very few SUVs are actually as light weight as the supposed-SUV used in the tests....
(S)ide
(P)rotection
(A)nd
(C)abin
(E)nhancement
Any speculation on what the difference in price will be between the Fusion and Milan? I'm interested in the Milan and like that it looks slightly more sophisticated, but don't expect that it really should be worth much of an upcharge.
OTOH, you can always look at the mazda 6 wagon.
I too like the looks of the Milan more than the Fusion.
IMO, the Fusion looks a heck of a lot better in person than it does in pictures. The Zephyr looked better close-up too, but I don't care much for the smooth, slab-sided body panels. Without side moldings, the thing's gonna pick up door dents like nobody's business.
http://www.forbes.com/business/global/2005/0314/029.html
The problems are almost identical between Ford and GM.
Yes I know it's a Ford Fusion with slightly different sheetmetal but still ? I like how the Milan looks over the Fusion. I just hope they put a 5 speed manual in the 4 as well as the V6. Personally I think they could be a pair of big time homeruns for Ford if Ford nails the Quality and doesn't have 20-30 recalls on them
5 speed manual will be available only on the 4 cylinder.
The worst would be if they add stuff that costs more, but I personally would actually pay more to not have. Leather for example.
Hmm...a company manufactures cars in the US but is a foreign manufacturer. Kinda like how being born in the US does not make one a native american. :-)
So where is the Fusion/Milan to be assembled...Mexico???
Is this just different companies designing seats to appeal to different people? Do some people find the smaller seats more comfortable? Or is it that some companies choose to put more money into their seats?
The Fords I own and sit in (comfortably) currently are a 1997 Windstar and a 1996 Contour. I did recently sit in a 500 and a Mustang at the auto show and at a dealer, both also had pretty comfortable seats for me. So I am guessing I will find the MIlan/Fusion seats to be comfortable.
Sleeper is a far better way to go. And what's that boring about the Mazda6 or these Ford versions thereof?
If I was you just ask yourself some very serious questions. If your in college your going to be broke as hell and your really really going to get tired of running back and forth to the gas station. Also, your probably going to need a lot of room for your stuff and your friends. So the Mustang wouldn't be the best choice if I was in your position. If I was you, I'd go with the 4 cylinder Ford Fusion, or Milan. They offer more room to fit your life better, fuel economy and they seem like something you could keep long after you graduate from college. Hey the Mustang will be there. If I was going into college knowing what I know now, I don't think the Mustang wouldn't do you very much good. I would go with one of the 2 new sedans Fusion or Milan. If I had to chose one I'd go with the Milan. I just like the styling of the Milan over the Fusion. That's just me
You could also consider the Focus Wagon. More room and more efficient than the cars mentioned, and it handles very well. Right now there is a $2000 rebate and you get a Dell computer (3 gig with a flat panel monitor) if you buy one by the end of the month.
As far as being flashy, that just gets you tickets as mentioned above, plus there is always going to be some joker with Vette or a BMW that their parents bought - so it is hard to be top of the heap. For the most part, any new vehicle is pretty impressive in college.
thats such a myth these days, i cant beleive people still buy it. with a manual transmission, fuel mileage and acceleration are mutually exclusive.
if you drive conservatively enough to get better mileage, you wont be accelerating very fast. if you accelerate faster, your mileage will be horrible.
those are the worst reasons to get a manual transmission. purchase price is less, but resale loss will double what you save upfront.
Acceleration is better with an mt than an at. Also about 10% better.
There are very few exceptions to this (the percentages certainly vary though) and the Focus is certainly not one of then, and I doubt the Fusion will be either.
To say mileage is worse while accelerating is stating the obvious.
I can't believe people buy the myth that automatics have reached parity with manuals.
They are getting closer - the larger the engine and vehicle are the less difference there tends to be.
I drive 4 cyl 96 MTX contour myself. Even that has only a 1.5 mpg mileage difference despite 5 speeds for the MTX vs. only 4 for the ATX. This is a 5% difference.
OTOH...how can a 5-speed manual transmission get better mileage than a 5 or 6-speed automatic? im talking about basic arithmetic here.
case in point:
2005 nissan altima v6
5-speed auto 20C/30H
5-speed manual 20C/29H
6-speed manual 19C/26H
In the real world manuals get far better than EPA numbers and autos just a little better. My manual Integra is EPA 24/28 and I get 32 driving 80 and over 40 if I am going 60.
Consumer Reports has the best mileage tests in the industry, and they recently tested some identical cars with auto tranny and manual. The results were eye opening - it is a good read. I don't have it in front of me, but the mazda 3 they tested in that issue dropped nearly a second in 0-60 (8.6 from 9.5?) and gained about 4 mpg in overal mileage. They measured fuel consumption at 42 mpg going 65 mpg with the manual (it is rated EPA 28/35). The automatic was 4 or 5 mpg worse even though it is only 1 mpg worse on EPA.
The other vehicles they tested had similar results - just don't remember them offhand.
CVT's are getting closer, but in the real world the Civic hnybrid CVT drivers get worse mpg than the manual.
Of course other benefits of a manual are more control, better in the snow (see more control), more fun, fewer people borrowing (or stealing) your car, and you can push start it if your battery dies.
"Remember when Honda increased the mileage on the manaul CRX by like 5 mpg just by putting in an upshift light."
it was 2 MPG. but it only works if you shift when it tells you to, which is always way too early.
"In the real world manuals get far better than EPA numbers and autos just a little better."
which world is that? the matrix? in this world, there are very few vehicles that get EPA numbers for every-day mileage.
"the mazda 3 they tested in that issue dropped nearly a second in 0-60 (8.6 from 9.5?) and gained about 4 mpg in overal mileage."
you think they got 4 MPG better WHILE doing 0-60 in 8.6 secs? not even close.
"benefits of a manual are more control, better in the snow (see more control), more fun, fewer people borrowing (or stealing) your car, and you can push start it if your battery dies."
more fun is subjective. 99% of my driving is from light-to-light. not too fun after i finish a 12 hour work day.
"fewer people borrowing (or stealing) your car"
yeah...they dont want it either...see: resale value.
"you can push start it if your battery dies."
so feel free to leave the dome light on all night, right?
I think the weather argument is becoming irrelevant anyway, as more and more cars have traction control, stability control, all wheel drive, etc.
As for the future, ‘gearless’ CVTs and computer-controlled Sequential Manuals (like BMW and Audi have) are the way of the future. Most people (myself included) have too tedious of a daily drive to make shifting-it-yourself fun.
A side note: some of us drive sticks for reasons other than fuel economy or reduced purchase price. Personally, I would pay extra for a manual transmission over an automatic, with or without a mileage gain.
IMO, life with an automatic is just plain boring. It's like the difference of being outside and batting a volleyball around on a sunny day or staying indoors and playing canasta. Whatever floats your boat...