Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

IIHS Picks Safest Vehicles

2

Comments

  • 210delray210delray Member Posts: 4,721
    Well said. Crash tests are designed to replicate the most common types of injury-producing crashes in the real world. You don't try to conduct tests of freaky situations, since they account for very small proportions of deaths and injuries.

    IIHS has added two more Top Safety Picks (silver): Lexus IS 250/350 and BMW 3 series 4-door.

    http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr030506.html
  • prosaprosa Member Posts: 280
    A couple of disturbing items in the new IIHS tests. The Fusion/Milan failed the side-impact test, earning a pathetic "poor" rating. While it's true that the test vehicle had no side airbags, which will become standard in MY2007, we're left with the question of why they're not standard now, especially in light of the fact that the Fusion/Milan was designed after side-impact testing and side airbags were commonplace.
    The G35 was an underachiever in the side-impact test, getting an "acceptable" rating but with a "poor" in one of the injury-measurement subcategories. It also got only a "marginal" assessment for the rigidity of its safety cage. One of the post-test pictures shows a disturbing amount of intrusion at the base of the B pillar. Given the G35's price level, it should have done far better.
  • black_tulipblack_tulip Member Posts: 435
    You can have your air bags and crumple zones. Give me the brakes for panic stops, the handling to swerve recklessly and the power to get out of the way.

    Except that you may not be as agile during a crisis as you think you will be, in which case these passive devices may mean the difference between life and death.

    Moreover, the spectacular crash examples you have cited are more of an exception than the rule. I am not sure what the point is there.
  • ubbermotorubbermotor Member Posts: 307
    The point is simple.

    1. A car may get 5 stars in IIHS then do poorly poorly in NHTSA crash tests. The test are conducted differntly and therefor get different results.

    2. Using a crash rating as a basis, assumes that (a.) there is a good chance you'll be in an accident, and (b.) that the accedint will be the "common" type (full frontal, offset frontal, side impact, roll-over) that your car tested well at (and I'm sure you know specifically), and (c.) that its going to have a noticable impact on how you servive.

    3. Find someone you know that been in a major crash, as driver or passenger, and ask them how close their accedent was to the control invironment of a carsh test.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    My cattle truck accident was far worst than the controled enviroment of a NHTSA accident. Luckily I was able to walk away like a crash test dummy. ;)

    Rocky
  • cpsdarrencpsdarren Member Posts: 265
    "1. A car may get 5 stars in IIHS then do poorly poorly in NHTSA crash tests. The test are conducted differntly and therefor get different results."

    True. Ideally, you'd want a vehicle that does well in all these tests. That will be the one that is designed to protect best in the widest range of crashes.

    "2. Using a crash rating as a basis, assumes that (a.) there is a good chance you'll be in an accident, and (b.) that the accedint will be the "common" type (full frontal, offset frontal, side impact, roll-over) that your car tested well at (and I'm sure you know specifically), and (c.) that its going to have a noticable impact on how you servive."

    The crash tests are not done in a vacuum. Both the IIHS and NHTSA have done correlations that show significant reductions in fatalities that track improvements in crash test results.

    Crash avoidance is a very important safety factor, too. So, why not pick a vehicle with stability control, good handling and braking characteristics that also gets top crash scores? Personally, I wouldn't rely on crash avoidance to escape all crashes. Most people think they're great drivers, yet motor vehicle crashes remain the #1 killer in age groups through 35 years old:-( . All it takes is that bad driver on the cellphone in the oncoming monster SUV to swerve over at the last second...

    "3. Find someone you know that been in a major crash, as driver or passenger, and ask them how close their accedent was to the control invironment of a carsh test."

    "Someone you know" is not a good reference for this information. The proper person to ask would be an experienced crash reconstructionist. You can also find information on the NHTSA and IIHS websites about why they chose their crash testing methods based on the most common types of crashes in the real world.

    Playing devil's advocate, I wouldn't assume that a vehicle that did poorly in crash tests that simulate the most common types of crashes would do any better in less common types of impacts.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060405/AUTO01/604050373/- 1148

    Rocky
  • ubbermotorubbermotor Member Posts: 307
    "Someone you know" is not a good reference for this information. The proper person to ask would be an experienced crash reconstructionist.

    Perhaps, but once your in an accident the experts opinion is meaningless if you don’t walk away. You show me a vehicle so safe that nobody has died in it. And on the opposite side of that coin, there 100's of thousands of people that have walked away from major accidents in cars that would fail every moderm crash test.

    Are your odds better in a higher rated car? Of course. In the end, will it make a difference? Lets hope we never find out.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Ubbermotor,

    What is the safest rated car in the world...Does anyone know the answer ?

    Rocky
  • volvos80drivervolvos80driver Member Posts: 7
    Realizing you may have already found the answer to your question 2, check out the IIHS report on vehicle death reates by make/model per million registered vehicle miles. This is a great resource if you want real-world death rate data on which to base your vehicle decisions - and seems to be what you are looking for. The report is titled "Status Report, Vol. 40, No. 3 - Driver death rates" and a pdf can be pulled up by searching the IIHS site using key words "death rates". This link may also work: http://www.iihs.org/searchresults.aspx?q=death+rates.

    Some of the results may surprise you. Who would have thought the Toyota 4Runner would be the 2nd safest car on the road, based on driver death rate stats?
  • volvos80drivervolvos80driver Member Posts: 7
    Statistically speaking, based on driver death rates compiled by IIHS, the answer is the Mercedes E Class. See: http://www.iihs.org/searchresults.aspx?q=death+rates.
  • carlisimocarlisimo Member Posts: 1,280
    Woah, great find.

    So SUVs do tend to be significantly better in multiple vehicle crashes, but "make up" for it in single vehicle and rollover accidents. Midsized and large 4-wheel drive SUVs do very well overall (on par with minivans), whereas small and very large 4WD SUVs, small and midsized 2WD SUVs, and most pickups have death rates very close to those of small sedans (~100 to 110 deaths per million registered years).

    Also interesting: "In almost every size group of two-door and four-door cars, for example, the death rate of the worst vehicle was at least twice the death rate for the best vehicle."
    (Different story among midsized SUVs: 12 for the 4Runner, 119 for the Land Rover Discovery II, and 134 for the 2-door Explorer. I didn't leave a digit out of the 4Runner's rate.)

    It also sounds like they DID adjust the rates to account for driver behavior, by using 25-64 year old women as a reference point to normalize to. The Pontiac Firebird is still one of the worst despite that.

    Ooh, here's a tidbit that'll make good bait for our Townhall arguments, given how often people bring up the Civic as a danger to the driver and all of humanity in general:

    The Civic coupe had a lower death rate than the Excursion and 2WD Tahoe. It also beat the Taurus, Malibu, Grand Am, Sebring, S-type, and Caravan. And the Volvo S40 as well (!?). The sedan was a little better!
  • volvos80drivervolvos80driver Member Posts: 7
    Thanks - glad you got some use out of it. You're right about SUV's although there are some interesting exceptions to the trend - notably the 4Runner, Lexus RX300 and a few others. I have some firsthand experience here - my wife's previoius vehicle, a Ford Expedition, rolled with my family inside. Fortunately it was a very low speed accident and noone was seriously injured. The roof, however, experienced major crushing. This led me into car safety research, especially as it relates to SUV's. There is some interesting material out there on roof crush resistance of SUV's. The current US federal standard on roof crush resistance is believed by many to be sadly inadequate. Alot of lawsuits going on: http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/crash_worthiness/roof_crush.html. Obviously, Toyota, Lexus, and Volvo have figured out the importance of combining active safety features such as stability control with passive devices like roll-triggered curtain airbags and greater strength in the roof pillars; Chevy and Ford - I'm not so sure. . . (even Ford and it's Volvo subsidiary have allegedly had some disagreements on this).
  • carlisimocarlisimo Member Posts: 1,280
    The best SUVs seem to be car-based, but not without exception. I'm a little confused about the 4WD vs 2WD designations... 4WD is 2WD almost all the time, isn't it? I don't think a lot of those larger SUVs have full-time AWD, so the difference in rates surprises me.

    The domestic cars made a poor showing for these years (2000-2003). They'd better improve by the next survey.
  • calhoncalhon Member Posts: 87
    The report is generally useless for comparing individual vehicles for two reasons.

    First, there isn't enough data for the individual vehicles to give statistically valid results, i.e., the margin of error is too large. For example, the range of possible values for the E-class ("top" of it's class) is 0 - 22, while the range of the "bottom" Jaguar S-type is 14 - 123. The true values could be 16 for the E-class and 15 for the Jaguar.

    Second, demographics (e.g., differences in driver age, driver behavior and driving conditions) have not been taken into account.

    The problems are readily apparent in the dramatically different results for essentially identical vehicles. Examples:

    Pontiac Grand Prix 73
    Oldsmobile Intrigue 93 (+27%)

    Toyota Corolla 93
    Chevrolet Prizm 128 (+38%)

    Ford Crown Victoria 53
    Mercury Marquis 83 (+57%)

    Buick LeSabre 60 ("best" large car)
    Pontiac Bonneville 97 (+62%, "worst" large car)
  • volvos80drivervolvos80driver Member Posts: 7
    You're right - again. As you probably know, the car-based SUV's have lower centers of gravity combined with features like stability and traction control that the older truck-based SUV designs lack. Yes, 4WD is 2WD unless "switched" into 4WD mode. The difference really is surprising, I agree. I guess even 4WD makes a difference, even though it has to be deliberately engaged. However, It does look like they combined 4WD and AWD into a single category.

    I agree, the domestic makers are lagging behind in safety. When it comes to safety, you often get what you pay for. Stories abound of car makers asked to cut costs - and what do they cut? Metal - from the frame and roof pillars. Using lesser (and thinner) grades of steel is a simple cost-cutting measure that most consumers will never notice - unless of course the roof crushes in on you. Some of the foreign makers test their vehicles to higher standards - especially in the case of roof crush strength.
  • volvos80drivervolvos80driver Member Posts: 7
    Your point about the stats is a good one. However, I don't find the report useless for comparisons - only to be used with caution. You're right, some comparisons are tricky due to statistical overlap, but others are more clear cut - where the confidence intervals don't intersect.

    Consider the Chevy blazer 2dr with a calculated rate of 308 and lower 95% confidence interval of 190 (and an upper one of 426!!). Certainly one can compare this vehicle, as an example, to a Toyota 4Runner with an upper 95% confidence bound of 29. It is statistically established with a very high degree of confidence the 4Runner is a safer vehicle. I certainly wouldn't put my family in a 2 dr blazer.

    Also, the ranges are based on a 95% CI. Selection of a different CI, such as 90%, will cause the intervals to diverge further. As I'm sure you know, statistics rarely prove anything - they simply provide a probability-measure of how likely a hypothesis is to be true.

    Demographics were taken into account. See the note on page 10. The data were normalized based on the death rates of women aged 25-64. I don't know how they did this so I really can't defend it - but at least in some fashion it was done.
  • calhoncalhon Member Posts: 87
    The adjustment for women is just about the only demographic variable taken into consideration. There are several other factors that should be considered, such as driver age, geographic distribution (relevant to weather/road/traffic condition, laws and enforcement which in turn affect driver behavior such as speeding and seat belt usage), miles driven, etc.

    Those very important factors have been ignored. There is no greater proof of their importance than the results for rebadged cars. How else could the same car (LeSabre/Bonneville) have both the lowest and highest death rate in its class? The bottom line is we cannot tell whether the observed differences in death rates are due to demographics or the cars themselves.

    Hence the report is generally useless (i.e., utterly unreliable) for comparing individual cars. It can be used though for comparing aggregates, such as large cars versus small cars. Such aggregates help to cancel out demographic differences and also reduce the statistical margin of error.
  • volvos80drivervolvos80driver Member Posts: 7
    The IIHS acknowledges the influence of demographics and so do I - but it is their judgment, presumably based on their closeness to the data and study design, that the observed differences are due in significant part to vehicle differences as opposed to demographics. I would also argue that the death rates appear to match up quite well with actual crash test results - which would de-emphasize the impact of demographics. Would you really attribute the blazer vs. 4Runner differences predominantly to demographics? Or better yet, compare the 2 dr vs. 4 dr blazer - striking death rate differences but no logical demographic explanation. What a difference a few inches of wheelbase apparently make. Again, I think you can still glean useful information from the numbers in spite of the demographic question.

    As far as the rebadged cars are concerned, I agree - I wouldn't put too much stock in the comparison. But, the vehicle differences may be more than meets the eye. Here are a couple of possibilities, aside from demographics, that may explain the death rate differences:
    1. Are the option packages (i.e., side and curtain airbags, stability control) identical and are they sold in identical proportion for the model as a whole. This is a potentially critical difference.
    2. Are the vehicles sold with identical tires? If not, there may be some influence depending on the relative difference in safety/traction performance.

    Your point is well taken, particularly for the statistically-close vehicles, and thanks for making me look hard at the numbers, but would you really choose a Blazer over a 4Runner?
  • carlisimocarlisimo Member Posts: 1,280
    Given that the statistics are real, hard numbers, I'd say there has to be an explanation. It could be luck and coincidence, but that's only likely for cars that crashed in small numbers.

    You're right that we'd be jumping to conclusions if we said one car was safer than other car that was just slightly worse in the statistics. That would be the reader's fault, not the statistician's. So let's work on coming up with the explanations.

    We've all seen the crash test photos of the F-150 Crew Cab cabin collapse. That one shows that a variant of a vehicle can be much less safe than its other variants. The Mercedes A-class was prone to rollovers until stability control was added - that could account for differences in rebadges, especially where one brand is more upscale and likely to include stability control or side airbags.

    Besides, we're supersticious in nature. If someone told me I could have either a LeSabre or a Bonneville, and more people had died between 2000-2003 in the Bonneville, I'd take the LeSabre...
  • calhoncalhon Member Posts: 87
    There are at least three components to the differences in death rates: differences in the vehicles themselves, demographic differences and chance. In a minority of cases, such as the 4Runner vs. Blazer, the confidence intervals do not overlap, so from a purely statistical point of view we can say the difference is not due entirely to chance.

    However, chance aside, we are still left with the question of how much of the difference is due to demograhics versus the vehicles themselves. I would say the 4Runner is probably better than the Blazer, but how much better? .... I cannot tell. So, I agree, the data is not totally useless for individual vehicle comparisons.

    As for the LeSabre/Bonneville, ABS, side airbags and DRL were standard and ESC optional on both. Note that differences in take rates on optional features is a function of demographics. A potential buyer would want to compare the safety of a LeSabre with (without) ESC to a similarly equipped Bonneville.

    I would say the wear condition, proper inflation and rotation (i.e., demograhics-related items) have a much greater effect than the specific type of all-season tires originally sold on the LeSabre/Bonneville. Besides, many of the original tires had already been replaced. Replacement tire choice is yet another demographics-related item.
  • volvos80drivervolvos80driver Member Posts: 7
    Agreed. It will be interesting to see what IIHS does next in terms of factoring in demographics. I've enjoyed the discussion and have to ask out of curiosity based on your knowledge, do you work in the automobile industry? Few people outside the auto or insurance industry would give the IIHS report such critical thought. I don't work in the industry; for me this is just a personal interest, although my degrees and work experience are in mechanical engineering.
  • prosaprosa Member Posts: 280
    There are at least three components to the differences in death rates: differences in the vehicles themselves, demographic differences and chance. In a minority of cases, such as the 4Runner vs. Blazer, the confidence intervals do not overlap, so from a purely statistical point of view we can say the difference is not due entirely to chance.
    However, chance aside, we are still left with the question of how much of the difference is due to demograhics versus the vehicles themselves.

    Which brings up the question of whether there actually are significant demographic differences among the buyers of comparable vehicles. Is the information publicly available detailed enough to allow for these determinations?
  • calhoncalhon Member Posts: 87
    I have no connection to the automobile industry, but I work in a field involving customer behavior, demographics and statistics.

    Thanks for the great discussion.
  • calhoncalhon Member Posts: 87
    There are undisputed demographic differences because the vehicles appeal to different tastes and dealers are distributed differently around the country.

    Camry and Mazda6 buyers differ in age and driving style. Volvo and BMW owners differ in age, driving style and geographic distribution. The distribution of Japanese vehicles is more skewed towards the coasts and metropolitan areas than domestic vehicles.

    Vehicle registration data provides some of the information needed for these determinations. Other differences, such as driving style (aggressiveness, risk-taking, etc.) and maintenance levels are more difficult, even impossible, to quantify. However, that doesn't diminish their importance.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    In large-sedan tests, air bags score

    http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060619/BUSINESS01/606190329/10- 14

    Rocky
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060625/AUTO01/606250331/- 1148/AUTO01

    Rocky
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    This article first appeared in Firehouse magazine, which is geared towards emergency responders. It has been reprinted with permission in the summer 2006 issue of DRIVE, which is the Subaru owner's magazine.

    http://www.drive.subaru.com/Sum06_WhatsInside.htm

    Roof cave-ins of SUVs and pickups first came to my attention with the Ford Explorer tire fiasco of a couple of years ago. At that time images of rolled Explorers with severely crushed roofs were plastered all over the news. As it turns out this roof-strength issue is not just a Ford problem, but can be found on many vehicles, but it is especially evident with pickups and SUVs.

    Subaru has shown here that having a strong roof is not cost-prohibitive and that you don't have to have roof pillars as thick as building girders in order to be safe.

    Bob
  • jim314jim314 Member Posts: 491
    The higher crash frequency of 2-dr vs. 4-dr versions of the same model is a long observed phenomenon. It's got a clear demographic basis. At least in the past, younger, less experienced, and more reckless drivers choose the 2-dr style.
  • prosaprosa Member Posts: 280
    Caliber: Front - good, side - marginal
    Camry: both good
    Optima: front - good, side - not tested
    Zephyr - both acceptable
    RAV4 - both good
    Tuscon/Sportage - both acceptable

    None got the "best pick" awards.

    My comments: this is bad news for Lincoln. A newly designed near-luxury vehicle should've gotten "good" in both categories. No excuses. Also, with all the money and effort Chrysler put into designing the Caliber, the "marginal" in the side test has to be viewed as a major failure.
  • 210delray210delray Member Posts: 4,721
    Agree totally on the Zephyr. The Caliber's side score could likely be improved once the optional side torso airbags are finally made available. (These should have been available AND standard from the start.)

    At least the Caliber is way better than the Neon it replaced, which was marginal in the frontal test and poor in the side test, without side airbags.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    The Caliber's side score could likely be improved once the optional side torso airbags are finally made available.

    It was marginal with the side air bags.
  • 210delray210delray Member Posts: 4,721
    It had side curtain airbags (standard) that did a good job protecting the front and rear dummies' heads.

    The problem was that the driver's torso was pummeled - no side thorax bags were in the tested car. Very few cars the IIHS has tested do well if thorax bags for the driver aren't included -- the Chevy Impala is one of these exceptions.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    Ahh, I see. Thanks for clarifying that.

    I had not noticed that detail in IIHS ratings before. I had only ever noted if they have side air bags or not, without really paying attention to the type(s) of bags.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    BUT Sentra has more standard safety features (same ones the Renault Megane uses in Europe - and it got 5 out of 5 stars in EuroNCap crash tests for both front/lateral) than both of them...

    Untrue. Rabbit/Jetta are class-leading in standard safety features, which include 6 airbags (2 more are optional), ABS with EBD and 4-wheel disc brakes, traction control, and active front head restraints. As noted, ESC is optional, very rare in this class (Corolla has optional VSC, but it's hard to find). Also, both the Civic and Elantra have more standard safety features than the Sentra. Civic and Elantra have standard ABS with EBD in all trim lines. Sentra only has ABS standard on the highest trim line. Additionally, Elantra has standard 4-wheel disc brakes on all trim lines. All these cars have 6 standard airbags and standard active front headrests.

    I found it hard to believe that C/D rated the new Sentra last, behind even the old Corolla, in its comparo for December's issue. I can't wait to get it to find out why they would do that.
  • v_dv_d Member Posts: 89
    Rabbit/Jetta are class-leading in standard safety features, which include 6 airbags (2 more are optional), ABS with EBD and 4-wheel disc brakes, traction control, and active front head restraints

    Isn`t it the same as a SL Sentra?

    And we might not get ESP on the Sentra here in Canada, but well...

    LAST? Well, it`s people`s tastes that are going to decide.
  • jestercarusojestercaruso Member Posts: 1
    Are you freakin kidding me? the rabbit is outstanding if someone else is gonna pay for it. the maintenance is ridiculous. and of course it has 57 airbags, because if you get in an accident you will need all 57. the sentra has a ton of safety features, whether they are standard or not, it's not much to add. not to mention it has CVT, which in it's self makes it better in every aspect to drive which is the part that really matters. i'm begging you not to buy a rabbit or an accent, or an elantra. The civic is also a very nice vehicle, And the one thing you will get with the Sentra and the civic is residual value. which is a joke with the other manufacturer's.

    ps...... and yes it is true that the sentra has more standard safety features
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    No, I'm not kidding you.

    The Jetta and Rabbit have excellent crash-safety scores--even without all 57 airbags. The new Sentra is untested. Have you found out how much it costs to add ABS to a Sentra 2.0S? Go configure one and see for yourself. It's not cheap.

    Your saying that the Sentra has nore standard safety features doesn't make it true. It's not. It doesn't lead in optional safety features either. And it's easy to demonstrate those facts to yourself. If you care about the truth.

    BTW, why in the world would you BEG someone not to buy a car like a Rabbit or Accent or Elantra? Do you get a cut on every Sentra sold (maybe on Civics too)? :surprise:
  • v_dv_d Member Posts: 89
    Yeah, someone on a Rabbit forum here actually had a list of vehicles that got the exact same scores the Rabbit did, and if I recall right, there were a couple of Mercedes', Lexus', Volvo's and other luxury brands. I think the Rabbit was actually the single car under $50k out there. So if you want safety, I`ll go with the Rabbit.

    ABS (not a Pack - standalone) in Canada is standard on the 2.0S model, but it costs $500 on the 2.0. In the US it`s $600 but you get 16" + ABS. And yes that`s a lot for something that should be standard on every vehicle by now.

    A base Rabbit vs a base Sentra in airbags will come 6-6. True the Rabbit has 2 additional rear side airbags, so that comes to 8. Pretty amazing!

    Coming to buying... no I would not buy an Accent, or a Civic, Elantra or even Sentra, I`d take the Rabbit for it`s driving dynamics and german engineering. But again, that`s just me!
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Actually the Civic gets better IIHS crash scores than the Rabbit--the Civic is an IIHS "Gold" award winner, the Jetta and 4-door Rabbit "Silver." Still very good though. If the Rabbit had better fuel economy and reliability, it would probably be my top choice in this class (in 2-door form).

    When I configured a Sentra 2.0S with ABS, not only did I need to select the ABS+alloys package, I also had to select the Convenience package. So adding ABS was about a $1200 bump--of course you get some extra stuff too.
  • ecotrklvrecotrklvr Member Posts: 519
    That torques me off, too. Nissan seems to make it tough to buy safety, unless you are willing to pay to pamper yourself.

    I'd be driving a 2003 Altima right now, if 4 years ago I could have found a 2.5S, anywhere, with ABS.

    It's even worse with VSC. Only on the 3.5's. Dang.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    The rear test is what kept the rabbit/jetta from getting gold. Footnote on rear impact for these on IIHS site now says: "Design changes have been made; to be tested later in 2006." So they may move up to gold.

    Also the Civic is in a lighter weight class, so frontal scores may not be comparable. There is a 450 pound difference in the weight of tested cars.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    You are right, the frontal scores are not directly comparable. But that doesn't change the fact that the Civic got excellent scores for its weight class--as did the Jetta and 4-door Rabbit.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    Yep, civic did do very well and the Sentra will remain in the same weight class as the Civic.

    I wish they would add a frontal test that would be comparable across all cars. Maybe smash the thing they use for the side test into the front of the cars, for example.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    They could do that, but would it mimic the real world to have a sled smash into the front of a stationary car?
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    How about something like the sled going 20 mph and the vehicle also going 20 mph and smash them together in a frontal offset crash?
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Then the weight of the vehicle plays a role, so the results couldn't be compared across weight classes--same as today.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    Then the weight of the vehicle plays a role, so the results couldn't be compared across weight classes--same as today.

    I don't think that is true. You would be simulating a collision between the vehicle being tested and a second standard vehicle. This would make for a tougher test of small cars.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    I really don't want to debate the physics of this here, because it's off topic. When the car is moving, the weight of the vehicle plays a role in the severity of the impact. That is why the NHTSA and IIHS caution people not to compare cars in different weight classes on frontal tests, in which the car is moving. And I think it would be difficult to design a sled that represents a "standard vehicle" for a moving frontal impact test because cars differ so much in front-end configuration (engine position, frontal area), use of crumple zones, etc.

    Maybe there is a discussion on the science of crash tests where we can continue this if you want to, so we can get back to the 2007 Sentra.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    I found something that would be close enough:

    There is a discussion called: IIHS Picks Safest Vehicles

    Can the host maybe move this there, so we can continue?
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles