Least Safe Cars of 2007

[BrewSwillis]

Forbes Magazine's least safe 2007 models in no particular order:

Toyota Corolla sedan without optional airbags

Chevrolet Cobalt sedan without optional airbags

Ford Focus sedan

Mazda3 sedan

Suzuki Aerio sedan with side airbags

Suzuki Forenza sedan with side airbags

Saturn Ion

http://www.forbes.com/home/2006/10/30/safe..._1031lsafe.html

[regfootball]

and there is your case right there for not driving a small car.

at least its my case. All the Euro's tell us AMURCHANS, drive smaller cars. we say, we have big trucks on our roads, big semis. We prefer to be safer in case one of them tags us.

[siegen]

and there is your case right there for not driving a small car.

211630[/snapback]

What? More like don't drive a small car without side airbags, and just stay away from Suzuki's altogether (at least their small cars).

Edited November 2, 2006 by siegen

[Paolino]

What? More like don't drive a small car without side airbags, and just stay away from Suzuki's altogether (at least their small cars).

211712[/snapback]

... and the Ion cause it's ugly.

[the_yellow_dart]

Sorry, but I just don't see the big car debate. It's like saying, "I'm going to wear a football helmet all the time, cause something might fall on my head". Sure, it could happen, just like I could get in an accident with the Cobalt that could kill me that I would survive in an SUV. Am I going to let that dictate what I drive? NO.

There are a lot of things in life that could kill you. In my view, you have to not worry about 90% of them, or you will go insane...

[pow]

Misleading article from people who know nothing about cars... the Cobalt, Corolla, and 3 are one of the "safer" small cars.

[BrewSwillis]

Misleading article from people who know nothing about cars... the Cobalt, Corolla, and 3 are one of the "safer" small cars.

211762[/snapback]

They just farmed info from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). So, who created the misleading info? They are going to keep reporting these "bad" results until all manufacturers make side airbags standard.....and jack the price of all cars up another $1000.

However, the "bad" results were mostly on vehicles without optional side airbags.....except for the Corolla and the Suzuki whatever, which also had POOR (the worst) rear impact ratings.

[pow]

They just farmed info from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS).  So, who created the misleading info?  They are going to keep reporting these "bad" results until all manufacturers make side airbags standard.....and jack the price of all cars up another $1000.

However, the "bad" results were mostly on vehicles without optional side airbags.....except for the Corolla and the Suzuki whatever, which also had POOR (the worst) rear impact ratings.

211840[/snapback]

"Rear impact rating" is also misleading, as they're testing headrests; there's no actual rear end collision involved. Head rest design is more of an insurance claim issue, like their 5 mph bumper tests, than actual life-and-death safety.

[BrewSwillis]

"Rear impact rating" is also misleading, as they're testing headrests; there's no actual rear end collision involved. Head rest design is more of an insurance claim issue, like their 5 mph bumper tests, than actual life-and-death safety.

211842[/snapback]

They review head rest design, but also do a rear collision simulation to try and back up their evaluation of the headrest design.

However, you can't discount this claim about the Corolla, whether you agree with the IIHS rear crash results or not:

--Substantially worse-than-average frequency of injury claims filed

Oh, and I don't think you can say that headrests and bumpers are only tested for insurance claim issues. The 5 mph bumper has to do with collision damage $$, and the headrest has to do with safety. I don't think they are judging the headrests on if they will break or not in a rear impact.....because they are worried about replacing them.

Edited November 3, 2006 by BrewSwillis

[pow]

They review head rest design, but also do a rear collision simulation to try and back up their evaluation of the headrest design. 

However, you can't discount this claim about the Corolla, whether you agree with the IIHS rear crash results or not:

Oh, and I don't think you can say that headrests and bumpers are only tested for insurance claim issues.  The 5 mph bumper has to do with collision damage $$, and the headrest has to do with safety.  I don't think they are judging the headrests on if they will break or not in a rear impact.....because they are worried about replacing them.

211860[/snapback]

Right, as in medical visit claims..

"Rear-end collisions are frequent, and neck injuries are the most common serious injuries reported in automobile crashes. They account for 2 million insurance claims each year costing at least $8.5 billion. Such injuries aren't life-threatening, but they can be painful and debilitating."

They test the seat, but not the crumple zones, safety cage, etc. I'd prefer an actual rear collision, but I guess that's too expensive.

[samuel]

Misleading article from people who know nothing about cars... the Cobalt, Corolla, and 3 are one of the "safer" small cars.

211762[/snapback]

Evidently you're wrong!

[Robert Hall]

I don't think I'd drive anything smaller than a 3-series. That's small enough, IMHO.

[toyoguy]

Right, as in medical visit claims..

211973[/snapback]

yup, that's all it's about. IIHS lobby.

[ToniCipriani]

I'd pass this one, and simply ignore it. They just know jack about cars.

How often do you read Forbes to buy a car, especially a base model compact sedan?

[Satty]

Aerio has a 5 star crash rating.

[pow]

Aerio has a 5 star crash rating.

228647[/snapback]

NHTSA stars are worthless.

[A Horse With No Name]

Actually to me a smaller car is safer because I feel like I can avoid bad situations more easily. Being able to stop/steer/react is what driving on the street is about to me.

I've seen some bunched up 3's and Cobalts in yards. Seems like the passenger compartment stays pretty intact. Wouldn't bother me to buy either car.

Chris

[CreativeVision]

NHTSA stars are worthless.

So then what are consumers supposed to base their buying decisions on from a crash-worthiness standpoint?

Edited January 14, 2007 by CreativeVision

[pow]

So then what are consumers supposed to base their buying decisions on from a crash-worthiness standpoint?

IIHS and E-NCAP ratings

[Flybrian]

They have their own agendas, too.

[ShadowDog]

As far as I'm concerned, there is risk in death for a great number of people in the accident conditions they test in any vehicle. Use a crash test to indicate a vehicle being poor at survivability as an absolute really only matters to the two types of people: 1) people who only buy a car considering safety the highest priority; and 2) people who would never buy a small car to begin with and use this information just to bolster their opinion that ALL small cars are death traps.

Really now guys, there just has to be something more imporant in your lives to spend your time on?

I should add that the negative crash-test results on the Forenza is actually something that comes back to haunt GM, since, GM-Daewoo is the manufacturer of the Forenza/Reno (Optra/Optra5 sedan in Canada), so don't be so quick to bash Suzuki for agreeing to use GM's vehicles in their lineup (which I should add they are removing from their lineup due to quality concerns). Regardless of these results, a lot of people just don't care since the Forenza has made up a lot of the U.S. sales for Suzuki.

I'll save the time it will take for some of you to reply by closing with, "It's a shame all those stupid people who bought Forenzas are too stupid to realize they drive in tin-can death traps." Yes, yes, they feel your pain. They really do.

[CreativeVision]

IIHS and E-NCAP ratings

I'm sorry I am not familiar with those acronyms, where can I find data on them?

FlyBrian: Were you referring to Empowah's post above with your comment about these companies having their own agendas? I think I understood that correctly.

And I don't quite get ShadowDog's stance on this. Safety is not my highest priority, but it sure is up there when I am considering a new car purchase. Apparently you don't value your life or those close to you enough to think you should at least have the due diligence to educate yourself on the ratings of vehicles. The most important things in my life are my loved ones, so YES I do have better things(such as my family) to spend my time on. But if I'm injured or worse in a car accident that could have been avoided by having a safer car, that what good are all those other things?