Yaris, Fit - Poor head on crash tests

[BuddyP 0]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,515516,00.html

[Intrepidation 883]

This is a classic case of "no $h! Sherlock". Obviously when a larger object hits a smaller object, the larger object will always fair better.

Now they're going to want small cars to be as "safe" as large cars, so they'll weigh about as much as a large car, and get the same fuel economy as a result.

[dfelt 2,657]

DOOH, this is why I will never give up my Suburban, Hummer or Escalade. Safety first above fuel efficiency.

[siegen 20]

I saw the videos on the news this morning. I hope this doesn't panic people into purchasing a larger car than they need. According to the data, less powerful cars are less likely to cause accidents in the first place. And if more people purchase smaller cars, the chances of being in a collision with a larger car decreases.

The Fit appeared to fare the best out of the subcompacts. The Yaris got crushed a bit more and into the cabin more. Also of note is how the bottom support beam of the Yaris was crushed while the same beam on the Fit was still straight. The Camry didn't appear to fare as well as the Accord or Mercedes either.

The problem with comparisons like these is that there is no control in the experiment. They need to use one single mid-size car to crash against all of the subcompacts. The Accord, Camry and Mercedes are all going to have different effects on a subcompact when they collide with it. I think they should have used a single model of mid-size car from a different manufacturer; perhaps a Chevy Malibu or Ford Fusion.

[Intrepidation 883]

The problem with comparisons like these is that there is no control in the experiment. They need to use one single mid-size car to crash against all of the subcompacts. The Accord, Camry and Mercedes are all going to have different effects on a subcompact when they collide with it. I think they should have used a single model of mid-size car from a different manufacturer; perhaps a Chevy Malibu or Ford Fusion.

I think that's part of the pint. In real life, accident's don't involve a standardized barrier at a standardized speed. There's a ton of variables.

[tmp 2]

I've never seen anyone test the smart Cabrio with the roof rails removed. Smart makes such a big deal about that safety cage being so strong, but the cabrio allows you to breach that cage.

[pow 106]

I saw the videos on the news this morning. I hope this doesn't panic people into purchasing a larger car than they need. According to the data, less powerful cars are less likely to cause accidents in the first place. And if more people purchase smaller cars, the chances of being in a collision with a larger car decreases.

The Fit appeared to fare the best out of the subcompacts. The Yaris got crushed a bit more and into the cabin more. Also of note is how the bottom support beam of the Yaris was crushed while the same beam on the Fit was still straight. The Camry didn't appear to fare as well as the Accord or Mercedes either.

The problem with comparisons like these is that there is no control in the experiment. They need to use one single mid-size car to crash against all of the subcompacts. The Accord, Camry and Mercedes are all going to have different effects on a subcompact when they collide with it. I think they should have used a single model of mid-size car from a different manufacturer; perhaps a Chevy Malibu or Ford Fusion.

Looks like ACE (Advanced Compatibility Engineering) in work...

Granted the laws of physics still apply, but structural engineering, crash compliance, and restraint performance helps.

[pow 106]

According to IIHS suggestions, fuel economy and safety aren't mutually exclusive. In the video, they point to the Fusion Hybrid and Camry Hybrid as having both, and they note new CAFE targets that use a size-based system, which push for greater fuel efficiency (and possibly lower weight) but not smaller size.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/automobi...tml?_r=2&hp

Some car efficiency experts have recommended making cars light but also large, with energy-absorbing crush zones. With several feet of car body in front of the driver, the energy of a crash can be dissipated and the suddenness of the change in velocity can be reduced, they say.

[dfelt 2,657]

According to IIHS suggestions, fuel economy and safety aren't mutually exclusive. In the video, they point to the Fusion Hybrid and Camry Hybrid as having both, and they note new CAFE targets that use a size-based system, which push for greater fuel efficiency (and possibly lower weight) but not smaller size.

I would agree with that.

[regfootball 386]

this is why people started buying hulking SUV's in the first place.

[pow 106]

this is why people started buying hulking SUV's in the first place.

And this is what happened...

[GXT 11]

This is a classic case of "no $h! Sherlock". Obviously when a larger object hits a smaller object, the larger object will always fair better.

Now they're going to want small cars to be as "safe" as large cars, so they'll weigh about as much as a large car, and get the same fuel economy as a result.

I wouldn't say "Always". Perhaps if all else were equal, but it usually isn't.

This is still my favourite. Check out the faceplant in the second picture from the left:

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=67

Too bad they didn't crash a Malibu with an Aveo. I guess that wouldn't have been sufficiently "fair and balanced". Plus it was strange to see Fox advocating that no one buy large vehicles.

Edited April 14, 2009 by GXT

[regfootball 386]

And this is what happened...

you and i both know the old frame based truck based SUV's were a perception thing. the more mass = better crash thing. i never said the hulking SUV's always performed better, just that the public thought they did. Just like the public automatically thinks an Asian car is better than anything.

[pow 106]

I wouldn't say "Always". Perhaps if all else were equal, but it usually isn't.

This is still my favourite. Check out the faceplant in the second picture from the left:

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=67

Too bad they didn't crash a Malibu with an Aveo. I guess that wouldn't have been sufficiently "fair and balanced". Plus it was strange to see Fox advocating that no one buy large vehicles.

The point was to compare two vehicles of different size/weight categories that both had "good" frontal offset ratings.

And it makes sense - for both a midsize sedan and a subcompact to get a "good" rating when hurled into a concrete barrier, the heavier sedan must be stiffer to compensate for the greater forces involved.

What would be interesting is crashing an "acceptable" or "marginal" midsize sedan (last-gen Sebring, Sonata, Grand Prix) against a "good" subcompact (new Fit, Yaris, Versa). Fifth Gear crashed a Renault Modus against a Volvo 940, and the Renault destroyed the heavier Volvo.

[Intrepidation 883]

I want to see a Brillance pitted against an Accord or something.

[toyoguy 0]

well fortunately for car buyers, full-size SUV and to a lesser extent mid-size SUV sales have collapsed. Personally, I wouldn't want to buy a new vehicle below mid-size or 3300 lbs for safety reasons, the better fuel economy isn't worth the extra risk. My girl is a terrible driver so I hope to pick up a 4000 lb LS430 for her by Christmas.

The Camry didn't appear to fare as well as the Accord or Mercedes either.

In safercar tests the Camry fairs better than the Accord.

In the IIHS side impact tests the Camry's structure is rated good while the Accord's is rated acceptable, the previous Accord received a marginal structural rating compared to the previous Camry's acceptable rating

back in 1998 the Camry received a good overall frontal crash score while the Accord was rated acceptable.

In IIHS rollover test the newer CRV gets a lower score than the RAV4.

the previous RL received an acceptable rating compared to the older LS400's perfect rating in IIHS frontal crash testing.

the previous TSX received an acceptable overall rating in side impact tests compared to the perfectly rated IS 250

Honda safer than Toyota? Which cars are these.

[Z-06 493]

I wouldn't say "Always". Perhaps if all else were equal, but it usually isn't.

This is still my favourite. Check out the faceplant in the second picture from the left:

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=67

Too bad they didn't crash a Malibu with an Aveo. I guess that wouldn't have been sufficiently "fair and balanced". Plus it was strange to see Fox advocating that no one buy large vehicles.

Well Chevy for one does not BOAST by thumping its chest how good its safety is for a small car.

And people's perception about the Aveo, even on this website, is of an unsafe bugger so it would have been even a more obvious no $hit Sherlock.

[K.C. 0]

And the laws of physics produce another news story in the "Duh" category.

When big cars hit little cars, big cars win.

[Oracle of Delphi 33]

And the laws of physics produce another news story in the "Duh" category.

When big cars hit little cars, big cars win.

I didn't know your name was Scotty, from the Starship Enterprise (TOS) ...

[Cubical-aka-Moltar 2,395]

Well Chevy for one does not BOAST by thumping its chest how good its safety is for a small car.

And people's perception about the Aveo, even on this website, is of an unsafe bugger so it would have been even a more obvious no $hit Sherlock.

The Aveo may have done decent against a Malibu, but how about a Tahoe? a Suburban? a Kodiak? That's the kind of collision that makes any small car look bad..

[Camino LS6 880]

I'll never buy one of these little turds anyway.

So, for me, not only is this obvious but it also doesn't matter.

In fact, I never even look at crash ratings.

I do however, look at braking systems, structure, handling...

You know, the stuff that keeps you out of a wreck in the first place.

[K.C. 0]

Since I had the wreck with the Avalanche, the importance of safety feaures has expanded. Curtain airbags and a strong roof structure saved my life in that accident. I will never own a car without curtain air bags and side impact air bags now. I also will not own a vehicle without Stabilitrak/AdvanceTrac/ESP whatever the buzzword is. Also since the accident, I prefer a better handling vehicle with more stability. The Avalanche rolled over far easier than I think the Acadia would in the same situation, however, you cannot beat the laws of physics, once you break the threshold you are just along for the ride.

[pow 106]

well fortunately for car buyers, full-size SUV and to a lesser extent mid-size SUV sales have collapsed. Personally, I wouldn't want to buy a new vehicle below mid-size or 3300 lbs for safety reasons, the better fuel economy isn't worth the extra risk. My girl is a terrible driver so I hope to pick up a 4000 lb LS430 for her by Christmas.

In safercar tests the Camry fairs better than the Accord.

In the IIHS side impact tests the Camry's structure is rated good while the Accord's is rated acceptable, the previous Accord received a marginal structural rating compared to the previous Camry's acceptable rating

back in 1998 the Camry received a good overall frontal crash score while the Accord was rated acceptable.

In IIHS rollover test the newer CRV gets a lower score than the RAV4.

the previous RL received an acceptable rating compared to the older LS400's perfect rating in IIHS frontal crash testing.

the previous TSX received an acceptable overall rating in side impact tests compared to the perfectly rated IS 250

Honda safer than Toyota? Which cars are these.

It really depends on the year, and what generation the vehicle happens to be in... and there are really no conclusions to be gained:

In '06, the Civic had a "good" IIHS side rating, as opposed to the Corolla's "poor" or "acceptable."

In '01, the Civic had a "good" IIHS front rating, as opposed to the Corolla's "acceptable.

In '02, the CR-V had a "good" IIHS front rating, as opposed to the RAV4's "acceptable."

In every single year, Honda has more Top Safety Picks than Toyota (in '07, Toyota had none).

So, yeah..

[Camino LS6 880]

Since I had the wreck with the Avalanche, the importance of safety feaures has expanded. Curtain airbags and a strong roof structure saved my life in that accident. I will never own a car without curtain air bags and side impact air bags now. I also will not own a vehicle without Stabilitrak/AdvanceTrac/ESP whatever the buzzword is. Also since the accident, I prefer a better handling vehicle with more stability. The Avalanche rolled over far easier than I think the Acadia would in the same situation, however, you cannot beat the laws of physics, once you break the threshold you are just along for the ride.

I get that.

I was mostly just being a smartass with my earlier post.

It is true that I don't even consider safety ratings, but that doesn't mean that I don't consider safety.

I just evaluate it for myself, and base it on things other than what the IIHS or the government has to say.

[Z-06 493]

When a car company claims that its small cars use high structural rigidity steel, it very well puts that same rigid steel in its bigger cars for it would make a business sense as well as safety sense.

If both the colliding cars (bigger and smaller) have greater structural rigidity, they will produce similar results as colliding cars with lesser rigidity. You are making the wall stronger and making the bulldozer stronger with the same ratio - it seems like a no-brainer that both will crash as they did before.