Small cars and small overlap front crash test

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's all in perspective, too. A Spark vs a Crown Victoria may not end well.

However, if you are playing chicken with an 18 wheeler, doesn't matter if you are in a Spark or an Excursion ... it won't end well.
 
Little bitty econoboxes are dangerous and much more likely to get you killed or horribly maimed?

What a shocker.
 
Originally Posted By: rjundi
This size of car class IMHO is a poor value anyway and that is too bad less safe.

The FIT for example did poorly in this test. I really don't see the value of that vehicle vs a Civic which achieves significantly better MPG, larger, better comfort and gets a good rating for the same crash test. The base price difference is $3000.

I don't get these really small cars.
Back when i bough my FIT the civic was built like a garbage can and even fell off the CR list. The Fit is the most reliable car made and is the only real HONDA you can buy (other than some Acuras). I agree that its WAY overpriced.++ Its pretty comfortable for my 6'-2" frame - many midsizers have a very cramped drivers seat and console and poor sightlines.
Also a commuter car should not ever! weight more than 1 tonne! Soory that Safety and the fEDS has erased the fun from many small cars though.

++ My buddy paid an M.D. 11K$ for a lighltly used $110,000.00 Mercedes sl500. Not My cup o tea but ... His other Acquisition is a slightly used BMW 540 for 14K$.
That's a verie schweet rode to hoe.
 
Last edited:
Will give that link a good rear later.

The Chevy Spark was a 4 Star EuroNcap car i believe.

Renaults have long been the safest small cars.

My wifes Clio is an 06 model and that scored very well on EuroNcap and i am fairly certain it was 5 Star.
 
I drive one of the least safe cars ever built according to those tests. The wife has the same thing with air bags...which she wont let me disable.

But...your best bet in an accident is mass and height.

I've put an 01 Camry into a tree at 45 and walked away with bruises. The tree pushed the engine, which pushed the firewall, which pushed the steering wheel, which pushed my big [censored] and the seat into the rear seat. But to be honest since it was slowed down so much by crumpling what hurt the most was the [censored] airbags engaging and sending my right arm/fist into my collar bone.

I hopped out fine, in shock, and probably should have gone to the hospital...but without a scratch. The car looked like it was hit by a tank.

Another safety recommendation for car crashes...get fat. Cushion everywhere!


The next investment for our cars are safety seats with head padding. Very comfortable and one more layer of safety.
 
If your in a small car and get hit by a big vehicle that outweighs you then you get that "bat hitting the ball" affect.
Really no surprises that those tiny cars don't do as well in crashes.
 
I did not read the article but NPR did report on this this morning and the net was you are giving up safety for economy in most sub-compact vehicles.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Donald
I did not read the article but NPR did report on this this morning and the net was you are giving up safety for economy in most sub-compact vehicles.


For a vehicle used to drive around town at low speeds, especially in crowded cities, that might actually be fine. In downtown Chicago I don't think you can even get moving any faster than 30mph except on Lake Shore Drive.
 
There are other reasons to own a subcompact. Parking is a big one. We can slide our Fit into ridiculously tiny spots, which has proved to be a huge asset for my wife who works in a city center.

Regardless, folks have a great track record of walking away from really gnarly crashes in Fits, testing be darned.
 
IIHS has really tighten the impact (collision) requirements since 2011 or 2012 (thereabouts). This corner side-impact has initially failed many, many automobiles during the 1st year when the new requirements came out, incl. the 2012 release of camry, amongst many other automobiles in many categories.

I wouldn't be all that surprised if fit or many other subcompacts would fail in that category...citing that the requirements is almost to the point of being nit-picking.

While I must say that bigger automobiles may provide more margin of safety, but I still feel safe even in my 06 fit, when compared to all the other accidents I had in the past: crashed a 81 GLC during a blizzard, all 4 occupants walked out of the car with very little scratches; rolled over in a 93 4-runner due to driver's fault (black ice, 4wd mode), front windshield completely collapsed....occupants walked out with minor bruises...

I would like to see my cars passing Euro Encap tests but realistically speaking: NA's IIHS tests are stringent enough to be safe to begin with...if you are to compare to some mainland chinese cars avail outside of N.A. market.

Q.
 
LOL.

I'm not going to let the highly questionable auto insurance lobby change my buying habits based on a test they conjured up to help them justify higher rates for smaller cars.

I've always believed that any kind of mandatory insurance should be illegal.
 
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
LOL.

I've always believed that any kind of mandatory insurance should be illegal.

What if you are at fault?
 
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
LOL.

I've always believed that any kind of mandatory insurance should be illegal.

What if you are at fault?


I'm not saying I would never have an accident that was my fault, however it is highly UNlikely that any accident I would be involved in would be my fault because I practice personal responsibility, many folks do not, and that mandatory insurance also may be a subconscious factor when it comes to them driving in a irresponsible manner.
 
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
LOL.

I've always believed that any kind of mandatory insurance should be illegal.

What if you are at fault?


I'm not saying I would never have an accident that was my fault, however it is highly UNlikely that any accident I would be involved in would be my fault because I practice personal responsibility, many folks do not, and that mandatory insurance also may be a subconscious factor when it comes to them driving in a irresponsible manner.

Um Ok. I have a 420 RWHP car that I have driven daily. No tickets in it, no accidents. I too practice "Personal responsibility". I have been hit more than once by an insured motorist. My insurance covered me and in the event I screw up, because that is what people do, I have insurance. That is why it is called an accident. Insurance is also a courtesy for your fellow drivers if one day your "personal responsibility" takes a break.
 
Originally Posted By: antiqueshel
I'm not saying I would never have an accident that was my fault, however it is highly UNlikely that any accident I would be involved in would be my fault because I practice personal responsibility, many folks do not, and that mandatory insurance also may be a subconscious factor when it comes to them driving in a irresponsible manner.


With a good driving record, Liability Insurance is cheap. My Suburban cost about $15 a month. Insurance is responsibility, If you hit someone & injure them....Would you take responsibility for their hospital bills?
 
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/minicars-fall-short-for-small-overlap-frontal-protection

Good (just barely) news for Chevy Spark. Bad news for all others.

In all honesty though, even many larger cars did poorly in this test as they haven't been designed in a way to pass it. I'm sure within a few years the new designs will be introduced that will do well in this test, and the added cost will be passed on to us - the consumers.

And then IIHS will come up with yet another test that nobody can pass so that the insurance companies can hike up your rates "because your car isn't safe."



In all honesty, this is no science, as we had only one of each experiments and we don't know how much is left to randomness in this test. I think a lot, looking at different results for Yaris and Prius C. In reality, Prius C is just a hybrid version of Yaris, so results should be similar.

Speaking about insurance rates, wait for a stock crash, then the rates will really spike up. Since 2000, my cost to insure the very same home went several fold. After all, greedy insurance must make their money no matter what.
 
I hit a RWD Dodge Diplomat in an '85 Mustang (elderly driver with macular degeneration said that I, "appeared out of nowhere."

The Mustang was not a heavy car nor was it a large car. It would not pass any current collision test. It had 0 airbags and the crumple zone was probably under the passenger compartment. It is probably not as safe as a Honda Fit. I was un-injured.

The police investigator said that I was doing 50mph by the skidmarks. A practice rendered completely irrelevant by ABS which is fine with me because it has all the scientific value of phrenology. He literally measured the marks that were a little longer than the width of one lane and referred to a small laminated card that indicated X speed = Y distance. No taking into account mass, brake bias, weight distribution, effectiveness of brakes....etc.... This distance = this speed = junk science admissible in court.
 
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
LOL.

I'm not going to let the highly questionable auto insurance lobby change my buying habits based on a test they conjured up to help them justify higher rates for smaller cars.

I've always believed that any kind of mandatory insurance should be illegal.


I like these tests, their is zero reason why they cant build a safe car. Here is an idea that the masses should but wont support get rid of all the b.s. technology in the cars and focus more money on making them safe. Safety should come first.
the insurance companies doing these tests have contributed to the auto manufacturer building safer cars.
 
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
I hit a RWD Dodge Diplomat in an '85 Mustang (elderly driver with macular degeneration said that I, "appeared out of nowhere."

The Mustang was not a heavy car nor was it a large car. It would not pass any current collision test. It had 0 airbags and the crumple zone was probably under the passenger compartment. It is probably not as safe as a Honda Fit. I was un-injured.

The police investigator said that I was doing 50mph by the skidmarks. A practice rendered completely irrelevant by ABS which is fine with me because it has all the scientific value of phrenology. He literally measured the marks that were a little longer than the width of one lane and referred to a small laminated card that indicated X speed = Y distance. No taking into account mass, brake bias, weight distribution, effectiveness of brakes....etc.... This distance = this speed = junk science admissible in court.


The company I buy my service vans from has one guy on their payroll who consults with clients when there are traffic accidents involving their vans.

Accident investigators have been known to make HUGE errors in estimating speeds due to the way a 9000 pound plus van folds up a car!
 
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
LOL.

I'm not going to let the highly questionable auto insurance lobby change my buying habits based on a test they conjured up to help them justify higher rates for smaller cars.

I've always believed that any kind of mandatory insurance should be illegal.


You must not have children. My paternal instincts has never felt comfortable ENOUGH, even with our Sienna which has the best survival rating.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top