Forbes names least safe cars of 2007
In an obvious effort to keep its readership alive (and in turn circulation numbers up) Forbes magazine has made a list of the least safe cars of 2007. Before the flame wars start, note that cars on the list are not necessarily unsafe, but instead are not as safe as other cars available. Therefore, they are the least safe 2007 model year cars.
Most of the vehicles on the list are there because they don't have standard side air bags. But three -- Saturn's Ion, as well as Suzuki's Aerio and Forenza -- made the cut even with side air bags. To understand why these particular vehicles were named in the article, Forbes outlines its methodology, which includes crash tests, injury claims and the opinions of Consumer Reports' researchers.
The seven models named by Forbes are after the jump.
[Source: Forbes Magazine]
Forbes Magazine's least safe 2007 models in no particular order:
Most of the vehicles on the list are there because they don't have standard side air bags. But three -- Saturn's Ion, as well as Suzuki's Aerio and Forenza -- made the cut even with side air bags. To understand why these particular vehicles were named in the article, Forbes outlines its methodology, which includes crash tests, injury claims and the opinions of Consumer Reports' researchers.
The seven models named by Forbes are after the jump.
[Source: Forbes Magazine]
Forbes Magazine's least safe 2007 models in no particular order:
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
G 7:17PM (11/01/2006)
This has got to be one of the weakest articles I have ever read. Forbes should not be allowed to cover car-related things ever again. weak.
Reply
JJ 7:55PM (11/01/2006)
Who cares what this financial rag thinks !!!!!
Reply
pow 12:15PM (11/02/2006)
i agree with their list,
and if the Fusion didn't come with standard airbags for 2007 then it would have been on this list.
the one withouthte airbags was reated two below acceptable in the beggining, and even with the standard airbags it is still rated as average.
Reply
Tom Design 8:21PM (11/01/2006)
The real news isn't that cars without side air bags are unsafe, I agree with poster #1, G. There is news to be researched and written, and Forbes missed the mark. The Honda Element with it's suicide doors and lacking B-pillar is unsafe with side airbags. The Corolla went from good to poor in rear end crashes for 2006. The Hyundais, with all their wonderful airbags, don't rate 5 Star excellent in side/front impacts, what's up with that? Toyota RAV4 and other SUV's still place the spare tire on the outside of the rear door, superceding the effectiveness of the bumper in crashes. The rear view blindspots have grown immensely with manufacturers disregarding completely safety to rear vision, ie, the Dodge Magnum with tiny styled rear windows, the Subaru Legacy wagon with black paint on the rear window edges, the HHR and PT/Cruiser, the Volvo XC90, and most wagon/hatchback/Xcrossover and SUV's. All pickup trucks (except Ford 150) and most pickup based SUV's cause unnecessary damage and injury to passenger cars because Regan undid the bumper height laws, and made them voluntary. There's a lot to write about here, other than lack of airbags causing injury. Forbes isn't covering this well, and Consumer Reports has all but ignored most of the safety issues, in it's pandering to the research money funding by Asian importers. C-R used to bad mouth cars with rear vision obstacles, and you won't see it mentioned in a single review anymore. Cars and people cause accidents, that's the formula, and if drivers have to fuss with small, complicated dials like in BMW's, or multiplex aerospace buttons like SAAB, or can't see passengers because of Apillar thickness, or stop way too long because of cheap tire/brake combos, that's news.
Reply
James 8:24PM (11/01/2006)
hold on, give me a second to gather my thoughts.
Let me think... yes. This article is written by an idiot, and approved by idiots.
Reply
cFoo 8:31PM (11/01/2006)
I can't believe I wasted my time reading this thrash.
I can only blame myself for clicking on a Forbes link.
Reply
Dave 8:46PM (11/01/2006)
I think this article just isn't fair. Instead of advocating side airbags by showing the differences in crash survivability, they just make it sound like these cars are all deathtraps. The Mazda 3 is actually a pretty safe car if you get the airbags.
On the other hand, every car should come with them at this point.
Reply
Chet 8:42PM (11/01/2006)
This is what happens when people use Microsoft Excel to write articles.
Cross-referencing arbitrary feature counts with scant statistics and OPINIONS is not insight, it's space-filling junk, and it should be disregarded out-of-hand.
Reply
MikeW 9:07PM (11/01/2006)
daytime running lights help YOU see better.
that guy is on crack.
Reply
Mike 9:07PM (11/01/2006)
It sounds like you all are just pissed caus they're badmouthing your favorite cars.
It sounds like the article's real point is that many companies make side airbags OPTIONAL then use an equipped model to show us all how safe the car is, completely bypassing the important details.
This is one thing I have to applaud Honda for. "Safety for everyone" and they mean it. No airbags should be optional. Safety should not be limited to certain buyers.
Reply
whatsthepoint 9:18PM (11/01/2006)
Seems side airbags are all the rage now.
Reply
Tom Design 9:50PM (11/01/2006)
Mike => Are you reading the comments? No one is writing to defend any cars at all, and no one sounds pissed about any car. They sound pissed because it is such a crappy article on safety. Car companies are selling cars with side-airbags, like Honda, and some aren't even offering them, and some are offering them as options on the base only models, but standard on the more expensive cars. You are the one who is pushing a brand of car, Honda.
Your good point is that safety shouldn't be offered only to the rich. But car companies want to have a low entry price point, so they offer stripper models, and airbags cost 4-800, and drive up the cost of a Saturn by almost 10%! So, the cheap friggn person, who wants to ignore side impact safety, can get a cheaper car, and up until 2006, Honda played it the same way with/and without side airbags to have cheaper entry level autos. Look at the pricing on the last Gen CIVIC, it's a maze of prices, w/Side Air Bag, without side airbag. So don't make Honda all holy sounding, they just converted to the safety for all last year. And don't make car manufacturers the enemy, when people want to save a grand and take their chances on never being T-Boned by an SUV with a brush guard.
Reply
dodgeboy 10:25PM (11/01/2006)
But hey on the bright side. You tree huggers driving these 4seat go karts prolly spend 4$ a week less in gas than big dummies like me who drive safe full size vehicles. Driving one of these turds is like riding a motorcyle with a 60$ helmet because you dont want to spend the money for a good one.
Reply
Howard Kerr 10:50PM (11/01/2006)
I'm either brain dead, or some of the posters on AutoBlog are actually getting more intelligent.
Seriously, Tom Design really summed it up best. I own a Honda (my 3rd) and bought them inspite of the fact that you could not always get ABS and every possible airbag available...unless you popped for the MOST expensive model. Why should a manufacturer make a safety feature optional or standard on some models of a car and not others...when they are physically the same car? And shame on manufacturers for producing a majority of a model without some feature that enhances safety just so they can steer the customer into a (marginally) cheaper car. Or doing like Mazda and Nissan used to do, that is making you take ALL the available safety features in a costly "package" that included other options you may not want. Example? Mazda's last generation 626 that required you to take the automatic transmission if you wanted to get ABS and the FRONT side airbag "package". Why not ABS alone?
Reply
Howard Kerr 10:54PM (11/01/2006)
after reading dodgeBOY's comments, I guess I should retract my statement about the typical AutoBlogger's intelligence...
Reply
Mike 2:27AM (11/02/2006)
Tom Design -
Just a thought but you might want to actually READ a message before replying to it.
It case you didn't notice my problem was with mfgr's touting the base price along with the safety of the expensive model. Did you notice that's a two-part complaint?
I have NO PROBLEM WITH OFFERING STRIPPER MODELS. I have NO PROBLEM WITH MAKING AIRBAGS OPTIONAL. It's not a problem UNTIL THEY PUSH THINGS DISHONESTLY.
Simple, no?
Reply
cars power 3:42AM (11/02/2006)
This list with Toyota and Chevrolet in the first positions is scary
http://www.carsprofile.com/
Reply
Kevin 8:04AM (11/02/2006)
Part of the problem I saw with Forbes' methodology was how they almost arbitrarily picked safety features to be important. If your car didn't meet these points, it wasn't safe.
For example, the geometry/height of head restraints. Now I agree that for taller people (above 6 foot), these are very important qualities. But for the rest of us, this isn't a safety issue at all. You'll often find this the case in Asian cars, where there is a lower average height.
My problem is that Forbes does not appear to have based their research on real experimental data, but rather arbitrary assumptions and conjecture.
Reply
Dave Thomas 9:56AM (11/02/2006)
The big point that was glossed over is that when the dealer offers the customer the option of side airbags for $695 versus lets say a $900 sunroof, they opt for the sunroof. When dealing with price its odd to see what buyers feel is important. Should they all be standard? eventually these models will phase out and the ones that replace them will have side airbags standard and we see that happening already. like the hyundais of the world.
As for Forbes, just be glad they fixed their error and took down the "new" list from 2006 that ran yesterday morning as "news". I was really calling them idiots then since 5 out of the six models they talked about last year are now gone and replaced. Looking at this list at least we know the Mazda 3, Cobalt and focus will stick around another couple of years so its a bit more valid.
Reply
cezary 11:22AM (11/02/2006)
Forbes rates - who cares? They're by far the last source to ask for such information.
Enough to mention Aerio won a Best Pick for safety 2 years ago.
Reply