Filed under: Car Buying, Safety
IIHS releases 2007 Top Safety Pick Awards; not a domestic to be found
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has announced the recipients of its Top Safety Pick awards for 2007, a prize that's highly revered by those brands whose vehicles earn the honor. 13 vehicles made the cut this year, including four cars, seven SUVs and two minivans (see full list below). This year the IIHS has made the requirements for a Top Safety Pick higher than ever, as in addition to achieving a good rating on front, side and rear impact crash tests, winners also have to offer electronic stability control, at least as an option. A few vehicles, like the Ford Five-Hundred and Mercury Montego, would have made the list had ESC been offered even as an option. That's an important point, as not one single domestic earned a Top Safety Pick award this year. The insistence that ESC be at least an option also contributed to the lack of any small cars on the list. By 2012, the requirment of offering ESC shouldn't be an issue, as the NHTSA has mandated that stability control be standard on al vehicles by then. No trucks are tested for the award because the Institute says it hasn't yet begun to evalute their side crashworthiness, but SUVs were considered for the first time this year and obviously fared well. Honda/Acura and Subaru had the most winners overall, with three Top Safety Pick awards going to each company. Many other brands, including some domestics, came up just short, whether on account of ESC not being offered or the lack of good seat/head restraints. Toyota, for instance, would have had nine (!) Top Safety Pick winners if only its vehicles had better seat/head restraints.
Check out the IIHS full press release after the jump.
[Source: IIHS]
PRESS RELEASE:
2007 TOP SAFETY PICK award winners: award criteria are tougher; SUVs eligible for first timeARLINGTON, VA - The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety announces 13 vehicles that earn TOP SAFETY PICK awards for 2007. Winners include 4 cars, 7 SUVs, and 2 minivans. This award recognizes vehicles that do the best job of protecting people in front, side, and rear crashes based on ratings in Institute tests. Winners also have to be equipped with electronic stability control (ESC).
Vehicles eligible to win are current small, midsize, and large car models plus minivans and small and midsize SUVs. Pickups aren't included in this round of awards because the Institute hasn't begun to evaluate their side crashworthiness.
"Our crash tests cover the most common kinds of real-world collisions," says Institute president Adrian Lund. "Designating TOP SAFETY PICK winners based on the tests makes it easier for consumers to identify vehicles that afford the best overall protection without sifting through multiple sets of comparative test results."
Tougher criteria to win: The Institute rates vehicles good, acceptable, marginal, or poor based on performance in high-speed front and side crash tests plus evaluations of seat/head restraints for protection against neck injuries in rear impacts. The first requirement for a vehicle to become a TOP SAFETY PICK is to earn good ratings in all three Institute tests.
A new requirement for 2007 is that the winning vehicles must offer ESC. This addition is based on Institute research indicating that ESC significantly reduces crash risk, especially the risk of fatal single-vehicle crashes, by helping drivers maintain control of their vehicles during emergency maneuvers.
"The idea of tightening the criteria for the award is to encourage more vehicle safety improvements," Lund says. "Last year a car could win with an acceptable rating in the rear test instead of the highest rating of good, and ESC wasn't considered. Now it's tougher to win, and some of the 2006 winners don't meet the criteria for this year's award because the manufacturers haven't improved the head restraints from acceptable to good or don't offer ESC."
In particular, the Ford Five Hundred and Mercury Montego, large family cars, are good crash test performers but don't have ESC, even optional. The midsize Chevrolet Malibu doesn't have ESC either, and its seat/head restraints aren't rated good. These cars won in 2006 but not 2007.
No small cars won this year's award. The four-door Honda Civic won last year, but most 2007 Civics don't have ESC. Those that do don't have seat/head restraints rated good for rear crash protection.
Each year the Institute offers to test early the vehicles that manufacturers think will be candidates to win TOP SAFETY PICK. All current car and minivan models plus small and midsize SUVs are eligible. Three of the 13 winning vehicles for 2007 are from Honda, including an Acura SUV. Three winners are Subarus.
Vehicle size and type are factored in: TOP SAFETY PICK is awarded by vehicle size because size and weight are closely related, and both influence how well occupants will be protected in serious crashes. Larger, heavier vehicles generally afford better protection in crashes than smaller, lighter ones.
"The awards recognize the cream of the crop for safety in the vehicle size classes, but they don't mean a smaller vehicle that's an award winner affords better protection than a larger vehicle that didn't win TOP SAFETY PICK," Lund points out.
Automakers heed ratings and make changes to win: Crash tests have driven major improvements in the designs of all kinds and sizes of passenger vehicles. The Institute began frontal crash tests for consumer information in 1995. Side tests were added in 2003, and the following year a dynamic test to evaluate rear crash protection was introduced. Most vehicles now earn good ratings in the Institute's frontal test, but significant differences still are apparent in the performances of vehicles in side and rear crashes.
Some manufacturers improved their vehicles specifically to earn TOP SAFETY PICK awards. Audi redesigned the seat/head restraints in the A4 and A6 to improve performance in the Institute's rear test. Subaru accelerated plans to offer ESC on some versions of the Forester and Legacy.
"But ESC isn't on every version of these two Subarus. Initially it's only on the sporty or pricier models. It's disappointing that Subaru didn't add ESC across the board," Lund says. The company plans to expand ESC availability later.
Other vehicles are in the process of being changed to earn TOP SAFETY PICK status. For example, Ford will add ESC to 2008 Freestyles, so when this SUV is introduced next year it will qualify. Automakers also have been adding standard side airbags with head protection, even though government regulations don't require them. All 2007 TOP SAFETY PICK winners have standard side airbags.
Seventeen other vehicles would have won 2007 awards if they had good seat/head restraint designs. Toyota could have claimed nine TOP SAFETY PICK awards, including three Lexus winners. Honda could have picked up four additional awards, including one for an Acura.
"Protection in rear crashes is an area where many vehicles lag behind in safety," Lund notes. "As manufacturers continue to improve seat/head restraints, we expect to see more winners."
SUVs qualify for 2007: SUVs weren't eligible to win in 2006 because the Institute hadn't evaluated the side crashworthiness of many of them. Now more SUVs have been rated, and 2007 winners reflect the safety improvements manufacturers have been making to these vehicles.
"In the past SUVs, especially the smaller ones, weren't good safety choices compared with cars," Lund explains. "Many SUVs didn't earn good ratings in our crash tests, and on the road they were more likely than cars to get in serious single-vehicle crashes, including rollovers, because of their higher centers of gravity. Newer SUVs perform better in crash tests and, when equipped with ESC, are much less likely to roll over. All but one of the seven SUVs that win our 2007 TOP SAFETY PICK have ESC as standard equipment."
Recent Institute research found that ESC reduces the risk of serious crashes involving both SUVs and cars. The largest effect is in single-vehicle crashes, which were reduced 40 percent with the addition of ESC. Fatal single-vehicle crashes went down 56 percent, and fatal rollovers of cars and SUVs were reduced by about 80 percent.
How vehicles are evaluated: The Institute's frontal crashworthiness evaluations are based on results of frontal offset crash tests at 40 mph. Each vehicle's overall evaluation is based on measurements of intrusion into the occupant compartment, injury measures from a Hybrid III dummy in the driver seat, and analysis of slow-motion film to assess how well the restraint system controlled dummy movement during the test.
Each vehicle's overall side evaluation is based on performance in a crash test in which the side of the vehicle is struck by a barrier moving at 31 mph that represents the front end of a pickup or SUV. Ratings reflect injury measures recorded on two instrumented SID-IIs dummies, assessment of head protection countermeasures, and the vehicle's structural performance during the impact. Injury measures obtained from the two dummies, one in the driver seat and the other in the back seat behind the driver, are used to determine the likelihood that a driver and/or passenger in a real-world crash would have sustained serious injury. The movements and contacts of the dummies' heads during the crash also are evaluated. Structural performance is based on measurements indicating the amount of B-pillar intrusion into the occupant compartment.
Rear crash protection is rated according to a two-step procedure. Starting points for the ratings are measurements of head restraint geometry - the height of a restraint and its horizontal distance behind the back of the head of an average-size man. Seats with good or acceptable restraint geometry are tested dynamically using a dummy that measures forces on the neck. This test simulates a collision in which a stationary vehicle is struck in the rear at 20 mph. Seats without good or acceptable geometry are rated poor overall because they can't be positioned to protect many people.
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
beken 3:44PM (11/21/2006)
I thought MINIs had ESC (they call it DSC and ASC+T). As well, a whole bunch of "premium" small cars have ESC. So I take issue with the statement that no small cars have ESC. But it good to know that they have raised the standard in which they test by. The rear crash test is a welcome test as I've seen lots of damage to cars in rear-enders.
Reply
beadWORk 3:56PM (11/21/2006)
The thing I laughed at - Audi A6. Manufactured at December 2006. How they can check that this car is safety, if it isn't even presented on the market. The car can be called safe when it was on the market for at least a year. IMHO
Reply
Richard Warren 4:17PM (11/21/2006)
More stupidity. The cars HAD to have ESC. More "Driving for Dummys" Lets protect ourselves from ourselves and while we are at it lets add to the cost of the car and even better yet the cost of the repair after the accident. That would be your insurance bill you just heard going up.
I got this today and you know what, the timing is perfect:
CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL THE KIDS WHO WERE BORN IN THE
1930's 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's !!
First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they carried us.
They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can, and didn't get tested for diabetes.
Then after that trauma, our baby cribs were covered with bright colored lead-based paints.
We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets, not to mention, the risks we took hitchhiking.
As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags.
Riding in the back of a pick up on a warm day was always a special treat.
We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle.
We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and NO ONE actually died from this.
We ate cupcakes, white bread and real butter and drank soda pop with sugar in it, but we weren't overweight because......
WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING!!
We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on.
No one was able to reach us all day. And we were O.K.
We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.
We did not have Playstations, Nintendo's, X-boxes, no video games at all, no 99 channels on cable, no video tape movies, no surround sound, no cell phones, no personal computers, no Internet or Internet chat rooms..........WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!
We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no
lawsuits from these accidents.
We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever.
We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays,
made up games with sticks and tennis balls and although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes.
We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just yelled for them!
Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!!
The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law!
This generation has produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever!
The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.
We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned
HOW TO
DEAL WITH IT ALL!
You might want to share this with others who have had the luck to grow up as kids, before the lawyers and the government regulated our lives for our own good.
Kind of makes you want to run through the house with scissors, doesn't it?!
A note to the insurance industry, paying to have each driver go through a high performance driving school, you know actually learning to drive, might save as many or more lives as added on bullshit. Why were airbags first added, because dumb shits didn't wear their seatbelts (simple solution, accident, no belt, no pay)Antilock brakes because folks didn't know how to brake. ESC, can't handle the car, don't know how to recover from the situation.
I've got a better idea how about we form the Consumers Institute for Fair Insurance rates?
Reply
Howard Kerr 4:25PM (11/21/2006)
While I realize that continuing to raise the bar on safety is a good thing, certainly better than lowering it, I often get the feeling when the IIHS makes ANY of their "pronouncements" they are purposely trying to punish or shame certain manufacturers. Next year, will the IIHS come up with some other safety criteria so they can label 95% of the vehicles in dealer's showrooms as "unsafe" or even deathtraps (and yes, I know they never use that word). But seriously, give manufacturers a break IIHS...how about keeping your criteria static for more than 12 months.
Reply
Wilbur 4:31PM (11/21/2006)
+1 Warren!
Too many autos today are not equipped with the most important safety device of all-the one between your ears.
Reply
Paul 4:37PM (11/21/2006)
no american designs because amereican engineers are still living in the 1950's. the engineering talent in Japan has eclipsed the americans about 20 years ago.
Reply
MC 4:49PM (11/21/2006)
I hate to be the one who posts the anti-Toyota post, but what is the point in saying that they would have had 9 winners if their vehicles had better seat/head restraints?
That's like saying that a bicycle would have won the award if it had airbags, side impact protection, and stability control.
Reply
Andy 4:58PM (11/21/2006)
The absence of ESC in American family cars and minivans is scary. A lot of the complaints about US carmakers being behind are silly, but this one isn't. On the other hand, Hondas, Toyotas, and Nissans did rate poorly in rear protection.
Reply
Phil 5:10PM (11/21/2006)
The IIHS has lost credibility with this list, and of course the MEDIA with their biased agenda is just going to focus on saying there's no domestics on the list. People have been driving for 100 years without stability control, and I bet there's little statistical evidence to back up claims that it makes up for driver error, which is what causes 90% of accidents out there!
Many insurance companies don't even want people to equip their cars with ABS, because MORE people had accidents with it than not. There's nothing better than a well-trained driver to keep themselves out of trouble.
I disregard their lists because it's pure insurance industry nonsense that benefits them, not Consumers.
OH AND BY THE WAY, the AUDI A4 is NOT A MIDSIZED CAR!!! It's the size of a FOCUS, for pete's sake!
Why do all these dumb ratings groups, including CONSUMER REPORTS, keep publishing these BULLSHIT CATEGORIZATIONS?????
The 3-series BMW, and Mercedes C-Class get the same bullshit midsize listings. Somebody should sue them for $35 BILLION DOLLARS on behalf of the UAW and Ford and GM, whose been the losers as people invested in these LIES!!!!
Reply
pb 5:11PM (11/21/2006)
"OH AND BY THE WAY, the AUDI A4 is NOT A MIDSIZED CAR!!! It's the size of a FOCUS, for pete's sake!"
No kidding. My roomate has an A4, and I can't even fit into it comfortable.
I can fit into my Focus though just fine. Love that 2 inch higher than average roofline.
Reply
Mike 5:23PM (11/21/2006)
The insurance institute makes all these ratings, yet when you get a car thats equipped with good safety systems, they dont give you a break. So give me one reason why I should listen to their mumblings on safety? They're lab tests. And obviously, even they can see that... they don't give you much of a break do they..
Reply
aaron 5:31PM (11/21/2006)
interesting. the best marginal and worst are dominated by the japanese.
lmao.
Reply
l.o.o.o.o.s.e.r. 5:50PM (11/21/2006)
No one really needs safety, it's just a thing created by Consumer Report and the Japanese.
Reply
Tony C 6:21PM (11/21/2006)
Likewise, the RDX *is not a midsize SUV!!!*
Amazingly, they got the CR-V right, how did they screw up its Acura sibling?
Reply
Michael 6:28PM (11/21/2006)
It's a flawed list because they DON'T test every car on the market.
This is particularly misleading when the headlines are so doom-and-gloom: "Safest cars are foreign cars", "No US Models On List Of Safest Vehicles", "No Domestic Cars On 'Safe' List", "'Safest' Cars Of 2007 All Imports, No US On List", and so on.
This means that there are potential domestic "Top Safety Picks", but the Institute hasn't tested them.
Additionally, it's all a calculated formula that doesn't take into consideration the overall safety of a vehicle. There's no doubt a X5 (not on the list) is considerably safer than a CR-V in any frontal or side crash. But because the X5 "marginal" headrests, the Honda is safer.
I don't think so.
Reply
Michael 6:30PM (11/21/2006)
In addition, they left out the VW Rabbit, Jetta, and Passat on the "also rans: acceptable rear protection" list, all of which CLEARLY meet the criteria: ESP availability, "good" front, "good" side, and "acceptable" headrest.
Reply
qaz 7:09PM (11/21/2006)
lol awd biased list
Reply
Dave H 8:34PM (11/21/2006)
This is nuts! Ford Explorer / Mecury Mountaineer exceeded all 2010 Safety requirements in 2006. It has STANDARD Air Curtain in 2007 and ESC. Why is it not on the list?
Reply
Mike from Scarborough 9:59PM (11/21/2006)
No surprise that the Germans and Swedes get marks for safe rigid,well assembles chasis,and Quality Interiors.The Unsafe thing about cars today are some of the stability,controls.ABS is one thing but stability control allows the driver to drive faster in poor conditions,isolating the him/her from reality.I Think people back in the 70's had more respect for the roads and other drivers when they were more apart of it.The dumbest thing is that "Self Park" Lexus...Oh!! I get it,, the people who buy these cars can't even drive.
Reply
sentient creature 10:13PM (11/21/2006)
Wow, some of these comments make it clear why only those who are invited to do so may comment on Jalopnik's articles.
Reply