Due to the popularity of small, fuel-sipping cars, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has smashed up some of the newest offerings. And, as if you needed further proof to get optional side air bags on your next car, the minimally-bagged Hyundai Accent, Kia Rio, Scion xB and Toyota Yaris all got poor ratings while the Nissan Versa and Honda Fit, both with standard side airbags, and the Yaris with optional side bags, got top ratings in side crash testing
The Accent and Rio both come with standard air bags, but the tests showed significant driver injury was possible. Pity the xB owners who don't even have a choice of side air bags. The IIHS said that during testing, the xB's dummy's head actually struck the crash barrier. That's gotta hurt.
The IIHS also mangled a 2006 MINI Cooper and a Chevy Aveo with standard side bags. The MINI got an acceptable rating, while the Aveo scraped by with a marginal, just above poor.
Despite the Fit's remarkable side crash results, the Honda's front airbag didn't perform properly during the frontal crash. Honda says Fit owners can expect a recall to address the airbag's early-deployment.
For an IIHS summary of all the small cars tested, click here. For an IIHS summary video, go here.
[Source: The New York Times, The Associated Press via wcnc.com]
New KITT Attack Mode revealed at Comic Con
London 2008: Honda OSM concept roadster says, "Cheerio!"
London 2008: Lotus unveils the Evora
2010 Chevy Camaro - Official Details and Images
2010 Chevy Camaro - LIVE from the reveal
In the Autoblog Garage: Aprilia RSV 1000 R
First Drive: Maserati Quattroporte S in Europe
First Drive: 2008 MINI Cooper S JCW
In the Autoblog Garage:2009 Nissan GT-R
North American Exclusive First Drive: Alfa MiTo
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Dr. Woo @ Dec 19th 2006 9:07AM
Form over function. Not typical of Toyotas. Good thing the xB replacement is coming soon.
Shawn @ Dec 19th 2006 9:15AM
The result of these tests showed that even with airbags, small cars are not as safe as larger cars.
Dr. Woo @ Dec 19th 2006 9:31AM
I'd venture to say that Shawn's statement can be expanded on with the following:
"The result of these tests showed that even with airbags, small cars are not as safe BECAUSE OF larger cars."
Jimmy @ Dec 19th 2006 9:42AM
Despite their large profits, Toyota doesn't make side air bags and ABS standard like VW did years ago and Honda has recently done. Toyota charges a premium for their cars and have earned record profits.. yet can't "afford" to make safety features standard!?!
Jimmy @ Dec 19th 2006 9:42AM
#2 Shawn: Your statement is incorrect. The side impact tests are comparable across vehicle weight classes. Check out the IIHS side impact ratings for a VW Rabbit and Honda Civic vs Buick LaCrosse and Nissan Maxima (all with side airbags).
Size doesn't provide safety, engineering provides safety.
D Man @ Dec 19th 2006 9:45AM
Nissan does things the right way, I still think Toyota is getting TOO BIG and we will continue to see problems with this car manufacture.
Lithous @ Dec 19th 2006 9:59AM
" I'd venture to say that Shawn's statement can be expanded on with the following:
"The result of these tests showed that even with airbags, small cars are not as safe BECAUSE OF larger cars.""
So everyone should have to go buy small cars so that small cars would be more safe? Should we get rid of truckers so that small cars will be safe (and so that we don't get our products, we want in our stores, delivered to us. We have to get rid of UPS and Fed Ex, they have larger vehicles too. And oh, home construction, no more; because trucks are used. Yes, great observation. Get rid of all the big and little will be safer. Let's do it!
starlightmica @ Dec 19th 2006 10:08AM
"Get rid of all the big and little will be safer. Let's do it!"
Those of us driving subcompacts, especially without side impact airbags, certainly wouldn't mind. Go right ahead, be our guest.
Matt @ Dec 19th 2006 10:11AM
From an article about these findings:
"deaths in small cars also were higher in single-vehicle crashes, compared to larger vehicles."
The smaller the car, the less safe it is in general. It's just physics.
Seeddoooasa @ Dec 19th 2006 10:54AM
Even if there were no other car around, wouldn't you rather be in a Camry, then you would be in an Xb if you slammed into a tree?!
Larger cars in general, are more safe then small cars in general...
Adrian @ Dec 19th 2006 10:57AM
Lihous's arguements are childish - grow up.
If it were true that bigger cars were safer, the US would have the lowest deaths on the road in the Western World - instead it has one of the highest.
A big part of safety is avoiding the accident in the first place. Small cars, stop and turn more quickly the SUVs and are much less likely to tip over.
Jellodyne @ Dec 19th 2006 11:04AM
I'd bet statistics would show that lower horsepower cars are safer too...
Steve S @ Dec 19th 2006 11:07AM
Too bad amaerican drivers for the most part can't drive all that well so having a smaller more nimbler car won't do you any good, especially when that Expedition XL hits you.
Seeddoooasa @ Dec 19th 2006 11:16AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16273695/
VW-Guy @ Dec 19th 2006 11:22AM
"Even if there were no other car around, wouldn't you rather be in a Camry"
NOPE! I would fall asleep and be involved in a single vehicle crash. They'd find me in the ditch with my left turn blinker flashing non stop.
Dave T. @ Dec 19th 2006 11:25AM
The entire study by the IIHS begins with them stating that in a crash these sized cars are TWICE as likely to result in deaths than mid sized and large CARS. It is just physics like said above. There have been large sedans roaming roads for the past 60 years. This isn't new.
I'm still shocked Nissan hasn't put out a press release yet touting their superiority in these tests to Toyota and Honda.
Jeff @ Dec 19th 2006 11:29AM
""The result of these tests showed that even with airbags, small cars are not as safe BECAUSE OF larger cars.""
On side impact tests perhaps, but on the frontal impact tests, hitting a concrete wall has nothing to do with the size of the other car, if you hit a wall (or tree or pole or divider) in a small car, you will not fare as well as if you did it at the same speed in a larger car.
If you tree huggers want to die for your cause and drive little death traps, feel free to do so. I'll take a bigger car with more steel between me and what I'm about to hit. The fuel economy is not that much different ( a dollar or two a day) that's pretty cheap insurance.
Shawn @ Dec 19th 2006 11:31AM
Jimmy, I don't know of any larger cars with airbags that got a "poor" side impact rating.
Richard Warren @ Dec 19th 2006 11:36AM
Duh!
Ivan the Terrible @ Dec 19th 2006 11:43AM
"3. I'd venture to say that Shawn's statement can be expanded on with the following:
"The result of these tests showed that even with airbags, small cars are not as safe BECAUSE OF larger cars.""
Dr. Wu's statement is an improvement over shawn's obvious obnservation.
However, if you want to be precise, you should say
"The result of these tests showed that even with airbags, small cars are not as safe BECAUSE OF fat-ass 5,000 lbs+, rollover-prone, poor handling in an emergency LARGE SUVS and Pickup trucks, driven by auto illiterate Soccer moms and hillbillies, that take $100 to fill theiur tank, and that is $50 more than it NEEDS to be, and in the process:
1. They make fuel prices MORE, MUCH MORE, expensive for EVERYONE ELSE too ("It's the demand stupid!"
2. They fund OSAMA And his suicidal murderers to train and buy the weapons to kill the silly soccer moms THEMSELVES with."
Moral: If what you need is an excellent MINIVAN, buy the ODYSSEY, the amazing, 4,500 lb, 28 mpg highway Odyssey (if youg et cylinder deactivation), and NOT Explorers, Expeditions, Extinctions, Suburbans, Mazda Crossover ugly butt vehicles, and the like.