
Click the image above for a gallery of all the IIHS contenders.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has just released its most recent round of crash tests, rating everything from the Kia Amanti to the BMW 5-series in one fell swoop. With a focus set on more luxury-oriented vehicles, the IIHS tested six new models to destruction, and walked away with results for front, side and rear impacts.
Topping the list, were the 2007 Acura RL, Kia Amanti and Volvo S80, all of which earned top marks. The S80, not surprisingly, garnered the Institute's Top Safety Pick for overall crash worthiness, rating good in all three categories, plus having standard stability control. The BMW 5-series didn't fare as well, getting a "marginal" score on the side impact test, despite being equipped with side airbags.
Mercedes asked the IIHS to retest the 2007 E-Class after only scoring an "acceptable" rating when test previously. After re-engineering a number of interior bits, the score remained the same, although the Institute noted a slight improvement, but not enough to affect the overall score. IIHS president, Adrian Lund, remarked that the E-class could have earned the Top Safety Pick award if the side impact rating had increased.
The IIHS also retested a revised version of the 2007 Cadillac STS, which included reinforced B-pillars, front door trim and a modified side torso airbag, which resulted in an "acceptable" rating.
The Institute made it a point to say that nearly every passenger vehicle now earns a top rating for frontal crashes, but side and rear impacts remain all over the board.
The full IIHS press release is posted after the jump.
[Source: IIHS]
PRESS RELEASE
ARLINGTON, VA - Three of six large car models earn the top rating of good, but one is marginal in side impact crash tests conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Results show a range of performance in how well large cars are designed to protect people in serious side crashes.
Ratings of good, acceptable, marginal, or poor are based on a crash test in which a barrier designed to replicate the front end of a typical SUV or pickup truck strikes the tested vehicle in the side at 31 mph.
The best performers are the Acura RL, Kia Amanti, and Volvo S80, all 2007 models. The S80 also earns the Institute's 2007 TOP SAFETY PICK award for superior overall crash protection. The S80 qualifies because it's rated good in the Institute's front, side, and rear tests and has electronic stability control as standard equipment. The 2007 Cadillac STS and Mercedes E class earn acceptable ratings in the latest round of side tests. The worst performer is the 2008 BMW 5 series, which earns the second lowest rating of marginal for side impact protection. All 6 cars are equipped with standard side airbags that protect the heads of people in front and rear seats.
Side impacts are the second most common fatal crash type after frontal crashes. About 9,200 people in passenger vehicles were killed in side impacts in 2005. In crashes with other passenger vehicles during 2004-05, 49 percent of driver deaths in 1-3-year-old cars and minivans occurred in side impacts, up from 31 percent in 1980-81. During the same time, the proportion of driver deaths in frontal crashes declined from 61 to 46 percent.
"These changes are attributable to two effects," says Institute president Adrian Lund. "There have been significant improvements in frontal crash protection - standard airbags, improved structural designs, and increased use of safety belts, for example. At the same time, growing sales of SUVs and pickups have exacerbated height mismatches among passenger vehicles, thereby increasing the risks to occupants of many vehicles struck in the side."
High price doesn't always predict safety performance: The lowest priced vehicle in the group the Institute recently tested, the Amanti, was one of the best performers. One of the most expensive models, the 5 series, was the worst.
"The Amanti shows that you don't have to buy an expensive car to get good protection in crashes with SUVs and pickup trucks," Lund points out. The side structure of the Amanti allowed more intrusion than in the other cars in this group, but all of the injury measures recorded on the dummies were low. The standard head curtain airbags for front- and back-seat occupants kept the dummies' heads from hitting any hard structures including the intruding crash test barrier.
The head-protecting airbags in the BMW 5 series are tubular structures that differ from the curtain airbags in the Amanti but also are effective. However, torso protection is rated poor for the driver dummy in the 5 series, even though it has separate airbags designed to protect the chests and abdomens of front-seat occupants. Measures recorded on the driver dummy indicate that rib fractures and internal organ injuries would be likely to occur in a real-world crash of this severity. A pelvic fracture also would be possible.
Changes are made to improve occupant protection in side impacts: The Mercedes E class was re-engineered for 2007 with an emphasis on improving occupant protection in side crashes. When the Institute tested an early production model in 2007, the car earned an acceptable rating mainly because of high forces recorded on the driver dummy's torso. Mercedes changed the front door trim panels on cars built after May 2007 to try to fix the problem and asked the Institute to test the revised car. The result was a slight improvement but not enough to change this car's rating. The test of the revised design still showed high forces on the driver dummy that could result in rib and pelvic fractures in a real-world crash of similar severity.
"The E class earns the Institute's top rating of good for front and rear crash protection. If this manufacturer can improve side impact protection, this car will earn TOP SAFETY PICK," Lund says.
General Motors made changes to the Cadillac STS including reinforcing the B-pillars, changing front door trim panels, and modifying the side torso airbags. The car with these changes earns the second highest rating of acceptable.
The side impact test is only one aspect used to evaluate vehicle crashworthiness. The Institute also conducts 40 mph frontal offset crash tests and evaluates vehicles' seat/head restraint designs for protection in rear crashes. Nearly every passenger vehicle, including all of the cars in this group, now earns the highest rating of good for frontal crash protection. However, side and rear evaluations vary widely. Consumers shopping for safety need to be aware of these differences and choose vehicles that offer the best overall protection in crashes. For comparative evaluations of hundreds of passenger vehicles, go to www.iihs.org/ratings.
How side tests are conducted: A vehicle's 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. The barrier represents the front end of a pickup or SUV. Overall ratings reflect injury measures recorded on two instrumented SID-IIs dummies, assessment of head protection countermeasures, and the vehicle's structural performance during the test. 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 sustain serious injury to various body regions. The movements and contacts of the dummies' heads during the test also are evaluated. Structural performance is based on measurements indicating the amount of B-pillar intrusion into the occupant compartment.













Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
felipe @ Aug 16th 2007 8:42AM
the Amanti is safer then a Cadillac and caddy's still cant make "best" catagory....you should be ashamed GM, you make the biggest doors for crying out loud.
and wtf BMW 5 series :(
congrats to the top of the list.....
PuffyC @ Aug 16th 2007 9:20AM
The point isn't that these luxury cars are not safe, the point is that you can buy a cheap POS like the Kia and still be driving a safe car. All cars are pretty safe these days as long as they don't come from China.
The Caddy received the second highest rating, and was as good as Mercedes and better than BMW so it's not entirely fair to single them out.
Brian Dreggors @ Aug 16th 2007 9:59AM
The Amanti looks better after the crash...
Phil @ Aug 16th 2007 10:14AM
Good point!
Keep in mind folks that this test doesn't include all cars. It's a small sample of only six cars. They shouldn't release stats until all the figures are in IMO...
Greg A. @ Aug 16th 2007 10:28AM
Phil: Help me understand what you're saying. Why should the people currently shopping for cars in this segment have to wait for all of the vehicles in the segment to be tested before any results are released? (Not that the IIHS can afford to test all of the new cars available in this segment, but let's assume for the sake of argument that they can.) I'm sure a lot of people will be pleased to just get an S80 rather than a car that wasn't included in this round of tests and have crash protection that's among the best (if not the best) in class, NOW, rather than wait to see if a yet-to-be-tested model also is awarded the "Top Safety Pick" designation.
David @ Aug 16th 2007 10:04AM
I'll take a Brilliance BS6 sedan anyday.
drstrangegun @ Aug 16th 2007 10:53AM
David,
I'd take one too, if it were provided free and with no strings.
And when I got it home, I'd find a shop with a lift and start reinforcing the frame before I even *thought* about driving it around.
Greg A. @ Aug 16th 2007 10:36AM
Autoblog's headline for this piece is misleading. It should read, "IIHS tests reveal that MORE money doesn't always buy MORE safety."
omar @ Aug 16th 2007 10:37AM
boy volvo has done it again, they spend all of that time in Sweden perfecting the art of crash testing their cars. Good for Volvo they will always be on the forefront of safety even when mercedes thinks that they have the best systems out their. Benz just manage to have more funds at their disposal to create all of these features like infared night light, and they also have the entire German nation at their disposal like BOSCH. Volvo on the other hand still gets the majority of their parts from germany, but they have to do some much with crappy Ford, but by the end of this year Volvo will be all back home in Sweden under Swedish ownership. Shitty Ford can just do what they do best all along again, make garbage.
Volvo won that top award because of all their patented systems like SIPS, IC, WHIPS, safety cage, front rear and side cross member structures, transverse engines.
Props to Volvo, one of the best automakers out their, fine, simple, european, luxury cars. Volvo For Life.
m. @ Aug 16th 2007 12:41PM
I wonder why they didn't test the safest car in America? All new Ford Taurus.
Oh I forgot, the media would actually have to give a credit to Ford.
Don't worry Import lovers....you are safe.
japtraplex @ Aug 16th 2007 12:53PM
Um... actually Mercedes has patented, invented or introduced more safety features in the last 25 years than Volvo has in its entire history.
In fact, most of the safety features in a Volvo were introduced by Mercedes first. Sure Volvo has WHIPS and a few other things to call its own, but their list of accomplishments pales in comparisson to Mercedes.
Mercedes. For life.
japtraplex @ Aug 16th 2007 1:17PM
Ford Taurus the safest car in America? ....right
You mean Ford Taurus, as safe as numerous other cars in a few primitive crash tests that dont account for 99% of real world crash scenarios?
You mean Ford Taurus, the car rigged by Ford to pass a few tests to give the illusion of safety.
m. @ Aug 16th 2007 1:59PM
... Before you start throwing your amrs around, do a little research instead, and see what kind of crash tests did Taurus pass, and dont go on the Ford website - see nonbias reviews.
There is so many people living in the past.
japtraplex @ Aug 16th 2007 2:09PM
So lets see, the Ford Tarus received 5 star NHTSA rating in front and side impacts, and 5 star rollover resistance. Three words: Big F*cking Deal.
Congrats Ford, you managed to get high marks in a low-speed, 30 year old crash test that has virtually no bearing on actual vehicle safety.
Using the NHTSA rating as a guide for vehicle safety is flawed from square one. The criteria used to measure crash protection is so primitive and watered down that I can hardly believe NHTSA gets away with it. For example, a car that keeps chest loading relatively low will receive a high rating even if the occupant compartment collapses and severs the drivers legs at the thigh. Similarly, in a side impact a car will receive a high rating for adequate chest protection, even if forces on the pelvis or head are high enough to splinter them to pieces. Having a high star rating is like saying "this vehicle offers a bare minimum of crash protection" or "congrats you've just cleared the bar on the bottom rung of the safety ladder."
The NHTSA hands out these 4 and 5 star ratings like food stamps at a welfare office mainly because they are so easy to obtain. Even the cheapest, most primitive car can pass these misleading "tests" with flying colors. In fact, most manufacturers specifically design their cars to pass NHTSA with little to no regard for crash performance in areas that they wont be tested for. For example, a car may easily receive 5 star front and side rating from NHTSA, but rotate by 5 degrees or increase speed by 10mph and all of a sudden, that same 5 star car crushes like a rusty sardine tin. Or, rollover that same 5-star car and the roof collapses and bends as if it were built from metal clothes hangers.
The Taurus also received an IIHS "top safety pick award"... as did many other cars. Many cars have yet to be tested by the IIHS in all criteria to even be eligable to "the safety pick." Many cars will never even get the chance to win this distinction because they will never be tested by the IIHS period. Take the Mercedes S class for example. Mercedes poured millions into designing this car with all the latest and greatest safety technology and structural engineering. Yet it wont ever be tested by the IIHS because it sells in too low a volume.
Ultimately, any company can build a car to pass one particular crash test. However, a few brands clearly value a comprehensive approach to safety more than others. This can be seen in their historical commitment to safety innovation, technology and real world protection that encompass more than just one or two primitive crash tests. Before safety became a buzzword, they pioneered technologies that we now take for granted. I need not mention their names, but they hail from Sweden and Germany...But thats another matter all together.
I could write a book...
m. @ Aug 16th 2007 2:43PM
So basically your answer is? Big F... deal Taurus is the safest car in America.
AZMike @ Aug 16th 2007 10:47AM
these tests are such a hoot, and then the public takes everything they say as real-world, bible truth.
let me know the next time you're planning to be in an accident under controlled conditions like they use here; your car being pulled by a cable, at a controlled speed, in a building with a glass-smooth floor.
NONE of these tests are even remotely related to real-world conditions. if the impact point moves by only a few inches, the results will be totally different. the tests also don't take into consideration differing vehicle heights, or even more importantly, road surface and weather conditions.
...and yet, the public buys into everything, and these stupid tests seem to make a difference in which car they buy. amazing.
these tests have the same relevance in my life as Mr. Blackwell's 'worst-dressed' list: zero.
AZMike
Bob-omb @ Aug 16th 2007 10:56AM
Of course no two crashes are the same. But if you're telling me the side-impact tests especially don't say anything despite having an enormous impact area, or that the new rear impact test tells us nothing about the importance of active head restraints, then you must be smokin' somethin better than I am.
NeoteriX @ Aug 16th 2007 11:07AM
What's your point? I'd rather purchase a car with at least some knowledge of how effectively it will keep me safe in one of a thousand different scenarios rather than purchase a car completely ignorant as to its safety potential. (Or lack thereof).
Safety is an important part of a auto purchase by many consumers. How pray tell do you propose we rectify the information asymmetry between consumers and the manufacturers? The automakers are sure as heck not going to give us their test results or engineering plans. This is the next best thing.
Besides, in an ideal world, we'd easily be able to aggregate the other testing scores from other agencies like the NHTSA and other countries and develop a meta-analysis. Would be a good website project for someone.
RicardoHead @ Aug 16th 2007 12:50PM
LMAO. That sounds exactly like what the Chinese carmakers said too!
Calguy @ Aug 16th 2007 11:03AM
-Money doesn't buy perfection.
-Newer doesn't equal better (consider the 9 year old design Saab 9-5 betters both NEW MB and BMW).
-Despite every dork that will dispute it, a larger vehicle, doesn't promise greater safety, unless that big car has better engineering.
Can't wait to see how the new Smart ForTwo does. Wouldn't it be interesting if it gets higher marks than the E-class?