Click on the image above for pics of our uncrashed 2009 Acura TSX
The all-new 2009 Acura TSX was recently crashed into a barrier at 40 mph, and smacked with a side sled at 31 mph, by the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS). While the last model (2005-2008 with side airbags) scored "good" in frontal, and "acceptable" in side impact testing, the 2009 model received the highest scores ("good") in both tests. When combined with the improved rear crash test results (seat and head restraint design), the new TSX earned the Institutes's "Top Safety Pick" rating.
While our caps are off to Acura, we think it is time to revise all crash test standards (IIHS and NHTSA). Each time the results are released, we can't help but think that the automakers have learned how to ace the tests over the years. Let's bump up the speed in the barrier and sled tests (maybe throw a random angle in there to make things challenging?), and focus more on dynamic safety. As always, this team prefers to avoid the accidents in the first place.
[Source: IIHS]
Paris Preview: Officially Official, Honda's new hybrid is the Insight!
Mazda Kiyora city car concept, MX-5 facelift head to Paris
Leaked: Official updated Mazda MX-5 image
Reader Spy: Chevy Volt caught on set of Transformers 2
Spy Shot: Production interior of Chevy Volt (maybe)
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Jaguar XF Supercharged
By the Numbers - August 2008: New Digs Edition
In the Autoblog Garage: KITT Shelby GT500 KR
First Drive: 2009 Cadillac CTS-V
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Nissan Murano
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
halogenrepublic @ Jun 23rd 2008 4:37PM
Don't be a conspiracy theorist. Cars are getting safer. However, I can't say the same thing about drivers' behavior.
Allan @ Jun 23rd 2008 4:37PM
I like the idea of some dynamic testing. Real world accidents usually aren't some specifically weighted sled going some specific speed. They're at all angles, all speeds, and different shapes and sizes of vehicles.
The tests now are nice for a general idea of safety, I think... but more tests could be done.
Johnny @ Jun 23rd 2008 4:40PM
I agree. Lets have 4 tests. 50 mph frontal, 50mph rear, 40 mph side impact and roll the car down a hill 3 times and see if the roof caves in or not and if the passengers would survive.
done.
boneheadotto @ Jun 23rd 2008 5:31PM
To me the big problem with these tests is that they dont consistently test every car. There are so many cars out there that dont have test results which blows my mind. AND some of the tests are different per car. The IIHS is the only one that tests rear impact. The 5 star gov system does not rate rear impact from behind (they do side but not rear). But then the IIHS rear test is only at 20mph with a car of the SAME WEIGHT! So the smart is tested with a sled hitting the back of it that is the same weight. The Honda FIT was hit with a sled of the same weight at 20mph and it tested POOR!!! unbeleivable!! So with those tests results i would hate to see what happens to the back seat passengers when a Ford F150 rearends you going only 40mph!!!
Taylor @ Jun 23rd 2008 4:41PM
Frankly, I think cars are safe enough. With $4 gas, we don't need cars to be any heavier (24 airbags, more steel reinforcement, etc, etc)
All these safety features are doing is making drivers have a greater sense of invincibility in their car to do stupider stuff at greater speeds.
BigMcLargeHuge @ Jun 23rd 2008 4:55PM
Yup. A lot of talk at the IIHS is about expanding more into driver education and accident avoidance. Because it is rare that a car is generally 'unsafe' in an accident anymore.
There is a lot of evidence that there are ways to save many more lives than just adding airbags.
Hit'n'Run @ Jun 23rd 2008 5:51PM
Safe? We can't be to safe!
Will someone PLEASE think of the children?
Joe @ Jul 24th 2008 2:22PM
Or maybe people can just learn how to drive in the first place. What the US requires to get a license is downright pathetic (not sure how it is in other countries).
Chris @ Jun 23rd 2008 4:49PM
Of course it did well. It has that big shield on the front for protection!
Pluton @ Jun 23rd 2008 4:51PM
This car looks better AFTER the crash...
Scott @ Jun 23rd 2008 5:13PM
The head-on crash is what would improve this cars looks the most.
Dustin @ Jun 23rd 2008 5:00PM
Why take the article saying that the Acura TSX tops the safety standards to state that the safety standards aren't up to par? "Automakers have learned to ace the tests..." Are you suggesting Acura is cheaping out on us and not worrying about safety beyond the test ratings themselves? Perhaps they are acing the tests by making cars that are safe.
300Kid @ Jun 23rd 2008 5:00PM
The comment above about not being a conspiracy theorist and that cars are indeed getting safer is interesting. I do agree with it, but I also agree with the article. I could even go another step further and question the "crash test verification" procedures of IIHS. Those are the tests in which the automakers themselves crash the cars. Hmmmm....
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/frontal_test_info.html
"Test verification
Verification ratings are based on 40 mph frontal offset crash tests conducted by manufacturers for vehicles meeting requirements established by the Institute. Manufacturers supply information on basic vehicle and test parameters, measurements of intrusion into the occupant compartment, injury data recorded on a dummy representing an average-size man in the driver seat, and video of the tests. Institute engineers review this information and rate vehicles based on the same evaluation parameters used for the Institute's frontal offset test. To ensure manufacturers' good faith participation, the Institute is conducting audit tests."
Oh, ok, right.
8189720 @ Jun 23rd 2008 5:01PM
I agree with making crash tests completely random in terms of angles and speeds. Then, instead of comparing this car to that car, we can compare your chance of survival in this car or that car.
As pointed out before, you can't predict any sort of accident and it's good to know how the car will respond and protect in more than just front and side. We need to see it from more angles, pun intended.
300Kid @ Jun 23rd 2008 5:01PM
The comment above about not being a conspiracy theorist and that cars are indeed getting safer is interesting. I do agree with it, but I also agree with the article. I could even go another step further and question the "crash test verification" procedures of IIHS. Those are the tests in which the automakers themselves crash the cars. Hmmmm....
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/frontal_test_info.html
"Test verification
Verification ratings are based on 40 mph frontal offset crash tests conducted by manufacturers for vehicles meeting requirements established by the Institute. Manufacturers supply information on basic vehicle and test parameters, measurements of intrusion into the occupant compartment, injury data recorded on a dummy representing an average-size man in the driver seat, and video of the tests. Institute engineers review this information and rate vehicles based on the same evaluation parameters used for the Institute's frontal offset test. To ensure manufacturers' good faith participation, the Institute is conducting audit tests."
Oh, ok, right.
300Kid @ Jun 23rd 2008 5:02PM
Sorry for the long double-post....it wasn't showing up and I can't delete it. :-\
Vintage @ Jun 23rd 2008 5:15PM
Want random crashes? Just let Paris Hilton drive it.
MachinaDC5 @ Jun 23rd 2008 5:16PM
I thought these tests were conducted as per the most likely types if impacts vehicles see. The people who came up with the tests weren't a bunch of random guys sitting around a table drinking coffee, they were statisticians.
Aki @ Jun 23rd 2008 5:24PM
"Michael Harley" is being *very* unprofessional, and shows why autoblog is just that--a blog. Without substantial evidence, you can't blindly accuse Acura or any other carmaker for "catering" their crash tests to IIHS. Plus, Acura needs to comply with Euro standards, too.
Michael Harley @ Jun 23rd 2008 7:42PM
"While our caps are off to Acura, we think it is time to revise all crash test standards (IIHS and NHTSA)."
I don't see anything attacking Acura. Just the opposite, in fact.
- Mike