There are many reasons why we love the Scion FR-S and Subaru BRZ, and now safety can be added to this list. Both of these track-friendly fraternal twins were just named as 2012 Top Safety Picks by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety making them the only sub-$30,000 sport coupes to make the list.

Aside from the small batch of luxury cars, the IIHS has not performed any more of its small overlap tests, but both the FR-S and BRZ earned top marks for frontal-, side- and rear-crash safety as well as roof strength. Since both cars are practically identical, only the FR-S was used for these crash tests, and it joins the xB, xD and tC for Scion's 2012 Top Safety Pick cars. For Subaru, aside from the old-bodied WRX and the yet-to-be-released XV Crosstrek, all of the automaker's current models are Top Safety Picks, and if it can pull off top safety results for its all-new crossover and next-generation sport sedan, its entire lineup would be on the list... something that even Acura can no longer boast.

Speaking of Acura, other new additions to the ever-growing list of safe cars include the 2013 ILX. Scroll down to watch videos of the FR-S crash tests.




I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 24 Comments
      dadslife83
      • 2 Years Ago
      And this happened because it was engineered by Subaru. My ex-wife has crashed two subies and survived just fine.
      Mike Hunt
      • 2 Years Ago
      I wish they would have released the FR-S with the concept's wheels. They looked SO much better.
      • 2 Years Ago
      [blocked]
      Perplexed-Sausage
      • 2 Years Ago
      saw my frist one in person and im not as impressed as i thought i would be.
        torqued
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Perplexed-Sausage
        Visually, it's pretty understated. It's not a revolutionary design at all.
      Stumpy
      • 2 Years Ago
      I want one of these twins SO Bad! Great news to hear they are very well built! ..
      • 2 Years Ago
      [blocked]
      • 2 Years Ago
      [blocked]
        flammablewater
        • 2 Years Ago
        We just need to bring back the wagon kill off the CUV. Or raise gas prices a bit, should have the same effect.
          • 2 Years Ago
          @flammablewater
          [blocked]
        • 2 Years Ago
        [blocked]
          • 2 Years Ago
          [blocked]
      L1011
      • 2 Years Ago
      If I had a Scion in that burnt orange color I'd want to crash it into a barrier too. Yuck! Glad to hear it's a top safety pick though. Now let's get T-tops on the BRZ!
      ReTired
      • 2 Years Ago
      I thought the bumper height standard thing was tried decades ago, when the height was less style and drag-coefficient / aerodynamically critical...and was found impractical...was resisted by manufacturers and owners. No more lift-kitted trucks/suvs/cuv/s...(Free-Speech Rights?)...no sport suspension kits/options/adjustable ride/hydraulics...and the height still varies with road surface, vehicle dynamics (braking/acceleration/cargo/passengers)...so now a foot high vertical-faced or concave (so the bumpers don't over-ride each other) panels front and rear, wrapping around the corners...all you'll need is the pole for the ceiling pickup on your $100,000 BMW-umper car...and your insurance will go UP ! And you all complain about a car's looks NOW !!!
        Dayv
        • 2 Years Ago
        @ReTired
        Easy solution: require all bumpers to be so large that they just *have* to overlap. Make the whole dang front/rear end a bumper.
      NoMoreBS
      • 2 Years Ago
      The stupidity of American government is that the bumper height requirement ONLY applies to "passenger cars". "Light Trucks" skirt this requirement, even though they are 99% used as passenger cars today. Want to be subject to lower fuel economy regs, and no bumper height restriction? Jack up a legacy 2 inches, call it an outback, and bam, you have a "light truck". The crash compatibility is better, because truck frames are designed to line up with car frames now, but still not the bumper. They claim that the bumper being too low would hinder it's "utility" (as if anyone brought anything off road these days anyhow), but in reality the frame or radiator or oil pan or exhaust is the limiting factor, not the bumper. Like red taillights and white headlights, all vehicles on the road should be required to use the same bumper height. Insurance costs would go down for all of us. Also if people stopped driving stupid SUV's and glorified roided mom wagons (CUV's), then gas prices would go down for ALL of us. As would everything else that uses a vehicle for transport (food, shipping costs, goods, services, etc). The IIHS is pushing for the bumper height thing to become a reality, and I do hope it happens soon. They got away with profiting from the basic SUV design for years now (without having to worry about fuel economy because of the light truck loophole), and it's time we put a stop to it. Sedan's and wagons are all we need, and everyone would be safer and more efficient because of it. If you still want to off road an SUV, then they should require some kind of electronic suspension that lowers them to a safe height on road, with the option to raise them for off road use. FINE the people who don't lower it on the road. We have the tech to do this easily now.
      Cruising
      • 2 Years Ago
      one more reason to put on to buy list.
      TJKEON
      • 2 Years Ago
      Jeff, you had to go crunch my two favorite new cars! Keep up the good work
    • Load More Comments