Autoblog http://www.autoblog.com Autoblog http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autoblog.com/media/feedlogo.gif Autoblog http://www.autoblog.com en-us Copyright 2013 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/<![CDATA[Ford Taurus earns Top Safety Pick from IIHS]]>http://www.autoblog.com/2009/08/04/ford-taurus-earns-top-safety-pick-from-iihs/http://www.autoblog.com/2009/08/04/ford-taurus-earns-top-safety-pick-from-iihs/http://www.autoblog.com/2009/08/04/ford-taurus-earns-top-safety-pick-from-iihs/#commentsFiled under: , ,

2010 Ford Taurus SHO - Click above for high-res image gallery

Color us unsurprised that the new 2010 Ford Taurus earned a coveted Top Safety Pick rating from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. After all, the previous-generation Taurus took home the award in 2008 and 2009 and the pre- name-change Ford Five Hundred was a Top Safety Pick way back in 2007.

In order to win the Top Safety Pick award, the IIHS says "a vehicle must earn the highest rating of good in the Institute's front, side, and rear tests and be equipped with electronic stability control." Click here and you'll see that the 2010 Ford Taurus got solid green marks all across the board.

We'd love to show an image gallery of the 2010 Taurus crash test results, but none are available. The last full-size Ford sedan actually crash tested by the IIHS was the 2007 Five Hundred. Therefore, the Top Safety Pick was awarded based on Ford's own internal crash test data after being verified by IIHS researchers.


Gallery: First Drive: 2010 Ford Taurus SHO


Photos Copyright (C)2009 Chris Paukert / Weblogs, Inc.
[Source: Insurance Institute For Highway Safety]

Ford Taurus earns Top Safety Pick from IIHS originally appeared on Autoblog on Tue, 04 Aug 2009 14:59:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>2010 ford taurus2010 ford taurus crash test2010 ford taurus sho2010 ford taurus top safety pick2010FordTaurus2010FordTaurusCrashTest2010FordTaurusSho2010FordTaurusTopSafetyPickcrash testCrashTestfalseiihsiihs crash testiihs ford taurusiihs testingiihs top safety pickIihsCrashTestIihsFordTaurusiihstestingiihstopsafetypickTue, 04 Aug 2009 14:59:00 EST http://www.autoblog.com/feed/19118762/article-comments.xml http://www.autoblog.com/feed/2009/08/04/ford-taurus-earns-top-safety-pick-from-iihs/19118762/article-detail.xml 19118762 http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/08/2010-taurus-sho_thumbnail.jpg http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/08/2010-taurus-sho.jpg <![CDATA[Smart USA responds to IIHS crash test results]]>http://www.autoblog.com/2009/04/14/smart-usa-responds-to-iihs-crash-test-results/http://www.autoblog.com/2009/04/14/smart-usa-responds-to-iihs-crash-test-results/http://www.autoblog.com/2009/04/14/smart-usa-responds-to-iihs-crash-test-results/#commentsFiled under: , ,


IIHS crash tests - Click above for high-res image gallery

Needless to say, the folks over at Smart USA were not pleased to see the results of the latest batch of crash testing from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The IIHS did a series of frontal offset crash tests between small and mid-size cars, one of which included a smart ForTwo versus a Mercedes C300. While the results may have been what most people expected, they don't correlate with the ForTwo's results in standardized tests where the IIHS rates the smart as good in front and side impacts. The feds at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration give the smart 4 stars on frontal impact and 5 on side impact.

The problem, as Smart USA sees it, is that the IIHS devised a test that no automaker has designed to and that they claim only represents about one percent of real world accidents. Smart has even set up a site for customer testimonials about the crash safety performance of their ForTwo. Typically in the past, Smarts have actually done quite well in similar vehicle-on-vehicle tests, such as the ones conducted by Mercedes and Auto Motor und Sport after the jump.

The fundamental issue is that car structures are very complex and their response in a crash is highly dependent on the precise nature of the vehicle-to-vehicle interface. Because of standardized tests, cars are optimized to perform well in those, just as the powertrain is optimized to maximize results on the EPA mileage tests. It's not clear at this point how the IIHS methodology varies from what has been done in the past and why the results are so much worse. One thing that's clear: this story is far from over.


Gallery: IIHS mid-size vs sub-compact crash tests


[Source: SmartUSA]

Continue reading Smart USA responds to IIHS crash test results

Smart USA responds to IIHS crash test results originally appeared on Autoblog on Tue, 14 Apr 2009 10:58:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>iihsiihs testingiihstestingiihstopsafetypickinsurance instinsurance instituteinsurance institute ...insurance institute for highway safetyinsurance institute for highway safety safety roof standardInsuranceInstInsuranceInstituteInsuranceInstitute...InsuranceInstituteForHighwaySafetyInsuranceInstituteForHighwaySafetySafetyRoofStandardsmall vs midsize crash testsSmallVsMidsizeCrashTestsTue, 14 Apr 2009 10:58:00 EST http://www.autoblog.com/feed/1516510/article-comments.xml http://www.autoblog.com/feed/2009/04/14/smart-usa-responds-to-iihs-crash-test-results/1516510/article-detail.xml 1516510 http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/04/c300-vs-smart_thumbnail.jpg http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/04/c300-vs-smart.jpg <![CDATA[IIHS finds sub-compacts fare poorly against mid-size sedans]]>http://www.autoblog.com/2009/04/14/iihs-finds-sub-compacts-fair-poorly-again/http://www.autoblog.com/2009/04/14/iihs-finds-sub-compacts-fair-poorly-again/http://www.autoblog.com/2009/04/14/iihs-finds-sub-compacts-fair-poorly-again/#commentsFiled under:


IIHS crash tests - Click above for high-res image gallery

One of the biggest concerns people have with buying smal cars is crash safety. More specifically, there are concerns about what happens when a small car meets a larger one in an accident. Regardless of size, all cars are required to meet the same crash safety standards. The problem is that crash tests are done by slamming a car into a standardized barrier, while accidents in the real world don't generally involve impacts with standardized barriers.

When cars of different sizes collide there are a huge number of variables that impact the result. One of those is kinetic energy, which is a function of mass and velocity. A larger, heavier vehicle has more energy than a smaller, lighter one, and in combination with less crush space, the latter tends to come off worse in an accident. The Insurance institute for Highway Safety has run a series of crash tests between sub-compact and mid-sized cars and in all three cases the small cars did substantially worse than they did in the standard crash tests. All of the small cars earned good scores in regular testing but did poorly in the new tests. The IIHS press release explains the results after the jump.


Gallery: IIHS mid-size vs sub-compact crash tests


[Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety]

Continue reading IIHS finds sub-compacts fare poorly against mid-size sedans

IIHS finds sub-compacts fare poorly against mid-size sedans originally appeared on Autoblog on Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:23:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>crash safetyCrashSafetyiihsiihs testingiihstestinginsurance institute for highway safetyInsuranceInstituteForHighwaySafetyTue, 14 Apr 2009 00:23:00 EST http://www.autoblog.com/feed/1516036/article-comments.xml http://www.autoblog.com/feed/2009/04/14/iihs-finds-sub-compacts-fair-poorly-again/1516036/article-detail.xml 1516036 http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/04/cf09002_06-580_thumbnail.jpg http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/04/cf09002_06-580.jpg <![CDATA[IIHS to raise the roof on crush standards]]>http://www.autoblog.com/2009/02/06/iihs-to-raise-the-roof-on-crush-standards/http://www.autoblog.com/2009/02/06/iihs-to-raise-the-roof-on-crush-standards/http://www.autoblog.com/2009/02/06/iihs-to-raise-the-roof-on-crush-standards/#commentsFiled under: ,



The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has commissioned a study that seems to indicate that a dramatic increase in roof safety is in order. The group's resulting newly proposed standards would require a vehicle's roof to withstand two-times the specific vehicle's weight. According to the IIHS, this change could reduce the risk of fatalities in a single vehicle rollover by more than 20%.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration also supports the tougher standards, though the Bush Administration had allowed three separate deadlines to pass without updating its requirements, which have remained the same since they were first instituted in 1973. Those initial rules standards require that the roof of a vehicle be capable of withstanding 1.5 times the vehicle weight.

So far, automakers have supported this standard, although they are requesting that the new requirements for roof strength be phased in gradually, partially over concerns of rising vehicle weight that negatively impacts fuel economy.

[Source: Detroit News]

IIHS to raise the roof on crush standards originally appeared on Autoblog on Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:58:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>iihsiihs rolloveriihs rollover studyiihs testingIihsRolloverIihsRolloverStudyIihsTestingrolloverrollover standardsRolloverStandardsroof crushroof standardsroof strengthroof strength standardsRoofCrushRoofStandardsRoofStrengthRoofStrengthStandardsFri, 06 Feb 2009 10:58:00 EST http://www.autoblog.com/feed/1451569/article-comments.xml http://www.autoblog.com/feed/2009/02/06/iihs-to-raise-the-roof-on-crush-standards/1451569/article-detail.xml 1451569 http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/02/suv_rollover_580_thumbnail.jpg http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/02/suv_rollover_580.jpg <![CDATA[SX4, Matrix score Good on IIHS tests, PT Cruiser... not so much]]>http://www.autoblog.com/2008/12/17/sx4-matrix-scores-good-on-iihs-tests-pt-cruiser-not-so-much/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/12/17/sx4-matrix-scores-good-on-iihs-tests-pt-cruiser-not-so-much/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/12/17/sx4-matrix-scores-good-on-iihs-tests-pt-cruiser-not-so-much/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , , , , ,


Click above for a gallery of high-res IIHS crash carnage

Recent testing indicates that new cars are safe, regardless of their relative size. No surprise, then, that most of the latest 2009 model-year small cars tested by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety performed fairly well. Included in this round of testing were the Chevrolet HHR, Chrysler PT Cruiser, Ford Focus, Hyundai Elantra, Saturn Astra, Suzuki SX4, and Toyota Matrix. All seven of these machines (remember too that the Pontiac Vibe uses the same underpinnings as the Matrix) scored "good," the highest rating available, for occupant protection in frontal crashes, and only the newest designs -- the SX4, Matrix and Vibe -- scored that high in side crash testing.

The poorest performer of the group, Chrysler's PT Cruiser, also happens to be the oldest design. This being the case, it's lowly "poor" rating in side and rear crashes, due in large part to its ineffective head restraints and lack of rear side-mounted airbags, isn't too shocking. The HHR and SX4 also scored only marginally better in seat/head restraint testing. The latest MINI Cooper was also smashed for science, and it performed fairly well for a car of its diminutive proportions. For a complete recount of the IIHS results, click past the break. Feeling an unhealthy desire to see the aftermath? Check out our gallery below.

Gallery: IIHS 2009 small car crash testing


[Source: IIHS]

Continue reading SX4, Matrix score Good on IIHS tests, PT Cruiser... not so much

SX4, Matrix score Good on IIHS tests, PT Cruiser... not so much originally appeared on Autoblog on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:58:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>2009 mini crash test2009MiniCrashTestastra crash testAstraCrashTestelantra crash testElantraCrashTestfocus crash testFocusCrashTesthhr crash testHhrCrashTestiihsiihs crash testingiihs small car crash testingiihs testingIihsCrashTestingIihsSmallCarCrashTestingIihsTestingmatrix crash testMatrixCrashTestmini crash testMiniCrashTestpt cruiser crash testPtCruiserCrashTestsmall car crash testsSmallCarCrashTestssx4 crash testSx4CrashTestvibe crash testVibeCrashTestWed, 17 Dec 2008 15:58:00 EST http://www.autoblog.com/feed/1403721/article-comments.xml http://www.autoblog.com/feed/2008/12/17/sx4-matrix-scores-good-on-iihs-tests-pt-cruiser-not-so-much/1403721/article-detail.xml 1403721 http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/12/pt_cruiser_crash_580_thumbnail.jpg http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/12/pt_cruiser_crash_580.jpg <![CDATA[Lambdas get IIHS Top Pick rating]]>http://www.autoblog.com/2008/08/27/lambdas-get-iihs-top-pick-rating/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/08/27/lambdas-get-iihs-top-pick-rating/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/08/27/lambdas-get-iihs-top-pick-rating/#commentsFiled under: , , , , ,



The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety took some GMC Acadias and smashed them up to see how the big crossovers hold up against immovable objects, and unlike recent tests conducted for the Chevy Equinox and Pontiac Torrent, the news is positive. An AWD Acadia SLE acted as a stand-in for all of the Lambda models - Buick Enclave, Chevrolet Traverse, Saturn Outlook, and all Acadia trims included. It didn't matter whether the IIHS attacked the front, side, or rear - the CUV earned a "good" rating in all directions. With the standard fitment of Stabilitrak, the IIHS also bestowed a Top Safety Pick crown on GM's big haulers. The Lambas now have both a five-star rating from the NHTSA and a Top Safety Pick designator about which to brag.

[Source: Inside Line]

Lambdas get IIHS Top Pick rating originally appeared on Autoblog on Wed, 27 Aug 2008 07:58:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>acadia crash testAcadiaCrashTestbuick enclaveBuickEnclavechevrolet traverseChevroletTraversecrash testCrashTestenclave crash testEnclaveCrashTestgmc acadiaGmcAcadiaiihs crash suv testsiihs testingiihs top safety pickiihs top safety pick cadillac ctsiihs top safety pick...IihsCrashSuvTestsIihsTestingIihsTopSafetyPickIihsTopSafetyPick...IihsTopSafetyPickCadillacCtslambda crash testLambdaCrashTestoutlook crash testOutlookCrashTestsaturn outlookSaturnOutlooktraverse crash testTraverseCrashTestWed, 27 Aug 2008 07:58:00 EST http://www.autoblog.com/feed/1294897/article-comments.xml http://www.autoblog.com/feed/2008/08/27/lambdas-get-iihs-top-pick-rating/1294897/article-detail.xml 1294897 http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/08/acadia_crash_thumbnail.jpg http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/08/acadia_crash.jpg <![CDATA[Flipside: Is crash safety endangering accident victims?]]>http://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/21/flipside-is-crash-safety-endangering-survivors/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/21/flipside-is-crash-safety-endangering-survivors/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/21/flipside-is-crash-safety-endangering-survivors/#commentsFiled under: , ,



Crash safety ratings are a big selling point - who's going to buy a car with just two stars? In pursuit of salable collision performance, automakers have turned to stronger metals and better construction, and consumers can reap the benefit by choosing from a panoply of highly rated vehicles. A problem arises, however, if that safety design is ever called upon to perform. Lots of vehicles now sport high strength steel in critical areas like roof pillars, and while it certainly helps protect occupants, it could hinder rescue crews. Tools that once made quick work of crashed vehicles are now having trouble shearing through modern cars. Not only that, modern cars have lots of airbags around the cabin, and there are also worries about cutting high-voltage electrical cabling in hybrid or electric vehicles. Rescuers need to know where all the potentially hazardous equipment lies within a vehicle so that they can safely retrieve human cargo without creating a further tragedy.

What was once a simple matter of cutting a roof off to get passengers out can now become a sawblade-eating saga that takes double or triple the time. Taking more time at an accident scene has repercussions that put recovery or even survival at risk by delaying treatment. Automakers are aware of this, and they're working with public safety entities to provide training and information. Schematics and build details of vehicles are being made available to first responders by the non-profit group COMCARE Emergency Response Alliance. The ability to research where and how a car should be taken apart in an emergency could buy injured people critical minutes, so Ford, for instance, is asking for a dialogue with rescue crews and the makers of their tools by offering a look at the construction of the 2009 F-150. Upgrades to rescue tools are also necessary, but the flip side of the harder rescue is that the death rate from passenger car accidents is historically low. So buy that five-star vehicle and try not to hit anything. Thanks for the tip, Juan!

[Source: Houston Chronicle]

Flipside: Is crash safety endangering accident victims? originally appeared on Autoblog on Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:58:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>crash safetycrash testCrashSafetyCrashTestfirst responderfirst respondersFirstResponderFirstRespondersfive starFiveStariihsiihs top safety pickiihs top safety pick...iihsrolloverstudyiihstestingiihstopsafetypickIihsTopSafetyPick...nhtsarescuesafetyFri, 21 Mar 2008 15:58:00 EST http://www.autoblog.com/feed/1145978/article-comments.xml http://www.autoblog.com/feed/2008/03/21/flipside-is-crash-safety-endangering-survivors/1145978/article-detail.xml 1145978 http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/03/01_tauruscrashtest_opt_thumbnail.jpg http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/03/01_tauruscrashtest_opt.jpg <![CDATA[New X5 scores 'good' rating in IIHS testing]]>http://www.autoblog.com/2007/02/13/new-x5-scores-good-rating-in-iihs-testing/http://www.autoblog.com/2007/02/13/new-x5-scores-good-rating-in-iihs-testing/http://www.autoblog.com/2007/02/13/new-x5-scores-good-rating-in-iihs-testing/#commentsFiled under: ,

In the automotive world, safety can be a bit under-rated. In past years governments all over the world have mandated tougher and tougher safety standards that are helping to keep all of us safe. It seems BMW has taken the challenge of safety very seriously as its X5 "Sport Activity Vehicle" has racked up a nice string of GOOD ratings from the IIHS. Testing revealed that there was a very low risk of injury from all of the major tests, which means the X5 is not only great looking and fun to drive, it will also get you from point A to point B very safely. Side curtain air bags for all three rows of seats, stability control, and a rollover sensor were among the advancements that gave the X5 the IIHS top overall rating.

[Source: The Auto Channel]

New X5 scores 'good' rating in IIHS testing originally appeared on Autoblog on Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:08:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>BMWhttp://www.theautochannel.com/news/2007/02/11/036800.htmlIIHS testingIihsTestingSafety TestSafetyTestX5Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:08:00 EST http://www.autoblog.com/feed/752323/article-comments.xml http://www.autoblog.com/feed/2007/02/13/new-x5-scores-good-rating-in-iihs-testing/752323/article-detail.xml 752323 http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2007/02/x5_thumbnail.jpg http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2007/02/x5.jpg -1 2