Smart on IIHS Crash Tests: Sandbagged!

by Robert Farago

Published: April 14th, 2009

Hi Robert – My name is Karah Street and I work for a PR firm that represents smart USA. I see that you have written about the new crash test conducted with the smart fortwo by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), in which the smart for two was paired against a Mercedes C-Class. Two other cars were paired with larger vehicles from the same automaker (Honda Fit vs. Accord, and Toyota Yaris vs. Camry). What you may not know is that this test represents a type of crash that is rare and extreme — less than 1% of all accidents can compare to this type of test — and it is neither recognized nor required by federal safety regulators. By pitting “big vs. small,” this test seems to have one goal: to imply that bigger, heavier cars are always safer.

The smart fortwo meets or exceeds all federal government safety standards, including earning a five-star side crash rating from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the highest ratings for front and side crashes in the IIHS’s own barrier test. As I mentioned earlier, this test unfairly singles out only mini and micro cars, rather than testing vehicles in all segments, big and small.

This test also does not address where we are heading as a society, where people are choosing small yet safe cars for many reasons (fuel economy, smaller carbon footprint, low cost of ownership). smart USA has created a new website, safeandsmart.com, where smart drivers are sharing their own real-life stories of how smart’s advanced safety features helped keep them safe.

I also encourage you to speak with the following organizations for their take on the crash test: 1. Eli Hopson, Washington Representative for Clean Vehicles, Union of Concerned Scientists 2. John DeCicco, Senior Fellow – Automotive Strategies, Environmental Defense Fund 3. Dan Becker, Director, Safe Climate Campaign. For an official statement from smart USA, please visit smartusa.com or read an official blog by smart USA’s president, Dave Schembri. Please let me know if you need any other resources (images, video, etc) from me. Thank you for your time. Karah Street

Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 150 comments

Fmaxwell on Apr 17, 2009
OK, I concede. How about this: the Smart convertible is a unique vehicle for those couldn’t cough up another couple thousand to buy a Miata. I'm at kind of an advantage here because I own both. Very different cars. The Miata is a stripped-down sports car. Way less legroom and headroom. And, way less visibility, both of the car and from the driver's seat. Mileage on the Miata is 21/28 vs. the smart's 34/41. The MSRP for the base smart fortwo cabrio is $16,990. The Miata similarly equipped is $26,180 (and the Miata still lacks a lot of stuff like heated leather seats, automatic wipers and headlights, ESC, etc.) I'll not be a jerk about it and nickel and dime it up, because we're already approaching $10K difference. The non-convertible smart is still very stupid. It’s completely eclipsed by a Honda Fit. So if I were deciding between the two, I should ignore the fact that the smart seats are more comfortable to me and that I like the smart's quirky looks and find the Honda unattractive? I should ignore the fact that the Honda Fit gets 28/35mpg vs. the smart fortwo's 33/41mpg? I'm supposed to look past the Fit's dinky doors that make entry and exit more difficult and the pillar that impedes my visibility to the side (I'm 6'2")? And, after all of that, I'm supposed to ignore the fact that the Fit Sport w. auto trans costs almost $4K more than the comparably equipped smart fortwo passion? The Fit is only better than the smart if you like it better (and the price difference doesn't bother you). I don't like it (much less like it better). I could tick off a list of features, capacities, etc. in some car showing it's advantages over a Fit, but that does not mean that it's a superior car or that it would be a better choice for you. The smart fortwo coupe is only a "stupid" choice if the buyer would have been happier with a different competing vehicle. You can't take the emotion out of car buying.

Like Reply
Fred Bauer on Apr 23, 2010

OK, I know this posting is over a year old, but... One of the comments was from someone who would rather have his Mustang over a smart. Well, recently there was a report of a ~60 MPH head-on collision between a Mustang (unknown flavor) and a smart ForTwo. The ForTwo driver opened the door, got out, and looked at the damage. The Mustang driver was unconscious, and left in an ambulance...

Like Reply

Recent Comments

MaintenanceCosts "GLX" with the 2.slow? I'm confused. I thought that during the Mk3 and Mk4 era "GLX" meant the car had a VR6.
Dr.Nick What about Infiniti? Some of those cars might be interesting, whereas not much at Nissan interest me other than the Z which is probably big bucks.
Dave Holzman My '08 Civic (stick, 159k on the clock) is my favorite car that I've ever owned. If I had to choose between the current Civic and Corolla, I'd test drive 'em (with stick), and see how they felt. But I'd be approaching this choice partial to the Civic. I would not want any sort of automatic transmission, or the turbo engine.
Merc190 I would say Civic Si all the way if it still revved to 8300 rpm with no turbo. But nowadays I would pick the Corolla because I think they have a more clear idea on their respective models identity and mission. I also believe Toyota has a higher standard for quality.
Dave Holzman I think we're mixing up a few things here. I won't swear to it, but I'd be damned surprised if they were putting fire retardant in the seats of any cars from the '50s, or even the '60s. I can't quite conjure up the new car smell of the '57 Chevy my parents bought on October 17th of that year... but I could do so--vividly--until the last five years or so. I loved that scent, and when I smelled it, I could see the snow on Hollis Street in Cambridge Mass, as one or the other parent got ready to drive me to nursery school, and I could remember staring up at the sky on Christmas Eve, 1957, wondering if I might see Santa Claus flying overhead in his sleigh. No, I don't think the fire retardant on the foam in the seats of 21st (and maybe late 20th) century cars has anything to do with new car smell. (That doesn't mean new car small lacked toxicity--it probably had some.)