Is This What a Five-Star Safety Rating Looks Like?

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

Once again, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has handed the Dodge Challenger a five-star safety rating in its annual crash tests.

Shelf space at Fiat Chrysler Automobiles headquarters must be at a premium thanks to all those awards, but does the NHTSA safety rating tell the whole story?

In short — no, it doesn’t.

The NHTSA assigns the 2017 Challenger the same ratings as last year for frontal and side impacts, as well as rollover protection. Not surprising, as the model hasn’t changed in any significant way.

For frontal impacts, the Challenger’s crash performance rates a four out of five, as does its rollover performance. Side impact testing returns a five out of five score. Couple those results with available safety technology and restraints, and the overall score would please any automaker — a boastworthy five out of five stars. You’d go and see a five-star movie, right?

Unfortunately for occupants, the Challenger’s perceived safety depends more on the test than the car. The NHTSA’s frontal test involves a vehicle running straight into a flat barrier at 35 miles per hour. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, on the other hand, goes a step further, and the results aren’t good for the Challenger or its front seat occupants.

Earlier this year, the IIHS showed just how bad the 2016 Challenger performed in its dreaded small overlap test. In this test, only 25 percent of a vehicle’s frontal area hits a rigid barrier at 40 mph. The result? A second-worst “marginal” rating, and certain hobbling for the driver or passenger in a real-world crash.

“During the crash, the Challenger’s front wheel was forced rearward into the occupant compartment, and the footwell intrusion trapped the dummy’s left foot and deformed its ankle,” IIHS president Adrian Lund said in a statement.

“Our technicians had to unbolt the dummy’s foot from its leg in order to free it. Entrapment is pretty rare. That’s only happened five other times in a small overlap test.”

The federal government’s side impact test involves both a pole and a ram that mimics another vehicle. Both that test and the independent IIHS test gave the Challenger’s side impact protection top marks. In its moderate overlap frontal test, the Challenger still came out on top. A roof strength test came back as “acceptable,” so not far off from the NHTSA’s four out of five stars.

While the Challenger performs decently in most respects, the NHTSA’s limited testing hides a serious safety issue. Until a small overlap test becomes standard, the five stars results will continue to roll in as IIHS shouts from the sidelines. The NHTSA last updated its ratings in 2010.

With the advent of the small overlap test, criticism of the government’s tests grew. Consumer Reports calls out the frontal test, claiming, “Some automotive experts have criticized NHTSA’s full-frontal, rigid-barrier test as unrealistic because such head-on crashes into a flat, solid wall are relatively rare.”

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 65 comments
  • Featherston Featherston on Oct 15, 2016

    "Earlier this year, the IIHS showed just how bad the 2016 Challenger performed in its dreaded small overlap test." The letters L and Y are your friends, Steph. "Bad" is an adjective, not an adverb.

  • Nrd515 Nrd515 on Oct 16, 2016

    I drive my Challenger every day, not worrying at all about how it will do in a wreck. I've been in two serious wrecks since I began driving, and both vehicles protected me well, even though they weren't "the best" rated ones available at the time. The Challenger's basic design is over a decade old, so I don't really expect it to be at the top of current safety ratings. I'm planning on buying another one before the new platform is introduced a few years from now, without worrying at all about it's safety ratings.

  • Joe65688619 Under Ghosn they went through the same short-term bottom-line thinking that GM did in the 80s/90s, and they have not recovered say, to their heyday in the 50s and 60s in terms of market share and innovation. Poor design decisions (a CVT in their front-wheel drive "4-Door Sports Car", model overlap in a poorly performing segment (they never needed the Altima AND the Maxima...what they needed was one vehicle with different drivetrain, including hybrid, to compete with the Accord/Camry, and decontenting their vehicles: My 2012 QX56 (I know, not a Nissan, but the same holds for the Armada) had power rear windows in the cargo area that could vent, a glass hatch on the back door that could be opened separate from the whole liftgate (in such a tall vehicle, kinda essential if you have it in a garage and want to load the trunk without having to open the garage door to make room for the lift gate), a nice driver's side folding armrest, and a few other quality-of-life details absent from my 2018 QX80. In a competitive market this attention to detai is can be the differentiator that sell cars. Now they are caught in the middle of the market, competing more with Hyundai and Kia and selling discounted vehicles near the same price points, but losing money on them. They invested also invested a lot in niche platforms. The Leaf was one of the first full EVs, but never really evolved. They misjudged the market - luxury EVs are selling, small budget models not so much. Variable compression engines offering little in terms of real-world power or tech, let a lot of complexity that is leading to higher failure rates. Aside from the Z and GT-R (low volume models), not much forced induction (whether your a fan or not, look at what Honda did with the CR-V and Acura RDX - same chassis, slap a turbo on it, make it nicer inside, and now you can sell it as a semi-premium brand with higher markup). That said, I do believe they retain the technical and engineering capability to do far better. About time management realized they need to make smarter investments and understand their markets better.
  • Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Off-road fluff on vehicles that should not be off road needs to die.
  • Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Saw this posted on social media; “Just bought a 2023 Tundra with the 14" screen. Let my son borrow it for the afternoon, he connected his phone to listen to his iTunes.The next day my insurance company raised my rates and added my son to my policy. The email said that a private company showed that my son drove the vehicle. He already had his own vehicle that he was insuring.My insurance company demanded he give all his insurance info and some private info for proof. He declined for privacy reasons and my insurance cancelled my policy.These new vehicles with their tech are on condition that we give up our privacy to enter their world. It's not worth it people.”
  • TheEndlessEnigma Poor planning here, dropping a Vinfast dealer in Pensacola FL is just not going to work. I love Pensacola and that part of the Gulf Coast, but that area is by no means an EV adoption demographic.
  • Keith Most of the stanced VAGS with roof racks are nuisance drivers in my area. Very likely this one's been driven hard. And that silly roof rack is extra $'s, likely at full retail lol. Reminds me of the guys back in the late 20th century would put in their ads that the installed aftermarket stereo would be a negotiated extra. Were they going to go find and reinstall that old Delco if you didn't want the Kraco/Jenson set up they hacked in?
Next