IIHS Throws Another Hurdle at Automakers: The Passenger-side Small Overlap Crash Test

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

First, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety bagan irking the automotive industry by performing crash tests. Then it devised more. Eventually, the IIHS ratcheted the bar up to a previously unseen height, demanding vehicles undergo the dreaded small overlap front crash test — a 2012 addition to its testing regimen. Covering just 25 percent of the frontal area of the car, the test mimics a not-quite-glancing-enough head-on collision, or perhaps an impact with a tree or utility pole.

New vehicles failed the test in droves. Firewalls were deformed. Dummies’ legs exited the vehicles in mangled fashion. The Dodge Challenger got a black eye. In response, the industry raced to beef up its front ends, eager for a marketable high crash test score.

Now, a year after becoming concerned that automakers were focusing efforts on only the driver’s side of the vehicle, IIHS is turning its attention to the passenger side. A new crash test is born. But how did the first crop of vehicles — 13 midsize cars — fare in this new test?

Quite well, actually.

“The midsize cars we tested didn’t have any glaring structural deficiencies on the right side,” said IIHS Senior Research Engineer Becky Mueller in a statement. “Optimizing airbags and safety belts to provide better head protection for front-seat passengers appears to be the most urgent task now.”

None of the vehicles tested showed a poor or marginal structural rating, the nonprofit safety organization claims. That’s quite a change from the crop of vehicles (small SUVs) IIHS tested for research purposes. In that provisional test, only two models — the 2016 Hyundai Tucson and Kia Sportage, both structurally identical — received a “good” rating.

The passenger-side small overlap tests changes little from the earlier test; engineers just add a second dummy to the passenger seat, and reverse which side of the car takes the brunt of the 40 mph impact. Last year’s publication of research tests apparently tipped off the industry that a new test was on the way.

“Clearly, some manufacturers were paying attention,” Mueller said. “Many of the cars in this group are equipped with improved passenger airbags that appear to be designed to do well in our test and in an oblique test that the government is considering adding to its safety ratings.”

In the midsize car class, the 2018 Subaru Outback and Legacy scored top marks in the new test. In this case, the passenger-side footwell held up well, with only 4 inches of intrusion at the right edge of the toepan. Front and side airbags and the seatbelt all performed according to plan.

Also earning an overall “good” rating in the test are the Ford Fusion, Lincoln MKZ, Honda Accord, 2018 Toyota Camry, Hyundai Sonata, Nissan Altima and Maxima, and Mazda 6. The Mazda earned top marks despite nine inches of footwell intrusion. Still, the dummy showed no signs of injury, so the swoopy sedan earned a spot on the top podium.

Unfortunately for the Chevrolet Malibu and Volkswagen Passat, the passenger dummy’s head slid off the front airbag and hit the dashboard, leading to a potential for head injuries. It also means a “marginal” rating for both vehicles. Volkswagen’s Jetta earned a second-from-top “acceptable” rating thanks to less-than-stellar passenger restraints.

[Image: IIHS/ YouTube]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 31 comments
  • Danio3834 Danio3834 on Oct 19, 2017

    IIHS struggling for relevancy. Next up, the 6 ton steel I beam dropped on the roof test. Ooh, you scored poor there, good luck next refresh while everyone slams your vehicle as unsafe.

    • Sgeffe Sgeffe on Oct 20, 2017

      Steinway “B” breaks loose from crane lifting it out of the window of a fifth-floor walk-up in Greenwich Village, flattens Nissan Rogue Über Black at the curb below! (Driver had just stepped out to grab a knish at the deli across the street!) Details at 6:00!

  • Speedlaw Speedlaw on Oct 20, 2017

    A non automotive friend, otherwise politically astute, observed that "crash testing is the ONLY time my interests and the IIHS align".

  • Redapple2 Love the wheels
  • Redapple2 Good luck to them. They used to make great cars. 510. 240Z, Sentra SE-R. Maxima. Frontier.
  • 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.”
Next