Mid-Size Cars Struggle in New IIHS Test
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has updated its side crash test and the results for mid-size cars is, uh, not good.
Just three of seven mid-size cars earned good or acceptable ratings in the test, with only the Subaru Outback earning a "good" rating. The Hyundai Sonata and Volkswagen Jetta earned "acceptable marks.
IIHS says that the mid-size cars didn't do as well on the test as small and mid-size SUVs, likely due to their lower ride height.
"With vehicles that sit lower to the ground, the striking barrier hits higher on the door panel,” says IIHS President David Harkey. “That potentially puts sedans and wagons at a disadvantage in this evaluation but reflects what happens in a real-world crash when these vehicles are struck by a higher-riding pickup or SUV.”
The head-protecting airbags for the driver and front passenger did well for the Outback, Sonata, and Jetta, but the driver's pelvis and rear passenger's torso were at higher injury risk in the Jetta. Same for the rear passenger's pelvis in the Sonata.
Honda's Accord scored a marginal rating, while the Chevrolet Malibu, Nissan Altima, and Toyota Camry were all marked as poor.
The IIHS made the test tougher to better reflect what was happening in the real world after research showed that real-life crashes were more severe than what the previous test would indicate.
The updated test uses a heavier barrier -- now up to 4,200 pounds, to better approximate the curb weight of SUVs -- and hits at 37 mph. The previous test involved a 3,300 lb barrier hitting at 31 mph.
IIHS isn't yet using the test in its award criteria. That said, starting in 2023, cars will need a good or acceptable rating on the test in order to be a Top Safety Pick and a good rating to be a Top Safety Pick+.
[Image: Screenshot of IIHS' video]
Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.
Cprescott 7 days ago
IIHS has to stay relevant by changing the rules in mid-stream and then it gets to falsely claim a car is unsafe. Point of fact that most vehicles on the road passed the pre-existing test and that IIHS should only test NEW products to the new test and to let the current models alone. The clown who used to be the face of IIHS was an arrogant little troll who loved to get face time for his arbitrary changes that he imposed.
I understand things change, but an ethical organization would have a set name for a test and when the test changed, so would the name and the new test could not be imposed upon a vehicle it already tested with the old one. The manufacturer could point to the prior passed test and that would have been ethical. I'm surprised that IIHS hasn't gone back years to show how the new standard would have failed all current vehicles ever made - the cars didn't get less safe, but the test would make you think so.
Latest Car ReviewsRead more
Latest Product ReviewsRead more
- DenverMike When was it ever a mystery? The Fairmont maybe, but only the 4-door "Futura" trim, that was distinctively upscale. The Citation and Volare didn't have competing trims, nor was there a base stripper Maxima at the time, if ever, crank windows, vinyl seats, 2-doors, etc. So it wasn't a "massacre", not even in spirit, just different market segments. It could be that the Maxima was intended to compete with those, but everything coming from Japan at the time had to take it up a notch, if not two.Thanks to the Japanese "voluntary" trade restriction, everything had extra options, if not hard loaded. The restriction limited how many vehicles were shipped, not what they retailed at. So Japanese automakers naturally raised the "price" (or stakes) without raising MSRP. What the dealers charged (gouged) was a different story.Realistically, the Maxima was going up against entry luxury sedans (except Cimarron lol), especially Euro/German, same as the Cressida. It definitely worked in Japanese automaker's favor, not to mention inspiring Lexus, Acura and Infiniti.
- Ronnie Schreiber Hydrocarbon based fuels have become unreliable? More expensive at the moment but I haven't seen any lines gathering around gas stations lately, have you? I'm old enough to remember actual gasoline shortages in 1973 and 1979 (of course, since then there have been many recoverable oil deposits discovered around the world plus the introduction of fracking). Consumers Power is still supplying me with natural gas. I recently went camping and had no problem buying propane.Texas had grid problems last winter because they replaced fossil fueled power plants with wind and solar, which didn't work in the cold weather. That's the definition of unreliable.I'm an "all of the above" guy when it comes to energy: fossil fuels, hydro, wind (where it makes sense), nuclear (including funding for fusion research), and possibly solar.Environmental activists, it seems to me, have no interest in energy diversity. Based on what's happened in Sri Lanka and the push against agriculture in Europe and Canada, I think it's safe to say that some folks want most of us to live like medieval peasants to save the planet for their own private jets.
- Car65688392 thankyou for the information
- Car65688392 Thankyou for your valuable information
- MaintenanceCosts There's no mystery anymore about how the Japanese took over the prestige spot in the US mass market (especially on the west coast) when you realize that this thing was up against the likes of the Fairmont, Citation, and Volaré. A massacre.