Video: IIHS crash tests 2009 Chevrolet Malibu vs 1959 Bel Air

To commemorate its 50th anniversary, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has conducted a frontal offset crash test pitting a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu against a 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air, a classic sedan with a 300-400-lb weight advantage. The explosive results illustrate how far crash-test protection has come since the non-profit organization began conducting safety evaluations and advocating for improvements.
 
The IIHS began with a mission to support academic and other organizations working in the field of highway safety. By the late 1960s, it had evolved into a scientific organization that used data analysis and its own tests to advocate for automotive improvements. Funded by the insurance industry, the IIHS has been able to balance efforts to cut insurance costs with reducing vehicle damage and passenger injuries.
 
Today, its extensive crash-testing program continues to challenge automakers to improve passenger protection with a more-demanding protocol than that used by the federal government. (Learn how the IIHS conducts its crash tests.) In addition, its data resources and analytical reports inform decision makers who have enacted life-saving measures. 

As this video illustrates, automotive safety has improved dramatically in the past five decades. The 2009 Chevrolet Malibu has as standard equipment: antilock brakes, stability control, occupant-sensing front air bags, and side air bags. Beyond the safety gear, advancements in vehicle engineering give the Malibu a clear advantage in this match up. In IIHS front- and side-crash tests, it earns the highest rating of Good. Likewise, in National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) tests, it earns top marks. (In the government rollover test, it was rated better than average.) While classic cars are often considered to be rock solid, this ’59 demonstrates how much better today’s cars are. And the IIHS has played a key role in driving these advancements.
 
Happy anniversary!
 
Learn about car safety, and watch more than 300 crash tests performed by IIHS in our crash test video player.

—Jeff Bartlett

IIHS roof strength test: Smart ForTwo tops list of minicars

The Smart ForTwo has the strongest roof among small cars. The Smart earned the highest rating of Good in the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s (IIHS) roof strength test of micro and minicars. The Honda Fit, Hyundai Accent, Mini Cooper and Toyota Yaris all earned Acceptable scores and the Chevrolet Aveo, a marginal rating. (Follow the links in this paragraph for complete crash test and safety ratings, available to online subscribers.)

The Institute’s test rates a vehicle’s ability to protect passengers in rollover crashes. In the test, a metal plate is pressed down against one side of the roof at an angle. Vehicles that rate Good can withstand a force on the plate of more than four times the weight of the vehicle before the roof crushes five inches. That is more than twice the current legal minimum. The Smart was able to withstand a force of 5.4 times its weight. The Aveo just over 3 times its weight.

A revised regulation enacted this year requires vehicle roofs to withstand 3 times the vehicle's weight in that test. It also requires, for the first time, that vehicles over 6,000 pounds meet a roof-crush standard, although the standard for those heaviest of passenger vehicles will remain at 1.5 times the vehicle's weight. The revised roof-crush standard starts phasing in September 2012 and applies to all new vehicles by September 2016.

A roof strength rating of Good will now be a requirement for vehicles to earn the Institute’s Top Safety Pick award, which goes to vehicles that score Good in front, side, and rear crashes as well as have available electronic stability control. The tightening of the criteria means that for the 2010 model year we will see fewer winners of this award.

About 10,000 people die each year from rollover accidents. The best protection against a rollover accident is having a vehicle equipped with electronic stability control as well as side curtain air bags and all passengers need to always buckle up.

See our related reports for more information on preventing rollovers and the government roof crush standard.

—Liza Barth 

Crash tests: IIHS tests Honda Insight, Kia Soul, Toyota Prius

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has rated three new 2010 models for crash safety and the results are good. The new Honda Insight hybrid, Kia Soul, and redesigned Toyota Prius earn the Institute’s Top Safety Pick award. The criteria for that award: cars must offer Good protection to front occupants in front, side, and rear collisions, as well as offering electronic stability control (ESC).

The Soul and Prius have standard stability control and standard front and rear curtain airbags and seat-mounted torso airbags. While the Insight also has standard curtain and torso airbags, its stability control comes only on uplevel versions. And that exposes a problem.

In Consumer Reports’ extensive testing, the Insight proved to be a handful in emergency situations, even with our uplevel EX’s stability control helping out. Given that the base Insight LX lacks stability control, the most basic Insight is likely to handle even worse in emergency situations. Omitting this important safety feature blunts the appeal of the Insight’s $20,510 base price.

We wish that the IIHS Top Safety Pick award required standard stability control, rather than bestowing it on cars where it remains optional. Although more and more cars now have standard ESC, some cases remain where a buyer may think they’re getting all of the safety of a Top Safety Pick, but then they miss out because they bought a version without ESC. Other 2010 cars that are IIHS Top Safety Picks with optional ESC include the Honda Fit and Civic and Mitsubishi Lancer.

IIHS rates cars in an offset frontal crash that mimics real-world accidents when hitting a car in the same weight class. Side crash tests are conducted to simulate a vehicle being hit in the side by a tall, heavy SUV. Vehicles are rated on a scale of Good, Acceptable, Marginal, and Poor.

To see how the Insight and Soul perform in our tests, check out our Ratings, including fuel economy and safety in our model overviews (available to online subscribers). Also, read our initial impressions of the Toyota Prius.

Learn more about crash tests in our guide to car safety. View more than 300 crash tests performed by the IIHS in our crash test video player.

—Liza Barth and Tom Mutchler

Crash tests: Scion tC loses CR recommendation, coupes added to high-impact video collection

When weighing the myriad considerations in choosing a car, all it takes is a minute watching your favorite car careen into an offset barrier at 40 mph to place safety as a top concern. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) recently rated a group of two-door coupes for crash safety—the Chevrolet Cobalt, Ford Focus, Honda Civic, Scion tC, and Volvo C30. This marked the first time IIHS had tested coupes. (In the past IIHS has tested two-door convertibles and hatchbacks.) There was a relatively wide difference in crash test performance among these five cars. (Read: "Crash tests: IIHS tests five coupes, two get top marks.")

The good news: the Ford Focus coupe and Volvo C30 were IIHS “Top Safety Picks,” scoring good in frontal, side and rear crash tests, thereby proving that small, two-door models can excel in these crash tests.

Most disappointing: the Scion tC achieved only an acceptable rating in its frontal offset test. This is troubling given that almost every new car gets a good rating in this test. The tC didn’t redeem itself in side crash performance either, scoring acceptable in that test, as well as being marginal in rear crash protection.

This new data, combined with the tC’s lack of electronic stability control, mean it scores only “fair” in Consumer Report’s overall safety rating. That rating is a composite of IIHS and NHTSA crash test results; dynamic safety performance, including handling and braking, from our track testing; and the availability of ESC, including whether it is standard or optional. We currently do not recommend cars that have an overall safety rating below good. This means that we no longer recommend the Scion tC.

The tC’s shabby safety performance is all the more troubling given that this inexpensive sporty coupe is popular among young drivers. That group of drivers is relatively inexperienced and more likely to take risks when driving. Combine this with the tC’s lackluster crash test results and lack of ESC, and it isn’t really a surprise that the tC has a substantially worse-than-average record in injury losses, according to Highway Loss Data Institute data. (See our safety feature comparison guide.)

We have added the crash-test videos of these tests to our free crash-test video player and on their respective model overview pages, available to online subscribers. There are now more than 300 vehicles featured in the player, with narrated segments clearly showing how the vehicles perform in the Institute’s test, along with ratings.

See how your car performs in crash tests at: consumerreports.org/crashtest

—Jeff Bartlett and Tom Mutchler

Crash tests: IIHS tests five coupes, two get top marks

For the first time the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has rated a group of two-door coupes for crash safety—the Chevrolet Cobalt, Ford Focus, Honda Civic, Scion tC, and Volvo C30. (In the past IIHS has tested two-door convertibles and hatchbacks.) All five of the cars rated acceptable or better in frontal, side, and rear crash tests.

The Volvo C30 (which only comes as a two-door) and Ford Focus two-door model earned the Institute’s highest Top Safety Pick award, indicating they offered Good protection to occupants in front, side, and rear collisions, and offer electronic stability control. The Honda Civic and Chevrolet Cobalt coupes rated just behind with Good front and rear crash test ratings, and Acceptable side crash ratings.

The IIHS rates cars on a scale of Good, Acceptable, Marginal, and Poor. None of the two door cars had any Poor ratings.

The Scion tC ranked at the bottom of the pack. It received Acceptable ratings in front and side crashes and a Marginal rating for rear crashes. But the IIHS criticized it most for not offering electronic stability control even as an option, pointing out that the Scion appeals to younger drivers who would benefit from the added safety ESC provides.

Coupes often have different structures and sometimes other features than the related sedan equivalents. IIHS usually focuses on testing family vehicles, but felt it was time to check in on some of the most popular two-doors on the market. While the frontal offset part is largely unchanged between the two- and four-door versions, the side impact test reveals some differences. The two-door Honda Civic and Chevrolet Cobalt did not perform as well as their four-door versions. The two-door Focus actually performed better than the previously tested four-door.

Learn more about crash tests in our guide to car safety. View more than 300 crash tests performed by the IIHS in our crash test video player.

—Eric Evarts

Crash test videos: Over 300 car crashes and counting

More than 300 vehicles evaluated by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) are available to view in our crash test video player at ConsumerReports.org/crashtest. These free videos show in detail the vehicle condition and occupant protection of each model in front and/or side impact tests.

Presented with IIHS ratings, the videos are helpful for car shoppers to determine the safety of a model you are considering buying and they illustrate the importance of safety. For owners, it’s also interesting to see how your current vehicle fares.

We recently posted the crash videos of the 2009 Audi Q5, 2010 Lexus RX, 2009 Toyota Venza and 2009 Volkswagen CC. (Read: "IIHS Top Safety Picks: Audi, Lexus, Toyota, Volkswagen.") All current model year videos are also available in our model overview pages (available to subscribers), where you can find Ratings, reliability, fuel economy, safety ratings and more.

Learn more about how IIHS evaluates and tests vehicles in "Crash test 101."

—Liza Barth

Most small cars rate Poor in IIHS bumper tests

In tests of seven small and subcompact cars, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has found that none of the bumpers performed well in the equivalent of minor fender benders. In the four tests performed on each vehicle – full-width front and rear, and front and rear corner impacts – the worst-performing Kia Rio hatchback sustained $9,340 in total damage. Our tested Rio stickered for $14,110, so the damage amounts to more than two thirds of the car’s original MSRP. Damage to the Rio would cost more than a used Rio would be worth and to repair than most midsized cars and minivans the IIHS has tested.

In addition to the Rio, the Institute tested the Chevrolet Aveo, Honda Fit, Hyundai Accent, Mini Cooper, Smart ForTwo, and Toyota Yaris. (Click links for road test videos.) IIHS rates cars on a scale of Good, Acceptable, Marginal, and Poor. Of the seven cars, none rated Good, and only the Smart rated Acceptable due in part to its pliable plastic parts. The Chevrolet Aveo received a Marginal rating, and all the rest rated Poor.

The IIHS introduced a new rating system for its bumper tests. The full-width front and rear tests are run at 6 mph (more than twice the federal standard which dictates 2.5 mph impact with no damage) and the corner tests at 3 mph. The test results are weighted according to how frequently those types of accidents actually occur, and the Institute calculates an average repair cost based on the weighting. To receive a Good rating, the average must be below $500, which is the cost of the deductible on most insurance policies. The cutoff for an Acceptable rating is $1,000, about the cost of replacing the bumper cover, reinforcement bar and paint on most cars, IIHS says. Any cost beyond that involves replacing lights, grilles, or engine cooling parts, for example, and warrants a Poor rating. Vehicles that are unable or unsafe to drive after one of the tests cannot receive better than a Marginal rating.

The IIHS’s bumper tests have no bearing on occupant protection or crash safety, only the cost of repairing damage from minor impacts such as what could happen in a parking lot. The costs of such repairs can have a big impact on insurance premiums.

Consumers buy small cars to save money, says IIHS spokesman Russ Rader. But these tests show one minor fender bender can wipe out any savings from their good fuel economy and low purchase prices.

Over 300 crash tests conducted by IIHS can be seen in our crash test video player. Also, videos on current-generation vehicles are now available from the model overview pages (for subscribers).

—Eric Evarts

Learn about car safety in "Crash Test 101" and "Rollover 101."

IIHS crash tests show car size matters

Whenever you select a car to buy, you make tradeoffs. With a pickup, for instance, you typically sacrifice ride comfort and ease of access for the sake of utility. Similarly, when you pick a small car, you naturally expect good fuel economy, maneuverability and a low price, for which you usually forego passenger space, quietness and ride comfort. Intuitively, you know you may also be compromising some crash safety.

It’s long been known that in a duel between a small, light vehicle and a big, heavy one that the big car usually wins, based solely on the laws of physics. Just how bad it is for small-car occupants has been less clear. Now the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has started to address that question with offset-frontal crash tests pitting three subcompact cars—the Honda Fit, Smart ForTwo, and Toyota Yaris—against larger ones from the same automaker. The results aren’t so good for occupants of the small cars. The three subcompacts tested all rated a “Poor,” meaning that serious or fatal injuries to the driver were likely. (See videos of IIHS crash tests.)

Most modern cars, even small ones, show good results in independent crash tests, and the three subcompacts tested all rated “good” in the IIHS’s conventional offset-frontal crash tests.

It’s important to understand that the frontal crash tests published by the government and the IIHS simulate a situation where a car crashes head-on into an identical car. (Learn how the government and IIHS conduct crash tests.) That’s a reliable way to gauge many aspects of crashworthiness, but in real life most car-to-car collisions involve two vehicles of different size and weight. In terms of probability, it’s less likely that two subcompacts will “meet” head-on, especially here in the U.S. where a majority of the vehicles on the road are midsized family sedans, SUVs, and pickup trucks. By the way, this is not the case with IIHS side-impact tests, since those crashes simulate a car being hit amidships by a midsized SUV, regardless of the size of the vehicle being hit.

In this demonstration, the Honda Fit was pitted against the Accord, the Smart ForTwo against the Mercedes-Benz C-Class and the Toyota Yaris against the Camry. The Fit’s driver dummy sustained serious leg and moderate head injury. The Smart was thrown in the air, and its driver sustained injury to the head and both legs. The Yaris dummy recorded serious damage to the head, neck, and right leg. Meanwhile, the Accord and C-Class maintained their “Good” standing.  The Camry’s driver dummy posted forces equating with “Acceptable.” That somewhat unexpected result came about because of the Camry’s driver’s seat tipping up and the dummy’s head hitting the steering wheel through the air bag. (Compare safety equipment on today's cars.)

Despite these findings, there are still good reasons to buy a mini or a subcompact car if it fits your needs, including cost of ownership, maneuverability, and fuel economy. The choice here is not about a safe car and an unsafe car but about minimizing risk. While the smallest cars generally have a worse experience in all kinds of collisions, both car-to-car and single-vehicle crashes, there are still significant differences between the best and the worst, and you should choose one with the best crash-test scores.

The IIHS, as well as automakers, point out that it is technically possible to make the smallest cars more crashworthy than they are. The difficulty is that it would require a much greater use of high-strength steel. This, in turn, adds cost, which undermines one of these cars’ main appeals. Ultimately, as more subcompacts join the fleet in coming years, including the Ford Fiesta, Fiat 500, and Scion iQ buyers need to bear the crash-protection tradeoff in mind.

—Gabe Shenhar

Learn more about car safety in "Crash Test 101" and "Rollover 101."

Acura lineup tops government, IIHS safety ratings

Acura is the only auto manufacturer to have their complete lineup top government and Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) crash test ratings. The Acura RL, TL, TSX, MDX, and RDX have all scored Good in front-, side-, and rear-crash protection and all have electronic stability control--a requirement to earn the Institute’s Top Safety Pick award.

In the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) tests of side- and front-impact crash safety for front and rear passengers, all vehicles received the highest five-star rating. Interestingly, all Subarus are scored as Top Picks in IIHS tests, but not every model received the five-star rating in all of the NHTSA tests.

In addition to their high safety Ratings, models from Honda and Acura, combined, are ranked the highest in our automaker report cards for standout performance in Consumer Reports testing and in reliability surveys. They score well in our Ratings, especially in areas such as handling, ride, and fuel economy.

--Liza Barth

Rollover poses real risks; IIHS announces new roof crush test

Rollover crash rates have been on the decline for several years, according to government figures, though they still pose a significant risk to motorists. About 10,000 of the nearly 40,000 annual fatalities on U.S roads involve rollovers. Even as recently as 2006, a quarter of fatally injured occupants were involved in a crash in which a rollover occurred. The decrease in rollover frequency is likely a result of the increasing popularity of electronic stability control (ESC), which reduces the chance of getting into a rollover situation in the first place, and side-curtain airbags, which reduce full and partial passenger ejection that makes rollover so lethal. But rollovers still take place.

There is no consensus among the safety community as to exactly how people die in a rollover. Clearly, some are non-belted and therefore ejected out of the vehicle. For those that are not ejected, injuries from impact against the vehicle’s interior or other occupants is likely. Police reporting often does not include the level of detail required to determine the exact cause of death, but there is no denying, the risks are real.

Testing for roof crush
A NHTSA standard (FMVSS 216) dating back to 1973 dictates that a force, applied at a load of 1.5 times the vehicle weight should correspond to less than five inches of roof deformation. In 2005 NHTSA proposed to upgrade the standard to require a strength-to-weight ratio (SWR) of 2.5, up from 1.5. NHTSA’s analysis concluded that vehicles with higher roof strengths were better able to maintain headroom during a rollover, and that in turn, increases survivability. (Read: "Raising the roof standard for rollover safety.")

According to NHTSA, 16 percent of the fatalities that resulted from a single-vehicle rollover in 2006 could have been avoided if the standard increased from a 1.5 to 2.5 SWR. Further increase of the SWR would have resulted in more lives saved, the research concludes. According to additional research by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) an SWR of 4 can reduce fatal injuries by 50 percent compared to the existing standard of 1.5. While the NHTSA proposal has dragged on for four years, the IIHS decided to take action on the matter. In 2008, it subjected previous-generation Ford Explorer and Nissan Xterra to 10,000 pounds of force (2.5 SWR)—the Xterra’s roof deformed 2 inches, while the Explorer caved in 10 inches—well into the occupant’s head space. It deemed a correlation to real world findings was valid.

Today, the  IIHS released a second set of findings, with roof crush results for 12 small SUVs. The IIHS’s test is more stringent than that proposed by NHTSA and subjects a given roof to four times the vehicle’s weight before reaching five inches of deformation.

The poorest performer (Kia Sportage) was around 2.5 SWR (which also applies to its sister vehicle, the Hyundai Tucson). The best performer was the Volkswagen Tiguan at almost 6 SWR. After the test, the Tiguan looked as if it had only been scratched by a toll-booth barrier even after withstanding a force of 15,000 pounds. Also impressive was the Subaru Forester at 4.5. For 2010, the IIHS plans to remove its Top Safety Pick status for vehicles with an SWR of less than 4.0. 

Bottom line
Some critics argue that only a dynamic rollover test would be relevant. Given that rollovers are violent and unpredictable events, the process of finding a universal, agreeable and repeatable test is still in its infancy. It would also require developing a new generation of crash dummies since current ones have been designed for measuring frontal and side forces and not those associated with rollovers.

We hope that the increase in SWR won’t come at the expense of visibility, as there is no federal standard for that. In order to make roofs stronger, the front and middle pillars of the vehicle (A and B pillars) have to be enhanced, and increased thickness can compromise visibility. But the Subaru Forester proves that such a tradeoff isn’t a must. The Forester has excellent visibility and does well in the IIHS’s new test. 

Learn more about car safety in "Crash Test 101" and "Rollover 101."

—Gabe Shenhar

Updated 3/30/09.