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.

Crash Test: Tiny Toyota iQ earns 5 stars

Having narrated almost 300 crash test videos in the past year or so, I must admit there is something compelling about seeing how the smaller models fare in tests. There is the old adage that there’s no fighting physics, but we’ve seen a number of smaller vehicles with strong structures and ample air bag protection hold up well in simulated frontal- and side-impact collisions. Then again, many haven’t. Queue up the latest microcar, the Toyota iQ.

Tiny is too long a word to describe the iQ, a cleverly packaged car that manages to provide four-place seating within its 116-inch overall length. The iQ measures about 10 inches longer than the Smart ForTwo, a car whose driving experience feels more like traveling in a phone booth built for two than a traditional automobile.

On sale overseas, the Toyota iQ was just evaluated in the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), where it had a strong showing in a series of crash tests. Despite the compact size, the iQ achieved an overall weighted score of 79 percent, more than enough to achieve a 5-star rating.

Breaking down the results, the iQ was rated 91 percent for adult protection; 71 percent for child protection (based on 18-month- and three-year-old child); and 54 percent for pedestrian.

Positioned as a budget-priced, fuel-efficient commuter, the iQ boasts a generous roster of safety equipment, such as nine air bags, antilock brakes, and electronic stability control.

It remains an open question if the iQ will come to the States, though Toyota recently displayed the car in an electric configuration at the 2009 Detroit auto show as the FT-EV concept.

So, for those who also find crash test performances interesting, a couple of my favorite tests conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highways Safety include the Smart and the Mini Cooper. These, and almost 300 others, 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).

—Jeff Bartlett

Video: Pickup truck crash tests--Some Poor performers

Full-sized pickup trucks are marketed as tough machines, though new tests from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) shows that crash-test protection varies widely. The latest IIHS test data reveal side-impact protection is Marginal or Poor for the Chevrolet Silverado 1500, Dodge Ram 1500, GMC Sierra 1500, and Nissan Titan. The Ford F-150, Honda Ridgeline, and Toyota Tundra earn Good marks for offset frontal impact, side-impact, and rear crash protection. Plus, these three Top Safety Picks provide standard electronic stability control. (See how these vehicles perform in IIHS crash test videos.)

“The size, weight, and height of these large pickups should help them ace the side tests just like the other large pickups we’ve tested,” says Institute senior vice president David Zuby. He points out that some trucks perform worse than many cars they’ve evaluated.

All the pickup trucks provide Good front protection. However, the side performance varies even when equipped with side air bags. Side and side-curtain air bags can often provide significant additional protection in a vehicle, however, some trucks in this group did not perform well even with them. (Key lesson here is to always check safety and crash test ratings—don’t make assumptions.)

Full-sized pickup truck crash test results
The large pickup crash-test group is listed below in rank order, with the specific air bag configuration tested and applicable model years listed.

Honda Ridgeline
Front - Good; Side - Good
Front and rear head curtain air bags and front torso air bags.
Front and side: 2006-09 models

Ford F-150
Front - Good; Side - Good
Front and rear head curtain air bags and front torso air bags.
Front and side: 2009 models

Toyota Tundra
Front - Good; Side - Good
Front and rear head curtain air bags and front torso air bags.
Front and side: 2007-09 models

Dodge Ram 1500
Front - Good; Side - Marginal
Front and rear head curtain air bags.
Front: 2009 models
Side: 2009 models (mfg. after September 2008)

Nissan Titan
Front - Good; Side - Marginal
Front and rear head curtain air bags and front torso air bags.
Front and side: 2004-09 models

Chevrolet Silverado 1500
GMC Sierra 1500
Front - Good; Side - Poor
With optional front and rear head curtain air bags.
Front and side: 2007-09 models

Nissan Titan
Front - Good; Side - Poor
Without optional side air bags
Front and side: 2004-09 models

Chevrolet Silverado 1500
GMC Sierra 1500
Front - Good; Side - Poor
Without optional side air bags.
Front and side: 2007-09 models

Learn about automotive safety. Compare safety features and ratings. See how these pickup trucks and more than 250 other vehicles performance in crash test videos.

In addition, we have recently integrated crash-test videos onto the model overview pages, available to online subscribers.

—Jeff Bartlett

New “wreck registry” may alert consumers to a car’s troubled past

The federal government has just enacted provisions to create a national database to include cars that have been stolen or wrecked by collision, fire, or flood. This database tracks cars by their unique VIN (vehicle identification number.) For a fee ($2.25 to $3.50) consumers will be able to run a background check to see if, say, a used car they want to buy is in fact a repaired wreck rather than a well-maintained creampuff.

For now, the National Motor Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS), or "wreck registry" as it’s come to be called, is a work in progress. Ultimately it will gather information from every auto insurer, state motor-vehicle department, and junk or salvage yard. So far, according to the Department of Justice, only 13 states are fully complying, 14 are providing some data, 14 more are not participating, and 10 are moving toward compliance. Perhaps most irksome, some big states, including California, New York and Pennsylvania are providing data to the system but not making it available to consumers. DOJ claimed 73 percent of the U.S. vehicle population is represented in the system.

Until all 50 states have joined the club, which by law they must, then it will remain possible for unscrupulous operators to “wash” a wrecked car’s title by re-registering it in a different state. Since the states define wrecked cars differently and have differing and sometimes very lax titling requirements, there has long been a loophole allowing car repairers to get a wrecked car reclassified, concealing its true history.

For a variety of reasons, you probably don’t want to buy a repaired wreck. For instance, a car that’s been submerged in water may never recover from the ordeal. Electronic systems and body components, including crucial safety gear, can continue corroding from the inside out long after the car has seemingly dried out. And while it’s possible for a body shop with the right tools to undo serious collision damage, doing the job right takes time, money and skill, things that make a good, safe repair often unprofitable.

That’s where the scam artists come in. If they can make cheap repairs that make a bad car look acceptable, they can turn a big profit by reselling it. Part of the procedure is getting a clean title. While many states "brand" a known wreck’s title with a notation that this is a wrecked or "salvage" car, it’s long been possible to "wash" the brand off by re-titling the car in another state. That way a cheap repair to cover serious damage can go unnoticed. Stolen cars can also slip through the interstate web, and that’s another loophole that the NMVTIS is supposed to close.

Bogus titling is a big problem that costs consumers billions of dollars per year. In a study we conducted in 2002, we found at that time possibly 20 percent of cars involved in fatal accidents were rebuilt and resold, and that 30 percent of those had fraudulent titles.

The wreck registry has been a long time coming. Even though Congress mandated it in 1992, it took a lawsuit from a number of consumer groups, including Public Citizen, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety (CARS), and Consumer Action to get it this far.

While the NMVTIS program is far from complete, it’s a start. But until there are more states and reporting agencies within states to feed information into the program, it is difficult to say that the title search results are conclusive as yet.

There have long been services that help consumers check a vehicle’s history. The biggest are CarFax and Experian. Carfax charges $29.99 to check out one car, and Experian charges $14.99. Carfax says that it gathers information from police agencies among other public-records sources, which may be one reason it’s costlier than other information sources.

The NMVTIS Web site lists two information providers, Auto Data Direct, which charges $2.50 to run down information using a car’s VIN number, and CARCO Group, Inc.,  which charges $2.25 for a summary and $3.50 for a more complete report.

Bottom line
You don’t have to pay anything to receive insights into a vehicle’s history. You can also get a free VIN check from the National Insurance Crime Bureau, which aggregates data from more than a hundred insurance companies.  

It’s important to know that none of the information sources are complete. So they may provide welcomed insight, but the information they lack may be just what you need. They’re a reasonable place to start, since they might exclude some candidate cars right off the bat. But in the end, you’ll still be best off by having a qualified mechanic check out any used car you consider. A trained expert can notice welds where there shouldn’t be any, improper body repairs, and misaligned or incorrect parts that may go unnoticed by most of the rest of us.

Read “Beware the flood of flood cars.” Watch our videos to see how more than 250 cars perform in Insurance Institute for Highway Safety crash tests.

—Gordon Hard

Crash test - IIHS rates small and compact cars

Only two out of eight small cars in the latest tests from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) provide good side crash protection, once again reinforcing the need for consumers to carefully review the safety equipment and safety ratings for models under consideration for purchase.

In this group, the 2009 Suzuki SX4 was the best performer, getting good ratings for front-and side-crash protection. The Toyota Matrix, and its twin Pontiac Vibe, also got good ratings for side-crash protection. The Chevrolet HHR earned good frontal-crash protection and acceptable performance in side crashes.

At the other end of the spectrum, the oldest model in this group, Chrysler PT Cruiser was the worst performer in the side test, earning the lowest rating of poor for protection in side crashes. The Hyundai Elantra and Saturn Astra earn the second lowest rating of marginal.

Small and compact cars
The December IIHS crash-test group is listed below in rank order, with the specific air bag configuration tested and applicable model years listed.

Suzuki SX4
Front - Good; Side - Good
Front and rear head curtain air bags and front torso air bags.
Front and side: 2008-2009 models

Toyota Matrix (and Pontiac Vibe)
Side - Good
Front and rear head curtain air bags and front torso air bags.
Side: 2009 models

Chevrolet HHR
Front - Good; Side - Acceptable
Front and rear head curtain air bags
Front: 2006-2009 models, side: 2009 models

Ford Focus
Side - Acceptable
Front and rear head-curtain air bags and front torso air bags.
2008-09 models

Mini Cooper
Side - Acceptable
Front and rear head-curtain air bags and front torso air bags.
Side: 2008-09 models manufactured after July 2008

Saturn Astra
Front - Good; Side - Marginal
Front and rear head curtain air bags and front torso air bags.
Front and side: 2008-09 models

Hyundai Elantra
Side - Marginal
Front and rear head-curtain air bags and front torso air bags.
Side: 2007-09 models

Chrysler PT Cruiser
Front - Good; Side - Poor
Front combination head and torso airbags and driver inflatable knee bolster
Front: 2006-09 models, side: 2008-09 models

—Desiree Calamari

IIHS names safest cars for 2009

Cars have gotten a lot safer in recent years, and that trend seems to have accelerated just in the past year. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) released its annual list of Top Safety Picks. The big news is that 72 vehicles earned the Institute’s highest ranking this year, more than double the number of 2008 models and more than three times the number of 2007 winners.

To earn a Top Safety Pick award, a car has to  receive the Institute’s highest rating of Good in front, side, and rear crash protection, including a Good rating in an assessment of head-restraint safety; and it must offer electronic stability control.

For the first time, there is at least one vehicle in every segment Consumer Reports tests that earns a Top Safety Pick award, giving consumers the ability to find a safe car, no matter their budget or transportation needs. All Acura and Subaru models earn Top Safety Pick awards. The IIHS doesn’t test two-seat roadsters, but three four-passenger convertibles made the grade: the Saab 9-3, Volkswagen Eos, and Volvo C70.

In addition to the 72 Top Safety Picks, another 26 models earn Good front- and side-crash-test scores and offer electronic stability control, but don’t have good head-restraint designs. While rear impacts are rarely fatal, they produce a high percentage of injuries in auto accidents.

Virtually all cars now earn Good front crash scores, but not all have Good side-crash scores and rear-impact scores.

It is important when choosing a new car to also consider its dynamic performance relative to safety. Consumer Reports Safety Ratings factor insurance industry and government crash tests, when available, as well as our own dry braking, wet braking, and accident avoidance test findings. On the model overview pages at ConsumerReports.org, we provide a complete breakdown of how each tested model fares in the full range of safety evaluations.

Below are the lists of 2009 Top Safety Picks, as well as those "Also-Ran" models that lack only good seat/head restraint designs.

Large cars
Acura RL
Audi A6
Cadillac CTS
Ford Taurus
Lincoln MKS
Mercury Sable
Toyota Avalon
Volvo S80

Midsize cars
Acura TL, TSX
Audi A3, A4
BMW 3 Series sedan
Ford Fusion with optional ESC
Honda Accord sedan
Mercedes C Class
Mercury Milan with optional ESC
Saab 9-3
Subaru Legacy
Volkswagen Jetta, Passat

Midsize convertibles
Saab 9-3
Volkswagen Eos
Volvo C70

Small cars
Honda Civic sedan with optional ESC (except Si)
Mitsubishi Lancer with optional ESC
Scion xB
Subaru Impreza with optional ESC
Toyota Corolla with optional ESC
Volkswagen Rabbit 4-door

Minicar
Honda Fit with optional ESC

Minivans
Honda Odyssey
Hyundai Entourage
Kia Sedona

Large SUVs
Audi Q7
Buick Enclave
Chevrolet Traverse
GMC Acadia
Saturn Outlook

Midsize SUVs
Acura MDX, RDX
BMW X3, X5
Ford Edge, Flex, Taurus X
Honda Pilot
Hyundai Santa Fe, Veracruz
Infiniti EX35
Lincoln MKX
Mercedes M Class
Nissan Murano
Saturn Vue
Subaru Tribeca
Toyota FJ Cruiser, Highlander
Volvo XC90

Small SUVs
Ford Escape
Honda CR-V, Element
Mazda Tribute
Mercury Mariner
Mitsubishi Outlander
Nissan Rogue
Subaru Forester
Toyota RAV4
Volkswagen Tiguan

Large pickups
Ford F-150
Honda Ridgeline
Toyota Tundra

Small pickup
Toyota Tacoma

Also-Rans
These 26 vehicles earn good ratings in front- and side-crash tests. They have ESC, standard or optional. They would be 2009 Top Safety Pick winners if their seat/head restraints also earn good ratings:

Chevrolet Malibu
Chrysler Sebring, Sebring convertible, Town & Country
Dodge Avenger, Grand Caravan
Infiniti G35, M35
Kia Amanti
Lexus ES, GS, IS
Mazda CX-7, CX-9
Mitsubishi Eclipse Spyder, Endeavor
Nissan Altima, Pathfinder, Quest, Xterra
Saturn Aura
Smart Fortwo
Toyota 4Runner, Camry, Prius, Sienna

Learn more about car safety in our special section, including Crash Test 101 and more than 250 crash test videos.

—Eric Evarts