Jalopnik: Crash Test

Lutz Calls For Three-Year NHTSA Crash Testing Moratorium

Andrew Stoy — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:15:00 EDT

In a conversation with WardsAuto.com, GM vice-chairman and product czar Bob Lutz stated his desire for at least a three-year suspension of US frontal and side-impact crash testing standards. Said Lutz, “In Europe, the crash-test procedures are different than in the U.S., so the tests are different. If our government says cars that meet crash tests in other countries are good enough to be sold here, we would have more high-mileage, small-car flexibility.” In other words, Lutz isn't calling for the sale of vehicles that haven't been crash tested, just the ability to legally sell vehicles that have passed Euro NCAP — and possibly other — safety standards, but not US NHTSA standards.

Jalopnik Snap Judgment: We've been over this a hundred times. Europeans get cool cars that we cannot get because they don't meet our emissions standards or our crash test standards. Making Euro NCAP an acceptable standard for American vehicles would remove one of the huge challenges domestic manufacturers face in supplying a market hungry for stylish small vehicles. And it's not like Euro NCAP is the Sichuan Province Regional Crash Academy — some vehicles that pass NHTSA do very poorly on NCAP, and even NHTSA has admitted that its testing standards are out of date, requiring an overhaul. So let's look at the score: This proposal would make it easier for manufacturers to provide us with more choice at less cost to them, all without endangering our safety. We have a winner; now let's make it happen. Just don't cheat and try to sneak some tin-can-crumpling third-world garbage onto the market, ruining it for everyone else.
[Wards Automotive, Sub. Req.]

The Volvo 740: Buy Now, Avoid The Certainty Of Agonizing Death Later!

Murilee Martin — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:00:00 EDT

Things used to be so much simpler for Volvo marketers: you talked about how sensible the Göteborg machines were, how reliable… and, above all, how safe. Maybe shake up car buyers by implying that they'd better get their life insurance in order before driving one of those dangerous cars- you know, the kind that don't get dropped on their roofs by lab-coated Swedes during testing. Here we see a series of Volvo crash-test videos that no doubt sent legions of late-80s car buyers into the safely enfolding arms of the the Volvo 740.

Volvo Safety Center Crashes Cars And Rides On Air

Ben Wojdyla — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:40:00 EDT

Ever wonder how Volvo engineers regularly produce cars with legendary levels of safety? Well, it's all about the tools — enter the Volvo Safety Center in Sweden. Costing $81 million, the Volvo Safety Center opened in 2000 with some serious tricks up its sleeve. It features two 300-foot-long tubes down which test cars are run, and the tubes themselves can move on a cushion of air to change the impact angle. Observe for yourself, along with all kinds of other goodies, in the video below the fold.

[Metacafe]

Fiat 500 Sacrificed By Audi Q7 To Encourage Crash Compatibility Standards

Ben Wojdyla — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:20:00 EDT

This week ADAC, the German auto club, tried to convince automakers to consider small car crash compatibility when designing larger cars by obliterating a Fiat 500 with an Audi Q7. The point ADAC was trying to make is not that the Fiat 500 is unsafe — it actually scores five stars in Euro NCAP testing where the Audi Q7 only garners 4. Rather, the really awesome, slow-motion crash footage is intended to encourage automakers to engineer big cars with small-car crash survivability in mind. We don't know if it'll work, but you can just keep sending out crash test videos, ADAC. We'll keep scoring them to The Blue Danube. [Drive]

2009 Ferrari California Restyled By Crash Test

Mark Arnold — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:30:00 EDT

The new 2009 Ferrari California's been spotted on its way out of what appears to have been a head-on crash test. But don't shed a tear over this brightly-blue-painted California. It's died so that the rest of the fleet of Californias may live.

Unfortunately, maybe we should still cry a tear because we already know they'll all more than likely end up living their miserable lives getting their passenger seats chewed up by the tiny dogs of their celebutard owners on the way to a Beverly Hills Botox parlor. Still, maybe we'll be seeing more crash pictures — from the Paparazzo — just as soon as the celebutards get their hands on 'em. [Autogespot via AutoBlog, CzechFerrari.cz]

How Important Is Crash Test Performance To You?

Matt Hardigree — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 11:45:00 EDT

Andy "Too Short" Stoy reported today on the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration plan to revise crash test ratings in a last-ditch effort to ~~stay even remotely relevant~~ educate drivers. Assuming they suddenly put forth harsher standards, would that impact your buying decisions? And while you probably wouldn't buy an Elantra if it got two stars, you probably wouldn't buy an Elantra anyways. What if it was your dream car and affordable? Would you think twice? Just how badly would your perfect car have to perform for you to walk away from a sweet deal?

Given the stories some of you have told about your current and former rides, it's clear safety isn't the primary concern, but it's up there somewhere. Some of you have families. Some of you have dreams. Some of you still haven't seen Paris. What's the tipping point? How much straw before the camel's back is broken and you're afraid you're going to follow its example?

Federal Crash Test Ratings To Be Updated: We All Drive Death Traps Again

Andrew Stoy — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 09:20:00 EDT

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NAMBLA) is updating their star ranking system for vehicle safety for the first time since it was introduced in 1994. After 14 years of manufacturers designing for the ratings, along with advancements in active and passive safety systems, the scores had become meaningless — nearly every vehicle scored a four- or five-star ranking in 2007 (with a few notable exceptions). What's changing and when after the jump.

NHTSA will introduce a new side-impact pole test designed to simulate wrapping a vehicle around a tree, which should be both useful for safety comparison shopping as well as extremely entertaining to watch. Front crash tests will also now score knee, hip and thigh injuries and add a crash test dummy representing a small woman sitting in the front passenger seat.

The fun part? Rather than providing individual frontal and side-impact ratings, NHTSA's made themselves up a formula to combine everything into a single rating of up to five stars, much like the scoring system found in Europe and Japan.

Automakers have until 2010 to get everything up to par, so if you're a laid-off structural engineer in Dee-troit expect your phone to start ringing in about five minutes. [Detroit News]

Is It Smart To Drive A Smart?

Matt Hardigree — Wed, 14 May 2008 11:40:00 EDT

Living near the border between predominantly gay and urban-chic neighborhoods we've seen more than our fair share of the 2008 Smart ForTwo. People must have assumed they were safe, and the Smart ForTwo crash test results support these assumptions (as do the unofficial Smart ForTwo crash test results). But just because it's safe doesn't mean we'd want to drive one (well, maybe a Smartuki or an Ultimate 112). Putting aside safety and style, there are a few factors here to give us pause.

For instance, we're not huge on the fuel economy, which is just 38 mpg under ideal driving conditions. Drive any faster and the mileage drops even further. Then there's the price. Would you pay $18,500 for a fully loaded Smart convertible? It would be pointless to list the other vehicles you could have with that level of gas-gulpage for that price given that, if you're buying a ForTwo, you probably have a little more disposable income on your hands than most. And the speed? You'll get to 60 mph from a cold start in... well... bring a book. All that being said, we like the idea of a car we could park almost anywhere. It certainly has a unique look. And hey, 38 mpg isn't that bad. What say you?

2008 Smart ForTwo IIHS Crash Test Results In, Little Tyke Did "Good"

Ben Wojdyla — Wed, 14 May 2008 00:01:00 EDT

Although we've already seen the NHTSA crash tests and the leaked IIHS test video, the official Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) crash test results are finally in for the 2008 Smart ForTwo. It turns out the little bugger did pretty well. IIHS awarded the micro-machine its highest rating of "Good" for front and side crash protection, and an "Acceptable" rating for seat and head restraint performance in rear-end crashes. Mounting evidence like yesterday's Smart pinball challenge and this IIHS result is proving that yes, Joe American, the ForTwo is a real car that won't crumple like a tin can in a low-speed or mid-speed crash. Full results and crash images on page two.

FIRST INSTITUTE CRASH TESTS OF SMART CAR: DIMINUTIVE TWO-SEATER EARNS TOP RATINGS FOR PROTECTING PEOPLE IN FRONT & SIDE CRASHES
ARLINGTON, VA — The Smart car is getting a lot of attention for its small size and style, and now it's earning impressive crash test ratings. In recent Insurance Institute for Highway Safety tests, the 2008 Smart Fortwo, the smallest car for sale in the US market, earned the top rating of good for front and side crash protection. Its seat/head restraints earned the second highest rating of acceptable for protection against whiplash in rear impacts.
Smart Fortwo is classified a microcar, meaning it's smaller even than minicars.Weighing about 1,800 pounds, the Smart is more than 3 feet shorter and almost 700 pounds lighter than a Mini Cooper.

It weighs about a third as much as one of the heaviest vehicles the Institute has tested, the BMW X5, a midsize SUV. As the price of fuel climbs and tougher federal fuel economy requirements kick in, auto companies are expected to introduce more small vehicles to the market. The Smart is the smallest car the Institute ever has tested.

"The big question from consumers is, 'How safe is it?'", says Institute president Adrian Lund. "All things being equal in safety, bigger and heavier is always better. But among the smallest cars, the engineers of the Smart did their homework and designed a high level of safety into a very small package."The Institute's test results generally demonstrate how well vehicles stack up against others of similar size and weight. Frontal ratings can't be compared
across weight classes, meaning a small car that earns a good rating isn't safer than a large car that's rated less than good.

"People base their buying decisions on a lot of factors," Lund says. "If you drive only in congested urban areas where speeds are low, a small car may be more practical than a big one. We conduct crash tests so people who want small cars can choose the ones that afford the best protection."The Smart has a crashworthy design for its size and is equipped with the latest safety gear, which is especially important in a small car. This vehicle's standard
equipment includes seat-mounted combination side airbags designed to protect both the heads and chests of the driver and passenger. Also standard is electronic stability control (ESC), called electronic stability program in the Smart. ESC helps drivers maintain control during emergency maneuvers or on slippery roads. It engages automatically when it senses vehicle instability, and Institute research has found that ESC lowers the risk of fatal single-vehicle crashes by about half.
Restraints do more of the work in frontal crashes: The Smart mostly lacks a front-end crush zone, which is a key component in reducing injury risk in serious frontal crashes.Typically, front-end structures are designed to crush and absorb crash energy, allowing occupant compartments to slow more gradually, ideally with little or no intrusion into drivers' survival space. Then a vehicle's safety belts and airbags slow occupants further and are designed to spread crash forces more evenly across people's bodies. The longer the front-end crush structure of a vehicle, the more gently occupants are slowed and thus protected from injury.

To compensate for the lack of front-end crush space, the Smart's restraint system does more of the work of absorbing energy as occupants "ride down" a crash.

"We recorded a high head acceleration when the driver dummy's head hit the steering wheel through the frontal airbag," Lund explains. This indicates the test dummy used up all of the available ride down room in the Smart's interior.

A stiff side structure and standard side airbags contributed to the Smart's good rating in the side test, which replicates a crash with a pickup truck or SUV. Injury forces recorded on the driver dummy's head, neck, torso, pelvis, and left leg all were low. However, the driver door unlatched during the crash. This confirms a finding of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's side test of a Smart released last month. The Institute downgraded the Smart's structural rating from good to acceptable, but the opening didn't appear to affect dummy movement during the test, and injury measures on the driver dummy were low. Still, doors shouldn't unlatch because in some crashes it could allow partial or complete occupant ejection, especially if an occupant is unbelted.

Small car safety: While small cars are safer now than before, so are large cars. In every category of passenger vehicle (car, SUV, or pickup truck), the risk of death is higher in crashes of smaller, lighter models. For vehicles 1-3 years old during 2006, minicars experienced 106 driver deaths per million registered vehicles compared with 69 driver deaths in large cars.

People often choose very light cars for fuel economy, but "you don't have to buy the smallest, lightest car to get one that's easy on fuel consumption," Lund points out. "The Toyota Prius, for example, earns good front and side crash test ratings. It gets better fuel economy than a microcar, but it's bigger and weighs more so we would expect it would be more protective in serious crashes."

How the Smart was evaluated: The Institute's frontal crashworthiness evaluation is based on results of a 40 mph frontal offset crash test. A vehicle's overall evaluation is based on measurements of intrusion into the occupant compartment, injury measures recorded on a Hybrid III dummy in the driver seat, and analysis of slow-motion film
to assess how well the restraint system controlled dummy movement during the test.

The side evaluation is based on performance in a crash test in which the side of a vehicle is struck by a barrier moving at 31 mph. The barrier represents the front end of a pickup or SUV. Ratings reflect injury measures recorded on an instrumented SID-IIs dummy in the driver seat, assessment of head protection countermeasures, and the vehicle's structural performance during the impact.

Rear crash protection is rated according to a two-step procedure. Starting points are measurements of head restraint geometry — the height of a restraint and its horizontal distance behind the back of the head of an average-size man. Seats with good or acceptable restraint geometry are tested dynamically using a dummy that measures forces on the neck. This test simulates a collision in which a stationary vehicle is struck in the rear at 20 mph. Seats without good or acceptable geometry are rated poor overall because they can't be positioned to protect many people.

[Source: IIHC]

Brilliance BS4 Barrel Rolls Down Hill, Driver Not Obliterated

Ben Wojdyla — Tue, 06 May 2008 17:05:00 EDT

After the soda can performance of a Brilliance BS6 in a German test, the crash survival of drivers in a Brilliance car was assumed to be heavily based on divine intervention. The driver of this BS4 seems to have tested those limits after crashing through a guard rail at 60 MPH and rolling over twice going downa hill. Aside from destroying the car, the driver walked away with nothing more than seat belt bruising. We're impressed with the quality of that front wheel casting almost as much as this guy's survival.

[China Car Times via WCF]

2008 Smart Fortwo IIHS Crash Film Leaks To Web

Ray Wert — Thu, 01 May 2008 09:40:00 EDT

Thanks to the NYT, we already knew the folks at NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) noted a "safety concern" after the driver's door on the new US-Spec 2008 Smart Fortwo popped open during a side-impact crash test. Although the little Smart got a five star rating for protecting the head and chest of the dummy we just learned a lot from, the door "issue" could potentially "increase the likelihood of occupant ejection." Ouch. Well, now IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) has taken a 40 MPH run at an offset barrier in the small-yet-feels-somehow-smaller Smart for the US market. Although the video and ratings haven't yet been made public, somehow the video of the crash has made it out in to the wilds of the web.

Now it's here — on the not-so-wilds. When NHTSA tested the ForTwo in a frontal crash test, it received four stars on the driver side and only three on the passenger side and from what our uninformed eyes can tell — the A-pillar looks to be in pretty good shape with no evidence of deformity. So is the Smart Fortwo for you? Well, we're thinking it'll depend on what those crash tests tell us and only time will tell what the IIHS thinks. [via YouTube]

Smart ForTwo Passes Crash Despite Drivers Door Opening

Ben Wojdyla — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 14:40:00 EDT

Reuters is reporting the Smart ForTwo has passed the US Government crash tests with flying colors — despite the drivers side door unlatching in a side impact crash. We're not sure if this means policymakers have determined an increased probability of passenger ejection is a positive performance attribute, or if the ForTwo performed so well in other areas as to make up for the shortcoming. We can't see any door opening action in the above video from the NHTSA crash, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. [Reuters] video from Streetfire

Ford Shows Off Demolished Taurus As Safety Movie Theater?

Matt Hardigree — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:00:00 EDT

What to do with all of those cars smashed in federal and IIHS crash testing? In theory, you could take them back for further study to help improve safety for future vehicles. Of course, that would mean wasting an advertising opportunity. And while we prefer the RoboCop Taurus, we'll admit that showing a wrecked version of your car isn't the worst way to show off that the only major hazard that comes with driving a new Taurus is death-by-boredom. Press release after the jump.

CRASH-TESTED FORD TAURUS SHOWS SAFETY LEADERSHIP
NEW YORK, March 18, 2008 - Most cars at auto shows are highly polished and gleaming, except one - a Ford Taurus that crashed into a 1 million pound wall at 35 mph en route to the Jacob Javits Convention Center. Deliberately.

Ford wants New York International Auto Show visitors to see how the Taurus - rated 'Top Safety Pick' by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) - fared in a 35 mph crash test. Positioned in the same place occupied by the seated crash-test dummy, showgoers view video of the actual crash test.

"We want people to see what happens in the blink of an eye," said Stephen Kozak, North American safety chief engineer for Ford Motor Company. "We want to open people's eyes that not all cars are created equal when it comes to safety. There is a difference and we want to show why Taurus is the safest rated large sedan sold in America."

A car crash can literally happen in the blink of an eye - 100 milliseconds, or about a tenth of a second, from start to finish. In that brief span of time, safety belt pretensioners tighten the belt, frontal air bags are inflated to the appropriate level, and the forces of the crash are being deflected by the structure of the vehicle designed specifically to help protect occupants inside.

The crashed Taurus test car is expected to be a popular display at the show - and not just because it looks so different from all the other vehicles. More than 50 percent of car buyers call safety a major purchase consideration.

The crash test was conducted at Ford's testing facilities in Dearborn, Mich., prior to the show. The company conducts hundreds of crash tests and thousands more simulated computer tests on a yearly basis for its vehicles.

"A crash can happen to the best of us, and it may happen before you have time to react," Kozak said. "So we believe the best way to react is to buy the car equipped to help protect you when the unexpected happens."

Taurus models equipped with optional AdvanceTrac® electronic stability control have earned the highest available rating of five-stars for rollover resistance from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Taurus earned five-star ratings from NHTSA for both driver and front passenger in a frontal crash test and five stars for both the driver and rear-seat passenger in a side impact crash test.

The IIHS also gives Taurus top marks - "Good" ratings - for frontal, side and rear impacts.

Key features of the Ford Taurus safety story include:

* Safety CanopyTM, Ford's exclusive side impact protection system, featuring side curtain airbags that helps protect front and rear outboard passengers in both rollovers and side impact crashes. The curtains are designed to slip between the occupant and the side window. The Safety Canopy is designed to stay inflated for several seconds, as rollover crashes often last much longer than side impact crashes.
* SPACE, Ford's Side Protection And Cabin Enhancement architecture. SPACE is designed to help protect occupants using a complex configuration of strategically placed long steel rails and square tubes under the car body, along the vertical door posts (or "B pillars"), in between the front and rear seats, and along the roof lines (or "A pillars"). The rails are designed to bend and the tubes compress in a severe crash; this creates 10 different "crush zones" all over the car to help channel crash forces away from the occupants inside.
* AdvanceTrac® electronic stability control system can predict the vehicle's intentions using a sensor to detect and measure oversteer and yaw by monitoring the vehicle's speed, throttle position and steering wheel angle. When the system senses wheel slip, engine torque is reduced and braking is applied where needed to help keep the car tracking safely on its intended path.
* Ford's Belt-Minder®, a safety belt reminder technology for the driver and front passenger that takes over after the initial safety belt reminder stops chiming. If the driver or front passenger remains unbuckled, the system chimes and flashes a warning lamp for six seconds every 30 seconds for five minutes or until the driver buckles up, whichever comes first.
* Personal Safety SystemTM, a suite of seven protection technologies working together as a system to help protect occupants, including dual-stage front air bags and occupant classification.

# # #

About Ford Motor Company
Ford Motor Company, a global automotive industry leader based in Dearborn, Mich., manufactures or distributes automobiles in 200 markets across six continents. With about 245,000 employees and about 100 plants worldwide, the company's core and affiliated automotive brands include Ford, Jaguar, Land Rover, Lincoln, Mercury, Volvo and Mazda. The company provides financial services through Ford Motor Credit Company. For more information regarding Ford's products, please visit www.ford.com.

# # #

Ach du Lieber Harry! T3 Transporter Crash Test

Mike Spinelli — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:10:07 EDT

How good were T3-generation VW Transporters at preserving life and limb at high speed into a flat wall? Let's just say the last thing to go through the mind of whatever dummy was behind the wheel of this doppeltkabin was about a quarter-ton of gravel. But c'mon, it's wall-on-wall action; what'd you think would happen? [Thanks to Jeremy for the tip.]

The Sir Vival: Safe At Any Speed!

Murilee Martin — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:00:00 EDT

With all your side-curtain this and active-restraint that these days, all mandated by a vast bureaucracy, it's hard to imagine a time when safety features were something that crazy white-coaters cooked up in their labs. Stuff like seats that swiveled backwards right before a crash, or a car made in two separate sections, like a locomotive-and-caboose combo. Here's an interesting article on these and other innovations, courtesy of the Gray Lady. [New York Times]

Forbes Warns: Most Dangerous Cars

Mike Spinelli — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:30:23 EDT

Nissan and Honda fanboys, double-check your blind spots. The 350Z and S2000 are on Forbes's list of most dangerous cars, gleaned via a pair of usual car-data suspects. While Consumer Reports largely calls out cheap-o subcompacts and aging pickups and SUVs sans curtain air bags, The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety notes the Nissan has a death rate that's around double that of the average sports car. Mainly, they say, due to its young, inexperienced and hoontastic driver base. The S2000's shortfall is curtain airbags, thanks to its, well, convertible top. Where the hell were these guys when the Fiat 124 faced down runaway Buick LeSabres on the nation's highways? [Forbes]

Crash tests are really a "pain in the neck" ...

Ray Wert — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:55:00 EDT

Crash tests are really a "pain in the neck" for automakers. Ha. Ha. Ha. CNN slays us. [CNNMoney]

Brilliant! Chinese Brilliance BS6 Sedan Crumples Like A Coke Can In German Crash Test

Ray Wert — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:15:00 EDT

While the folks at the German ADAC institute may not have gotten quite as much of a laugh (if you don't believe us — wait until about 15 seconds into the video here) out of their recent test of the new Brilliance BS6 — the recent Chinese entry into the Euro luxe import sedan market — as EuroNCAP got out of the test of Jiangling Motors' Landwind SUV back in 2005, General Tso's new hotness still didn't fare so well. OK, that's being nice — actually, the BS6 crumpled up like a coke can and received only one star for the 40 mph offset frontal crash test. First China came for our cats, then our teeth, and now the make-a-buck yet socially-socialist country's coming after our knees and our skulls. – Ray Wert

[Autobild via Autoblog]

Crash Test Simulations All The Rage

Murilee Martin — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:30:24 EDT

Since übercomputers can be used to model the behavior of subatomic particles in a fission explosion or air molocules in the atmosphere, why not use them to simulate crashes on as-yet-nonexistent cars? With the push toward smaller, lighter vehicles becoming more of a relentless shove and the expense of vehicle design climbing like the price of convenience-store bottled water after a hurricane, automakers have no choice but to rely on crash simulations. Hey, how about a Make Your Own Crash version of the software for home users, so we can simulate a head-on between, say, a Stanley Steamer and a street-sweeper truck? – Murilee Martin

Crashing Cars When They're Still a Gleam in the Designer's Eye [source]

Related:
Happy Crash! China To Begin Crash Testing Cars [internal]

Misses (sic) Santa Claus Rolls Her Volvo Police Car!

Murilee Martin — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:00:12 EDT

This video, which appears to be a promotion of some sort done by a German crash-testing company, has some sort of vague story background, but who cares? We got a cop Volvo with a Santa-hat-wearin' crash dummy behind the wheel, getting launched onto a rollover ramp and filmed in loving slo-mo! This one doesn't really register on the Hoon-O-Meter, because it's all about safety, but there's sufficient hoonic motivation behind the whole smash-up-cars-yeehaw deal to warrant inclusion as HOTD. – Murilee Martin

Toyota Continues The Tundra Two-Step On Truck's Four-Star Rating

Ray Wert — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:46:30 EDT

We've got an update on the four-star rating ToMoCo received on the Regular Cab Tundra in NHTSA testing, and it looks like the boys and girls over at PickupTruck.com have the scoop:

"In a phone call this morning with Toyota spokesman Bill Kwong, Kwong tells PickupTruck.com that, 'We're surprised with the results from the NHTSA tests. During our internal testing, which was all done according to NHTSA criteria, we consistently showed (simulated) ratings of five stars from the get go for the Tundra. Right now our engineering team is reviewing the results but it's going to take several weeks to sort out. When we finish (reviewing the data) we'll determine what we might need to fix to make it right.'"

Good to hear ToMoCo wants to make things right to get that five-star rating, but somehow I don't think that's going to stop the General, FoMoCo, the German-American hybrid and Nismo from trying for a bite as they're probably already smelling the blood in the water. – Ray Wert

2007 Tundra Falls Short in NHTSA Frontal Crash Test Rating [PickupTruck.com]

Tundra Breaks Nose, Only Gets Four Stars In Front-End Crash Test

Ray Wert — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 12:00:00 EDT

The Tundra's just not having a very good day today. First we heard ToMoCo's offering $2000 to dealerships to give up their current parts-haulers, and now this news. According to the folks obsessed with personal mass-market passenger vehicles that haul, carry and tow, NHTSA just awarded ratings for driver and passenger safety to ToMoCo's Tundra. The pickup, the super number one awesome best automaker from the land of the rising sun's first entry into the full-size hauler market, received four stars out of the star-too-far five stars needed for "perfection" — aka, a score matching the 2007 Chevy Silverado, the new Ford F-150 and the Dodge Ram 1500. We'll let the boys at Pickuptruck.com explain why that's important, and provide you with a video of the crash test just below the jump.

Toyota has vociferously stated the new Tundra is ready to go head to head with the half-ton pickups offered by the Detroit Three, including expectations for receiving five star safety ratings (page 4, first paragraph).
The NHTSA crash test results are likely to put Toyota's truck team into a deep defensive posture as the Tundra tries to prove itself an equal to the incumbents, and Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler pounce on any perceived weakness in the new truck's armor.

– Ray Wert

2007 Tundra Falls Short in NHTSA Frontal Crash Test Rating [Pickuptruck.com, Autoblog]

Safest Cars: Insurance Institute's Stability Control Requirement Hurts US Automakers' Safety Scores

Mike Spinelli — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 13:08:04 EST

This year, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (HIMOM) won't even think about naming a car to its top safety list if it doesn't have stability control. Going nannyless is a dealbreaker, says the agency, which is lobbying for a Federal mandate for automakers to put stability control on all cars by 2012. That 's bad juju for domestic automakers, which are somewhat behind the Europeans on offering stability control, arguably a top-down technology that's only just begun trickling into cars costing below $25,000. It's the ABS debate all over again — with insurance companies' Cole Haans again placed at the necks of carmakers and consumers. Oh, please protect us, you all-knowing beings of the actuarial tables, we are not worthy of your attention. – Mike Spinelli

Winners for the 2007 model year:
Large Car: Audi A6
Midsized Car: Audi A4, Saab 9-3, Subaru Legacy (with optional stability control)
Minivan: Hyundai Entourage, Kia Sedona
Luxury SUV: Mercedes M-class, Volvo XC90
Midsize SUV: Acura RDX, Honda Pilot, Subaru B9 Tribeca
Small SUV: Honda CR-V, Subaru Forester

Related:
More on IIHS [internal]

Happy Crash! China To Begin Crash Testing Cars

Ray Wert — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 18:16:16 EDT

According to China Daily, the Chinese government's gonna do crash tests of their own. We think it sounds like a great idea, and we vote a crash-off between the Chery four-door and the Geely four-door. Given that no Chinese automaker has yet developed a car that can meet US and European safety standards, and if it goes anything like the Landwind SUV crash test above, it should be nothing short of hilarious. By the way — the Landwind, a Jianling Motors SUV — scored the amazingly putrid "zero" in Euro head-on NCAP testing.

China to start vehicle crash testing [China Daily]

Insurance Institute Hits Them From the Side; Resulting Headlines Top List of Most Obvious

Ray Wert — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 12:37:31 EDT

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety apparently likes it like we do — releasing the results over the weekend of the 2006 side impact crashworthiness (we didn't even make that word up!) tests, and now we're treated to 75 articles in papers across the country all saying "Study: Side Air Bags Improve Safety." Well — umm — yeah, that's true, and thank you Associated Press for your hard work in making it clear to the whole world it's better to smack your head into a pillowy cushion of air than a piece of hard industra-plasti-vinyl with metal underneath. Geez.

Oh, the results? Is that what you're asking for? Well...

...the Chevy Impala and Toyota Avalon both received "good" ratings, the Buick Lucerne and Hyundai Azera received "acceptable" ratings and the Buick LaCrosse and Chrysler 300 received "marginal" ratings — all when tested with side airbags. Of the large cars tested without side airbags, the Chrysler 300, Ford Five Hundred and Ford Crown Victoria — all received ratings of "Poor." It should be noted that when the Ford Five Hundred was tested last year with side airbags, it received a Gold Medal — so it's got that going for it.

So remember kids, side airbags save lives.

Study: Side Air Bags Improve Safety [CBS/AP]
New side impact crash test results: Impala, Avalon are top large car performers [IIHS]

Uh Oh, Aveo: Europe's NCAP Calls Out Three-Star-Safe Chevy for Poor Front Crash Performance

Mike Spinelli — Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:30:28 EST

According to Europe's car-safety gurus, NCAP, the Chevrolet Aveo is a safe car, as long as you don't hit anything head-on. Then, it turns into the most economical enabler of catastrophic chest compression you can buy. Singled out as having an "unacceptably high risk of life-threatening injury to the driver s chest," the Aveo nonetheless scored a three-star rating from the agency.

A wake-up call for the motor industry as Euro NCAP awards two star strike-through for the new Chevrolet Aveo* [NCAP]

Related:
Safety, Schmafety: The Least-Safe Cars of 06 [internal]

IIHS Announces Top Safety Picks: Ford, Subaru, Saab, Honda Top List

Mike Spinelli — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 07:30:18 EST

NBC's Dateline again had the exclusive story on the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety's top safety picks for 2006 last night, with reporter Lea Thompson again cast in the role of safetymarm. The determining factor in both Silver and Gold categories was the inclusion of side curtain air bags, which help prevent noggin smackdowns during both frontal-offset and side-impact crashes. Separating Silver and Gold winners, however, were headrests sufficient to provide whiplash. Click through for results.

Silver
VW Jetta
VW Passat
Audi A3
Audi A4
Audi A6
Chevrolet Malibu (with opt. side airbags)

Gold
Ford 500 or Mercury Montego (only with optional side airbags)
Subaru Legacy
Saab 1994
Honda Civic

Safe cars: Gold and silver awards [MSNBC]

Related:
Safety, Schmafety: The Least-Safe Cars of '06 [internal]

Major Automakers Agree on Truck/Car Crash Standards

Davey G. Johnson — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:30:12 EST

The Big Nine: Stanford, Crocker, Burbank, Hoover, Rickenbacker, Carnegie, Trump and Tweed, have agreed on standards to limit the devastation in automobile vs. truck accidents. The companies came to some sort of consensus that the beams they're installing on trucks to prevent cars from sliding underneath would meet some undisclosed new strength test by 2009. They also decided on new crash tests to ensure said beams work as they're intended.

Carmakers OK crash standards [Detroit Free Press]

Minivans Receive Poor Crash-Test Ratings for Neck Injury

Mike Spinelli — Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:14:24 EDT

A number of minivans may not save passengers' necks in a crash. (By "necks" we mean their actual necks, not their metaphoric ones.) The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety gave a number of minivans poor marks for preventing injuries during rear-end accidents. Vans that received the "poor" ratings, including Dodge Caravan/ Chrysler Town and Country, Toyota Sienna and nearly all of GM's newest minivans like the Buick Terraza (pictured), were those not equipped with optional adjustable lumbar and head restraints. When fitted with such restraints, some of the vans were bumped up to "acceptable." Ford got a much-needed chance to gloat, though its victory was bittersweet, as its doomed 2004-2006 Ford Freestar and Mercury Monterey received the highest rating (i.e., "good") from the Institute.

Several Minivans Fare Poorly in Tests [Forbes Auto]

More on The Great Landwind Crash-Test Fiasco of 2005

Mike Spinelli — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 09:43:21 EDT

Woo. Those poor crash test dummies on the Landwind account deserve at least a round of drinks and, more likely, a complete reconditioning. According to tests recently done by Germany's ADAC auto club, referring the Chinese SUV "junk" would be an insult to the legendary fishing boats of Hong Kong. What does a zero safety rating look like in twisted sheetmetal and dummy carnage? Click through.

Landwind ist eine Luftnummer [GMX.net via Autoblog.it]