Well, Russ didn't actually say that. He's too nice to say something like that. But, what he does say seems to refute Toyota's inference that IIHS selectively choose certain vehicles for testing and the insinuation that the IIHS was trying to mislead the public by only selecting three cars to fail an "extreme" test. Russ tells us

"Toyota was notified in January that roof strength would be a new test. The IIHS asked automakers to flag any vehicles they'd like to have included. Toyota had plenty of opportunity to flag other Toyota, Lexus or Scion models — including being present at roof strength tests at the IIHS facility — but choose not to. So IIHS assumed that there were no models that met the new guidelines. If there are other vehicles Toyota would want to include they were able to submit them at that time or at any time in the process — including right now."

So basically, bring it Toyota, don't sing it.

This doesn't refute Toyota's other contention that the new test is "extreme." As we said before, we're not sure whether or not the new roof-crush test is extreme, but we will point out again that not only did other automakers have vehicles that passed it, but the 'yota Camry passed it as well. We'll also reiterate we're not sure how far the argument of "it was too hard" will go with consumers and the general public.

Toyota would probably do more to show it stands by their vehicles ability to pass this new roof-crush test by flagging their entire lineup to allow the IIHS to test it. Unless, of course, they know the vehicles won't pass — which, in essence, proves the IIHS point.

Toyota's claiming the roof crush test — only applied to three Toyotas — the RAV4, Camry and Yaris — is harder than federal standards:

"This is the first year IIHS has included its own roof strength tests, which exceed federal standards, for TSP consideration. All Toyota vehicles meet or exceed Federal Safety Standards for frontal and side impact, roof crush resistance and rollover protection."

So, let's get this straight: you're upset because your cars don't meet a tougher standard than the federal guidelines — a standard other automakers are capable of meeting — and you expect the consumer to accept that argument? Really? Seriously?

But wait, there's also the fact that the Camry actually passed this much more difficult roof crash test. So why didn't the mid-size get a Top Safety Pick? Well, because, as the IIHS said in their press release late last night,

"The midsize Toyota Camry would have qualified with good ratings, except for its rear crash evaluation. This car's seats and head restraints are rated marginal for protection against whiplash injury. A change to good would have earned the Camry a Top Safety Pick for 2010."

Where's Toyota's explanation for why the Camry failed to garner a Top Safety Pick this year? It certainly wasn't the more-stringent roof crush test.

Full response from Toyota below:

2010 IIHS Top Safety Pick Awards Tells Just Part of the Story

On November 18, 2009, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) issued a news release headlined: "27 Winners of 2010 Top Safety Pick Award." Within the release, IIHS states: "Missing the mark: Not a single model from the world's biggest automaker by sales is represented among this year's winners. Toyota and its Lexus and Scion subsidiaries had a strong showing in 2009 with 11 winners but were shut out for 2010."

Toyota is confident its vehicles are among the safest on the road today and is committed to the highest levels of vehicle safety and quality.

In 2009, Toyota won more IIHS Top Safety Pick (TSP) awards than any other manufacturer. Toyota continues to improve vehicle passive and active safety, including improvement of past winners of IIHS TSP.

IIHS' statement that Toyota was shut out for 2010 is extreme and misleading, considering there are 38 Toyota, Lexus and Scion models, and only three were tested for roof strength by IIHS: Camry, RAV4 and Yaris.

This is the first year IIHS has included its own roof strength tests, which exceed federal standards, for TSP consideration. All Toyota vehicles meet or exceed Federal Safety Standards for frontal and side impact, roof crush resistance and rollover protection.

While passive collision protection is very important, Toyota also provides an array of active, passive, pre-collision and collision avoidance features. The "Star Safety System" is standard equipment on all Toyota and Lexus models.

The Insurance Institute's ratings are one of many vehicle safety and quality metrics.

Irv Miller
Group Vice President, Environmental and Public Affairs
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

Though BMW and Toyota aren't the only major automaker to not make the list of 27 vehicles, they're the most notable considering Chrysler managed to get four vehicles on the list and Volvo managed the same despite having belts on their XC60 disengage in a side-crash.

Click on the thumbs in this gallery and you can see the full list of IIHS-ordained cars in each category. For the most part, it's a sign of the cars you're least likely to want to drive. For instance, they explicitly exclude the WRX and SI versions of the Impreza and Civic.

Large Cars:
Buick LaCrosse
Ford Taurus
Lincoln MKS
Volvo S80

Midsize Cars:
Audi A3
Chevrolet Malibu built after October 2009
Chrysler Sebring 4-door with optional electronic stability control
Dodge Avenger with optional electronic stability control
Mercedes C class
Subaru Legacy
Subaru Outback
Volkswagen Jetta sedan
Volkswagen Passat sedan
Volvo C30

Small Cars
Honda Civic 4-door models (except Si) with optional electronic stability control
Kia Soul
Nissan Cube
Subaru Impreza except WRX
Volkswagen Golf 4-door

Midsize SUVs
Dodge Journey
Subaru Tribeca
Volvo XC60
Volvo XC90

Small SUVs
Honda Element
Jeep Patriot with optional side torso airbags
Subaru Forester
Volkswagen Tiguan

Actually, "acceptable" is the highest achieved by any car and only a few vehicles actually qualify, and the leap Subaru made is quite large in terms of pricing. It'll now cost you $3,202 less to crash into a barrier at 6 MPH in a 2010 Subaru Legacy than it did in a 2007 Legacy. Seriously, it cost $4,049 to collide at 6 MPH in an older Legacy?

Subaru makes strides to lower repair costs

Bumpers that don't bump, resulting in costly damage in what should be minor crashes, are the norm for cars evaluated in Institute low-speed crash tests. One exception is the redesigned 2010 Subaru Legacy. The Legacy's bumpers are a big improvement over those on its 2007-09 predecessor. The new Legacy earns an acceptable rating in a recent series of tests to assess and compare how well bumpers resist damage in everyday fender-benders. In contrast, the previous Legacy is rated poor. Fifteen of 17 midsize cars evaluated by the Institute are rated marginal or poor for bumper protection.

"The Legacy's performance shows what automakers can do when they pay attention to damage prevention in the low-speed crashes that happen every day," says Institute senior vice president Joe Nolan.

The Legacy is only the fifth car the Institute has tested to earn an acceptable rating for its bumpers. The others are the Ford Focus, Mazda 6, Scion xB, and Smart Fortwo. No car has yet earned a good rating. The Legacy is the first car the Institute has tested to limit damage to the bumper system in all 4 tests, and it's the first car with all 4 damage estimates under $1,000.

The Institute rates bumpers good, acceptable, marginal, or poor based on performance in 4 tests - front and rear full-width impacts at 6 mph and front and rear corner impacts at 3 mph. Each vehicle is run into a steel barrier that mimics the design of a car bumper, with the barrier's plastic absorber and flexible cover simulating typical cars' energy absorbers and plastic bumper covers. These tests are designed to drive bumper improvements that lead to better damage resistance in real-world crashes.

The biggest improvement for the Legacy was in the front full-width test. The ‘07 model sustained more than $4,000 damage (based on ‘09 parts and labor costs) when the bumper underrode the barrier. In contrast, the 2010 model sustained less than $900 in the same test.

"Subaru made some simple changes to the Legacy's front bumper," Nolan explains, "and they paid off in significantly lower repair costs." Compared with the new model, the 2007 Legacy sustained nearly 5 times as much damage in this one 6 mph impact. The main difference is that the 2010 Legacy's front reinforcement bar is a little taller, more than 6 inches wider, and more than 1½ inches higher off the ground. This kept the Legacy's bumper engaged with the barrier during the test, preventing it from sliding under the barrier. Plus the bumper bar extends to the corners to help protect headlights and fenders.

"The Legacy leapfrogs the competition for bumper protection," Nolan says. "These common sense bumper changes will help keep repair costs down in low-speed crashes."

[Source: IIHS]

While there was some controversy over the legitimacy of the Insurance Institute's 50th anniversary crash test, it's hard to argue that today's cars are exactly what the crash test attempted to show — safer in a collision. During Crash Week we looked at all sorts of crashes, some of which engineers could plan for, some not, and we took a look at the history of auto safety itself. As Crash Week continued, it became apparent that just because today's cars are safer doesn't mean the safety argument is over.

After all, Crash Week was also our Guide To Bad Driving, and with our World Atlas of Bad Driving we saw, time and time again, that there is no way to eliminate crashes brought on by plain old stupid driving. Therefore, Jalopnik continues to advocate thorough and continued driver education — as well as just being calm, being continuously aware of traffic and your car and of course, hanging up the damn phone while you drive. Guidelines which, of course, we know all our faithful readers adhere to, right? Because if Crash Week has reinforced just one of our beliefs, it's that it's always the other guy.

In case you missed any of Jalopnik's Crash Week, here it all is:

• Jalopnik Crash Week Begins: 1959 Chevy Vs. 2009 Chevy
• Abandoned Seaplane At Critical Intersection Of Planelopnik, Crash Week
• Do Not Read and Drive
• Yes, The IIHS-Crashed '59 Chevy Had An Engine
• Ten Most Confusing Google Street View Accidents
• Corvette ZHZ Survives Crash Week... For Now
• World Atlas Of Bad Driving: Europe
• McLaren SLR Crashes, Destroys Surrounding Cars In Ferrari Street Race
• How Police Investigate A Car Crash Scene Safely
• Backwards Truck Paint Job Would Make Anyone Slow Down
• School Bus Plunges Into Pond With Swim Team On Board
• Head-On Crash Caught On Dash Cam
• Romanian Drivers Get Another Kind Of Urine Test
• Child Safety Has Come A Long Way, Baby
• World Atlas Of Bad Driving: Asia
• Little Girl Miraculously Survives Terrifying Crash In Washington
• World's Fastest Super Car Crashes
• World Atlas Of Bad Driving: The Middle East
• Volvo Smashing Electric Cars To Test Next Gen Safety
• Dublin's Nominee For Worst Driver, Luckiest Pedestrian
• What Car Makes You Feel Safe?
• From Benz To Bumpers: A Brief History Of Auto Safety
• EXCLUSIVE: The Most Spectacular WRC Crashes ...In HD
• Dutchman Flips Tractor Trailer While Masturbating, Doesn't Stop
• Nissan GT-R Smashes Through Newspaper Boxes
• Crash Your Rolls Into A Supermarket, Get 16 Months In Jail
• Top Twelve Stupid Car Crashes Caught On Video
• 2010 Porsche Panamera Crashes, Joins Cool Club
• A Treasury Of Spec Miata Wrecks
• What's It Like When Your Mazda Sheds A Wheel On The Race Track?
• Should We Consider Crashes Inevitable?
• Mean Mopar Streets: Harvey Keitel Versus David Proval!
• They're The World's Most Expensive Cars- Let's SMASH 'EM UP!

Christopher Jensen of the NYT's Wheels blog, in response to commenter claims, spent some time on the phone talking to David Zuby, the senior vice president at the institute's crash-test center in Virginia about last week's IIHS video of the 1959 Chevy Bel Air crashing into the 2009 Chevy Malibu, shown again below.

Commenters seemed to think the '59 didn't have an engine under the hood. More than likely this was just wishful thinking on the part of car-obsessive Jalopnik readers. According to Zuby, by way of the NYT:

when the institute went looking for a 1959 Bel Air to crash-test there was one thing the organization didn't want and some things it did.

"We didn't want to crash a museum piece," Mr. Zuby said. "We were not looking for one that had been restored for museum or show quality." But the vehicle had to have a solid structure, although a little surface rust would be acceptable.

They found what they wanted in Indiana. "The frame was sound and all the body panels were sound," he said. It had a 3.9-liter 6-cylinder engine and was in driving condition.

The car was bought for about $8,500 and had about 74,000 miles on the odometer, which was broken. It was trucked to the test center in Virginia.

But what about those "clouds of rust?" Zuby has an answer for that too:

"Mr. Zuby said the cloud that shows in the crash video wasn't rust. "Most of that is road dirt that accumulates in nooks and crannies that you can't get it," he said."

So there you have it. [via NYT Wheels]

Our fascination with crashing covers the entire spectrum of thought, emotion, and frankly, respectability. Certainly we all want our cars to be safer, but on any given day you can hear someone complaining that safety has made cars less enjoyable. People love watching a good car crash, but hasten to add that they hope nobody was harmed. And while most people don't want to be in a crash, almost everyone loves telling stories about near misses, bad driving and out-and-out crashes.

So, to commemorate the dark side of the culture we love, we'll be taking a look at crashing from all sides next week, from a world atlas of bad driving to explorations of safety technology to the impact of safety on motorsports. Meanwhile, let's wish the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety a happy 50th and thank them for the incredible video — and try not to verbally castigate them for destroying that classic metal Chevy beast. Still wonder whether cars haven't gotten safer in the last 50 years? See what happens when a 1959 Chevy Bel Air crashes at speed into a 2009 Chevy Malibu.

See what we meant about "dark side?" Tell us what you're feeling after watching this in the comments below.
[video via IIHS]

The test involves compressing a metal plate into the corner of the roof. Withstand four times your vehicle's weight before reaching five inches of crush and you earn a "good" rating (the Smart Fortwo did 5.4 times its weight). Withstand better than 3.25 times your weight and you earn an "acceptable" grade. This is where the Honda Fit, Hyundai Accent, Mini Cooper, and Toyota yaris performed. The Aveo was a the bottom with a "marginal" rating, which means it had to do better than 2.5 times its weight.

Full details in the IIHS press release below the photos.

Smart Fortwo rates good for roof strength; test is designed 
to assess & compare occupant protection in rollover crashes
ARLINGTON, VA - The Smart Fortwo has the strongest roof and the Chevrolet Aveo has the weakest among 2009 micro and minicars recently tested by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The Smart earns the highest rating of good compared with acceptable for the Honda Fit, Hyundai Accent, Mini Cooper, and Toyota Yaris. The Aveo is rated marginal.
The rating system is based on Institute research showing that occupants in rollover crashes benefit from stronger roofs. Vehicles rated good must have roofs that are more than twice as strong as the current minimum federal safety standard requires. The ratings, products of the Institute's new roof strength testing program, add to consumer information tests that rate vehicles for front, side, and rear crashworthiness. The roof test is designed to help consumers pick vehicles that will help protect them in rollover crashes.
"We anticipate that our roof strength test will drive improved rollover crash protection the same way our frontal offset and side tests have led to better occupant protection in these kinds of crashes," says Institute president Adrian Lund.
Roofs have gotten stronger during the past few years, Institute research shows. Part of the reason is that automakers have made structural improvements to earn better front and side ratings in Institute tests. Strong A and B pillars help prevent intrusion in these types of crashes. They also help hold up the roof.
"Small cars should have an easier time with the roof strength test," Lund explains. "Their light weight means their roofs don't have to work as hard to keep the structure around the occupants intact in a rollover."
About 10,000 people a year are killed in rollovers. When vehicles roll, their roofs hit the ground, deform, and crush. Stronger roofs crush less, reducing the risk of injury from contact with the roof itself. Stronger roofs also can prevent people, especially those who aren't using safety belts, from being ejected through windows, windshields, or doors that have broken or opened because the roof deformed. Roofs that don't collapse help keep people inside vehicles as they roll.
The best protection is to keep vehicles from rolling in the first place. Electronic stability control is significantly reducing rollovers, especially fatal single-vehicle ones. When vehicles do roll, side curtain airbags help protect people. Belt use is essentiall

How roofs are evaluated: In the Institute's test, a metal plate is pushed against 1 side of a roof at a constant speed. To earn a good rating, a roof must withstand a force of 4 times the vehicle's weight before reaching 5 inches of crush. This is called a strength-to-weight ratio. For an acceptable rating, the minimum required ratio is 3.25. A marginal rating value is 2.5. Anything lower than that is poor.
"Compared with the current federal standard of 1.5, a strength-to-weight ratio of 4 reflects an estimated 50 percent reduction in the risk of serious or fatal injury in single-vehicle rollover crashes," Lund explains.
The Smart withstood a force of 5.4 times its weight. The Aveo withstood a force of just over 3 times its weight.
Cars have been built to meet the same roof crush standard, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 216, since 1973. The rule was extended in 1994 to include all passenger vehicles up to a gross weight rating of 6,000 pounds. Many SUVs and pickup trucks are heavier, so they're exempt.
New federal requirements: In April the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ended numerous delays by unveiling a new rule that doubles the current roof strength requirement (strength-to-weight ratio of 1.5) for vehicles with weight ratings up to 6,000 pounds. Roofs on vehicles with weight ratings 6,000 to 10,000 pounds will be required to withstand a force equal to 1.5 times their unloaded weight. Another requirement is that roofs maintain sufficient headroom during testing. For the first time, the government also will require the same performance on both sides of the roof when tested sequentially. Phase-in begins in September 2012, and all vehicles must comply by September 2016.
"The federal government's leisurely phase-in of the new standard means roofs won't have to get stronger right away," Lund says, "so we plan to continue rating vehicle roof strength for the foreseeable future. We want to reward manufacturers who are ahead of their competition when it comes to providing protection in rollover crashes. We want to help consumers identify the safest vehicle choices."

Roof ratings added to award criteria:  A good roof strength rating will be a new requirement to earn the Institute's Top Safety Pick award for 2010. This is the second time criteria for this award have been tightened since the first winners were announced in 2005. Availability of electronic stability control became a requirement starting with 2007s.
"Adding roof strength to Top Safety Pick criteria means we're going to see fewer winners in 2010," Lund points out. A record 84 vehicles have qualified for the 2009 award so far."

To earn a top safety pick a vehicle must get top ratings in front, side, and rear tests. They must also be equipped with electronic stability control. While none of these things make a car any more fun to drive, they certainly make them more comforting to crash. The Insight and Prius were sort of givens and we're not altogether surprised about the Soul as it competes with the Honda Fit and Scion XB, both of which won the award last year.

The IIHS was kind enough to include some Kia Soul and Honda Insight carnage, which you can view below.

<img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/stills/insight_front_jalopnik.flv.jpg"

The IIHS tested 2009 models of the Honda Accord, Hyundai Sonata, Mazda 6, Nissan Maxima and Chevrolet Malibu along with the 2010 Ford Fusion. Each car was was tested with low-speed corner and straight-ahead crashes in the front and the rear. Costs were estimated for each accident and averaged to determine how well each car did. The best of the bunch was the Mazda6, the only mid-size to score "acceptable" with a weighted average cost of $871. The worst was the Chevy Malibu, which will set you back more than $3,400 for a 6 MPH rear-ending. None of the vehicles scored a "Good" rating.

Click "next" to see how each of the cars performed overall as well as in individual tests.

[IIHS]

Ford Fusion
Overall: Poor
Front Full Cost: $2,529
Front Corner Cost: $1,889
Rear Full Cost: $2,610
Rear Corner Cost: $1,073
Weighted Average: $2,207

Mazda Mazda6
Overall: Acceptable
Front Full Cost: $742
Front Corner Cost: $1,437
Rear Full Cost: $768
Rear Corner Cost: $767
Weighted Average: $871

Honda Accord
Overall: Marginal
Front Full Cost: $941
Front Corner Cost: $1,461
Rear Full Cost: $974
Rear Corner Cost: $1,507
Weighted Average: $1,133

Hyundai Sonata
Overall: Marginal
Front Full Cost: $1,791
Front Corner Cost: $1,019
Rear Full Cost: $1,131
Rear Corner Cost: $729
Weighted Average: $1,265

Nissan Maxima
Overall: Poor
Front Full Cost: $997
Front Corner Cost: $1,787
Rear Full Cost: $2,494
Rear Corner Cost: $1,352
Weighted Average: $1,687

Chevrolet Malibu
Overall: Poor
Front Full Cost: $2,092
Front Corner Cost: $1,685
Rear Full Cost: $3,494
Rear Corner Cost: $1,116
Weighted Average: $2,329

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) tested the seven most popular small cars — the smart ForTwo, Chevy Aveo, Mini Cooper, Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit, Hyundai Accent and the Kia Rio — in four different low-speed tests: front bumper, front corner, rear bumper, rear corner. The cost of replacing the parts were used to determine whether the cars achieved high or low ratings. The worst performer was the Kia Rio with $9,380 worth of damage, earning it a "Poor" rating. Also earning a "Poor" rating were the Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit, Hyundai Accent and the Kia Rio. The Chevy Aveo did one better with a "Marginal" rating. The best vehicle was the Smart Fortwo with only $3,281 in total damage from the four tests, earning it an "Acceptable" rating. None scored "Good." Take a look at the damage below.

The costliest design choices include the Mini Cooper's sloping hood, which wraps around the front car like a fender and thus has to be replaced in a low speed test. The numerous plastic pieces help keep the Smart on the cheaper end of repairs because the parts are easy to replace, saving the trouble of replacing an entire fascia. The Chevrolet Aveo received a "Marginal" rating, due in large part to its pre-painted fenders, which are cheaper to replace because there's no need to factor painting into the replacement cost.

Mini and microcar bumpers allow pricey damage;
none of the 7 tested rates good under new system

ARLINGTON, VA - Urban drivers often pick mini and microcars because they're affordable, fuel efficient, and easy to park on city streets. Fender-benders are hazards of urban driving, and just one of them can add up to thousands of dollars in repair costs because the bumpers don't adequately protect vehicles from damage. None of the bumpers on 7 mini and microcars the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety recently tested earns the top rating of good, and just 1, the Smart Fortwo, is acceptable. Five out of the 7 earn poor ratings and 1 earns a marginal.

The Institute evaluated results according to a new ratings protocol for low-speed tests that better represents the damage insurance claims centers assess daily. The worst performer is the Kia Rio with $9,380 total damage in the 4 tests, 2 full-width and 2 corner impacts, to earn a poor rating. The Rio's repair bill is worse than those of most other small and midsize cars and minivans the Institute has tested. This minicar racked up about $3,700 damage, or 30 percent of its purchase price, in the full-front test alone. The Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit, Hyundai Accent, and Mini Cooper also earn poor ratings for bumper performance (see table below).

The Smart Fortwo is best overall, with $3,281 total damage in 4 tests. Costs are relatively low for this microcar because its prepainted plastic body panels are dent-resistant, inexpensive, and easy to replace. The Chevrolet Aveo, a minicar, is next best, with $4,490 total damage.

"You should be able to drive your car home after a low-speed crash, but too often vehicles are sidelined by only minor impacts," says Institute senior vice president Joe Nolan. "Damage to sheet metal, air-conditioning condensers, and safety equipment like headlights should never happen when your car is bumped at just 3 to 6 miles an hour. Bad bumpers add up to one big headache for consumers."

New ratings system: These are the first bumper test results released under a new Institute ratings protocol that's based on repair costs averaged and weighted to reflect real-world damage patterns. These averaged and weighted repair costs determine each vehicle's overall rating of good, acceptable, marginal, or poor in 4 bumper tests representing full-width and corner crashes at low speeds. Weighted average repairs must be less than $500 for a good rating, less than $1,000 for acceptable, and less than $1,500 for marginal. Repairs of $1,500 or more earn bumpers a poor rating.

"Bumpers can be designed so there's no damage in these low-speed impacts. At a minimum, repairs should cost less than the typical insurance deductible for a collision, which is $500," Nolan explains. "This is why we set the benchmark for a good rating at less than $500. Damage at this level may be only cosmetic, so consumers may choose not to bother with repairs. Likewise, $1,000 is about the cost of a new bumper cover, reinforcement bar, and paint, while $1,500 includes replacing vehicle parts like grilles and headlights. When you reach $1,000 the bumper isn't doing its job, and anything $1,500 or higher is egregious."

No vehicle can earn a good or even an acceptable rating in the Institute's bumper tests if it's unsafe to drive afterward or can't be driven at all. Inoperable headlights or taillights, severely buckled hoods, or a compromised engine cooling system would prevent any vehicle from achieving the top 2 ratings. For instance, the Accent's hood buckled and its radiator hose kinked in the full-front test.

"If you decided to drive away after this, you'd be calling a tow truck in short order because of engine overheating," Nolan says.

Besides this group of minicars and a microcar, the Institute has tested 54 other vehicles under the new ratings protocol. The Smart Fortwo joins the Ford Focus and Scion xB as the only cars to earn acceptable ratings. The Aveo is 1 of 15 to rate marginal. Of the 61 cars the Institute has tested so far, 43 rate poor.

How they're rated: The Institute puts bumpers through 4 crash tests including full front and rear into a barrier that mimics the front or back bumper on another vehicle plus front and rear corner impacts. The full-width impacts are run at 6 mph while the corner ones are at 3 mph. The shape of the barrier the Institute uses to test bumpers represents a typical vehicle bumper. It's set at 16 inches from the ground in the corner test and 18 inches from the ground in the full-width test.

Bumpers are supposed to absorb the energy of low-speed collisions and slow vehicles before there's damage to expensive-to-repair parts like grilles, hoods, and fenders. They also should extend to vehicle corners to protect costly lights and fenders.

Bumpers have to be tall enough to engage, and stay engaged with, the bumpers on other vehicles in collisions, even during emergency braking. Otherwise, the bumpers bypass each other when vehicles collide, overriding and underriding so crash energy is absorbed by body parts instead of bumpers.

For example, the front bumper of the Rio briefly engaged the barrier in the front full-width test before it underrode it, resulting in damage to its grille, hood, headlights, radiator, fender, and air-conditioning condenser, plus the bumper reinforcement bar. The Rio had the most expensive damage in this test, and the Accent had the second highest.

Five of the 7 cars in the full-front test underrode the barrier, and none sustained less than $1,000 damage. The 2 that engaged the barrier, the Aveo and Fit, have the lowest damage totals in this test. In the full-rear test, only the Mini Cooper fully engaged the barrier. It also has the highest bumper of the group and the second lowest damage total behind the Smart Fortwo's. The Mini's rear bumper is tall enough to do a reasonably good job in the full-width-rear test. Repairs cost $929, while the Smart's bill is $631. Damage to the Fit in the same test is $3,648, or 25 percent of this car's list price.

"Just about every panel and part on the back of the Fit had damage in the full-rear test," Nolan says. "The bumper isn't in the right place to protect the tailgate, rear panel, and taillights because it's mounted too low. It's built this way to allow easy cargo access through the tailgate. The trade-off is that in an everyday rear-ender, the other car will hit the tailgate instead of the bumper."

Pricey styling decisions: The Mini Cooper is the only car the Institute has tested with a hood that buckled in the front corner test. This is a pricey styling design on the manufacturer's part, Nolan points out. The minicar's hood wraps around the front of the car like a fender, so instead of replacing just a fender, the car needed an $810 new hood. Repairs total $2,637 in this test.

Minor impacts can cause lots of damage if the bars underneath bumper covers aren't long enough to protect car bodies out to the front and rear corners, compromising lights and other safety-related parts. Five of the 7 cars in the full-front test and 6 in the front corner test required headlight replacement.

In the rear corner test, the bumpers on the Aveo, Mini Cooper, Rio, and Yaris all engaged the barrier. Damage was limited to the bumper cover, a sign of a better bumper design.

"Bumpers are doing their job if the only damage is to the bumper cover. Bumpers aren't doing their job when headlights get knocked out or sheet metal crumples after a low-speed impact," Nolan says.

Smart's design saves on repairs: The Smart's plastic body parts easily can be replaced in sections. This makes repairs relatively affordable in comparison to other vehicles. For example, front and rear bumper covers come in 3 sections each (left, right, and center), so mechanics need to replace only the damaged parts instead of the entire plastic cover. Also keeping costs down is the fact that the bumper cover sections are prepainted. They cost roughly $160 for the center section and $180 each for the left or right fender sections.

This is the first car the Institute has tested that has prepainted body panels. In comparison, it costs $480, not including labor, to replace and paint a front bumper cover on the Aveo.

"With consumers watching every penny in this shaky economy, no one should have to shell out hundreds and even thousands of dollars to fix damage that shouldn't happen in the first place. That's not to mention the time that's wasted coordinating and waiting for repairs," Nolan says. "Our new bumper ratings should help streamline the buying process so consumers can zero in on vehicles with good bumpers. At the same time, the ratings should encourage automakers to make improvements that help move cars off their lots."

Better bumpers don't have to be complicated. Auto manufacturers already know how to make good ones. Longer and taller reinforcement bars and energy-absorbing material are key to reducing damage in low-speed collisions.

[Source: IIHS]

The three tests we have are between the Honda Accord and the Honda Fit, the Toyota Camry and Toyota Yaris, and finally the Mercedes C300 and the Smart ForTwo. With each we get a full speed offset frontal crash with both cars traveling at 40 MPH, destruction and carnage ensue and rightly so, there's a lot of energy involved here. These are hardly scientific tests, and they represent the absolute most extreme crash scenario for these speeds, especially for the smaller cars. Ratings got from "Good" at the top of the scale through "Acceptable" and "Poor." Considering this is one car bashing into another, the evaluation is somewhat subjective, but it gives an idea of relative performance. Let's take a closer look at each.

Smart ForTwo Versus Mercedes C300

The Smart ForTwo is the poster child for Micro-Machine scale automobiles. With a tiny, tiny footprint and virtually zero front overhang, the 1808 lb ForTwo relies on a super-strong safety cage and airbags for protection. It's cold comfort against the much bigger Mercedes-Benz C300, tipping the scales at 3,560 lbs. Considering the circumstances, the little Smart held up pretty well, even though it bounced off the Benz like a pinball. The Benz scores a Good while the Smart gets a Poor, which is pretty harsh under these conditions. We like watching the three-pointed star float past the Smart in the slo-mo.

Honda Fit Versus Honda Accord

The Fit is one of our favorite little cars, with the new design maintaining the fun character of the original while giving it a little more room inside. The Fit uses traditional crumple zones for crash force dissipation but with such short overhangs there's not much room to slow absorb energy in a collision. When Accord meets Fit, we get an seriously mangled mess with the Fit. There's significant damage to the safety cage with the A-pillar crumpling and the wheel well smooshing up into the footwell. However, the front and side airbags kept the driver's head from bashing into hard parts. The 2489 lb Fit scored a Poor while the 3297 lb Accord was Good.

Toyota Yaris Versus Toyota Camry

The Yaris scores a Poor and the Camry gets an Acceptable, but this one seems like it needs another level of bad. In this crash the Yaris crumples up into a pretzel, with the A-pillar severely kinking, the wheel occupying the space where the driver's feet used to be and the door flying open. Yikes. The 2288 lbs Yaris is 200 lbs lighter than the Fit and the Camry is only 30 lbs less than the Accord, but the results seem more out of proportion than the differences in heft.

The IIHS tested seven 2009 model-year small cars and discovered most carmakers are doing a better job of keeping people from dying in their compact offerings. Every vehicle received a "Good" rating in the front tests, though received mixed performances in the side and rear tests.

The best performer overall was the Suzuki SX4, which received a "Good" side rating and a "Marginal" rear crash rating, followed by the Toyota Matrix/Pontiac Vibe. The 2009 Ford Focus was the only car to achieve a "Good" rating in the rear crash test.

The worst performer, not surprisingly, is the 2009 PT Cruiser. Having been abandoned with no new model on the horizon by a sinking company, the PT Cruiser hasn't been brought up to modern safety standards and achieved a "Poor" rating in both the side and rear tests. The verdict from the IIHS is quite strongly worded:

In the side test, measures recorded on the driver dummy indicate that in a real-world crash of similar severity, rib fractures and internal organ injuries would be likely, along with a possible pelvic fracture. The rear passenger dummy's head contacted the C-pillar during the test because this car doesn't have rear-seat side airbags. Measures recorded on the dummy indicate that serious neck injuries and a fractured pelvis would be possible in a crash of this severity.

If you're driving a PT Cruiser drive slowly or, actually, maybe a bit faster to avoid getting rear-ended.

The IIHS also tested the 2009 Mini Cooper, which is in a smaller car category. The new Cooper was awarded with a "Good" rating for both front and rear testing, but was merely "Adequate" in side impact ratings.

Full details in the press release below.

New crash tests of small cars: good ratings in frontal tests but many models need better side and rear crash protection

ARLINGTON, VA — Most new small cars now earn good ratings in frontal crash tests but not when it comes to side and rear crashes. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety recently completed front, side, and rear tests of seven 2009 model small cars: Chevrolet HHR, Chrysler PT Cruiser, Ford Focus, Hyundai Elantra, Saturn Astra, Suzuki SX4, and Toyota Matrix. All earn the highest rating of good for occupant protection in frontal crashes. Only the SX4 and Matrix and its twin Pontiac Vibe also earn good ratings for protection in side crashes. Among seat/head restraints evaluated, only those in the Focus earn a good rating for protection in rear impacts. The Institute also tested the Mini Cooper, a minicar that earns good ratings for front and rear crashworthiness but not for side protection.

"Automakers have made big improvements to small cars to better protect people in frontal crashes," says Institute senior vice president Joe Nolan. "They've also added stronger structures and standard head-protecting side airbags to help in side crashes, which are tougher on smaller, lighter cars."

Eleven of the 21 current small car models the Institute has rated earn good ratings for side protection. "This is a huge improvement from our last comprehensive round of small car crashworthiness evaluations in 2006," Nolan says. "Then only 3 of the 19 tested earned a good rating in the side evaluation. Most earned a poor rating."

The Institute's side test is especially challenging for small cars because the barrier that strikes the test vehicle represents the front end of a pickup truck or SUV. Side airbags designed for head protection are crucial because the barrier crashes into the side of the car right at the head level of the two dummies that are positioned in the driver seat and in the rear seat behind the driver.

"Side airbags were mostly optional in the 2006 round of small car tests," Nolan says. "A major change is that side airbags are standard in all of the seven small cars we tested this time around."

Small cars have grown especially popular as gasoline prices fluctuate and consumers become more conservation-minded. Nolan cautions that even though current models do a better job of protecting people in front, side, and rear crashes than earlier ones, small cars inherently afford less crash protection than bigger, heavier vehicles. "There's no escaping the laws of physics," Nolan says. "People in larger, heavier cars fare better in crashes with other vehicles and in single-vehicle crashes than people in smaller ones."

PT Cruiser earns poor ratings for side, rear protection: The Chrysler PT Cruiser is the only small car in the recent test series to earn poor marks in both side and rear evaluations. In the side test, measures recorded on the driver dummy indicate that in a real-world crash of similar severity, rib fractures and internal organ injuries would be likely, along with a possible pelvic fracture. The rear passenger dummy's head contacted the C-pillar during the test because this car doesn't have rear-seat side airbags. Measures recorded on the dummy indicate that serious neck injuries and a fractured pelvis would be possible in a crash of this severity.

The PT Cruiser's seat/head restraints are the only ones the Institute tested this time around that earn the lowest rating of poor for occupant protection in rear crashes. The seat/head restraint combinations in the Chevrolet HHR and Suzuki SX4 earn the next lowest rating of marginal. Looking at the larger group of 21 current small car models the Institute has rated, the PT Cruiser still has the worst seat/head restraint rating.

"The PT Cruiser doesn't offer the same crash protection level as other small cars," Nolan says. "For consumers who want to drive small cars, there are many good alternatives to the PT Cruiser, including the six Top Safety Pick winners the Institute announced last month. There are lots of good choices, too, among midsize and large cars."

Top Safety Pick recognizes vehicles that do the best job of protecting people in front, side, and rear crashes based on good ratings in Institute tests. Winners also must have electronic stability control (ESC), which research shows significantly reduces crash risk. The 2009 small car winners are the Honda Civic 4-door (except the Si model), Mitsubishi Lancer, and Toyota Corolla, all with optional ESC, and the Scion xB, Subaru Impreza, and Volkswagen Rabbit 4-door, all with standard ESC.

ESC should be standard: Among the small cars in this round of tests, only the Chevrolet HHR and Pontiac Vibe have standard ESC. It isn't available at all on the PT Cruiser and optional on the rest, including the Vibe's twin Toyota Matrix. ESC helps reduce rollovers, especially fatal single-vehicle ones. When ESC senses a vehicle is becoming unstable, it automatically engages to help a driver regain control and put the vehicle back in the intended travel direction. ESC lowers fatal rollover crash risk by as much as 70 percent. "Cars aren't involved in rollovers as often as SUVs and pickups, but when they do roll the consequences can be deadly," Nolan notes. "The smallest cars that most need this crash avoidance feature often don't have it."

Rear crashworthiness needs improving: Many automakers haven't paid as much attention to protection in rear crashes, compared with front and side, Nolan points out. Good seat/head restraints are key to preventing whiplash injuries. Neck sprain or strain is the most frequently reported crash injury in US insurance claims. When a vehicle is struck in the rear and driven forward, its seats accelerate occupants' torsos forward. Unsupported, the head will lag behind the forward torso movement, and the differential motion causes the neck to bend and stretch. The higher the torso acceleration, the more sudden the motion, the higher the forces on the neck, and the more likely a neck injury is to occur. Keeping the head and torso moving together is crucial to reducing whiplash injury risk. To accomplish this, the geometry of a head restraint has to be adequate — high enough to be near the back of the head. Then the seat structure and stiffness characteristics must be designed to work in concert with the head restraint to support an occupant's neck and head, accelerating them with the torso as the vehicle is pushed forward.

"In stop and go commuter traffic, you're more likely to get in a rear-end collision than any other kind of crash," Nolan says. "It's not a major engineering feat to design seats and head restraints that afford good protection in these common crashes." For example, when Toyota redesigned the Corolla for 2009 it incorporated active head restraints to help guard against whiplash injuries. Active head restraints are designed to move closer to the backs of occupants' heads in rear-end crashes.

Mini Cooper results: This minicar was redesigned for the 2007 model year, and it earned a good rating for frontal crash protection in a previous test. New side and rear tests were conducted to assess further design changes made for the most recent models. This minicar earns a good rating for rear protection and an acceptable rating for side protection. Measures recorded on the driver dummy indicate that a fractured pelvis would be possible in a side crash of the same severity, but there's low risk that other significant injuries would occur to the driver. For the rear passenger, rib fractures and/or internal organ injuries would be possible. ESC is newly standard for the 2009 model year.

How vehicles are evaluated: The Institute's frontal crashworthiness evaluations are based on results of 40 mph frontal offset crash tests. Each 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.

Side evaluations are 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 two instrumented SID-IIs dummies, 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 for the ratings 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. Seat/ head restraints with good or acceptable 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.

[IIHS]

Many states utilize a graduated licensing program that puts limits on driving for teenagers based on age. For instance, teenage drivers under the age of 17 in Florida need an adult above the age of 21 in the car between 11:00 pm and 5:00 am. New drivers in Georgia must be licensed for six months before having more than one passenger in their car. Additionally, there are six states which have novice-driver cell-phone bans.

Jalopnik Snap Judgment: While the number of auto-related deaths in this country is far too high, outright changes to driving behavior (such as speed-limiting cars) is bound to cause more outrage than actual change. Gradual steps that address the underlying causes, such as bad driving and driver distractions, are more likely to find the support needed in the public arena to pass new traffic safety laws.

[Yahoo/AP via GMI Forums, Photo: Photo by Marco Di Lauro/Getty Images]

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]

The simple answer is "because the IIHS is a consortium of insurance agencies." When massive damage occurs in something like an underride accident (where the car goes under the truck), they have to pay for fixing things. The remarkable part of the article in Automotive News was the complete lack of the term "survivability" in any of the IIHC's arguments. Our favorite part?

The insurance institute contends that its new request is backed up with fresh research showing that vehicle damage could be dramatically reduced with better alignment of bumpers between cars and trucks.

Photo credit DieselPowerMag.com

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.

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.

# # #