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 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]

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

2008 winners of Top Safety Pick award — number of winners increases; pickups eligible for first time

ARLINGTON, VA —Thirty-four vehicles earn the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's Top Safety Pick award for 2008. The award recognizes vehicles that do the best job of protecting people in front, side, and rear crashes based on ratings in the Institute's tests. Winners also have to be equipped with electronic stability control (ESC), which research shows can significantly reduce the risk of crashing.

Compared with last year, automakers have more than doubled the number of vehicles that meet criteria for Top Safety Pick. At the beginning of the 2007 model year, 13 models qualified, but as manufacturers have made changes and introduced new and safer vehicle designs, 10 additional vehicles qualified during the year. Now another 11 vehicles are being added to the list for 2008. Designating winners based on the tests makes it easier for consumers to identify vehicles that afford the best overall protection without sifting through multiple sets of comparative crash test results.

"For 2008, consumers have the widest selection of vehicles they've ever had that afford the best protection in the most common kinds of crashes," says Institute president Adrian Lund. Front and side impacts are the most common kinds of fatal crashes, killing nearly 25,000 of the 31,000 vehicle occupants who died in 2005. Rear-end crashes usually aren't fatal, but they result in a large proportion of the injuries that occur in crashes. About 60 percent of insurance injury claims in 2002 reported minor neck sprains and strains.

All current car and minivan models, small and midsize SUVs, and small and large pickup trucks are eligible to win Top Safety Pick. Eight vehicles from Ford and its subsidiary, Volvo, make the list of winners for 2008. Seven winners are from Honda and its subsidiary, Acura.

Winners have features that help avoid crashes: The Institute added a crash prevention criterion last year to earn Top Safety Pick. Winning vehicles have to be equipped with ESC, which can help drivers avoid crashes altogether. ESC is a control system comprised of sensors and a microcomputer that continuously monitors how well a vehicle responds to a driver's steering input and selectively applies the vehicle brakes and modulates engine power to keep the vehicle traveling along the path indicated by the steering wheel position. This technology helps prevent sideways skidding and loss of control that can lead to rollovers. ESC can help drivers maintain control during emergency maneuvers when their vehicles otherwise might spin out.

"Vehicles should be designed to provide good occupant protection when crashes occur, but now with ESC we have the possibility of preventing many crashes altogether," Lund says. "If all vehicles were equipped with ESC, as many as 10,000 fatal crashes could be avoided each year." Institute research indicates that ESC reduces the risk of fatal single-vehicle crashes by 56 percent and fatal multiple-vehicle crashes by 32 percent. Many single-vehicle crashes involve rolling over, and ESC reduces the risk of fatal single-vehicle rollovers by 80 percent (SUVs) and 77 percent (cars).

For first time pickups are eligible: Pickup trucks haven't been eligible to win Top Safety Pick until now because the Institute hadn't begun side testing them. The Toyota Tundra is first to qualify. Pickups aren't as likely as cars or SUVs to have side airbags or ESC, and Toyota has made these features standard in the Tundra.

"Pickups are among the top selling vehicles in the United States," Lund points out. "They're also more likely than in the past to be used as family vehicles, so equipping them with the latest safety features is important."

Protection in rear impacts improves: Crash tests have driven major improvements in the designs of all kinds and sizes of passenger vehicles. The Institute began frontal crash tests for consumer information in 1995. Side tests were added in 2003 and rear tests in 2004. Most vehicles now earn good ratings in the frontal test, but significant differences still are apparent in vehicle performance in side and rear tests.

Some manufacturers have been working to improve the ratings of their vehicles in the rear test. For example, the seat/head restraints in the Honda Accord, Element, and Odyssey as well as the BMW X3 and X5 are rated good compared with previous designs that were rated marginal or poor. Audi improved the design of seat/head restraints in the A3 from acceptable to good. Another 23 vehicles would have won 2008 awards if they had good seat/head restraint designs. Toyota could have claimed 10 more awards, including 3 for Lexus models. Nissan and Volkswagen could have picked up 4 awards apiece.

Another area where safety is improving is occupant protection in side impacts. More 2008 model vehicles include as standard equipment side airbags designed to protect people's heads. The Saturn was side tested twice. In the first test, the side curtain airbag didn't deploy properly, and the head of the dummy positioned in the back seat was struck by the sill of the window in the door. This impact didn't produce high head injury measures, but head protection was inadequate. In response, General Motors redesigned the side curtain airbag to ensure more rapid inflation and better coverage of the airbag next to the dummy's head. In the second test, the fix was successful, and the VUE's side rating improved from acceptable to good. Top Safety Pick applies to VUEs built after December 2007.

Each year, the Institute offers to test Top Safety Pick candidates early in the model year. The policy is for manufacturers to reimburse the Institute for the cost of vehicles if the tests aren't part of the group's regular schedule. Top Safety Pick is presented by vehicle size because size and weight are closely related, and both influence how well occupants will be protected in serious crashes. Larger, heavier vehicles generally afford better protection in crashes than smaller, lighter ones.

How the vehicles are evaluated: The Institute's frontal crashworthiness evaluations are based on results of frontal offset crash tests at 40 mph. Each vehicle's overall evaluation is based on measurements of intrusion into the occupant compartment, injury measures from 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.

Each vehicle's overall side evaluation is based on performance in a crash test in which the side of the vehicle is struck by a barrier moving at 31 mph that 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. Injury measures obtained from the two dummies, one in the driver seat and the other in the back seat behind the driver, are used to determine the likelihood that a driver and/or passenger in a real-world crash would have sustained serious injury. The movements and contacts of the dummies' heads during the crash also are evaluated. Structural performance is based on measurements indicating the amount of B-pillar intrusion into the occupant compartment.

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. 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

11 NEW WINNERS FOR 2008

Midsize cars
Audi A3
Honda Accord

Small car
Subaru Impreza equipped with optional electronic stability control

Minivan
Honda Odyssey

Midsize SUVs
BMW X3
BMW X5
Hyundai Veracruz built after August 2007
Saturn VUE built after December 2007
Toyota Highlander

Small SUV
Honda Element

Large pickup
Toyota Tundra

ALL 34 WINNERS

Large cars
Audi A6
Ford Taurus with optional electronic stability control
Mercury Sable with optional electronic stability control
Volvo S80

Midsize cars
Audi A3, A4
Honda Accord
Saab 9-3
Subaru Legacy with optional electronic stability control

Midsize convertibles
Saab 9-3
Volvo C70

Small car
Subaru Impreza with optional electronic stability control

Minivans
Honda Odyssey
Hyundai Entourage
Kia Sedona

Midsize SUVs
Acura MDX, RDX
BMW X3, X5
Ford Edge, Taurus X
Honda Pilot
Hyundai Santa Fe
Hyundai Veracruz built after August 2007
Lincoln MKX
Mercedes M class
Saturn VUE built after December 2007
Subaru Tribeca
Toyota Highlander
Volvo XC90

Small SUVs
Honda CR-V, Element
Subaru Forester with optional electronic stability control

Large pickup
Toyota Tundra

ALSO RANS
Twenty-three vehicles earn good ratings in front and side crash tests. They have ESC, standard or optional. They would be 2008 Top Safety Pick winners if their seat/head restraints also earned good ratings:

* Acura RL, TL
* BMW 3 series
* Chrysler Sebring convertible
* Infiniti M35/M45
* Kia Amanti
* Lexus IS 250/350, ES 350, GS 350/460
* Nissan Pathfinder, Xterra both with optional side airbags
* Nissan Quest
* Toyota Avalon, Camry, FJ Cruiser, 4Runner, Prius, RAV4, and Sienna
* Volkswagen Eos, Jetta, Passat, Rabbit
[IIHS]