Chevy Spark safest Microcar, Prius C 4th worst

That it is. I am surprised any of the 'micro' (some are subcompacts) cars did well. The IIHS doesn't like small cars.

 

i prefer 'eigth best'.

 

If Prius c is a hybrid Yaris, why the difference?

 

Sorry, I'm a little confused. Could you point us at a detailed description of what was done?

Bob Wilson

 

For the Prius Liftback, the changes are described on the IIHS small overlap front crash test ratings page.

Vehicle details

Due to the changes above, the small overlap front crash test ratings for the 2014 Prius Liftback cannot be extrapolated to the 2010 to 2013 Prius Liftback models.

The structural changes for the 2014 Prius Liftback led to a new NHTSA crash test for the Prius. The rating dropped from 5-star for the 2010-2013 to 4-star for 2014.

2014 Toyota Prius crash test rating drops to four stars

Jana Hartline, environmental communication manager at Toyota Motor Sales, USA, told AutoblogGreen that the company doesn't quite know what's going on with the drop in crash test scores:

​

 

I know the tests are different, but suddenly the NHTSA tests change and all the American manufacturers are coming out top. I smell a rat similar to the Toyota recall malarkey of 2010 when they became the Worlds #1 and upset Government Motors. How can one offset crash (NCAP) have the Spark come out at marginal and the Prius as good, yet another apparently worse test (NHTSA) causes the Spark to come out top and the Prius as poor? The Spark, a GM vehicle.

The Chevrolet Spark is classed as 4/5 here

Chevrolet Spark | Euro NCAP - For safer cars crash test safety rating

And the Prius is a 5/5 and scored highly.

Toyota Prius | Euro NCAP - For safer cars crash test safety rating

Maybe, all of a sudden, your cars are all suddenly much safer or it's protectionism again. I have a better idea. Make cars that people actually want all over the World, not just the home market. That way you have a few billion potential customers rather than a few hundred million.

I'd be more curious to see the insurance companies stats on which cars have higher passenger injuries overall. A test is a test and real life is different.

 

Platform sharing isn't just the swapping of grill inserts like yesteryears brand engineering. There could be actual structural differences between the two that affect the test. It doesn't help that the c is 200 pounds heavier.

One of the first cars to do well on this overlap test was a Subaru.
The made in the USA Chevy Sonic I drive did poorly.
The IIHS isn't a government entity, and it doesn't care about car companies. It cares about insurance companies. These new tests will likely lead to safer cars, but its more about reducing insurance payouts.

 

In the Los Angeles Times:

So, should we be asking “Where’s Ralph Nader now that we need him”? Have we returned to the bad old days when automakers sold style over safety?

Hardly.

Cars in general -- yes, even these minicars -- are safer than they’ve ever been.

Don't be so quick to condemn those minicar 'deathtraps' - latimes.com​

 

My understanding is the small overlap test is a newer test. I think it sometimes takes manufacturers a beat or two to react to a new test. My guess is with newer models in the future we see across the board improvements. Really, that's how it's suppose to work.

I'll put aside any thoughts of conspiracy here, and just say congratulations to the Chevy Spark (Hey, I still don't want one).

I also think it's interesting to look at the "Dummy Injury Measurements" where you go all the way to 8th place with at least 3 out of the 4 measurements getting "G" ratings. Which means it's likely you survive the crash....unfortunately your lower leg and foot may not fair well.

Also a little surprised that the Honda Fit did so poorly. For a compact, when I owned one, it felt really solid. Just goes to show that "gut instinct" or "feel" doesn't necessarily translate.

And yes, I don't expect compacts, sub-compacts, and mini-cars to do as well as mid-size and full-size automobiles. It's physics. But I feel the small automobiles of today are still LIGHT YEARS safer than the small automobiles I grew up with. By comparison the non-airbag, pretty primitive builds of the small cars of the 80's and 90's made most of them rolling death traps.

I've seen some pretty impressive Youtube videos where "Smart Cars" where smashed into walls at high speed. The Cell actually left left the passenger compartment very well protected. Unfortunately the rapid deceleration would kill the occupants anyway, but I think it shows the lengths and possibilities taken and reached by manufacturers to make small vehicles as safe as possible.

One of the first "new" vehicles I was able to buy for myself was a 1992 Nissan Small Pick-Up. You could buy one brand new, off the lot for $7000. Or $6,999 if I remember right. Being young and single, and relatively budget strapped, I loved that vehicle. Incredibly reliable and being a pick-up, very useable for camping, hauling....

But basically that pick-up was one of the last models NOT to have any airbags. It was basically just a pick-up frame. The crash test results didn't really even come back with "ratings", no numbers or letter grades, just skull and crossbones icons. ( I exaggerate)...but it really was presented as being horrible in crashes. Since I was single and most often the risk was only to myself, I drove it for years knowing that if I was in any significant crash, I'd need some luck on my side.

Regardless, of results I figured it still kind of came down to either what I hit, or what hit me, and how. Luckily throughout my ownership I never had to test how I would of faired in a significant crash or accident. I actually think knowing the poor crash results, and knowing I did NOT have an airbag, made me a more conscious and aware driver.

It's a trade off. Today's smaller pick-ups are much safer BUT...you can't get a new one and drive it off the lot for $6,999 either.

 

Everytime the manufacturers catch up with the IIHS tests, they go and change the rules and come up with a new test. I'm waiting for the "meteor falling out of the sky test", lol. I know they're doing a good thing, but it seems a bit disingenuous to me.

 

You are not alone!

Source: AD #1297 – IIHS’s Rigged Test, Hyundai is Ready to Rumble, BMW’s Counterattack – Autoline Daily

This is not the first time IIHS has pulled this stunt.

Bob Wilson

 

We're complaing about tests being sprung onto automakers?
I come at this from a different perspective.

They shouldn't be making cars just to pass tests, just as we shouldn't teach kids how to just pass tests. Kudos to automakers who designed cars that can pass these "surprise" tests. Weather they passed due to a fluke or actual design and testing of their own (because auto makers do crash their own cars as well...) is irrelevant because automakers should strive to design the safest cars for their customers, period.

Cars are much safer than they used to be and we can thank consumers, crash-test organizations, etc. for that.

I'll only say that I personally didn't do my homework and of course the dealer doesn't really care to do their homework. I say that because after looking at the improvements Toyota made to the 2014 Prius - extending curtain airbags, consistent wheel manufacturer, and some reinforcements on the front-end - I would have paid a bit more for the 2014 model instead of purchasing the 2013 model for those benefits - that I hopefully will never need.

Just my opinion.

 

Please understand that I have a different opinion based upon the following.

Every year, we have another crash test call the FARS (Fatality Analysis Reportin System). My thinking is the insurance rates should be based upon the first and subsequent year, FARS, injury, and repair costs, and nothing else. Every subsequent year, the summary again defines the insurance rate so IF a manufacturer fixes the problem(s), good on them. But the model-year based upon real-world results defines the rate. So what defines the first year rate?

Whatever the current fleet average works for me. Sure, this means some crappy cars get as much as a 0-12 month 'boost' but their resale value plumets when their insurance rate jumps to 200% or higher. Everyone who bought the greatest 'eye candy' gets burned badly when their resale value plumets. Meanwhile, the good cars get an insurance rate boost and their resale value climbs. More importantly, the vendor of 1st year safe cars gets a boost in the subsequent model years. Heck, I would have no problem with a vendor initial rate based upon their fleet average from the previous years. Make it a competition.

What this does is replace the IIHS 'mind games' with fact-based, accident data and not the crap sold to Congress (aka., "Bell the Hybrid"). Instead of trying to 'guess' or 'legislate' safety, let the market driven by real world accidents and their impacts drive the rates.

Bob Wilson

 

My post was erased. Hmmm. Well basically I said: you sound like Alex Jones when you claim this test was designed to "protect" American cars and punish foreign cars.

I also commented that Toyota was investigated in 2010 because they had a previous history with the U.S. government (a class action lawsuit for voiding engine warranties) (a violation of the law). They were under scrutiny just like Microdoft was under scrutiny after they got in trouble with the government.

 

How are cars rated on insurance in the US? Or is it just rated on value and engine size/power?

We having a rating structure on individual cars based on power, size, crash testing etc. A small powerless car is a lower rate than a bigger engined car of the same type etc. There is a range of 1-20 (depending on insurer- some range 1-40) with group 1 being a 1 litre Toyota IQ and a 20 being a Ferrari. Seems to work. There are obviously additional factors like driver age, accident, conviction history and area. But for the cars themselves it works fine. The Prius is generally rated 6/20 so is below average on insurance premiums. A Range Rover would be about 18/20 etc.


Car Insurance Groups- MoneySupermarket.com

 

Who knows? Insursnce companies keep thrir secret. Probably cost to repair..... age is also a factor with young people paying double rates. I don't even bother to insure my car, because the rates are annoyingly high. (I only ensure thr drivers and passengers.)

 

Bob - totally see, understand and agree with your perspective.

As a whole - money, perception, mind games, etc. aside, we can all agree that we want safe cars in general. Although it matters, at the end of the day money's not going to do much good when the vehicles on the road aren't protecting us and the ones we care about.

I've been in a few accidents before and I've learned that unless I'm certain I can avoid an impact entirely, try to position yourself as far away from the impact point as possible but also in position that the vehicle is designed to protect you the most. Keyword being: "try".