NEW
FRONTAL OFFSET CRASH TEST RESULTS:
ONLY 2 OF 5 SMALL CARS EARN GOOD RATINGS;
1 IS POOR
The
Mazda 3 is the best performer and the Kia Spectra is the
worst in a recent series of frontal offset crash tests conducted
by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The Mazda
3 earned a good rating and the added designation of "best
pick" for frontal crash protection. The Hyundai Elantra
also earned a good overall rating, but only after three
tests revealed two design problems that led to recalls.
The Suzuki Forenza and Saturn ION are rated acceptable,
and the Kia Spectra earned the lowest rating of poor.
"The
Kia Spectra's poor performance was a surprise," says
Institute chief operating officer Adrian Lund. "Most
manufacturers have figured out how to design vehicles to
do a good job of protecting people in frontal crashes. Kia
lags behind its competitors."
The
Kia is the first vehicle the Institute has rated poor in
a frontal crash test since 2001.
The
ratings reflect performance in a 40 mph frontal offset crash
test into a deformable barrier. Based on the results, the
Institute evaluates the crashworthiness of passenger vehicles,
assigning each vehicle a rating from good overall to poor.
The better performers among the vehicles with good ratings
receive the added designation of "best pick."
If a vehicle earns a good rating, it means that in a real-world
crash of similar severity a belted driver most likely would
be able to walk away with only minor injuries.
Mazda
3 is top performer: This car is a new design for 2004. It
replaces the Mazda Protege, which was rated acceptable for
frontal crashworthiness. In the test of the Protege, there
was moderate intrusion into the driver's footwell area,
which contributed to high forces recorded on the dummy's
right leg. There also was some rearward movement of the
instrument panel during the crash.
"In
contrast, the Mazda 3 is one of the best performers in its
class in the frontal test," Lund points out. Measures
taken from the head, neck, chest, and both legs of the driver
dummy indicate low risk of injury.
Lund
adds that "the Mazda 3's structure held up very well
and there was very little intrusion into the occupant compartment.
This is the only 'best pick' in this newly tested group
of small cars."
Elantra
is tested three times: When the Institute tested the Elantra
in 2001, it earned a poor rating mainly because its airbag
inflated late, resulting in high forces on the dummy's head.
Hyundai redesigned the frontal airbags for the 2004 Elantra
and asked the Institute to test the car again.
"When
we tested the 2004 model the airbags worked fine, and at
first it looked like a good performer," Lund says.
"But there was a major problem. After the crash there
was fluid leaking from the gas tank."
Hyundai
identified a fuel hose clamp that was improperly positioned,
which led to the puncturing of the tank during the crash.
(Note: A less volatile fluid than gasoline is added to fuel
systems in crash tests to allow identification of leaks
without the risk of fire.) Hyundai recalled the affected
models to reposition the hose clamp and requested the Institute
to test an Elantra with the fix. No fluid leaked in this
re-test, but the driver airbag failed to deploy.
Hyundai
engineers will modify the software that determines whether
and when to fire the airbags in 2005 models built after
December 2004. The company also will recall cars manufactured
earlier to fix this problem.
When
the Institute tested a third Elantra with the hose clamp
and airbag problems fixed, the car performed well.
"The
structure was good and injury measures for the neck and
chest were low," Lund says. "But there was the
possibility of a head injury and a right leg injury, so
the Elantra isn't good enough to be a 'best pick.'"
Small
car from Kia is a disappointment: "The Spectra has
several problems that added up to a poor rating," Lund
says. The structure is rated acceptable because of too much
intrusion into the driver footwell area. The dummy's head
bottomed out the airbag and then went part way out the open
side window and hit the door frame. High forces were recorded
on the dummy's head, and there were possibilities of injuries
to the neck, chest, and both legs.
"There
are many better choices for buyers," Lund says. "Eleven
small car designs now earn good ratings in the Institute's
frontal offset test, and nine of these also are designated
'best picks.'"
Institute
and government crash tests complement each other: The Institute's
crashworthiness evaluations are based on results of frontal
offset crash tests at 40 mph. Each vehicle's overall evaluation
is based on three aspects of performance -- measurements
of intrusion into the occupant compartment, injury measures
from a Hybrid III dummy positioned in the driver seat, and
analysis of slow-motion film to assess how well the restraint
system controlled dummy movement during the test.
The
federal government has been testing new passenger vehicles
in 35 mph full-front crash tests since 1978. This New Car
Assessment Program has been a major contributor to crashworthiness
improvements, in particular improved restraint systems in
new passenger vehicles. The Institute's offset tests, conducted
since 1995, involve 40 percent of a vehicle's front end
hitting a deformable barrier at 40 mph. This test complements
the federal test involving the full width of the front end
hitting a rigid barrier. Both tests are contributing to
improvements in crashworthiness, in particular improved
crumple zones and safety cages.
The
same 40 mph offset crash test is used to evaluate new cars
by the European Union in cooperation with motor clubs, by
an Australian consortium of state governments and motor
clubs, and by a government-affiliated organization in Japan.
(Source: IIHS)
|