Skip to footer

Subcompacts face difficulty with crash test

Minicars may get better gas mileage than their larger counterparts, but some models appear to have difficulty passing a special Insurance Institute for Highway Safety crash test.

|
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety/AP
This undated photo provided by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety shows the Chevrolet Spark during a crash test. The Spark is the only minicar tested to earn an acceptable rating in the small overlap front test.
  • By Richard Read Guest blogger

Minicars are big business nowadays. That's often because they earn good gas mileage -- nothing to sneeze at, given today's increasingly higher fuel prices. They're also easy to maneuver and park, which is a nice bonus for urban dwellers.

What most minicars don't do well, however, is protect their occupants -- at least, not in the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's small overlap crash test. In fact, of the 11 minicars that the IIHS recently tested, only one managed to pass that test with an "acceptable" rating.

ALSO SEE: Will You Rent Options  & Upgrades On Your Next Car?

The small overlap test debuted in 2012. As you might guess from the name, it examines collisions that affect a small portion of a vehicle's front end -- specifically, the 25 percent of the front end on the driver's side. As the IIHS explains, "The test is more difficult than the head-on crashes conducted by the government or the longstanding IIHS moderate overlap test because most of the vehicle's front-end crush zone is bypassed. That makes it hard for the vehicle to manage crash energy, and the occupant compartment can collapse as a result."

As challenging as it may be, the small overlap test wasn't designed simply to stump car designers. It's exactly the sort of collision drivers experience when hitting trees, telephone poles, or other objects. In other words, it emulates some very common, very real-world conditions.

The lucky winner in the minicar segment was the Chevrolet Spark. Its passing grade in the small overlap test, combined with "good" ratings in the four other IIHS tests, qualified the Spark for "Top Safety Pick" status. Faring less-well were the Mazda2, Kia Rio, Toyota Yaris, 2014 Ford Fiesta, 2014 Mitsubishi Mirage, Nissan Versa Sedan, Toyota Prius c, and Hyundai Accent. Many of those models had serious problems with restraining occupants and with allowing damage to the lower legs and feet.

DON'T MISS: J.D. Power: Shoppers Think Of Chrysler, Ford, GM As High-Tech Innovators

At the bottom of the IIHS barrel were the Fiat 500 and the Honda Fit. According to the IIHS, "In both cases, intruding structure seriously compromised the driver's space, and the steering column was pushed back toward the driver. In the case of the Fit, the dummy's head barely contacted the frontal airbag before sliding off and hitting the instrument panel. During the test of the 500, the driver door opened after the hinges tore. An open door creates a risk that the driver could be partially or completely ejected." Ouch.

That said, the Spark's designers shouldn't pat themselves too hard on the back -- not just yet, anyway. Like all the other minicars tested, the Spark lacked any kind of front-crash prevention system, such as collision avoidance sensors or automated braking. To earn the IIHS' highest safety rating, "Top Safety Pick+", it'll need to add such a system to its list of features.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to Subcompacts face difficulty with crash test
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2014/0123/Subcompacts-face-difficulty-with-crash-test
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe