Of course the Toyota Corolla is fine And the new Chevy Cobolt, good for GM.

http://cdn.consumerreports.org/static/0504pic2_f.html

Consumer Reports removes Ford Focus as Top Pick for small sedans
Six other vehicles no longer recommended because of crash test results.

Consumer Reports has removed the Ford Focus as its Top Pick for small sedans because it performed poorly in insurance industry crash tests that were announced on Sunday.

Two other small cars that received favorable ratings in Consumer Reports' April Auto Issue, the Hyundai Elantra and Mazda3, also are no longer recommended by the magazine because of poor performance in the new side-impact crash tests, conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Consumer Reports has also removed four other vehicles from its recommended list because of their performance in IIHS side-impact crash tests. They are the Honda Element, Mitsubishi Outlander, and Suzuki Grand Vitara/XL-7 small SUVs and the Nissan Altima sedan. (The Altima was tested without its optional side- and head-protection air bags.)

In all, 14 of 16 small sedans received poor ratings in the latest IIHS crash tests. If you're buying a small sedan, Consumer Reports suggests that you consider the Toyota Corolla with the optional side-air-bag package. With the optional air bags, the Corolla achieved acceptable results in the new crash tests; without the air bags, the Corolla performed poorly. The Corolla earned a very good score in our road tests, and has had excellent reliability and excellent overall ratings in other crash tests.

Consumer Reports doesn't perform its own crash tests. It recommends models based on the following requirements:

* They must score well in Consumer Reports' extensive road tests, conducted at our 327-acre auto test facility.
* They must have shown average or better reliability based on the magazine's annual subscriber survey.
* They must have performed adequately if included in a government or insurance-industry crash test, or in a government rollover test. Not all vehicles, however, are included in these tests.

IIHS began testing vehicles for side-impact crashes in 2003, although this was the first time that small cars were included. The test simulates a vehicle being struck in the side at 31 mph by a large vehicle the size and weight of an SUV or pickup. The test differs from the government's side-impact test, which simulates a vehicle being hit in the side by a vehicle the size and weight of a family sedan. The cars that Consumer Reports recommended performed adequately in the government's side-impact test.

Of the 16 small sedans in the test, only the Chevrolet Cobalt and the Toyota Corolla earned acceptable ratings. They were equipped with head-protecting side-curtain air bags and had well-designed body structures. Versions of the Cobalt and Corolla without side air bags earned a poor rating. Consumer Reports does not recommend the Cobalt because of insufficient reliability data. More information about the IIHS test results is available at the institute's Web site, www.hwysafety.org.

It is not unusual for vehicles to earn low grades in a new crash test. In 1985, only about 30 percent of the vehicles tested in the government's frontal crash test achieved high ratings. By 2001, some 90 percent scored highly. Similarly, no small sedan earned a good rating in the insurance institute's offset-frontal crash test when it was introduced in 1997, according to Adrian Lund, the IIHS chief operating officer. Now, almost every small car earns a good rating in the frontal test, he says.

Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports, believes that side air bags and head protection should be standard equipment. The poor showing of so many small sedans in this latest crash test illustrates an urgent need for better protection against side impacts by larger vehicles.

We will continue to review our recommendations to incorporate ongoing crash-test findings.

 

Its about OVERALL, the whole CAR to most people. Not 0-60 garbage.

Ford Focus
Hyundai Elantra
Mazda3,
Honda Element
Mitsubishi Outlander
Suzuki Grand Vitara/XL-7
Nissan Altima

All off the Recommended list.

 

I like how Consumer Reports does business. It's gotta be the most thorough car review firm out there (I can think of one person who agrees with me ) and it's good to see they're taking safety as such a major factor.

Are their publications available at book stores and newsstands?

James

 

Not surprised to see the Honda Element up there. It's just plain fugly, like a Pontiac Aztec.

 

I'm definitely one person who agrees with you.
CR is available at numerous places....book stores, magazine racks, CVS drug stores (and maybe other drug stores), supermarkets, or, of course, by subscription. Unlike some other auto mags, CR does not put a lot of its data on-line...only a few headlines. You either have to subscribe or get a paper copy.

http://www.consumerreports.org

My only complaint with their road tests and reliablity charts...a minor one..... is that they do not always differentiate between different lines of the same model car. For instance, the Nissan Altima, as an example, may have substantially different ride, handling, acceleration, and maybe reliability characteristics between the plain-jane XE , sporty SE, and luxury XLE versions, but CR does not always take this into account.
However, what CR DOES, it does superbly well.

 

CR does not base ANY test results or recommendations on looks...I'm sure you know that, Flip.
As ugly as the Aztek is......one of the most universally disliked vehicles on the market, looks-wise......CR has never commented on its looks, ONLY on the vehicle's practicality, test results, and value for the dollar.....just as it does for other "Ugly" vehicles like the Toyota Echo, Scion xA / xB, 1995-1999 Taurus, Nissan Murano, and, yes, the Element.

 

Related news:
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....rticle_id=9308

"The Cobalt's seat/head restraints are rated good based on a test that simulates a rear impact, and the Corolla's are poor."

Cobalt actually did better than Corolla. to GM.

 

im surprised to see that the corolla received good results WITH the side airbag package while the nissan altima was tested WITHOUT the side and front airbag package... they say that the corolla recieved poor results WITHOUT the side airbags... so why not give the altima a chance?

 

I'm glad they are testing the side impact protection based on impact with an SUV because there are so many of those cars on the road and they pose a greater danger because of their added weight and higher bumpers. It's pretty disheartening how these small cars passed standard tests but the existence of these SUVs made them unrecommendable. I'm sure mid-size cars will get lower ratings if tested against SUVs too. It's pretty sad that the most popular vehicles (SUVs) are making cars more dangerous to be in

 

That's what I was thinking too. Just like they mentioned the Corolla would not pass without the side airbags, they should mention if the Altima would pass if equiped with side airbags.

 

Thanks for posting this, Mike. Good lookin' out.

I was considering a Corolla or Mazda3 before I went with the F-XT...I'm glad I did!!