XeroK00L

The six cars with the worst crashworthiness include:
Hyundai Elantra
Kia Optima
Mazda 6
Nissan Sentra
Suzuki Forenza
Toyota Corolla

http://biz.yahoo.com/weekend/leastsafe_1.html

The Least-Safe Cars 2006
Forbes.com
By Dan Lienert

The least-safe cars on the market are like the least-safe neighborhoods in a big city: affordable, but not pretty.

With an average base price of $15,323 and no prices higher than $19,555, the six least-safe cars on the market (see the following slide show) come from companies Forbes.com does not ordinarily cover, such as Hyundai, Kia and Suzuki . Some models from these brands--which are hardly for social climbers--satisfy bargain hunters but require them to take their chances with personal safety. Hyundai's Elantra, Kia's Optima and Suzuki's Forenza sedans--like the other vehicles in the slide show--achieved ratings of "poor," the lowest possible, in two of three Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) crash tests (all the cars received their failing grades on the side- and rear-impact tests).

The 2006 model year is young. Not all new cars have crash-test scores available, but many do, and the slide show features the six with the worst crashworthiness.

In matters of automotive safety, we typically consult the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)--and we recommend car shoppers do too. But for a list of the least-safe cars, we felt the IIHS would be a better source, because it seems less sparing of its worst marks than NHTSA. Most cars in NHTSA's crash tests achieve ratings of three stars or higher on tests in which five stars is the top rating, but the IIHS does not hesitate to hand out ratings of "poor" when cars merit them. NHTSA gives out the occasional sub-three-star rating, but a three-star rating tends to be as low as it goes.

To be sure we were on steady ground in calling certain cars "unsafe," we fashioned our list out of cars that received multiple "poor" ratings from the IIHS. Both a list of cars with only one "poor" rating and a list of cars with one or more three-star ratings from NHTSA would have been unwieldy, with over 20 cars each.

The list of unsafe cars points to two trends. First, the least-safe cars are cheap. However, some luxury cars have subpar crash-test scores. The Jaguar X-Type sedan from Ford Motor and the Infiniti G35 and M model lines from Nissan Motor received one "poor" rating each, which was alarming but not enough to merit placement on our list.

Some 2006-model luxury cars have also had safety recalls already. For example, DaimlerChrysler's redesigned Mercedes-Benz M-Class SUV has been recalled for a faulty power steering system, as has the Cadillac Escalade SUV from General Motors . However, we did not feel that a car with one safety recall was necessarily unsafe, and there is, as of now, no bank of 2006-model cars with multiple safety recalls.

The other trend is that side airbags, though frequently optional, should be mandatory. The IIHS often gives "poor" side-impact crash-test scores to vehicles tested without optional side airbags. Add side airbags in a side-impact test and a vehicle's score can go from the lowest possible to the second highest possible. But some vehicles, such as the slide show's Hyundai Elantra, manage to achieve "poor" side-impact scores despite having standard side bags.

Safety features are like luxury features in cars: the higher your budget, the more of them you will get. For a look at the least-safe cars on the market--and at the correlation between budget vehicles and unsafe vehicles--please view the link to the slide show.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

Can't have a cheap car be as safe as a more expensive one. Plus safety gear adds weight which impacts fuel economy.

If you're poor, life's more risky, all over.

O. L. T.

iTrader: (17)

NIssan takes top honors again. 3rd year running they have had a car in the top 4 of that category. The maxima that was "so like" the GS that nissan fanboys poked Lexus owners about rated worst in side impact saftey, where the GS rated among the highest. You get what you pay for.

Nissan owners damn near built a memorial grave for all the people depressed and selling their cars. I wonder how many converted to the GS.......

It was a sad moment, family dad's that proclaimed they bought it for the safety of their families were anything from outraged to dismayed, mothers were just flat out pissed. I believe it was maxima.org that had nearly half of the latest owners in dispair over the news, primarily the one's with families that were worried. I do indeed feel sorry for them.

Blew that "the maxima and GS are the same car" theory out the window though!

Edit:

https://www.clublexus.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=165902


Get your *&$ together NISSAN! .......this is becoming an annual thing for you to fail impact safety ratings.

O. L. T.

iTrader: (17)

from the OP:

Neither of these are exactly "cheap" and yet they still failed. Although the Infiniti is a nissan, and my post above this one leads out a pretty well standing record for this type of rating for nissan vehicles.

What's really sad is that I have always liked nissan and would love to have a G35 since they are very nice looking auto's, but not if it's gonna kill me!

KrazyLexus

I agree on some of the cars. But the G35 got the best pick for protection with GREEN in all the areas.

KrazyLexus

Actually the G35 got best in crash test safety. Look again.

http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/sa...=5%E2%8A%82=-1

flipside909

Russell Zotz, we're talking about the Forbes article here. It clearly shows the Infiniti M and G recieved a POOR rating. The link you showed is outdated as we are talking about 2006 model year cars.

"...the Infiniti G35 and M model lines from Nissan Motor received one "poor" rating each, which was alarming but not enough to merit placement on our list."

edit: Vehicle tested was back in 2003...outdated it is. You can clearly tell by the plastic buckling interior.

picus

Guys - the M/G were just the cars they used as their examples. Other luxury brand cars received "poor" ratings in other tests, including acura, audi, bmw, and lexus.

Incendiary

When these safety tests recommend standard side air bags, I wonder if they suggest for both front AND rear. If you have kids, particularly young kids, rear side air bags should be disabled if you have them, so it's not worth getting unless you're only carting around adults...

Anyone know?

mmarshall

Also, guys....... take some of these industry and Government tests with a grain of salt. Usually vehicles are tested in one three ways....in some cases all three:
1) A head-on impact at a straight 90-degree interception angle straight into a fixed barrier, usually at 30-35 MPH depending on the specific test.
2) An offset-angle test where the impact into the fixed barrier is offset ( usually about 30 degrees or so ). This is generally a better test of the vehicle's front-end crashworthiness than the straight-ahead impact.
3) The classic T-Bone-impact where the vehicle is hit sideways by a powerful battering ram. This, of course, simulates getting hit by someone running a red light or sliding sideways into a tree or a barrier.

I'm not saying that these tests are a waste of time.....they give us SOME idea of the integrity of the vehicles's structure and its crashworthiness, but in the real world it is almost impossible to predict just how one accident of the next will happen, exactly what part of the car will receive the greatest impact, and at what speeds. These tests are also run with dummies rigidly belted and strapped to exacting standards by test engineers.....but in the real world people sometimes belt up properly and sometimes not. Sometimes, unfortunately, for whatever reason, they are not belted at all.
These tests are also run with brand-new vehicles right off the asembly lines, with everything in brand-new condition and operating at peak efficiency. In the real world, of course, that is not always the case either, and it is no secret that a vehicle that has had frame-straightening after an accident is going to lose some strength in the metal, so that the next accident will provide less protection. Same with seat belts that have already had severe use and have not been replaced.....one they have been stretched in a severe stop or impact they lose a lot of effectiveness.

And, last, of course, we get back to one of the basic laws of physics...not only the faster you go, the more impact force there will be and the greater the damage potential, but all else equal, in a collision between two vehicles of different sizes and weights, the larger, heavier vehicle will usually have the safety advantage and be less suseptable to damage. However, the higher the vehicle's center-of-gravity, the more prone it will be to rollovers, and especially with some older high-stance SUV's. their high-mounted full-frame bumpers can penetrate the passenger compartments of low-lying cars at face level, with disastrous results.

SC400-V8

iTrader: (1)

Your telling me... my job is selling health insurance!!

I was trying to design a plan for this lady who was a seamstress in her 50s who makes only 1200 a month take home. She has an apartment for 800 a month so you can imagine how tough it was to get her a good plan.

I made a plan that was bare bones, but still covered the big deals (hospitalization etc) for about 230 a month.... and she couldnt afford it.

All she needs is one accident which lands her in the hospital and it's debt for life.

mmarshall

Oh yes you can.....very much so. While I made it clear in my last post that the crash tests don't tell you everything, nevertheless the fact is that the VW Beetle has done better than than many more expensive cars. So have recent Honda Civics. In the Beetle's case I think it is that L-O-N-G dashboard ahead of the steering wheel and the faraway windshield that prevent front-seat occupants from hitting the glass.