|
High Speed Frontal Offset Crash Test Results
|
| Nissan Quest, Toyota Sienna, Saab 9-3 among vehicles to score good ratings |
|
| Updated |
Jun 10, 2004 22:28:20 |
| Rating |
 347 ( -47 -13.54% ) | | Author | Brian Chee |
|
|
Description:
They roll out of the new car dealer showrooms, looking for all the world like nothing could ever penetrate the smooth metal and glass skin. Sharp edges. Huge windows and sexy beltlines. These marvels of engineering look and feel strong and secure.
Until you see them sitting smashed and broken on the side of the road.
A sight like that brings the stark reality home: all cars look the same sitting on the dirt lot of a junkyard. What really matters is how those shiny marvels protect you and yours between the showroom and the dustbin.
Apparently, they do a pretty good job of it. And better now than in years past, according to the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety. In a recent series of frontal offset crash tests, all seven new or redesigned vehicles earned the top rating of good. The Institute tested three 2003 model midsize cars (Mazda 6, Infiniti G35, and Saab 9-3), two 2004 model minivans (Toyota Sienna and Nissan Quest), and two 2003 model large luxury cars (Lincoln Town Car and Mercedes E class). In addition to good overall ratings, five of the best performing vehicles earned the Institute's "best pick" designation.
"There are now 11 inexpensive and moderately priced midsize car designs with good offset crash test ratings," O'Neill says. "There's no reason to buy a midsize car that doesn't do well in the Institute's test." According to O'Neill, good structural design is the key to good performance in the offset tests. "If a car's front-end structure absorbs and manages the crash energy so the occupant compartment remains largely intact, with little or no intrusion into the driver's space, then the dummy's movement can be controlled, and injury measures are likely to be low.
In contrast, poor structural design means greater likelihood of poor control of the dummy and high injury measures."
Overall, two minivans earned good ratings: The Nissan Quest and Toyota Sienna two of the new designs for 2004. The Institute tested the Sienna twice, because in the first test there was a major fuel leak immediately following the crash. Toyota identified a defect in the manufacturing process of the plastic fuel tank and recalled the affected models. In a second test with one of the newly manufactured fuel tanks, there was no leak and the results for the instrumented dummy were similar.
"The driver space was maintained well in both tests of the Sienna, injury measures were low, and there was minimal intrusion into the occupant compartment," O'Neill says.
The Sienna earned a good rating, and a best pick. The Nissan Quest performed much better than its predecessor model, which the Institute rated poor in 1999. "There's still some room for improvement," O'Neill says. "The steering column moved up too much, and the dummy's head contacted the steering wheel through the frontal airbag. The new Quest is still a good performer but not a best pick."
According to a statement released by Nissan, "With regard to the recent IIHS test in which the Infiniti G35 and Nissan Quest performed competitively in their classes, we are happy to see our commitment to safety corroborated. We will review, evaluate and, as necessary, take these results into consideration along with other data generated from outside sources. However, we believe it is difficult for any one test to accurately reflect real-world conditions and recommend looking at actual collision data in the field as a barometer for a vehicle's performance."
Institute and government 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 occupant compartment intrusion, 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.
Information and photography provided by: Institute of Highway Safety |
|
