New Crop of Subcompacts Crash-Tested: Nissan Versa Wins, Most Others Lose

Today, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety released its first study of the new crop of “mini cars” like the Chevy Aveo and Toyota Yaris. Its findings are quite damning for many of the models and the organization prefaces the entire study with the fact that overall crashes involving mini cars are twice as likely to result in death compared to midsize and large cars. This surely falls in line with the laws of physics, but it’s still jarring to read.

The IIHS tested six new mini cars and the Nissan Versa — somewhat larger but often considered in shopping comparisons, including Cars.com’s. Only the larger Versa received the IIHS’s highest ratings in all three crash tests. Two other cars — the Toyota Yaris and Honda Fit with optional and standard side airbags respectively —  received the top grade of good in front and side crash tests, with the Yaris rating a marginal score and the Fit a poor score in the rear crash test ratings. The Yaris without optional side airbags — a $650 option — received the worst side impact rating of poor.

Comments

I always find it disconcerting when NHTSA tests a car and it gets high marks, i.e. 4 and 5 stars all around, as was the case with the 2006 Accent, and then IIHS comes in and tests the same car and releases drastically different results, at least that's how they look to the layperson. Yes, I know that their testing methods vary, and that IIHS' tests are more "extreme", but when you buy a car partially based on the NHTSA results, and then IIHS comes out and shoots those down, what is one to do? I will say though that even the least safe "minicar" these days is way safer than the '80s and '90s cars (and of course earlier) with no airbags, ABS, or side door beams that I see plenty of people still driving regularly. So in other words, it could be worse!

I am confused. They said thet the Honda Fit had a 5-Star Crash Test rating, and now the Nissan Versa? If the Honda Fit was safe then, it is now. I still think that a car manufactured in the 1980s is way safer than todays Hyundai Accent.

I'm not sure about the statement, "surely falls in line with the laws of physics" being applied to the subject of car safety and how it relates to the size of a vehicle, even if 'car safety' on the whole is considered merely from the point of view of accidents after they have happened. Surely, common sense dictates that small vehicles avoid more accidents than large ones. However, avoided accidents are not part of any studies that I've read yet, though I've heard that insurance companies plan to collect statistics by installing video cameras in volunteers vehicles. A lot of the myths about the supposed unsafeness of smaller vehicles arise from statistics about collisions that involve two vehicles and result in a death (non injury accidents don't make it into the stats). It would seem intuitive that when a light vehicle collides with a heavy one the light one would 'lose', but how many accidents actually fall into this category? And, do all types of collisions between a heavy and a light vehicle result in the light one 'losing', or just head on and T-bones? Lets face it, not all accidents involve two vehicles, some studies put single car accidents over forty percent of total. And which vehicles are most likely to crash by themselves? Large pickups and SUV's. Even men over 50 (safest driver group) lose control of large pickups according to NHTSA. Lets say I'm such a lousy driver that I lose control of my little Honda and skid off into the trees. Do I want to be in a small vehicle or a big one? Notice that I didn't mention weight. Thats because size and weight are different. Size is mostly good because it gives more room for stuff to crush before it gets to me, but size makes me a bigger target and when things are out of my control (like when I'm flying between the trees) I want to be small. What about the 'knee jerk' reaction that heavy is safer than light? Light is much easier to armor, thats physics. Look at the difference between a mouse and an elephant. An elephant has a much higher bone to muscle ratio than the mouse, yet the elephant would break all four legs if it were to jump down about four feet. The mouse is almost entirely muscle and can survive a fall out of an airplane. Physics? Hmmm, exactly what kind of physics are we talking about? The issue of car safety and how it relates to size and/or weight is much more complicated than the studies being fed to us by the media would have us believe.

Actually the physics of a car crash has little to do with size and everything to do with force. Force is the product of mass(total vehicle weight, if you will) and acceleration. In a collision, the force experienced by both vehicles must be equal accord to Newton. The larger(more massive) and object is, the harder it is to accelerate. That means it will resist any change in motion, speeding up or slowing down. When two vehicles collide, both decelerate to zero in a fraction of a second. The slower your vehicle accelerates, the less force of impact you will experience. Crush zones and airbags aside, a passenger in a 2,000 pound vehicle will experience a much more powerful impact than a passenger in a 4,000 pound vehicle. That really is physics. It's called impulse. The same hold true when a vehicle strike a stationary object like a tree. That's why crush zones and airbags were invented. Without them, smaller light cars could never be as safe if a heavy impact as a heavier car.