Harder Rules Equal Fewer IIHS' Top Safety Picks

The 2010 Top Safety Pick winners from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety have just been released — full list below — and the list has shrunk from 91 winners in 2009 to just 27 2010 models. That’s because the IIHS has added a new crash test — a roof-strength test — into the requirement, which is two-times more stringent than the one the federal government mandates. Rollover crashes account for 9,000 deaths annually, though not all from being crushed.

The photo above is not a before and after image. On the left is a 2010 Volkswagen Tiguan after the IIHS' new roof strength test. On the right is the 2008 Kia Sportage after the same test. The Tiguan earned the top roof crash score and the Sportage the worst.

The award now encompasses front, side, rear and roof crash tests, and each winner must earn a top score of Good on each crash test to get the nod. The biggest surprise to us was the complete absence of Toyota or Lexus models from the list; the automaker had 10 winners in 2009. Chrysler also surprised us by getting four models on the 2010 list, which is more than any other domestic automaker, and ties it with Volvo.

The 2010 list’s true winner has to be Subaru, which had every one of its five vehicles — not including high-performance versions — earn a Top Safety Pick.

The IIHS began testing roof strength in March and so far has tested 52 new models. Why haven’t they tested more? Spokesman Russ Rader says the IIHS contacted every manufacturer to explain the guidelines and request that they send any vehicles with a chance of passing the evaluation.  It seems only 52 were up to the challenge.

Comments

What would one expect from a Korean carmaker? There has to be shortcuts to offer a lower price than the competition.Look at the first generation Sportage....what a POS.It made the Isuzu Amigo look absolutely refined.

And yet Paul there's a Kia on the list, but not a single Toyota. In fact, a new Tucson/Sportage is just around the corner and you can expect it to meet the standard.

Fully agree on the Chrysler surprise, especially because these winners were presumably designed before anyone knew the IIHS would be conducting this test. Of all the automakers you'd expect to go above and beyond without the expectation of being able to demonstrate it, I wouldn't have thought it would be the company that brought us the junkiest modern interiors available.

Paul,
I'm going to agree with Derrick on the advances of the Koreans here, but crash tests have historically been a negative for them for sure. The fact that a $13K Soul is so safe is good news for compact car buyers.

Brady,
I think you really have to look at the types of cars that Chrysler won with and perhaps some of it was daimler's hand. Regardless, we hope the new Chrysler takes these tests seriously.

It was Daimler that seemed to think that Americans would buy anything, however cruddy it was, yet at the same time they engineered a particularly strong roof structure without the knowledge that anyone would find out about it. That's an impressive contradiction.

Adding to that, it wasn't even until the new 2010s that the Sebring/Avenger or Patriot had head restraints that passed a test Chrysler knew about when the products were being designed.

Dave,
Why does this small positive thing for Chrysler have to be be because of Daimler. Notice that the Charger/challenger/300 are NOT on the list, nor are there very many M-Bs.

Broq

What were the vehicles that were tested that didn't pass?
With a pool of only 52, I'd be quite curious to know which ones failed, and which just weren't tested.

Broq,
The 300/Charger weren't tested for roof strength. There might have been a delay on the 2010s going on sale and they could indeed be added. Most Mercedes and BMWs aren't tested. Just mass volume models like C and E Class. C Class won Top Safety pick, E Class wasn't tested.

Dan,
You can look up all models here
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/default.aspx

Unfortunately I don't have the list of the 52 but the three Toyota's tested were Camry (which passed roof strength) and Rav4 and Yaris which got Acceptable, not Good ratings. That leaves 22 more models.

It looked like what the IIHS is doing is doing most roof strength test by market class, plus any others automakers provided test cars for.

So they have every subcompact, every small SUV, and every midsize sedan, plus a medley of others across other classes. And those gaps will no doubt fill in over time, just like when IIHS rolled out its side crash test program.

I have to give props to Subaru which managed a top pick with every vehicle they offer! I knew they were safe, but these rankings would make any Volvo fan weep.

Yoing,
I think Volvo and it's fans should be quite pleased actually. Of the 5 cars they entered, 4 of them got the nod for top safety pick (only the S40 didn't make it). I think that's pretty impressive.

Carman, the S60 didn't either. Like the S40, it had mediocre side-impact protection -- both scored worse than most other cars on the market.

Brady, the S6O hasn't been redesigned since it first went on sale as a 2001 model. In fact, it went out of production in March. Subaru has the advantage that all its current models are recent designs. Comparing the S60 or S40 to the Legacy, for example, is apples and oranges because of the differences in the ages of the designs.

There isn't a single pre-2005 Subaru model that comes close to meeting the current Top Safety Pick criteria. On the other hand, the XC90, introduced in 2003, is a Top Safety Pick; and both the S40 (2004) and ancient S60 are close. That's a testament to Volvo's commitment to safety -- even cars designed many years ago are at least "acceptable" on all the latest tests.

First of all, the Forester has been getting top marks since 2003, and its predecessor might very well have too if it had been tested.

But more significantly, it's Volvo's problem that it's still selling an old car with compromised safety to people who believe in the company's reputation. The new S60 is way overdue, and the current car is still what you find in a Volvo dealer.

The 2003 Forester would have likely failed the rear (head restraint) test.

You're sidestepping the central issue that assessing companies' safety achievements by comparing current models is bogus because the designs have different ages. That would apply even if all manufacturers had the same product cycle length because new models aren't all introduced at the same time.

The above assessment is different from rating the current models for safety, which the Top Safety Pick scoring attempts to do. The problem is that some people, including you apparently, think they are one and the same.

I'm not talking about safety achievements. I'm talking about what they're offering consumers right now. Volvo is offering products that are not as safe as most everyone else's, and gets away with it because of a reputation.

And I don't know why you would think a 2003 Forester would fail the IIHS head restrain test when the 2006 was rated Good with the same design.

1. There are only 27 2010 Top Safety Picks out of hundreds of current models.

2. Four of the Picks are Volvos out of a total of five Volvos tested.

3. There's only one brand with more Top Safety Picks than Volvo.

You conclude from the above that "Volvo is offering products are not as safe as most everybody else's, and gets away with it because of a reputation," that's presumably undeserved.

Yep, that makes perfect sense!

Volvo is offering two products that are not as safe as everyone else's -- S40 and S60. It doesn't matter to someone who buys one of those based on Volvo's reputation that the brand also sells cars that don't do worse in side-impact crash tests than a Toyota Yaris. That is the problem.

The Audi A3 is not a midsize car, unless they're counting the luggage space as interior room. It's exactly the same car as the Volkswagen four door golf, which is listed under small cars. what gives?

The IIHS does it classes by weight, because weight determines frontal crash test performance and interior size doesn't.