Smart USA responds to IIHS crash test results
IIHS crash tests – Click above for high-res image gallery
Needless to say, the folks over at Smart USA were not pleased to see the results of the latest batch of crash testing from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. IIHS did a series of frontal offset crash tests between small and mid-size cars, one of which included a smart ForTwo vs a Mercedes C300. While the results may have been what most people expected, they don't correlate with the ForTwo's results in standardized tests where the IIHS rates the smart as good in front and side impacts. The feds at NHTSA give the smart 4 stars on frontal impact and 5 on side impact.
The problem, as Smart USA sees it, is that IIHS has devised a test that no one has designed to and that they claim only represents about one percent of real world accidents. Smart has even set up a site for customer testimonials about the crash safety performance of the ForTwo. Typically in the past, Smarts have actually done quite well in similar vehicle-on-vehicle tests, such as the ones conducted by Mercedes and Auto Motor und Sport shown after the jump.
The fundamental issue is that car structures are very complex and the response in a crash is highly dependent on the precise nature of the vehicle-to-vehicle interface. Because of standardized tests, cars are optimized to perform well in those, just as the powertrain is optimized to maximize results on the EPA mileage tests. It's not clear at this point how the IIHS methodology varies from what has been done in the past and why the results are so much worse. One thing that is clear is that this story is far from over.
[Source: SmartUSA]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Jeff 9:35AM (4/15/2009)
I think the C300 should lose points for causing so much damage, and I think the Smart should score better considering that it caused so little damage to the C300! In the extreme case, if there was a literal tank on the market, I don't think we should give it a high crash rating just because it protects its occupants while destroying everything else on the road. That is an extreme case, but that is the direction crash tests like the one above will push the market (if it weren't for the countless other factors directing the automotive market).
So that's why I think that they should just stick with testing one car at a time, grading its performance against a stationary object. Otherwise I think you have to give the Smart credit for not hurting the C300 driver, and blame the C300 a bit for probably killing the Smart driver.
Reply
Luke 9:56AM (4/15/2009)
Yeah, and people who drive the Smart car should have to pay less for insurance because they are more likely to be dead and unable to collect. (NOT!)
Woodenbee 12:15PM (4/15/2009)
I agree with Jeff, this was obviously a setup, most conservatives like to think small cars are unsafe and somebody concocted this to prove it, it proves nothing of course, if two C300's had been in this test both drivers would have come out worse, so whats their point??? every accident is different and the Smart car is as safe as it should be for it's intended use which is inner city commuting. If we could just get all the in town commuters to give up their status mobiles for commuting and drive a nice little ev we could make cities a lot cleaner,
Sam 1:51PM (4/15/2009)
Looks to me like the 2009 Mercedes C class doesn't absorb as much of the impact from the smart as per previous crash tests. This might be due to design changes mercedes has done on the C class. So results would vary with a newermodel with no changes to the Smart.
Reply
sp 9:52AM (4/15/2009)
If we wanted safe cars then build them with an integrated cage. It would be extremely simple to do, would not add much weight, would make them exponentially safer, and make them handle better due to increased body stiffness...
Reply
Luke 9:57AM (4/15/2009)
Yeah, those crumple zones are just a waste of space. We want stiftness. (Not!)
Unknown 2:37PM (4/22/2009)
Which is safer the dodge neon stock or a nascar race car? The Neon crumples quite well...
Tim 10:13AM (4/15/2009)
um... I'd rather be in the larger car.
Reply
Aaron 10:57AM (4/15/2009)
Ditto, I'm with you. I'll stick with my pickup truck, thank you very much.
Yanquetino 11:52AM (4/15/2009)
Perceptions can be deceiving --and are all-too-often wrong. (Think of Susan Boyle's and Paul Potts' auditions on "Britain's Got Talent," for instance!)
In this case, the statistics about automobile safety actually contradict what most folks readily believe about bigger-and-heavier vehicles:
http://www.gladwell.com/pdf/suv.pdf
Sadly, it is because of such erroneous perceptions that we have been perpetuating an escalating "arms race" on our highways for several years now. (Note how GM's behemoth SUV is called the "Escalade"! Yow.)
Woodenbee 12:17PM (4/15/2009)
your comment adds nothing to the discussion, your kind of um.. not getting it
Tim 12:26PM (4/15/2009)
Fine, you drive the "smart" and you can help "green" the planet by slowing traffic as a speed bump. It's called natural de-selection and survival of the best protected.
DavidV 12:57PM (4/15/2009)
"Ditto, I'm with you. I'll stick with my pickup truck, thank you very much."
Aaron - in your Ford F150, perchance?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i5EmJBaGeQ
I'll take my chances in the Smart, thanks...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz-s1sIoLhU
Reply
mudder 1:45PM (4/15/2009)
However, the present model year 2009 F-150 is a IIHS Top Safety Pick with Good ratings in all IIHS crash tests.
Bill 1:57PM (4/15/2009)
An offset frontal collision "only represents about one percent of real world accidents"?
Don't think so!
Reply
DavidV 2:00PM (4/15/2009)
Side impacts can be compared directly across different vehicle sizes/classes. Here is the current model 2009 Nissan Titan (poor) and the Smart Fortwo (good):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccxohNTCqpI
and the 2008 Smart Fortwo (at 0:43 seconds into the vid)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1Li_XyEnjk
Reply
@macdonmt 3:29PM (4/15/2009)
What do Merc's have against Smarts??? They're busting them up like crazy it seems. Do no other midsize sedans hate Smarts? Are the Merc's jealous?
Reply
SteveP 4:46PM (4/15/2009)
Why not use this as reason to impose a maximum vehicle weight for passenger vehicle, pickups etc?? You could still buy an Expedition etc - but it would have to be a high-tech carbon-fibre vehicle. No need to worry about protecting the US makers' only profitable market segment - they won't be around anyway.
Reply
MichaelB 4:23PM (4/15/2009)
There should be a test with a C300 versus a train. There will always be something on the road that will endanger your safety.
Reply
Archwright 12:11PM (4/16/2009)
... That's it... I'm integrating a pike on my car's frame.
It'll make me safer, and displays a complete lack of regard for the safety of others. Perfect.
On a more serious note, it does seem crazy to buy a small car, when the trend was to move to bigger and bigger vehicles. Maybe the Smart is a bit premature, maybe reducing weight for the sake of reducing weight has a negative impact on safety.
I think that the world will move towards smaller cars overall. At least I hope so. Roads filled with SUVs are bad enough, roads filled with a mix of the biggest and nastiest, and the smallest and nicest is a recipe for disaster.
Reply