burlapp car

New, and scary, crash test results.

By  •  Published:  •  Last updated:

These are for what the IIHS call “Small over lap tests”.
Where the car takes a hit on part of the front end. And it is, as you can see, much harder on the cars.


The S60 gets a good rating, although this still looks really scary.



These 3 cars above rated “poor”.
Pretty scary considering that they all get really good results in other safety tests.

One thing is sure, no matter what, Volvo is staying true to its reputation of being a safe car.
Good for them.

Conversation 19 comments

  1. Ok so you take basicaly the old test and reduce the impact area to be 1/2 or 1/3 of the original test and of course the results are going to be more dramatic. You are completely bypassing the engine compartments and relying on the strength of only the fenders. No different in theory than taking the 45mph crash test and doing it at 60mph. Results will be much worse.

  3. OMG! Where does the testing stop? About the time the car makers start doing well on the established crash tests, they change the rules…I guess somebody has to look bad or the IIHS doesn't look like they're doing their job…more NANNY gov't making sure every possible accident scenario is covered…to protect us, of course. HA!

  5. The Volvo slid off the barrier. That's why there was less damage. Not really fair to compare against the others that were completely stopped by the barrier.

  6. The next IIHS safety test will no doubt involve 5 wrecking balls impacting a car simultaneously. One hitting the front, one the back, one on each side, and one crashing thru the roof.

    Cars that don't score perfect will be fined $20,000 per car sold.

  7. The kinds of designs you're going to see as a result off this, are designs that push the front wheels out further to the sides, allowing front ends to become shorter. Engines are becoming much smaller and frontal designs are all but perfected – like safety is pretty damn good. In a test like this the wider wheelbase design would make the car hit the barrier with the headlight/fender/wheel sheering off while at the same time pushing the car off the impact barrier forcing the left side of the car to grind against the side off the barrier… this assuming the barrier is a concrete "K" rail you see on roadwork for freeways (those white concrete barriers). I for one, am actually happy to see this kind of test (freeway roadwork all over California). When you meet people who had kids that died in this precise kind off scenario (because their car sheered apart and collapsed), you tend not to complain about the testing to strengthen the cars… I mean.. Imagine how a 1991 Explorer would fair in this kind of test…It wouldn't.

  8. I designed a new test. Its called the shoot the car with a missile test. THEY ALL FAIL HAHAHAHA

    More seriously, stop crashing.
    Driving at normal/safe speeds you have to do something stupid to crash into a solid object. Cars don't just swerve into things.

    Somehow there are people who go through their whole life riding motorcycles and not dying, but we expect cars to let us drive around with our eyes shut and absorb any impact.

  10. I guess crash data is what it is…my problem is…had planned to give my daughter my '04 BMW 325so I could get something new. Felt pretty good about its safety -UNTIL NOW! Can only imagine how it might score with this test. So now what??????????? Like I don't already have a list as long as my arm to feel guilty about! Thanks, IIHS!

  11. To Anonymous at 10:44:

    IIHS isn't "NANNY gov't," it's the exact opposite. Free enterprise at work.
    Private insurance companies get together and say: "we're paying-out too many injury/death claims for this type of crash. We're going to make this the automakers' problem so we can make more money."

    In other words, they would rather have customers that walk away from accidents. Dead customers don't renew their policies, and their families usually want payouts.

    On a lighter note:

    Holy S! I didn't realize the Lexus IS was still around.

  12. @ August 15, 2012 2:25 PM

    The S60 was likely designed to do that.

    The only one I don't understand is the C Class. I watched that video over and over again (not on here) and it didn't look bad at all. I understand it isn't about how it looks, and the dummies foot and leg was injured, but it didn't look that bad. I'd much rather have a vehicle like that, than the CC.

    Holy lord that CC looked AND performed awful. The flippin' door came off for christ's sake!

    If you want safety, go Volvo or Mercedes. No two brands spend more per vehicle on safety than those two.

  13. This is a great test. Frankly, none of the cars appear to have aced it. I think what it shows is that there is going to be a need for a much stronger A-pillar from the roof to the floorpan. And that having the vehicle move the car away from the crash point is going to be better than having the car take the full brunt of the crash.

  14. " Imagine how a 1991 Explorer would fair in this kind of test…"

    I would absolutely love to see this.

    To "August 16, 2012 5:50 AM":

    No need to worry about your daughter. That vehicle is perfectly safe. The only thing that can really protect us all is an impenetrable shield. I'd rather have that 2004 (c'mon, it's not even 10 years old!) than a 1994.

    My first car in 2003 was a 1988. Was as safe as it could be. It was in a few accidents and each time no one was hurt, right up until the very end. I'm quite happy that I didn't have an airbag when a deer ran in front of me.

  15. Would like to see how other "volume" cars like Camry, Malibu or small cars perform in this test. Might change the view on those "luxury" cars to "wow, they are great!"……

  17. Lexus looks to come out the worst in these tests, but is that really a suprise? Hasn't Toyota been heading in that direction for almost a decade now???

  18. It seems that the IIHS rationale was not to select a scenario that the modern cars would inherently fail, but to rate for performance under scenarios that lead to fatalities in the real world. The study's rationale appears data-driven. The Volvo S60 and Acura TL were awarded "Good."

  19. It seems that the IIHS rationale was not to select a scenario that the modern cars would inherently fail, but to rate for performance under scenarios that lead to fatalities in the real world. The study's rationale appears data-driven. The Volvo S60 and Acura TL were awarded "Good."

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *