IIHS’ new, more stringent crash test: 8 of 11 luxury cars perform poorly [Videos]

By Andrew Ganz

Tuesday, Aug 14th, 2012 @ 12:01 am

A new crash test that the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says is far more realistic than its outgoing frontal offset test has proven challenging for the nearly one dozen entry-level luxury sedans the agency tested.

Only the Volvo S60 and the Acura TL earned top marks in the small overlap test, which sees 25 percent of the tested vehicle’s front end striking a 5-foot tall rigid barrier at 40 mph. IIHS says that the test is designed to simulate “what happens when the front corner of a car collides with another vehicle or an object like a tree or utility pole” rather than against a deformable offset object as current tests do.
According to the institute’s research, the new crash test simulates about a quarter of all real-world accidents.
IIHS won’t be abandoning the current crash test style, but it will use the new small overlap test as an additional measurement of vehicle safety and structural crashworthiness.
The Infiniti G received an acceptable rating, while the Acura TSX, BMW 3-Series,Lincoln MKZ and Volkswagen CC all earned a marginal grade. The Audi A4, LexusES, Lexus IS and Mercedes-Benz C-Class ranked at the bottom of the segment with the agency’s lowest rating: Poor. All 11 tested vehicles are 2012 models, although only the Lexus ES and Lincoln MKZ see significant changes for 2013.
IIHS has told Leftlane in the past that it considers marginal and poor to be essentially failing grades
“Nearly every new car performs well in other frontal crash tests conducted by the Institute and the federal government, but we still see more than 10,000 deaths in frontal crashes each year,” IIHS President Adrian Lund says. “Small overlap crashes are a major source of these fatalities. This new test program is based on years of analyzing real-world frontal crashes and then replicating them in our crash test facility to determine how people are being seriously injured and how cars can be designed to protect them better. We think this is the next step in improving frontal crash protection.”
Automakers nearly universally ace existing crash tests, something IIHS applauds. But the new small overlap test is designed to be much more difficult, a move that the institute hopes will lead to even safer cars in the future as automakers seek its Top Safety Pick rating.
As the images show, there are stark contrasts between the cars that performed well in the test and those that performed poorly. In particular, the difference between the way the cars’ safety cages held up is staggering. The first two images in our gallery above are of the top-ranked Volvo S60, while the third and fourth are of the poor-performing Lexus IS. We also included a smattering of other vehicles to show the intensity of the test

This new test is really interesting, I'm shocked by how badly the C-class did.

Watch till the end of the C_Class video, then watch the "Frontal Crash 120kmph high speed video". This then gives you the option of looking at crashtest comparison between German and Chinese cars, the results are terrifying. I'm also shocked the 3er only got a marginal rating, considering it scored an outstanding Adult Occupant rating of 95% in Euro Ncaps latest and mos stringent tests. And how did the A4 and Passat CC get different scores when theyre basically the same car?

I was saying how dangerous the "Brilliance" was compared to the 7-Series thats scary, not the 120km/h crash.
Also, I wasnt saying E Ncaps test was more stringent, I was saying its their latest and most stringent test yet that the 3er earned its 95% rating.

If these cars fared this badly in this test, can you begin to imagine how much worse a Chinese car would be?

WOW, this is a tough one. The Mercedes has a little more deformation around the A-pillar than the cars that scored higher. Kudos to Volvo, I have long said that they were the only one (and Saab) that was fanatical about safety in the same manner as Mercedes-Benz.


M

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=1680&seriesid=464

The funny thing is if you look at those images, C looks most intact - both the door and the rocker panels - compared to cars that scored higher like 3er or even the Volvo which got completely messed up. I guess it goes to show how stupid it is to predict which is the safer car looking at the state of body panels from a crash test video, not that that will stop some morons here from doing it.

I can't wait to see Mercedes' response to this. Hats off to Volvo, I've always said that they were as good as anyone when it came to safety.

M

Com'on, is just one particular test at one particular position/angle, not a definitive result of which car is safer. Placing the crashing at different positions will probably had differents results too.

One observation however, how the Lincoln gets a "marginal" score over other's "poor" score, when the dummy missed both airbags!!!

Regards!

The C's structure looks more intact than about any of those other cars, interestingly. It must be the footwell that collapses heavily.

M-B's response is funny. They basically said something along the lines of "The C-Class is as safe as it gets, if a test displays that it isn't, then it's not the car we question, but the test itself".

I missed that arrogant tone from Mercedes, glad to hear it's back.

As far as Benz goes, their real world crash statistics and body shell construction give me more than enough "faith" in their way of doing safety than anyone else's. Though, Volvo deserves major props, as they took even this style of crash test preemptively and already designed around it, showing they don't just design cars to pass tests (this test didn't exist when they built the S60).

Audi is another manufacturer that makes cars that seem to do very well in real world data and are of the highest construction quality, but performed poorly here. Either way, we can thank the IIHS again for forcing manufacturers to be incredibly stronger and safer with their cars in the future, as they will inevitably design their future cars to also pass this test with flying colors.

Looked it up and turns out this 20-25% offset test is one of the 60 or so different crash tests Mercedes uses to develop their cars (Source MB Japan 1996). MB lists a speed of 50 km/h, though, slightly slower than the 40 mph used by the IIHS.

But instead of just mitigating crashes, and build larger front overhangs like e.g. the new MFA/B-Class, why not avoid crashes in the first place, and follow ABS, ESP active systems with a next step? Following previous GCF discussions MB seems to work on an anti-swerve system, which can avoid objects by swerving about 20 to 25% of the cars frontal width.

http://www.germancarforum.com/commu...ad-safety-and-climate-protection.27306/page-2

i guess volvo's safety is not just a hype

A femur fracture is far worst than a broken foot and lower leg, so I say the Audi A4 and the Lexus ES 350 were the worst performers, because they offered very little protection for the hip & thigh region. In fact, a femur fracture is a deadly injury because it can cause a fat embolism.



I dare to say the C-Class did reasonably well... It offered good protection for the head, chest, hip and thigh. Sure, you wouldn't walk out of a crash of this severity, but at least you wouldn't sustain life threatening injuries like in the Lexus ES.

I must insist, how in the earth the Lincoln gets good head and neck score when the dummy clearly miss both airbags

^
I'm calling BS on that one Gian.

I think the real surprise in this test is the Acura TL. Anyone have a video for comparison?

Much agree Kowalski!

Cashmere, here you have:



Herein the rest:
http://www.youtube.com/user/iihs/videos

Special attention to the deformation of the fascia/steering colum in the Audi A4... scary to say the least

Regards!