crxb

http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr122210.html

66 winners of 2011 TOP SAFETY PICK award

Sixty-six vehicles earn the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's TOP SAFETY PICK award for 2011, including 40 cars, 25 SUVs, and a minivan. TOP SAFETY PICK recognizes vehicles that do the best job of protecting people in front, side, rollover, and rear crashes based on good ratings in Institute tests. Winners also must have available electronic stability control, a crash avoidance feature that significantly reduces crash risk. The ratings help consumers pick vehicles that offer a higher level of protection than federal safety standards require.

Last year the Institute toughened criteria for TOP SAFETY PICK by adding a requirement that all qualifiers must earn a good rating for performance in a roof strength test to assess protection in a rollover crash. The move sharply narrowed the initial field of 2010 winners. At the beginning of the 2010 model year, only 27 vehicles qualified for the award, but the number grew to 58 as auto manufacturers reworked existing designs and introduced new models. Now another 10 vehicles join the winners' list for 2011. Two discontinued models drop off.

"In just a year, automakers have more than doubled the number of vehicles that meet the criteria for TOP SAFETY PICK," says Adrian Lund, the Institute's president. "That gives consumers shopping for a safer new car or SUV — from economy to luxury models — plenty of choices to consider in most dealer showrooms. In fact, every major automaker has at least one winning model this year."

Front-runners: Hyundai/Kia and Volkswagen/Audi each have 9 winners for 2011. Next in line with 8 awards apiece are General Motors, Ford/Lincoln, and Toyota/Lexus/Scion. Subaru is the only manufacturer with a winner in all the vehicle classes in which it competes. Subaru earns 5 awards for 2011.

"Safety is a priority among this crop of winners," Lund says. "From the start these manufacturers set out to design vehicles that would earn TOP SAFETY PICK, even though we've made it harder to win."

One of them is Ford. For 2011, the automaker is rolling out a new design for its popular Explorer midsize SUV, which until now had never earned TOP SAFETY PICK. Ford also upgraded the roofs of 2 other midsize SUVs, the Ford Flex and Lincoln MKT, along with the Ford Fusion and Lincoln MKZ, 2 midsize cars that missed the initial round of 2010 winners because they lacked the required roof strength. The all-new Ford Fiesta rounds out Ford's winners and is the only minicar to earn TOP SAFETY PICK this year.

General Motors' new Chevrolet Cruze broadens the number of award-winning options for consumers looking to buy a fuel-efficient small car. GM built the Cruze, which has 10 standard airbags, including ones for the knees, to outperform the government's minimum roof strength requirements and touts the achievement as a selling point.

The redesigned Volkswagen Touareg is the only large SUV to earn TOP SAFETY PICK for 2011. The Institute doesn't normally evaluate SUVs this large, but Volkswagen requested crash tests to demonstrate the Touareg's crashworthiness.

None of the small pickups the Institute has evaluated qualified for this year's award, and large pickups haven't yet been tested.

The Institute awarded the first TOP SAFETY PICK to 2006 models and then raised the bar the next year by requiring good rear test results and electronic stability control as either standard or optional equipment. With last year's addition of new criteria for roof crush the Institute's crash test ratings now cover all 4 of the most common kinds of crashes.

More than 12,000 people died in frontal crashes of passenger vehicles in 2009 in the United States, more than 6,000 died in side impacts, and more than 8,000 died in rollovers, many of which also involved a front or side impact. Rear-end crashes usually aren't fatal but result in a large proportion of injuries. Neck sprain or strain is the most commonly reported injury in two-thirds of insurance claims for injuries in all kinds of crashes.

Vehicles rated good for rollover crash protection have roofs more than twice as strong as the current federal standard requires. The Institute estimates that such roofs reduce the risk of serious and fatal injury in single-vehicle rollovers by about 50 percent compared with roofs meeting the minimum requirement.

Quick strides in occupant protection: When the first roof crush results were released in March 2009, only a third of the SUVs tested had good roofs. Since then about 113 vehicles have been tested, and the majority are rated good for roof strength.

Hyundai is a case in point. The Tucson and the small SUV's twin, the Kia Sportage, earned a poor rating for roof strength in 2009, with the weakest roof among all of the small SUVs evaluated that year. A redesign helped the 2011 models secure a good rating and TOP SAFETY PICK. Hyundai also improved the roof on another SUV, the midsize Santa Fe, and redesigned the Sonata, a midsize car that had earned a marginal roof rating the first time around.

The outlook for side-impact protection has brightened, too, Lund notes. Many cars failed the side test the Institute began conducting in 2003, but now most vehicles ace the test thanks to stronger side structures and standard side airbags that protect the head and torso. It's an important improvement because new Institute research shows that the risk of dying in a crash is sharply lower for people in vehicles that earn good ratings in the Institute's side test.

Chrysler added torso airbags to the redesigned Jeep Grand Cherokee to bolster side crash protection and earn a good side rating. The previous design relied on head curtain airbags to cushion occupants in side crashes and only rated marginal for side protection.

Safety equipment is increasingly standard. Ninety-two percent of 2011 model cars, 94 percent of SUVs, and 56 percent of pickups have standard head and torso side airbags. Electronic stability control is standard on 92 percent of cars, 100 percent of SUVs, and 72 percent of pickups.

"Automakers deserve credit for quickly rising to meet the more-challenging criteria for TOP SAFETY PICK," Lund says. "Several already have requested tests for new models due to ship early next year, so we expect to add even more winners to the 2011 list."

The Institute groups TOP SAFETY PICK winners according to vehicle type and size. Lund advises consumers to keep in mind that size and weight influence crashworthiness. Larger, heavier vehicles generally afford better occupant protection in serious crashes than smaller, lighter ones. Even with a TOP SAFETY PICK, a small car isn't as crashworthy as a bigger one.

How vehicles are evaluated: The Institute's frontal crashworthiness evaluations are based on results of 40 mph frontal offset crash tests. Each vehicle's overall evaluation is based on measurements of intrusion into the occupant compartment, injury measures recorded on a 50th percentile male Hybrid III dummy in the driver seat, and analysis of slow-motion film to assess how well the restraint system controlled dummy movement during the test.

Side evaluations are based on performance in a crash test in which the side of a vehicle is struck by a barrier moving at 31 mph. The barrier represents the front end of a pickup or SUV. Ratings reflect injury measures recorded on 2 instrumented SID-IIs dummies representing a 5th percentile woman, assessment of head protection countermeasures, and the vehicle's structural performance during the impact.

In the roof strength test, a metal plate is pushed against 1 side of a roof at a displacement rate of 0.2 inch per second. To earn a good rating for rollover protection, the roof must withstand a force of 4 times the vehicle's weight before reaching 5 inches of crush. This is called a strength-to-weight ratio.

Rear crash protection is rated according to a two-step procedure. Starting points for the ratings are measurements of head restraint geometry — the height of a restraint and its horizontal distance behind the back of the head of an average-size man.

Seat/head restraints with good or acceptable geometry are tested dynamically using a dummy that measures forces on the neck. This test simulates a collision in which a stationary vehicle is struck in the rear at 20 mph. Seats without good or acceptable geometry are rated poor overall because they can't be positioned to protect many people.

ALL 66 WINNERS (red indicates newly-announced winners for 2011)

Large cars
Buick LaCrosse
Buick Regal
BMW 5 series (except 4-wheel drive and V8)
Cadillac CTS sedan
Ford Taurus
Hyundai Genesis
Infiniti M37/M56 (except M56x 4-wheel drive)
Lincoln MKS
Mercedes E class coupe
Mercedes E class sedan
Toyota Avalon
Volvo S80

Midsize cars
Audi A3
Audi A4 sedan
Chevrolet Malibu
Chrysler 200 4-door
Dodge Avenger
Ford Fusion
Hyundai Sonata
Kia Optima
Lincoln MKZ
Mercedes C class
Subaru Legacy
Subaru Outback
Volkswagen Jetta sedan
Volkswagen Jetta SportWagen
Volvo C30

Small cars
Chevrolet Cruze
Honda Civic 4-door models (except Si) with optional electronic stability control
Kia Forte sedan
Kia Soul
Mitsubishi Lancer sedan (except 4-wheel drive)
Nissan Cube
Scion tC
Scion xB
Subaru Impreza sedan and hatchback (except WRX)
Toyota Corolla
Volkswagen Golf 4-door
Volkswagen GTI 4-door

Minicar
Ford Fiesta sedan and hatchback built after July 2010

Minivan
Toyota Sienna

Large SUV
Volkswagen Touareg

Midsize SUVs
Audi Q5
Cadillac SRX
Chevrolet Equinox
Dodge Journey
Ford Explorer
Ford Flex
GMC Terrain
Hyundai Santa Fe
Jeep Grand Cherokee
Kia Sorento built after March 2010
Lexus RX
Lincoln MKT
Mercedes GLK
Subaru Tribeca
Toyota Highlander
Toyota Venza
Volvo XC60
Volvo XC90

Small SUVs
Honda Element
Hyundai Tucson
Jeep Patriot with optional side torso airbags
Kia Sportage
Subaru Forester
Volkswagen Tiguan

KeithL

I was wondering the same thing, my only guess is most of te current Acura's are several year old design and all the standards have been updated recently. I hope as the next gen cars come online that Acura makes the list.

winstrolvtec

I would assume what Keith has but the strange thing is the 2011 Accord of the current gen was one of few cars that achieved 5 stars across the board under the new NHTSA 2011 test procedures despite it being an older model than most that acheive this and the TL but IIHS is different than the NHTSA, so I looked into it.

Here's what I found, the TOP PICK award for the IIHS now involves a roof strength test (since 2010) in which the 4G TL was never tested for. The 09 managed the highest ratings in all the other IIHS test areas which are the same standards used today, minus the roof test. So it's as good as a top pick if you exclude the roof strength test but those results now define a top pick so until they test it, who knows?

The 2011 TL was not tested under the new NHTSA ratings either.

docboy

I too have wondered about this.

I agree, due to the TL not having it's roof strength tested is the likely reason. I wonder why the roof has not been tested though.

winstrolvtec

Worst case, maybe it was and didn't do as good and Acura didn't want them published or didn't want it tested for fear of a poor turn out. It's all speculation though, we'll never know. FWIW, the 2010 Accord (08-10) was tested for roof strength and it rated acceptable which is one lower than the highest with the best ratings everywhere else, which is good but not top pick worthy.

lji

An Acura and Honda made this list

http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/auto...-200000-miles/

George Knighton

Three reasons.

The 2009 Acura TL design was never tested under some of the new IIHS standards.

Honda (and Acura in North America) have their own testing standards which, while eclectic and perhaps unique, might be argued to exceed IIHS and NHTSA standards. There is a roof strength standard for which the 2009 TL design was tested, and one might argue that it exceeds the standard against which it would be held if tested as a new design in 2011 MY.

We might or might not see re-testing of the 2012 Acura TL design, depending on whether or not we see it as a new design. Considering the current economy, it's a mild surprise that they've even dedicated any money to this kind of redesign of a relatively new car, since they have used money that might have been used for the completely new model. Because the American public forced this redesign on us, a completely new TL with even better technologies will be delayed.

You'll have a car that more people will want to buy, but it will not be as absolutely excellent an automobile as the one we'd have got if they'd left the 2009 TL alone to run its complete model life unmolested.

And finally, although quite a bit of money is being spent on safety, there's also quite a bit of money being spent on alternative fuel programmes. We frankly do not have that many people to interface with the IIHS people in Virginia, or the time to cultivate the relationships.

KeithL

ANother thing I do is look at all the tests IIHS and NTHSA not just one of them since both are constantly evoloving. I by no means think the TL or all Acura's are NOT safe, they just missed a timing cycle. If I recall wasn't Acura the only maker to get 5 stars for all their cars ont he NHTSA tests. What I found impressive early this years was Hynudai, when the 2011 Sonota release the car was tested and did not do well on one test, they quickly redesigned the car to have it retested and it passed. For them in that segment saftey ratings are critical since they are a main stream car.

George Knighton

I understand, but I think that is dangerous.

Obviously, they have to do that because makers utilise the NHTSA and IIHS tests as a marketing ploy.

We cannot ignore the fact that it is possible to ignore an egregious safety defect while complying with enough of the NHTSA and IIHS standards to get very complimentary and marketable results from them.

jspagna1

I read this article as well and I found it very interesting. I especially like the last paragragh. I think it says it all!

draph

I suspect the IIHS doesn't purchase the cars it tests. Acura likely donated TLs for testing in 2009 when the 4G came out. Since the IIHS has lots of leverage for impacting the market, they can just sit and wait for Acura to provide more cars to test to the new 2011 standards without needing to spend a dime. Of course, before Acura does that, they would be wise to conduct their own tests first - better to have IIHS just say "not tested" if Acura knows they'll fail.

Remember, the IIHS isn't about safety first, it's about reducing claim costs and increasing margins for the insurance companies. It's certainly not about reducing premium costs for us. They only go up, regardless how much safer cars have become.

If I'm wrong about IIHS, their motives, and who pays for the test vehicles, someone please correct me.

KES

All the Acuras are very safe vehicles. I would chaulk this up to the fact the "new" roof test was not performed by the IIHS due to timing.

If Acura want use this test for marketing they will provide the vehicles (1,2 or 3 of each ??) have the cars tested, pass the test and include this in their marketing literature.

This is really a non issue in my opinion.

Eudreamality

I have a gut feeling that IIHS will have "sponsorship" from all major automaker, so the safety list is more like a rotation list of various car models and of course is pretty balanced among brands. Don't expect too much accuracy in their public report. One wild guess, maybe Acura did not sponsor IIHS enough at the moment.

TechnoCat

What an odd perspective. The "American public" didn't "force" the redesign on you. Acura tried to "force" an unfortunate design on the public. (And only the "American" public; they didn't even try a similar design on the Brits.) It didn't go over well. If they can't make enough money from the current TL, they won't be able to afford future TLs at all. All the great "technologies" won't help if people don't want the car.

There were quite a few unfortunately design and bean-counter decisions in the TL. Sometimes a company gets the big things - reliability, performance - right and too many smaller things - style, finish-feel, front seats - wrong. (The open styrofoam in the front door sills is really a comparison fiasco.) In fairness, keep in mind that BMW suffered massive sales drop when the Chris Bangle designs first hit, and had to scale back that look, and that Audi has scaled back what computerblue calls the "bass mouthed fish" look from five years ago too. At least Acura is just having to lightly rework it.