|
|
|
|
|
NEW
FRONTAL CRASH TEST RESULTS FOR 8 CARS:
LARGE FAMILY & LUXURY CARS ARE GOOD; MOST EARN
'BEST PICK'
ARLINGTON, VA — A group of five large
family cars and three large luxury cars earned
top ratings of good in frontal crash tests recently
conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety. Among the family models that were tested — Buick
LaCrosse, Chrysler 300, Ford Five Hundred, Kia
Amanti, and Toyota Avalon — all but the
Amanti earned the added designation of "best
pick" in the frontal test (see attached
ratings). This is the first time every model
in a group of large family cars has earned the
top rating.
The large luxury cars — Acura RL, Cadillac
STS, and Lexus GS — also earned good ratings,
and each is designated "best pick" for
frontal crash protection.
"Large cars are a good choice for consumers
looking for a safe family vehicle, but some of
them haven't always performed well in the Institute's
frontal crash test," says Institute chief
operating officer Adrian Lund. "In 1999
a large family model from DaimlerChrysler, the
Chrysler LHS, along with its twin 300M, was rated
poor for frontal crash protection. With these
latest results we now have 10 current large family
car designs that are rated good."
The ratings reflect performance in a 40 mph
frontal offset crash test into a deformable barrier.
Based on the results, the Institute evaluates
the crashworthiness of passenger vehicles, assigning
each vehicle a rating from good to poor. The
better performers among those rated good earn
the added designation of "best pick." If
a vehicle earns a good rating, it means in a
real-world crash of similar severity a belted
driver most likely would be able to walk away
with nothing more than minor injuries. About
half of all vehicle occupant deaths occur in
frontal crashes.
Chrysler 300 is big improvement
compared with its predecessors: "The 2005 model 300 is
a good performer across the board in the frontal
test. This is the kind of performance we like
to see," Lund says.
The Institute's offset
test is especially demanding of a vehicle's structure.
The driver side of
a vehicle being tested hits the barrier, so a
relatively small area of the front-end structure
must manage the energy of the crash. The structure
of the 300's occupant compartment maintained
its shape very well, and that allowed the seat
belt and airbag to do a good job of protecting
the driver. After the dummy moved forward into
the airbag, it rebounded into the seat without
its head coming close to any stiff structure
that could cause injury.
In contrast, the structure
of the 1999 Chrysler LHS/300M was marginal, and
a late-deploying airbag
contributed to high forces on the dummy's head.
"
The occupant compartment in the LHS/300M
buckled during the crash, and there was major
intrusion into the footwell area," Lund
explains. "The airbag deployed so late in
the crash that the dummy's head hit the steering
wheel hard." Chrysler made changes to the
2001 model, and its crashworthiness rating improved
to acceptable. There was less intrusion into
the occupant compartment, and the airbag did
a good job of keeping forces on the dummy's head
low.
"Now the 2005 model Chrysler 300 and
its twin, the 2006 Dodge Charger, are among the
top
performing large cars in the Institute's frontal
test," Lund adds.
Five Hundred is latest
among Ford's good performing large cars: The
1995 Taurus was one of the first
vehicles to earn "best pick" in the
frontal test. It was redesigned in 1996 and re-engineered
in 2000. Both of these models also were good
and earned "best pick" status.
"Ford should be commended for leading
the way in frontal crash protection in large
family
cars," Lund says.
Three large luxury cars
are rated good: Every current large luxury car
model rated by the Institute
is good in the frontal offset test. All but the
Lincoln Town Car earned "best pick" designations.
In
the current round of tests, the Cadillac STS
is another example of how the crashworthiness
of cars has been improved. The STS's immediate
predecessor, the 2000 Seville, also earned a
good rating in the frontal test. However, the
previous generation model didn't fare as well.
The 1997 Seville was rated poor, mainly because
its structure allowed too much intrusion into
the occupant compartment, including major rearward
movement of the instrument panel.
The Acura RL
also has been improved. The previous generation
was rated acceptable because of a
high head acceleration when the dummy's head
struck the pillar between the front and rear
doors, and there were moderately high forces
on the dummy's right leg. There also was moderate
intrusion into the occupant compartment.
"For the new RL, the structure was improved.
All of the injury measures were low. This car
is rated good and a 'best pick,'" Lund says. "It's
now rare for a vehicle to earn a rating of anything
less than good in the frontal offset crash test."
Institute and government crash tests complement
each other: The Institute's crashworthiness evaluations
are based on results of frontal offset crash
tests at 40 mph. Each vehicle's overall evaluation
is based on three aspects of performance — measurements
of intrusion into the occupant compartment, injury
measures from a Hybrid III dummy positioned in
the driver seat, and analysis of slow-motion
film to assess how well the restraint system
controlled dummy movement during the test.
The
federal government has been testing new passenger
vehicles in 35 mph full-front crash
tests since 1978. This New Car Assessment Program
has been a major contributor to crashworthiness
improvements, in particular improved restraint
systems in new passenger vehicles. The Institute's
offset tests, conducted since 1995, involve 40
percent of a vehicle's front end hitting a deformable
barrier at 40 mph. This test complements the
federal test involving the full width of the
front end hitting a rigid barrier. Both tests
are contributing to improvements in crashworthiness,
in particular improved crumple zones and safety
cages.
The same 40 mph offset crash test is used
to evaluate new cars by the European Union in
cooperation
with motor clubs, by an Australian consortium
of state governments and motor clubs, and by
a government-affiliated organization in Japan.
|
|
