Deciphering crash test weirdness

So I am once again poring over crash test ratings. I thought I was done with this! I just bought a new car not even 2 months ago! I haven't even made a payment on the darn thing yet and here I am looking for ANOTHER new one (to replace the other old one, not to replace the one I just bought!)

So I am going over the crash test ratings for several vehicles. The front runners in my quest are the Mazda5 and Hyundai Santa Fe.

Mazda, of course, has no ratings. So I was looking at the ratings for the Mazda3 and Mazda6, just to get a general idea of how Mazda vehicles normally perform.
Well, the Mazda6 got a 3(!) for side impact. Eek! But looking at the numbers...
The Hyundai Santa Fe got five stars for side impact crash ratings. But comparing the numbers from the dummies (HIC, TTI, etc), the Santa Fe got higher (more likelihood of injury) numbers than the Mazda6, which only got three stars.

Why is this? If you are more likely to be injured (according to the actual data from the dummies) why would the vehicle get a higher star rating?

Also... the Santa Fe does NOT come with side airbags for the rear passengers. Yet it scores pretty close to the top for side impact crash ratings. So... how important are the airbags? Would it be better to do without them to get a vehicle that has good ratings overall?

With the Mazda5 I get side airbags, but a big fat blank on crash test ratings. With the Santa Fe, I get decent ratings but no side airbags for the rear passengers (driver and front passenger have them).

Which is the better bet?

Also, I vaguely remember hearing that you can't put a carseat in the middle of a Santa Fe because of the armrest. Is this true? If I can put him in the middle, the SAB issue is a bit less important (I don't foresee another kid for us for 3-4 years, and by then I can get a new vehicle if need be) but I would still like to have them just in case I keep the vehicle past another child. Oh, and I occasionally care about the people in my back seat other than my kid
Oh, and does anyone know if there is a tether spot for a middle carseat in the Santa Fe?

Darren (oh holy grail of car safety), what is your opinion on the Santa Fe?

If you read the fine print and footnotes about the NHTSA side impact testing, you find that the NHTSA does not consider head injury scores (HIC) when making it's side impact star rating. So, their test is a better test of structure and door design when hit by a lower riding vehicle. The IIHS test is a better test of design for preventing head injury, as they use a crash barrier to simulate a higher vehicle and a smaller dummy. Since they also use head injury scores, curtain airbags are much more likely to result in a better result in their test. So, if you omit the HIC scores from the NHTSA, you'll probably find that the Santa Fe had lower thoracic and pelvic scores resulting in the higher NHTSA side impact star rating.

What that means is that you really want a vehicle that does well in both the IIHS and NHTSA side impact tests. Since the Mazda5 is untested, it's impossible to make a fair comparison. The Santa Fe is probably a reasonably safe vehicle, but my preference in minivans and SUVs is to have side curtain airbags for all rows of seating as well as stability control.

Incidentally, the Mazda5 is based on the Mazda3 chassis. Even so, that is not necessarily any indicator that they might share similar crash test results. There look to be enough changes that it would be impossible to even make a guess how the Mazda5 would do. That's a good thing, because the Mazda3 is a relatively poor performer overall as far as crash testing.

How about a 2005+ Honda CR-V or Subaru Forester? For a third row, the Toyota Highlander has one optional and the Subaru B9 Tribeca is promising if the Freestyle, Pacifica and Pilot are not appealing.

The CRV does not have a top tether for a middle carseat, and the Forester is fine, I just haven't been able to FIND one. Subaru isn't a big thing around here.
The pilot is huge and absolutely undesirable, and the Pacifica would probably be fine, but I have a distaste for Chrysler. However if it is a very safe vehicle, I can do it.
I'll look more into the Subaru.

The Mazda website of course has all this talk about how they will exceed upcoming crast tests, including the 50 mph offset rear test in Europe which is (according to them) the hardest test to pass. Of course anyone can claim that they will pass everything.

I will look into the Forester and Pacifica. I'm trying to stay below 25k if possible. The third row really isn't important at all to be completely honest. We have a minivan if we needed a people mover. I just like the look and feel of the Mazda. Heck, I own an Aztek, it's obvious I like weird cars

Does the Forester have side airbags for the rear passengers? I was looking at the website last night but couldn't figure out if it did or not. And are they standard? Subaru has such gigantic depreciation that I would prefer to buy one used, but unless airbags are standard I am not likely to find one, as side airbags are also not a big thing here. When I was van shopping, every single van that had them as optional didn't have one on the lot because they said side airbags don't sell here, people just aren't interested. Gah! It's a $600 option, how can someone NOT be interested? It's 1/3 the price of a DVD player!

If you go to www.safercar.gov, they have links in the left column that shows recent vehicles that have side airbags (listed by type and row) and stability control.

If the Forester lacks rear curtain airbags, I know the new Legacy/Outback wagon has them. The Legacy is probably a bit bigger, anyway. I've been telling my wife she needs a new Outback, so it can't be too bad of a choice

Where side airbags or stability control are optional, you often have to make a factory order or force the dealer to find one on a dealer swap:-( They'd rather have you buy one of theirs on the lot, so they'll usually bend backwards to switch you to something you don't really want.

Thanks Darren.

Unfortunately the Forester does NOT have side airbags for the rear passengers. But it does get good in all IIHS crashes and five stars in all safercar crashes.

What is more important... side airbags, or good crash test results? Really. If a car gets great crash test results without them, is it a safe choice? And the kids will always be in a SIP seat, be it harnessed or booster.

I do like the Forester, and the price is right. I can live with it, and according to subaru.com, there are four of them at the dealership across the street from me that doesn't exist (they bulldozed it about 2 months ago and are rebuilding, but they didn't move anywhere temporarily, just cleared their lot and shut down for a few months... how they have four of these vehicles is beyond me!)

I swore I would NOT buy another vehicle without side airbags, but it looks like I am getting pushed into it because side airbags seem so hard to find for the rear passengers.

I'm guessing a basic Legacy wagon is about the same price as a Forester if not cheaper. It's also probably a bit bigger. I'd check that out first, since the Forester lacks the rear curtain airbags.

CPSDarren said:

Incidentally, the Mazda5 is based on the Mazda3 chassis. Even so, that is not necessarily any indicator that they might share similar crash test results. There look to be enough changes that it would be impossible to even make a guess how the Mazda5 would do. That's a good thing, because the Mazda3 is a relatively poor performer overall as far as crash testing.

How about a 2005+ Honda CR-V or Subaru Forester?

Click to expand...

i'm sorry but i have to take issue with the way people interpret and integrate data from various sources regarding auto safety data, and it pains me to see somone not recommend a mazda3 as an "unsafe" car. i bought my mazda3 in july 06 after painstaking research into a variety of factors, safety among the top four (along with environmental friendliness, handling stability, and compact size). no car comes close to meeting these collective criteria.

the mazda3 is a poor side impact performer based on IIHS testing because the SAB/SAC are not standard equipment. by IIHS policy, they do not test models with the optionally available SAB/SAC. however, if you look at the side impact score for the mazda3 with SAB/SAC by euroNCAP, it performs quite well, and for frontal impact, it was just shy of being a class-leading performer. of course, i wouldn't have bought my 3 without SAB/SAC.

and on a related note, the mazda5 earned a 5-star side impact rating in japanese tests and also performed extremely well in euroNCAP testing. i trust those methods more than i do the NHTSA methods.

as i mentioned above, one of my four criteria was handling. very few people integrate this factor into their total safety evaluation. my inlaws have a 2005 honda CRV, with SAB/SAC/ESC. however, i feel totally UNSAFE in that vehicle because i feel like i have no control over what the car does in a turn (and in fact, i feel that in a sudden avoidance maneuver, the CRV is much less safe than the mazda3). the driver is completely disconnected from the driving experience in most SUVs and minivans, and these vehicles generally perform very poorly in panic-simulating lane-change maneuvers. perhaps for people who do not like to be part of the driving experience, passive safety features like ESC sound appealing, but also may contribute to an interesting phenomenon known as "risk compensation". this is the idea that because you have passive safety features to protect you, you are absolved from any active participation in the safety process. this phenomenon may explain why nearly 20 years of accumulating data on the benefits of ABS brakes show that ABS-equipped cars are involved in just as many driver-caused frontal collisions as non-ABS cars. this is also the same phenomenon that may explain why you see so many 4WD SUVs careened off the side of the road in snow storms while us front-drivers are forging ahead: we don't assume we're invinsible because of how are cars are equipped.

while i do agree that ABS and other passive technologies like ESC and airbags and structurally sound platforms are indeed beneficial and worth spending the money on, they do not necessarily make the car a safer vehicle when you factor in driving dynamics and human behavior (referring to risk compensation). but if you combine them with the driver ability to keep the car in control in a panic situation, then you have a winning combination of safety factors.

so i would advise people that they should also consider the driver-vehicle replationship as a safety factor. i would trust my road-hugging and driver-connected mazda3 without ESC over ANY SUV or minivan with ESC to allow me to exercise my 21 years of driving experience to keep my car under control in a panic situation. and please don't just rely on what our government says.

southpawboston said:

i'm sorry but i have to take issue with the way people interpret and integrate data from various sources regarding auto safety data, and it pains me to see somone not recommend a mazda3 as an "unsafe" car. i bought my mazda3 in july 06 after painstaking research into a variety of factors, safety among the top four (along with environmental friendliness, handling stability, and compact size). no car comes close to meeting these collective criteria.

Click to expand...

If I said unsafe, I apologize. I intended to say that it is a relatively poor performer for overall safety. It may still be reasonably safe overall, especially compared to compact models from 5-10 years ago, but there are safer options today, in my opinion. There's no need to arbitrarily integrate safety data. www.informedforlife.org does very well it in a manner based on published statistics. The fact is, the Mazda 3 without SAB is one of the least safe new vehicles in terms of crash protection with a full set of test results. If you do get one with SAB, that would be an improvement.

the mazda3 is a poor side impact performer based on IIHS testing because the SAB/SAC are not standard equipment. by IIHS policy, they do not test models with the optionally available SAB/SAC. however, if you look at the side impact score for the mazda3 with SAB/SAC by euroNCAP, it performs quite well, and for frontal impact, it was just shy of being a class-leading performer. of course, i wouldn't have bought my 3 without SAB/SAC.

Click to expand...

The IIHS will test models with optional SAB. The manufacturer has to request the test and reimburse for the cost of the vehicle. Another question is, what percent of vehicles on the lot have SAB. If SAB are very difficult to get, as they are on some models, then many buyers won't bother.

so i would advise people that they should also consider the driver-vehicle replationship as a safety factor. i would trust my road-hugging and driver-connected mazda3 without ESC over ANY SUV or minivan with ESC to allow me to exercise my 21 years of driving experience to keep my car under control in a panic situation. and please don't just rely on what our government says.

Click to expand...

Good advice. This also stresses the importance of an extended test drive. If you don't feel comfortable with the vehicle's driving characteristics (handling, visibility, seating position/comfort, etc), then look elsewhere. These factors can be subjective, so they will vary a lot from one person or reviewer to another. Accident avoidance is very important, but even the greatest amount of driving experience can't protect you from a monster SUV that comes out of nowhere. That's where crash protection from weight, design and crash testing is a big benefit.

Though you may trust your mazda3, another might find similar handling in a Civic Si sedan (also without ESC?), and get much better crash protection, too. While minivans may trade off handling, the higher seating and increased weight and length are a factor in crash protection.

CPSDarren said:

Though you may trust your mazda3, another might find similar handling in a Civic Si sedan (also without ESC?), and get much better crash protection, too. While minivans may trade off handling, the higher seating and increased weight and length are a factor in crash protection.

Click to expand...

good points on both. higher seating and increased vehicle weight do contribute to safety. but wasn't that the original argument in favor of SUVs way back when? if you look at the evolution of the "bloat" over the last decade, it appears that there is a size/weight version of a nuclear arms race going on: everyone wants bigger/taller/heavier to stave off all the other big SUVs around them. if everyone kept to driving smaller cars on principle (principle being safety towards others on the road, maintaining an even playing field), this wouldn't be an issue, right? granted, this is not practical and some people genuinely need larger vehicles.

the civic si would be a fantastic alternative to my 3. but alas it's not offered in a 4-door hatchback variant ... another one of my (unmentioned) criteria.

I am also against the weight/size arms race. More weight and more size means more energy in a crash and less fuel economy.

For me, a car-based minivan with reasonable handling was the best alternative, since I have kids to haul around. For others, the choice will certainly be different. There's also no question that you aren't going to be safe in a vehicle you aren't comfortable driving.