IIHS: Small Cars Cheap at the Pump, Costly in Fender Benders

This is sort of a no-brainer, but I suppose the IIHS is legally obligated to provide more fuel for the small-car haters.

Quote from the article...

"Of the 61 cars the Institute has tested so far, 43 rate poor."

Looks to me like most cars rated poor regardless of size. As usual IIHS slants the results of the test againest small cars. I'd like to meet the guy in charge of the IIHS and ask him what his problem is.

Well, we finally know why they're called Smart cars. Nice bit of forethought with those easily-replaceable, pre-painted body panels.

Firstwagon--Although I sympathize with your position, I don't think it's the testing methods that are at fault.

Simple physics...less area to absorb impact equates to more damage. Crumple zones in small cars are smaller and closer to many other parts that wouldn't necessarily be close to the bumper in larger vehicles.

The structure in small cars have to be stronger in small cars to avoid the "beer can" affect when hit by another vehicle...therefore, their structure is stiffer and transfers damage further from the impact zone.

Also, most small cars are hatchbacks, so not only does the bumper get damaged, but the hatch as well.

I'm sure someone more well versed in physics can explain it better than I can.

IIHS rant aside, my point was a lot of large cars likely failed the test too.

I believe cars today are only required to have 2.5 mph bumpers so a 6 mph impact will do damage.

I have a friend that works for an insurance company and she was telling me their biggest increase in cost have been minor accidents where todays elaborate styling (and fancy headlights) are being damaged.

That's a problem across the board, not just small cars.

Very interesting information. Now I know why my premium go up for 5mph scrapes.

The IIHS is a bunch of hacks looking to justify the outrageous premium rates that they charge people with perfect driving records. Tests like this are a big part of that P.R. campaign.

Wait a minute. IIHS's new test almost has no relation to the real life. Think about it people, if you drive a car that is a foot shorter than a midsize car, you should have at least 20-30% more space clearance before you hit any stationary, or something that is going to hit you. In the end, you shouldn't drive any car if you rear end your own Honda Fit into a concrete wall during parking.

Aren't all bumpers super-expensive to replace? I remember hearing somewhere that replacement costs on an Escalade's front bumper were around $7K.

Smart Fortwo -- Acceptable
Chevrolet Aveo -- Marginal
All others r POOR!!!!!!
Did anybody noticed dat?????
Gm beat all Japanese.
That's why all Japanese car r far lighter than others...

Did you notice... the Aveo is lighter then all the Japanese cars?

And the lightest car of all did the best?

The Smart is designed to have cheap replacement trim pieces and the Aveo is just made of cheap parts period.

The whole test has little to do with size or weight and everything to do with design and cost of replacement parts.

Aveo is light but it's also small.
relatively Japanese car r all lighter then "American" (including GM Daewoo), that's bcoz of their structure design.
Smart is designed to be as safe as MB S-class.