NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
Many of the smallest cars sold in America did very poorly in a challenging crash test conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Of 11 subcompact and minicars subjected to the Institute's small overlap crash test only one, General Motors' Chevrolet Spark, did reasonably well.
Six of the cars earned the Institute's lowest rating of "Poor." Those were the Nissan Versa, Toyota Prius c, Hyundai Accent, the Mitsubishi Mirage, Chrysler Group's Fiat 500 and the Honda Fit. The Mazda2, Kia Rio, Toyota Yaris and Ford Fiesta were deemed Marginal, the second-worst of four possible ratings. Most of these cars have done well in the Institute's other crash tests and in government tests. The Insurance Institute is a private organization financed by auto insurers.
The Spark earned a rating of Acceptable. None of the cars earned the top rating of Good.
In the small overlap test, a vehicle hits a barrier at 40 miles per hour with just one-quarter of its front bumper. The impact occurs on the left side, just in front of the driver's seat. This concentrates crash forces in a small area that's outside of the strong crash safety structures built into most new vehicles.
Many cars that have otherwise earned good crash test scores have done poorly in this test, especially cars based on older designs. On the other hand, 39 cars so far, including the Spark, have earned Good or Acceptable ratings in the test.


In the real world, about a quarter of the serious and fatal injuries in front crashes are caused by "small overlap" impacts similar to this, according to the Institute.
Honda and Mazda both pointed out that their small cars were designed before this particular crash test came into existence. Honda unveiled a new, redesigned Fit at the Detroit auto show recently. Honda expects that car, which will go on sale in the Spring, to earn a Good score in this test, the automaker said in a statement.
Nissan, Hyundai and Toyota said they are reviewing the results as they look to improve future models. All the automakers, except Mitsubishi, pointed out that their cars have done well in other crash tests. The Insurance Institute has not yet subjected the Mitsubishi Mirage to its other crash tests.
Ford called the Fiesta a "safe vehicle" with crashworthiness and crash avoidance features designed to manage a variety of situations.
"The IIHS small overlap front crash test evaluation poses specific challenges for all small and lightweight vehicles," Mitsubishi said in a statement, while pointing out that its car did well in several specific criteria including protection of the driver's head, neck and chest.
The two worst-performing cars in this test were the Fit and the Fiat 500, the Institute said. In both cars, the occupant compartment was crushed in and the steering pushed back toward the driver. In the Fit, the driver's head glanced off the airbag before striking the instrument panel. In the 500, the door was ripped off its hinges. These cars were also the only ones in which injuries were deemed likely to both legs, not just one.
In the case of the Spark, thecrash test dummy showed a low likelihood of injury and the dummy's movements were well controlled during and after the impact, the Institute said. The lower part of the occupant compartment, in particular, held up well, which helped protect the feet and legs.
The Spark is the only car of its size, so far, to earn the Institute's Top Safety Pick award.




Frontal crash tests like these only indicate how a car will perform in a crash with a similarly-sized vehicle. In real life, however, cars this size are much more likely to hit a larger vehicle, the Institute pointed out. Insurance Institute crash tests have indicated that, in crashes between larger and smaller vehicles, occupants in the smaller vehicle will suffer significantly greater injuries.
"These cars have an inherent safety disadvantage in many kinds of crashes," Insurance Institute spokesman Russ Rader said.


First Published: January 22, 2014: 12:12 AM ET

 

This is about as profound an observation as "The best shape for a wheel is round."

 

... and in other news ... it has been discovered that inadequate driver skills is a major cause of accidents. there is also a correlation with texting and talking on cell phones, with or without hands free devices.

 

Such tests are performed under controlled environments whereas most accidents happen in different ways .
I am not into small cars but good to see GM doing well with their small city car representatives

 

And that's why I drive a 17-foot-long Jag...

Finally someone reported what is obvious to anyone who knows basic physics, larger vehicles will always be safer against smaller vehicles of roughly equal material/architectural strength, plus inertia of the greater weight will pulverize the lesser weighing car, plus it puts the point of impact farther from the passengers in the cabin.

 

It's worth clicking the link just to see the image of hood of a camry eating up half of a Yaris

 

Found the Youtube of those tests, amazingly, they are only traveling at 40mph, that is just marginally faster than I can ride a bicycle!

 

Really!!!!!

 

Very small cars tend to do poorly against everything, except against other similar sized cars. Too bad.

 

apparently motorcycles don't fair well either, then theres those pesky pedestrians

really I think its down to age of the design, many modern small cars achieve high results in these types of tests e.g Crash test results | Crash test ratings | Crash tests - ANCAP

There is always the school of thought that big is better, however if you meet a tree in a big heavy car with little in the way of deceleration built in, no air bags etc you are probably toast. I say that as an owner of two cars that would fit that bill.

 

If one uses the Pause button liberally it appears the Smart doesn't do too badly. Notice the passenger cage stays intact and the door stays shut keeping the driver inside the car although the car is completely destroyed around it.

Smart does a LOT better than the Yaris in that, because the Yaris' door pops open leaving driver bits exposed; the passenger cage crumples, the door opening collapses and the driver will sustain serious head injuries at least.

It's true the Merc does better but it's a bigger car! One would expect a better outcome.

I wouldn't want to drive a Smart, just on general principles, and this video probably doesn't show *Everything,* but if I had to I would take the Smart over the Yaris by a mile.
(';')

 

Lol...I'd take the Smart too, then sell it and get a good quality used Jaguar or similar.

 

Exactly my thoughts when I viewed those videos. All of my cars are comparatively diminutive... I think my XK8 is the longest (albeit lowest) car I own. I like to think that my E90 3-Series has a rigid passenger cage & effective crumple zones (haven't really researched it), but where I live the real threats come from gargantuan SUVs piloted by people playing with their cell phones.

I'm not joining them on the Dark Side if I can help it. I like smaller cars even though I am 6'-4" 225#. But we do have to drive defensively if we hope to survive.

 

Every time I see an article about this "phenomenon" a part of me dies.

Way back when the "new" Mini was starting to gain ground, a piece ran on the news about how "small cars do poorly in crash tests" and I wrote it off as common sense.

Then Ford reintroduced the Fiesta, and a piece ran on the news about how "small cars do poorly in crash tests" and I was taken aback - did we not just go through this? Come on, guys!

Enter: Smart cars. "small cars do poorly in crash tests." NO! BAD NEWS NETWORK! YOU GO TO YOUR ROOM AND THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU'VE DONE!

I'm not even mad. I'm just disappointed.