New US crash test could lead to higher vehicle prices and fuel consumption | CarAdvice

Car Advice
  • Home
  • »  New US crash test could lead to higher vehicle prices and fuel consumption

New US crash test could lead to higher vehicle prices and fuel consumption

By David Zalstein |
FIND DEALS

Results from a new offset head-on crash test conducted in the US have carmakers concerned about a possible increase in the cost, weight and fuel consumption of new vehicles.

Industry journal Automotive News reports the new frontal collision test conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), which sees just 25 per cent of a vehicle’s front-end impact with a deformable barrier, has some manufacturers concerned the modifications required to improve test results could impact negatively on fuel efficiency, handling and cost. The standard crash test currently employed is a 40 per cent overlap crash conducted at 64km/h.

IIHS President Adrian Lund told Automotive News the small overlap crashes showed the typical energy-absorbing structures located on the front middle 50 per cent of vehicles were never engaged. Rather, the front wheel receives the force first, which the institute says accounts for 25 per cent of the 10,000 fatal frontal collisions that occur in the US each year.

Scion xD IIHS Crash Test

Lund said manufacturers will likely make changes that will see impacts absorbed prior to contact with the front wheels and an improvement in occupant compartments to prevent wheels being pushed back into the foot well.

According to the report, Honda has expressed its issues regarding the follow-on effects on handling, ride comfort and fuel economy, but said in a statement that it will begin making “enhancements” to the body structure on upcoming vehicles this year. Also in a statement, Mercedes-Benz called the test an “unusually severe and correspondingly uncommon accident scenario” that put its vehicles at a disadvantage.

The IIHS plans to release its initial crash test results of 11 mid-sized luxury vehicles, including the 2012 Mercedes-Benz C-Class, this week.

  • Ben

    What a stupid statement from Mercedes.

  • Golfschwein

    Oh dear. More weight and clunkiness. The Americans are traditionally cross-eyed on safety concepts, whether it’s their advocacy of diving into the footwell of a Tucker Torpedo to save yourself from harm, or the massive chrome bumpers of the early seventies, or their loopy designs for seat belts (as a substitute for their preference for none at all), whopper airbags (same), or their disregard of quartz halogen lighting in favour of sealed beams. I’m sure history is littered with more.

    Of course, there are some things they do very nicely, but they should leave safety to the acknowledged leaders.

    • Dude

      Apparently you’ve never heard of high strength steel, including boron steel, which is significantly stronger than regular steel, while at the same time being much lighter. Those cars that don’t pass the test shouldn’t need to add much weight or clunkiness, if any, to pass the test, they just need to use the right materials and design.

      Also, IIHS is absolutely an acknowledged leader in helping improve vehicle safety — to say otherwise is to be ignorant of facts.

      In fact, their tests are much more real-world than US NHTSA’s and EuroNCAP’s (the latter’s 40% frontal overlap crash test is similar to IIHS’s 40% overlap, but their side impact crash test is less demanding), though admittedly all of the tests are beneficial to improving the safety of cars.

      • Golfschwein

        A perfectly valid counterpoint there. Of course, I’ve  heard of high strength steel, but really have no idea where it’s specifically deployed in car construction, other than a temporary understanding gleaned from studying coloured schematics that the manufacturers release when showing their new car. 

        I guess I was just sprouting the first thing that came into my mind, which keeps me in  pretty good company on this website :)

  • symo

    I was wondering how long the 5 star system will remain the standard, with more and more cars achieving this rating soon there will have to be a 6 star or more added.

  • mo

    I must say I support the US on this one. The test just segregates the safe cars from the extremely safe cars. Sure passing that test makes cars heavier and less fuel effiencient (duh… So does all safety gear). Don’t like it? Buy a car which doesn’t pass that test.

    As they say, this test represents 25% of fatal crashes so it’s clearly relevant.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YQLKLFNYP3UFBFAGOV2LNDSREA Robert Ryan

      ANCAP is one of the few testing places in the world that do this test. I think the japanese do it as well.

  • Michael Lock

    I agree with the US testers here, many front on accidents are only impacting less than 30 or 25% of the frontal area so it is very relevant. 
    What would also help the safety over there would be to increase the taxes and reduce the subsides on on huge vehicles like the Ford F series, Dodge Ram and Chev Silerado. Getting hit by one of these and it wouldn’t matter what you are driving, The F series is still (after 30 years straight) their TOP SELLING vehicle….by a country mile.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YQLKLFNYP3UFBFAGOV2LNDSREA Robert Ryan

       We are traveling in a similar path, Japanese Pickups were in the top ten of cars sold in Australia.

      • Rian Bob

        As was the Ford Ranger.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1798737057 Gianni Matthews

    Well well. America finally learnt that bigger isn’t better.

  • Jim Xu

    This was the same argument used when they first introduced frontal offset crashing.  Industry just has to adapt.

  • Bob Budding

    Shame on Mercedes.  Three of eleven cars received “Good” ratings on the small overlap test, so improving safety in this type of crash is easily handled with current technology.  It simply needs to be an engineering priority.