Bigger Is Safer – Used Car Safety Ratings Guide
July 25, 2007 by Alborz Fallah
5-stars, 4-stars, 3-stars, it doesn’t seem to matter, the bigger the car, the safer, according to QLD’s RACQ. The motoring body yesterday released the Used Car Safety Ratings Guide and urged all motorists to check safety ratings before buying a used car.
With over 279 vehicles tested, the RACQ guide noted a significant difference between the best and the worst rating vehicles.
“the ratings indicate that you are 26 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured in the worst rated car than in the best rated car,” RACQ technical services manager Steve Spalding said
Mr Spalding also noted that motorists need to be aware of different model variants of the same car. The study was helped along by Monash University Accident Research Centre which analysed over 2.8 million car crashes in Australian and New Zealand.
So here is the big news, the study shows what many big car owners have been saying for years, despite all the airbags and technological gadgetry, size still matters. Mr Spalding said 86 vehicle models rated better than average, with 35 of those much better than average.
“Heavier vehicles generally performed better, showing the role vehicle mass has in protecting people in crashes, most four-wheel drives were average or better for occupant protection. However, large four-wheel drives have high aggressivity to other road users and are much worse than average on this criterion.” he said.
The data shows the majority of other cars rating above average for occupant protection were either medium or large. These included Australia’s own Falcon and Commodore.
It’s not all bad news for medium car owners, the study found many recent models in the above average rating, with the Toyota Corolla and Holden Astra taking the prize.
European mid-size vehicles also received above average ratings. The study believes European cars are leading the way in safety design. Unfortunately though, it really is bad news for small-car owners. Find ourself in a Toyota Echo or Holden’s miserable Barina, and chances of having a serious injury increase significantly.
The RACQ also warned buyers to think twice about buying a pre-1990 model car.
The cars which were safe all around (both occupant protection and protection for other road users) included:
- VW Golf/Bora 99-04
- Holden Astra 98-05
- Toyota Corolla 98-01
- Honda Accord 91-93
- Mercedes C Class 95-00
- Peugeot 405 89-97
- Subaru Liberty 89-93
- Toyota Cressida 89-93
- Subaru Forester 97-02.
The worse 5:
- Mitsubishi Cordia 83-87
- Ford Falcon 82-88
- Mitsubishi Starwagon/L300 83-86 and 87-93
- Toyota Tarago 83-89
- Toyota Hiace/Liteace 82-86, 87-89, 90-95.
RACQ are still stuck in the dark ages and have so far not issued a copy of the Used Car Safety Ratings Guide online. However you can buy the guide in all RACQ branches. Alternatively, this table will give you similar data.
Print it: 
Ok let me get this right, they are talking about safety star ratings… 4WD are better? Ummmm OF COURSE they on average cost more and as a result offer more safety features. So hardly bigger is better in principal… more expensive car is better.
I think the point is – the heavier the car, the more chance of crushing ur fellow accident victim, so they take the full force, and you take very little.
Correction to my original, they were talking heavier vehicles in general not just 4WD. But it still applies, the lighter vehciles are the cheapest… while on average the heavier the more expensive… so more features.
Yes but what Im saying is that its a hard thing to conclusively say when on average larger vehciles have more safety features… so they are going to score better not neccesarily because of cabin intrusion but because they have the airbags! Although Im sure larger it abit better, most cars these days dont make you eat the dash or have a loss to the strucutal integrity of the vehicle (Barina excluded) no matter how large or small. Maybe this kind of ’study’ would have been useful back in the 80s when a crumple zone was listed as a safety feature.
Double posting again, given that these days any respectable car (newer ones) regardless of side maitains its integrity, people dont die so much of intrusion but the sudden stop. So 1.8 tonne V8 vs 1 tonne Hatchback doesnt have a major difference… when you start talking about trucks then just maybe, because they ride higher up and physically push the other vehicle back.
I think banning Bull bars in urban area’s would be a step in the right direction.
I Think banning all of these off road trucks in urban areas would be just as good! And high powered SUV’S no need for em ! (unless your a bored housewife with eight kids to get to school)….LOL
I’m more terrified of a the 16 year old kid in a hyundai (no offence to hyundai)texting on thier phone with a 3000 watt stereo blairing away.
Quote= “I’m more terrified of a the 16 year old kid in a hyundai (no offence to hyundai)texting on thier phone with a 3000 watt stereo blairing away. ”
Haaaaaaaaaaaaa good one !
These results are issued across the country, so even if you can’t find them on the RACQ site, they won’t be hard to find on the RTA site or whichever part of the country you are in.
No doubt size plays a part, but I certainly wouldn’t make that my deciding factor if I were looking to by a car based on safety. You can get small/medium cars that provide excellent protection, and some that are absolute dogs. Same can be said for 4wds etc.
I’d use these ratings in conjunction with the ANCAP ratings to get a fuller picture.
I had a look at RACQs website on Thursday and found a link to a copy of the Used Car Safety Ratings Guide in the media release page.
I put the link into the website field. Hopefully it will appear above my comment so you can click on it to go there.