The LEAST safe cars of 2006

[BrewSwillis]

By Forbes.com Crash results point out two not-so-surprising facts: cheap equals less safe, and you really, really need to order side airbags. The least-safe cars on the market are like the least-safe neighborhoods in a big city: affordable, but not pretty. With an average base price of $15,323 and no prices higher than $19,555, the six least-safe cars on the market come from companies Forbes.com does not ordinarily cover, such as Hyundai, Kia and Suzuki. Some models from these brands -- which are hardly for social climbers -- satisfy bargain hunters but require them to take their chances with personal safety. Hyundai's Elantra, Kia's Optima and Suzuki's Forenza sedans -- like the other vehicles in the slide show -- achieved ratings of "poor," the lowest possible, in two of three Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) crash tests (all the cars received their failing grades on the side- and rear-impact tests). The 2006 model year is young. Not all new cars have crash-test scores available, but many do, and here are the six with the worst crashworthiness. The least-safe cars of 2006: Toyota Corolla Hyundai Elantra Nissan Sentra Kia Optima Suzuki Forenza Mazda6

[CSpec]

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=169

Yeah.... no.

[BrewSwillis]

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=169

Yeah.... no.

[post="51233"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yeah.......yeah:

Side impact test results
Overall scores shown; follow links for test details and component scores

Acceptable - 2005-06 models tested with optional front and rear head curtain airbags and optional front seat-mounted torso airbags

POOR - 2003-06 models tested without optional side airbags

Rear crash protection/head restraint ratings
See results for all Toyota models

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=305

Check here for the REAR (also POOR) crash tests for Toyotas: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/head_restraints/head_toyota.html

Read the article. It says SIDE and REAR crash tests. You posted the FRONTAL OFFSET TEST results. Then it also says to buy the side airbags.....which are optional on the Corolla.....or else you get a POOR rating just like the Corolla did. Edited December 1, 2005 by CSpec

[Newbiewar]

By Forbes.com
Crash results point out two not-so-surprising facts: cheap equals less safe, and you really, really need to order side airbags.

The least-safe cars on the market are like the least-safe neighborhoods in a big city: affordable, but not pretty.

With an average base price of $15,323 and no prices higher than $19,555, the six least-safe cars on the market come from companies Forbes.com does not ordinarily cover, such as Hyundai, Kia and Suzuki. Some models from these brands -- which are hardly for social climbers -- satisfy bargain hunters but require them to take their chances with personal safety. Hyundai's Elantra, Kia's Optima and Suzuki's Forenza sedans -- like the other vehicles in the slide show -- achieved ratings of "poor," the lowest possible, in two of three Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) crash tests (all the cars received their failing grades on the side- and rear-impact tests).

The 2006 model year is young. Not all new cars have crash-test scores available, but many do, and here are the six with the worst crashworthiness.

The least-safe cars of 2006:
Toyota Corolla
Hyundai Elantra
Nissan Sentra
Kia Optima
Suzuki Forenza
Mazda6

[post="51232"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

:rotflmao: LOL those Hyundai Elantras that come with standard side impact seem to be worthless then!

LOL all of those cars are awesome sellers... and all imports :Toyota: HAHA :rotflmao:

[the_yellow_dart]

The Corolla and 6 being on this list really shock me. The cheapness of the other cars dictates that the money will be saved somewhere, and it doesn't really surprise me.

[CSpec]

Yeah.......yeah:


Read the article.  It says SIDE and REAR crash tests.  You posted the FRONTAL OFFSET TEST results.  Then it also says to buy the side airbags.....which are optional on the Corolla.....or else you get a POOR rating just like the Corolla did.

[post="51238"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Whoops, I hit edit instead of reply at first.

Anyway the Cobalt got POOR without side airbags too. Did anything get above that without the airbags?

[BrewSwillis]

Whoops, I hit edit instead of reply at first.

Anyway the Cobalt got POOR without side airbags too. Did anything get above that without the airbags?

[post="51254"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yeah, try and drag the Cobalt down too. No the Cobalt without the side bags got a POOR rating too......but the Cobalt did get a GOOD (the higest) rating on the rear crash test vs. the Corolla's POOR (worst) rating.

[pow]

Yeah, try and drag the Cobalt down too.  No the Cobalt without the side bags got a POOR rating too......but the Cobalt did get a GOOD (the higest) rating on the rear crash test vs. the Corolla's POOR (worst) rating.

[post="51261"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

There's no "rear crash test," but rather a study of the head rest design. The Corolla doesn't deserve to be on that list because aside from the Cobalt, it's the only small car to get an acceptable rating for the side crash when equipped with curtain bags.

[BrewSwillis]

There's no "rear crash test," but rather a study of the head rest design. The Corolla doesn't deserve to be on that list because aside from the Cobalt, it's the only small car to get an acceptable rating for the side crash when equipped with curtain bags.

[post="51307"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

This is a simulated CRASH performed on the individual seats themselves:

In the dynamic tests measurements are recorded on a dummy (BioRID) representing an average-size man. BioRID is designed specifically for rear-end testing at low to moderate speeds. The dynamic ratings are derived from two seat design parameters (acceleration of the dummy's torso and time from impact initiation to head restraint contact with the dummy's head) plus tension and shear forces recorded on the dummy's neck. Overall ratings are based on both geometric measurements and dynamic results.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

The least-safe cars of 2006:
Toyota Corolla

Priceless... Yet more proof, significant as it may be and slow coming as it all is, that not all is always rosey at Toyota.

Nice to see this in Forbes too, so all those diehard import humpers who buy sheltered 'junior' or 'daddy's girl' a nice new, cute little Corolla can lie restlessly awake at night... I'll stop there :D

Hyundai Elantra
Nissan Sentra
Kia Optima

Not surprising

Suzuki Forenza

This one does surprise me a little.

Mazda6

And this one blows me away! And to think that it is constantly praised...

Seriously though, I think standard side airbags across the board (industry wide) would be a good notion.

[Whistler]

BS. The current Corolla is one of the safest compacts on the road today.

[Sixty8panther]

I know for a fact that the Corolla is the best, safest, most perfect and fuel efficient car ever made. It runs on baby farts and the exhaust fumes smell like roses and fresh baked muffins. The 2003-up Corolla has the molecular bondage shell that was tested on the Knigh 2000 prototypes, completely impenetrable by anything from H2 bumpers to telephone poles. Someone must have obviously made a mistake! :P Edited December 4, 2005 by Sixty8panther

[Flybrian]

I think Forbes simply looked at the cheapest, least-equipped models without added safety features to arrive at this list. Safety is more than crash protection; its crash avoidance, which includes braking, acceleration, handling characteristics, traction/stability control devices, and inherent stability. These are aspects glaringly and even self-admittedly omitted in this Forbes regugitation of IIHS ranking, which can be readily (and more accurately) be found on the IIHS website. The automotive section of Forbes.com is apparently edited by Dan Lienart, which explains its inherent flaws and inaccuracy (Lienart is as Lienart does). Whatever he is, its crystal that by this and other 'features' on Forbes that he just likes playing with big boy toys instead of really putting thought and logic into reviewing cars. P.S. Hey, Forbes, fix your fucking overloaded, bogged down website. God...

[Sixty8panther]

Well spoken Fly. If you drove a Z06 Corvette as responsibly as a 57 year old lady drives her Grand Marquis to the church pickinc you'd never have an excuse to get into so much as a curb cruncher. Except for things out of your control lkike someone else rear ending you. But most people who own a Corvette drive it like it's stolen and therefore *screetch, cruch, smash*

[Flybrian]

Actually, most people I've seen/know who own newer or classic Corvettes drive them very well - always signaling, following at a proper distance, and never speeding unless the road is clear of traffic and relatively fuzz-free. They like crusing, not paying even higher insurance premiums. Its the idiots who buy the fourth-hand C4 'Vettes with 150k on the clock that drive like total shit, weaving in and out of traffic, doing neutral drops at stoplights to impress the underage high school chicks, and ending up as chunks of fiberglass strewn across a parking lot after doing donuts and running into a light pole.

[andy82471]

Well spoken Fly.

If you drove a Z06 Corvette as responsibly as a 57 year old lady drives her Grand Marquis to the church pickinc you'd never have an excuse to get into so much as a curb cruncher. Except for things out of your control lkike someone else rear ending you.
But most people who own a Corvette drive it like it's stolen and therefore *screetch, cruch, smash*

[post="52544"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Actually most people I see driving Vetts and Vipers are 40+ year old. I even saw one guy who must be in his 70s driving a new 06 Vette. Most young people dont have the cash to buy Vetts anyway. And most of the older people I see driving these cars really take it easy on the gas pedal. Most people don't like to abuse a 50 grand car. The people who I see driving like maniacs are people driving their souped up Acuras and Hondas.

[Whistler]

I know for a fact that the Corolla is the best, safest, most perfect and fuel efficient car ever made. It runs on baby farts and the exhaust fumes smell like roses and fresh baked muffins. The 2003-up Corolla has the molecular bondage shell that was tested on the Knigh 2000 prototypes, completely impenetrable by anything from H2 bumpers to telephone poles.
Someone must have obviously made a mistake! :P

[post="52517"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/image.ashx?rh=169&id=2

What was GM selling in the compact field when that car came out (2003)?

Cavalier:
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/image.ashx?rh=45&id=2

Grand Am:
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/image.ashx?rh=137&id=2

Malibu:
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/image.ashx?rh=136&id=2

Ouch :(

What about DCX?

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/image.ashx?rh=119&id=2

So yeah... I'd feel pretty safe in the Corolla.

This was in 2003. The 21st century.

Thank god they finally got with the program on the Cobalt and Epsilon cars.

[Cory Wolfe]

Well... last time I checked, this was the year 2005, about to be 2006. Since automakers don't come out with new vehicles each and every year... it is a fair assumption that the Corolla is, in fact, one of the least safest vehicles for 2006. Whether it was introduced is irrelevant. I could say the same for many other vehicles but it just doesn't work that way. "My 95 Grand Am was margainally safe when it came out... So that's my excuse for it being one of 2006's least safest vehicles." :D :P

[Cremazie]

Well... last time I checked, this was the year 2005, about to be 2006. Since automakers don't come out with new vehicles each and every year... it is a fair assumption that the Corolla is, in fact, one of the least safest vehicles for 2006. Whether it was introduced is irrelevant. I could say the same for many other vehicles but it just doesn't work that way. "My 95 Grand Am was margainally safe when it came out... So that's my excuse for it being one of 2006's least safest vehicles." :D :P

[post="53020"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Joking or not, you are right. The Corolla is not as safe as other new cars being sold. I don't see GM selling the old J and N bodys anytime in the future. (to ppl that own them, just don't run into people) :P

[Whistler]

All three of those GMs I listed were still in production in 2005. You can still go pick up a "brand new" Grand Am, Sunfire, or Malibu Classic on a lot of GM's lots. It is nothing to be proud of that it took GM until 2005 to FINALLY come up with a small car that wouldn't fold in half in a frontal collision. And then they wonder why nobody respects their small cars... DUH.

But thats not the point.

Take another look at the pic of the 03-06 Corolla. Be it 2003, 2006, or 2026, I'd feel safe in that car. A 95 Grand Am? Sorry, not so much. Even now, the Cobalt does NO better than the 2003 design Corolla in any IIHS test, other than seat design in rear collisions (Acceptable on Corolla, Good on Cobalt). The Corolla beats the Cobalt in all catagories of the NHTSA test.

I want to know how Forbes came up with that list. I don't understand how a car that was given 5 stars each by the NHTSA for passenger/driver in frontal tests, 4 stars for side tests, and was rated an IIHS best pick for frontal collision can all of the sudden become unsafe because Forbes magazine says so.

NHTSA Corolla VS Cobalt:

http://www.safercar.gov/NCAP/Cars/3445.html

http://www.safercar.gov/NCAP/Cars/3583.html Edited December 5, 2005 by Whistler

[SoCalCTS]

I want to know how Forbes came up with that list. I don't understand how a car that was given 5 stars each by the NHTSA for passenger/driver in frontal tests, 4 stars for side tests, and was rated an IIHS best pick for frontal collision can all of the sudden become unsafe because Forbes magazine says so.

[post="53128"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Well, for one thing NHTSA lets car makers use optional equipment such as side airbags in their tests. They test once without and if the manufacturers don't like the score then they supply a new car with the optional equipment.

The truth is that very few people will spring for the extra expense of side impact air bags.

Not many collisions are dead on into a wall like the IHS test either. So frontal collision safety doesn't tell the whole story either.

I think the Forbes article reasonably makes its case from the data at hand.

[Cory Wolfe]

All three of those GMs I listed were still in production in 2005. You can still go pick up a "brand new" Grand Am, Sunfire, or Malibu Classic on a lot of GM's lots.  It is nothing to be proud of that it took GM until 2005 to FINALLY come up with a small car that wouldn't fold in half in a frontal collision. And then they wonder why nobody respects their small cars... DUH.

But thats not the point.

Take another look at the pic of the 03-06 Corolla. Be it 2003, 2006, or 2026, I'd feel safe in that car. A 95 Grand Am? Sorry, not so much. Even now, the Cobalt does NO better than the 2003 design Corolla in any IIHS test, other than seat design in rear collisions (Acceptable on Corolla, Good on Cobalt). The Corolla beats the Cobalt in all catagories of the NHTSA test.

[post="53128"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Still, this was for 2006 vehicles... Grand Ams and Sunfire are not available anymore. 2005 was the last year, duh. :P Besides, Malibu Classic was for fleets only. If one is on a dealer's lot it is used. That and the Grand Am was only sold to give a coupe alternative to the G6 for the time being. The Sunfire... well, do you see a replacement? No, didn't think so.

You really missed my point about my 95 GA. Re-read what I said and come up with an answer that shows any signs that you understood what I said... maybe then I could reply.

[Whistler]

I didn't miss your point. The 95 Grand Am was moderately safe in 1995. That was 11 years ago, and even so, it is still considered a moderately safe car today. Nobody ever rated with a top score, went to sleep, and then woke up the next morning to find that it had transformed into a deathtrap. The 2003 Corolla got 5 star ratings all around in 2003 and a best pick. This was 3 years ago. It got the same ratings (slightly better) in 2004, 2 years ago. In 2005, last year, nothing changed. Finally, it repeated its stellar performance again in 2006, this model year. Nothing has changed according to the IIHS and NHTSA. Now Forbes is saying it is all of the sudden one of the least crashworthy cars on the road. In what way? Wheres the explanation? In what kind of tests? By who? They offer no supporting data other than saying that "cheap cars are like the cheap parts of the neighbourhood", Forbes "doesn't normally cover these types of brands", and that people who buy economy cars "are not social climbers". What the hell is that supposed to mean? Sorry we aren't all elitist pricks who drive Bentleys and light our cigars with $100 bills, Forbes. Even the most die hard GM fan who hates Toyota with all their heart should be wondering how that makes sense. Unless they are completely ignorant and blind to facts. GM fans ALWAYS complain about media ignorance and how the general press has no clue what they are talking about when it comes to automotive issues. Now, here is a blatant example in your face, and people are parading it around as gospel just because it makes imports look bad and not GM. Edited December 5, 2005 by Whistler

[Cory Wolfe]

Nope.. you still missed my point. :D I was just joking with the Grand Am comment... See? I told you that you missed it. You do make a legible point. I mean... I don't know if you noticed but my posts in this thread haven't been very serious. Cremazie picked up on it... I was just going by the article and what was posted. It was an act of boredom to have some fun. You took it seriously, though... :P

[Whistler]

BTW I did a search on that Forbes article... Guess who wrote it: Dan Lienert The same moron who wrote the HHR bash fest that was so harsh against GM that Bob Lutz himself came out to defend himself against it. The same Dan Lienert who does all the "Dan and Anita" reviews, the least useful and most incomprehensible column in the automotive press. Why am I not surprised :rolleyes: .

[Flybrian]

BTW I did a search on that Forbes article...

Guess who wrote it: Dan Lienert

The same moron who wrote the HHR bash fest that was so harsh against GM that Bob Lutz himself came out to defend himself against it.

The same Dan Lienert who does all the "Dan and Anita" reviews, the least useful and most incomprehensible column in the automotive press.

Why am I not surprised  :rolleyes: .

[post="53312"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Hey, I pointed that out first! :P

Anyway, Dan is Paul and Anita's son, which explains his predeliction for being a lousy auto 'journalist.' Its very unprofessional to dump on the cars in the fashion he did before any conclusions were officially drawn. It shows his lineage clear as day.

I agree with your points, though, and they are valid. One thing I'll say against the Corolla is that the '03 feels very skittery even in normal driving, probably due to the taller structure compared to the previous gen.

[Whistler]

Sorry Brian I didn't catch that B) . And I never even realized that it was a different guy in the reviews with Anita... I guess bad writing runs in the Lienert family...

[BrewSwillis]

The 2003 Corolla got 5 star ratings all around in 2003 and a best pick. This was 3 years ago. It got the same ratings (slightly better) in 2004, 2 years ago. In 2005, last year, nothing changed. Finally, it repeated its stellar performance again in 2006, this model year. Nothing has changed according to the IIHS and NHTSA.

Now Forbes is saying it is all of the sudden one of the least crashworthy cars on the road. In what way? Wheres the explanation? In what kind of tests? By who? They offer no supporting data other than saying that "cheap cars are like the cheap parts of the neighbourhood", Forbes "doesn't normally cover these types of brands", and that people who buy economy cars "are not social climbers". What the hell is that supposed to mean?

[post="53303"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I don't think Toyota needs you lying for them, as they are doing fine on their own.

Here's the link to the side crash test: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=305

As I hope you can see, the 2003-2006 Corolla got a POOR SIDE IMPACT rating without side airbags, and an ACCEPTABLE SIDE IMPACT rating with the side airbags. This in no way translates to a 5 STAR "All Around" rating.

Here is the HEAD RESTRAINT ratings: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/head_restraints/head_toyota.html

As I hope you can see, the 2003-2004 Corolla got an overall score of ACCEPTABLE for seats with an adjustable height, and the 2005-2006 Corolla got an overall rating of POOR for all seats. This also in no way translates to 5 STARS "All Around".

Forbes states clearly in their article that their ratings were based on side and rear impacts only, and they suggested that if you purchase one of those vehicles, you be best off getting the optional side air bags.

[Whistler]

The Corolla got the exact same side impact score as the Cobalt. It actually did better than the Cobalt if you use the NHTSA test. Do you consider the Cobalt unsafe too? Or is it only unsafe if its and import? The ONLY compact car that I have found which beats the Corolla in side impact tests is the new 2006 Civic with side airbags which got a "Good" rating. Focus? Poor. Mazda 3? Poor. Saturn Ion? Poor (WITH SIDE AIRBAGS!). Sentra? Poor. Neon? Poor. The Corolla is at or above average in all catagories except for the head restraint design (on cars without the hight adjusting seat). So, you have a chance of getting whiplash in a crash at "low to moderate speeds". And you say I'm being misleading? The title of the thread is "LEAST safe cars of 2006". Not "LEAST safe cars of 2006 which get 5 stars in frontal collision, 4 stars in side impact, but have a poor head restraint which may cause injury in low to moderate speed rear collisions". You, Forbes, and Dan Leinert would have us believe that a poor rating of the Corolla's headrest at low to moderate speeds means the car is unsafe and un-crashworthy. Forget the fact that it holds up spectacularly in a frontal collision, or the fact that it has average/above-average scores in side collisions, if you have a POSSIBILITY of injury at LOW TO MODERATE speeds it MUST be an unsafe car. Logic, the IIHS, and NHTSA state otherwise. Anyone with half a brain who looks at the Corolla's ratings with these two agencies and compares them with the scores of other cars in the same class would see that it is a VERY safe car. Dan Leinert has no idea what hes talking about. I'll take the cold data from the IIHS and NHTSA before I take Leinert's perverted interpretations any day. If Leinert threw a domestic in there you guys would be whining about how biased and stupid he was, just like you whined about how biased and stupid he was when he bashed GM in the HHR article. But, as long as he bashes imports his word is gospel. Whatever :rolleyes: . Edited December 6, 2005 by Whistler

[Intrepidation]

I know for a fact that the Corolla is the best, safest, most perfect and fuel efficient car ever made. It runs on baby farts and the exhaust fumes smell like roses and fresh baked muffins. The 2003-up Corolla has the molecular bondage shell that was tested on the Knigh 2000 prototypes, completely impenetrable by anything from H2 bumpers to telephone poles.
Someone must have obviously made a mistake! :P

[post="52517"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

lmao :rotflmao:

[Intrepidation]

The ONLY compact car that I have found which beats the Corolla in side impact tests is the new 2006 Civic with side airbags which got a "Good" rating. Focus? Poor. Mazda 3? Poor. Saturn Ion? Poor (WITH SIDE AIRBAGS!). Sentra? Poor. Neon? Poor.

I haven't looked these up, nor do I really care, but it is unfair to judge the Neon, it's ancient after all, and also since it's being replaced by the Caliber. I'd like to see how that does in cash tests.

[grandmarquis]

personally, i could not care less about crash ratings. if, instead of making cars more chrashworthy we made DRIVERS less crashworthy, maybe this would not even be an issue. but no, that would politically incorrect, because people can NEVER be responsible for their actions, for that would not make the lawyers any money.

[Variance]

personally, i could not care less about crash ratings. if, instead of making cars more chrashworthy we made DRIVERS less crashworthy, maybe this would not even be an issue. but no, that would politically incorrect, because people can NEVER be responsible for their actions, for that would not make the lawyers any money.

[post="104498"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Accidents still happen to even the best of drivers. There are some accidents and crashes all the driving skill in the world won't prevent.

[ponchoman49]

Whoever did the crash test results on the Toyota better watch out. They could find assasins out to kill them for such blasphemy.