IIHS - First Selection of Top Safety Picks

[pow]

THE WINNERS
TOP SAFETY PICKS 2006
CARS & MINIVANS

Large:

Gold -- Ford Five Hundred/Mercury Montego w/ opt airbags
Silver -- Audi A6


Midsize:

Gold -- Saab 9-3, Subaru Legacy
Silver -- Audi A3, Audi A4, Chevrolet Malibu w/ opt airbags, VW Jetta, VW Passat


Small:

Gold -- Honda Civic


Minivans: (none)

Gold = "good" in frontal, side, and seat/headrestraint
Silver = "good" in frontal and side, "acceptable" seat/headrestraint

ARLINGTON, VA — The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety today announces 10 cars (2006 models) that win its first ever Top Safety Pick award. The awards recognize car designs that afford the best protection for people in front, side, and rear crashes, based on performance in Institute tests. The winning vehicles were chosen from among current models of small, midsize, and large cars plus minivans. There's a winner in three of these four groups. The winners include 2 large car designs, 7 midsize cars, and 1 small car. No minivans meet the Institute's criteria to earn a Top Safety Pick. Pickups and SUVs weren't included in this round of awards because side impact tests of most of these vehicles haven't been conducted yet.

"Now that we're rating vehicles' front, side, and rear crashworthiness, based on test performance, we decided to give consumers an overall assessment based on all three tests. These Top Safety Picks are replacing our previous 'best pick' designations that were awarded separately for front and side crash test performance," Institute president Brian O'Neill explains. "The new awards mean consumers can compare cars' ratings more quickly and easily. They won't have to review multiple sets of test results separately. And when we test new car designs as they are introduced next year, it's possible that some additional models will be added to the 2006 Top Safety Picks."

Criteria to win gold and silver awards: Top Safety Pick winners reflect an elite fraction of the car market. Winners of the gold award have earned good ratings in the Institute's frontal offset and side impact crash tests, and their seat/head restraints are rated good for protection against neck injuries in rear impacts. Silver awards go to vehicles with good performance in the front and side crash tests plus acceptable seat/head restraint ratings. Awards are by car size class because vehicle size and weight influence occupant protection in serious crashes. Larger, heavier cars generally afford more protection than smaller, lighter ones. Top Safety Picks indicate the best choices for safety within each size class, but they don't mean a small car that's an award winner affords better protection than a larger car that didn't win a Top Safety Pick.

Almost all of the 10 winners are relatively new designs, and they all have side airbags designed to protect people's heads. This reflects the improvements manufacturers have been making in the side and rear crash protection afforded by their newer cars (most vehicles have afforded good occupant protection in frontal crashes for several years).

"This is one reason Volkswagen and Audi cars are 5 of the 10 award winners. This company has introduced 5 new designs since the 2005 model year and made the commitment to ensure that these designs perform well in Institute tests," O'Neill points out.

Winners by vehicle size class: Among large family cars, the Ford Five Hundred and its twin Mercury Montego were new designs for the 2005 model year. However, only the models with optional side airbags are Top Safety Pick winners. Another winner is the Audi A6, a large luxury model that was redesigned for the 2005 model year.

"The midsize group is the heart of the car market," O'Neill says. "About 40 percent of new cars sold every year are midsize, so it's good news that consumers have a number of Top Safety Pick choices in this size group from moderately priced to near luxury models." Seven of the 10 Top Safety Picks are midsize. The Saab 9-3 and Subaru Legacy are gold award winners. The Audi A3, A4, Chevrolet Malibu with optional side airbags, and Volkswagen Passat and Jetta are silver award winners.

The Honda Civic is the only small car among the 13 the Institute has evaluated that meets the criteria for a Top Safety Pick. It's the only car in this size group that has earned a good overall rating in the Institute's side impact test.

No minivans are among the award winners. This doesn't mean minivans are unsafe. It means none of the current designs the Institute has tested meets the award criteria. The Honda Odyssey, Toyota Sienna, and Nissan Quest are rated good for front and side crashworthiness, but their seat/head restraints are marginal or poor.

Automakers had opportunity to strive for awards: Earlier this year the Institute alerted automakers about the upcoming Top Safety Pick award and the criteria that would have to be met to earn one. The Institute offered to conduct early tests of any vehicles the manufacturers thought would be candidates for the award. Thus, all current car and minivan models were eligible for consideration.

"A number of automakers requested early tests, and based on our discussions with the automakers we believe no other 2006 models would meet our Top Safety Pick criteria," O'Neill says. A number of major automakers including BMW, Mercedes, Nissan, Toyota, and Volvo aren't represented in the first set of winners.

How vehicles are evaluated: The Institute's frontal crashworthiness evaluations are based on results of frontal offset crash tests at 40 mph. Each vehicle's overall evaluation is based on measurements of intrusion into the occupant compartment, injury measures from a Hybrid III dummy in the driver seat, and analysis of slow-motion film to assess how well the restraint system controlled dummy movement during the test.

Each vehicle's overall side evaluation is based on performance in a crash test in which the side of the vehicle is struck by a moving barrier representing the front end of a pickup or SUV. Ratings reflect injury measures recorded on two instrumented SID-IIs dummies, assessment of head protection countermeasures, and the vehicle's structural performance during the impact. Injury measures obtained from the two dummies, one in the driver seat and the other in the rear seat behind the driver, are used to determine the likelihood that a driver and/or passenger in a real-world crash would have sustained serious injury to various body regions. The movements and contacts of the dummies' heads during the crash also are evaluated. Structural performance is based on measurements indicating the amount of B-pillar intrusion into the occupant compartment.

Rear crash protection is rated according to a two-step procedure. Starting points for the ratings are measurements of head restraint geometry — the height of a restraint and its horizontal distance behind the back of the head of an average-size man. Seats with good or acceptable restraint geometry are tested dynamically using a dummy that measures forces on the neck. This test simulates a collision in which a stationary vehicle is struck in the rear at 20 mph. Seats without good or acceptable geometry are rated poor overall because they cannot be positioned to protect many people.

Surprisingly, they didn't have a separate PR for the '06 Civic crash result, as they normally do with new vehicle designs.

[regfootball]

i am still upset i was unable to get my 500 equipped as i wanted with the side airbags. a little too rare, IMHO. it should be STANDARD. still it gets 5 star side impact without em.

[Satty]

i am still upset i was unable to get my 500 equipped as i wanted with the side airbags.  a little too rare, IMHO.  it should be STANDARD.  still it gets 5 star side impact without em.

[post="53173"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Its good to know you'll be safe when your gas tank falls out. :P :blink: :D

[regfootball]

Its good to know you'll be safe when your gas tank falls out. :P  :blink:  :D

[post="53178"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

mine's an 06 so i don't think the straps are bad. by the way, that was a supplier who deceitfully built the part to a spec less than that which they designed it for. nice try satty. Edited December 6, 2005 by regfootball

[Satty]

mine's an 06 so i don't think the straps are bad.  by the way, that was a supplier who deceitfully built the part to a spec less than that which they designed it for. nice try satty.

[post="53666"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I know it was the supplier, I was just playing around. This seemed like one of those threads that, if I didn't come in and say something retarded, it would die with only one response. And how un-coll is that? All threads deserve a reply or two, and when I saw what you said about the 500, I jumped in.

[G. David Felt]

500 <_< Another BORING car equal to the Camry, civic, etc. Ford needs to wake up to rear wheel drive and some exciting sheet metal. <_< The 2006 auto season will be an interesting one, I think we will see many things fail, not because of quality but because of lack of excitement. Wrong product made for the market. Motor Trend auto of the year. Got my latest edition in the mail last night. <_< The BUTT UGLY Civic is their pick as best. The review was a joke as they need to keep their asian paying friends happy. <_<

[regfootball]

I know it was the supplier, I was just playing around.  This seemed like one of those threads that, if I didn't come in and say something retarded, it would die with only one response.  And how un-coll is that?  All threads deserve a reply or two, and when I saw what you said about the 500, I jumped in.

[post="53672"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

:P

[regfootball]

500  Ford needs to wake up to rear wheel drive

[post="53774"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Ford GT
Ford Mustang
Ford Crown Vic

they do have SOME RWD....

was that a camaro i saw? no, it was just a picture of DAYS GONE BY Edited December 6, 2005 by regfootball

[ponchoman49]

Ford GT
Ford Mustang
Ford Crown Vic

they do have SOME RWD....

was that a camaro i saw?  no, it was just a picture of DAYS GONE BY

[post="53801"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

It's funny how everybody pans the 500/Montego as being so dull and boring. These are great cars people. Ok so they look like a bloated Audi/Passat but that is hardly a bad thing. Driving one of these cars reveals an exceptionally roomy sedan with a commanding view of the road. The trunk is huge, back seat room is huge, headroom is pletifull. These cars have considerably more advanced trannys than anything GM currently has, AWD is available and the prices are very reasonable. From the 20 or so versions I have examined, quality control looks to be very good too! And I can't understand the stupid media saying the 500 is so underpowered. My front drive CVT rental consistantly banged off 7.5 second runs to 60 and had very strong mid range and highway punch. How many GM models accellerate to 60 in 7.5 seconds. Lets see, the new Impala does 8.3 with the base more powerfull 3500, 7.8 seconds with the big 3900 V6 and takes a V8 to really beat Fords little 3.0 liter V6. Malibus with the 3500 do 7.6 seconds according to Motor Trend. The new Lucerne with it's weaker 197 hp 3800 will probably be close to 8.5-9.0 seconds. The V8 Lucerne needs a 275 hp Northstar to do a 7.5 second run. It takes a high powered V8 or a S/C 3800 to beet the fwd 500/Montego. This Duratec may look small on paper but it provides plenty of power for 98% of the driving most americans do. And might I add that Ford wasn't as stupid as GM in discontinuing their RWD pony car and their full sized V8 model because they didn't want to ever invest in keeping them up to date. Ford at least has had the balls to introduce a nice new retro Mustang, the T-bird several years back and has continually updated the Crown Vic with new steering, stiffer frames, engine/tranny refinements and several styling refreshes along the way plus that neat Maurader. Don't get me wrong, Ford has made many mistakes over the years but no where near as many as the once almighty General!

[Flybrian]

Don't get me wrong, Ford has made many mistakes over the years but no where near as many as the once almighty General!

[post="53907"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Maurader
Blackwood
Thunderbird
Excursion
Freestar/Monterrey
Contour/Mystique

To an extent, Lincoln LS and Jaguar X-Type

That's a nice amount for only the past decade.

And the Maurader was a bad joke. A 2003 model that couldn't beat a 1994 Impala SS.

[regfootball]

It's funny how everybody pans the 500/Montego as being so dull and boring. These are great cars people. Ok so they look like a bloated Audi/Passat but that is hardly a bad thing. Driving one of these cars reveals an exceptionally roomy sedan with a commanding view of the road. The trunk is huge, back seat room is huge, headroom is pletifull. These cars have considerably more advanced trannys than anything GM currently has, AWD is available and the prices are very reasonable. From the 20 or so versions I have examined, quality control looks to be very good too! And I can't understand the stupid media saying the 500 is so underpowered. My front drive CVT rental consistantly banged off 7.5 second runs to 60 and had very strong mid range and highway punch. How many GM models accellerate to 60 in 7.5 seconds. Lets see, the new Impala does 8.3 with the base more powerfull 3500, 7.8 seconds with the big 3900 V6 and takes a V8 to really beat Fords little 3.0 liter V6. Malibus with the 3500 do 7.6 seconds according to Motor Trend. The new Lucerne with it's weaker 197 hp 3800 will probably be close to 8.5-9.0 seconds. The V8 Lucerne needs a 275 hp Northstar to do a 7.5 second run. It takes a high powered V8 or a S/C 3800 to beet the fwd 500/Montego. This Duratec may look small on paper but it provides plenty of power for 98% of the driving most americans do. And might I add that Ford wasn't as stupid as GM in  discontinuing their RWD pony car and their full sized V8 model because they didn't want to ever invest in keeping them up to date. Ford at least has had the balls to introduce a nice new retro Mustang, the T-bird several years back and has continually updated the Crown Vic with new steering, stiffer frames, engine/tranny refinements and several styling refreshes along the way plus that neat Maurader. Don't get me wrong, Ford has made many mistakes over the years but no where near as many as the once almighty General!

[post="53907"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

yes the 500 is a much better car than folks are giving it credot for. the first time my wife drove it she said, "holy crap this thing steers tight"

[regfootball]

Maurader
Blackwood
Thunderbird
Excursion
Freestar/Monterrey
Contour/Mystique

To an extent, Lincoln LS and Jaguar X-Type

That's a nice amount for only the past decade.

And the Maurader was a bad joke. A 2003 model that couldn't beat a 1994 Impala SS.

[post="54024"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

i don't think you can call the LS and Contour mistakes. The contour was a SIZE mistake. but drive an SVT contour and you'll wonder if there was any domestic car in that time period from about 95 to 03 or so that was a more fun car to drive. The LS was a good car they just abondoned too soon.

the others are rippable, as much as any CSV or lack of a camaro.

let's all join hands and sing kumbaya and mend those GM/Ford fences.

[Imaj]

No Toyota..