In a recent, more rigorous side-impact crash test introduced by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), the majority of Small Suvs demonstrated inadequate protection, highlighting significant safety concerns. Out of 20 small SUVs evaluated, only one, the 2021 Mazda CX-5, achieved a “good” rating, the highest possible. This new test aims to simulate more severe, real-world side-impact collisions that continue to result in fatalities and serious injuries.
“We raised our side-impact test standards because we saw that further safety improvements were needed,” stated IIHS President David Harkey. “These initial results for small SUVs indicate there is still considerable progress to be made. The “good” rating of the Mazda CX-5 proves that enhanced protection in a more forceful side crash is achievable.”
Nine small SUVs managed to secure “acceptable” ratings. These included the Audi Q3, Buick Encore, Chevrolet Trax, Honda CR-V, Nissan Rogue, Subaru Forester, Toyota RAV4, Toyota Venza, and Volvo XC40. However, a significant number of vehicles received lower marks, with eight models – Chevrolet Equinox, Ford Escape, GMC Terrain, Hyundai Tucson, Jeep Compass, Jeep Renegade, Kia Sportage, and Lincoln Corsair – earning “marginal” ratings. The Honda HR-V and Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross performed the worst, receiving “poor” ratings.
It’s important to note that most of the tested vehicles were 2021 models, with the exception of the 2020 Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross, as Mitsubishi skipped the 2021 model year for this vehicle. The ratings are applicable to 2022 models as well, excluding the Jeep Compass and Hyundai Tucson which may have changes.
According to IIHS Senior Research Engineer Becky Mueller, who was instrumental in developing the new test protocol, the results were anticipated. “While these outcomes are not encouraging overall, they align with our expectations for this more challenging evaluation,” Mueller explained. The new ratings effectively expose the varied levels of side-impact protection offered by vehicles that previously excelled in the older side crash test.
Understanding the New, More Demanding Side Crash Test
Previously, all 20 small SUVs had achieved “good” ratings in the original IIHS side crash test. This older test, introduced in 2003, has been instrumental in improving vehicle safety over the years. Initially, only about 20% of vehicles earned a “good” rating, but advancements in vehicle design and safety technology have led to widespread “good” ratings under the original protocol.
A 2011 study using a decade of crash data demonstrated the life-saving impact of these improvements. The study revealed that drivers in vehicles with a “good” side-impact rating were 70 percent less likely to die in a left-side collision compared to those in vehicles with a “poor” rating. Despite this progress, side-impact crashes still accounted for a significant 23 percent of passenger vehicle occupant fatalities in 2019, indicating a need for further enhancements.
The updated side crash test represents a significant step up in stringency. It employs a heavier barrier, weighing 4,200 pounds, approximating the weight of contemporary midsize SUVs, and increases the impact speed to 37 mph, up from 3,300 pounds and 31 mph in the original test. These changes result in a collision with 82 percent more energy, creating a much more demanding scenario for vehicle safety structures and occupant protection systems.
Furthermore, the honeycomb striking surface of the new barrier is designed to mimic the impact characteristics of a real SUV or pickup truck, providing a more realistic simulation of side-impact crashes.
Key Factors in Side-Impact Rating
Similar to the original test, the updated side-impact rating is determined by evaluating several critical factors. These include the structural integrity of the occupant compartment, injury measurements recorded from dummies positioned in both the driver and rear passenger seats, and the effectiveness of airbag protection for the heads of both dummies. The SID-IIs dummy, representing a small woman or a 12-year-old child, is used in both seating positions.
The new test revealed substantial variations in the level of protection offered by these small SUVs, particularly concerning pelvic and chest injuries. Only five vehicles achieved “good” or “acceptable” scores across all injury measures for these critical body regions.
Researchers suggest that the design of the new striking barrier, which tends to bend around the B-pillar (the structural pillar between the front and rear doors), may contribute to these results. This bending action can create depressions in the vehicle doors, potentially compromising the occupant space even if the B-pillar itself withstands the higher impact forces. To improve performance in this tougher test, manufacturers may need to reinforce door beams horizontally to minimize intrusion and refine torso and pelvis airbags for enhanced coverage and cushioning.
Structural Weakness and Injury Risks
Real-world crash data confirms that stronger vehicle structures are directly linked to improved survival rates in side-impact collisions. While all 20 small SUVs achieved “good” structural ratings in the original test, only eight maintained this rating in the new, higher-energy evaluation. Notably, the Honda HR-V, the worst performer in structural integrity, showed significant B-pillar deformation, with tearing from the frame allowing the side of the vehicle to crush inward dangerously close to the driver’s seating position.
Vehicles with “marginal” or “poor” overall ratings in the new test generally exhibited both structural vulnerabilities and elevated injury measurements for chest and pelvis regions in both dummies. In the case of the HR-V, the weak B-pillar contributed to higher injury readings. Similarly, the Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross, which received a “poor” rating for driver chest protection, suffered from a combination of structural weakness and inadequate seat-mounted torso airbags.
Interestingly, the Chevrolet Equinox and its GMC Terrain counterpart, while receiving “marginal” overall ratings, demonstrated strong structural performance. However, they were downgraded due to insufficient head protection and elevated head injury risk for the rear passenger, along with higher chest injury measures for the driver.
The nine “acceptable”-rated vehicles missed a “good” rating for diverse reasons, including marginal driver chest injury in the Buick Encore, inadequate head-protecting airbags in the Nissan Rogue, and increased driver pelvis injury measures in the Toyota RAV4.
“There isn’t one single factor causing fatalities in side crashes, but these test results clearly indicate specific areas needing improvement to save lives,” Mueller concluded.
While improvements are crucial, consumers should note that both the original and updated side-impact ratings will be published for all evaluated vehicles for the time being. A “good” rating in the original side test will remain a requirement for IIHS Top Safety Pick and Top Safety Pick+ awards until 2023, when the new, more stringent side test will replace the original one in award criteria. This transition underscores the ongoing commitment to enhancing vehicle safety and reducing fatalities in side-impact collisions, particularly for popular small SUVs.
