YouTube has carried some hilarious footage of smart fourtwo crash tests (including hitting a concrete wall at 70mph) for a while now. Well, the NHTSA has finally crashed a few smarts in the name of insurance ratings safety and the verdict is in: the smart is safer than you might think. The diminutive German car gets four stars for driver safety and three stars for the passenger in the frontal crash test. Side impact testing revealed five-star performance, although a door did open during the test, "increasing the likelihood of passenger ejection." Granted, "starflation" has been an issue for the NHTSA, but like an underachieving politician, the smart is simply playing the expectations game. The fact that the tiny ride didn't explode into a million pieces of wound-irritating fiberglass is probably enough to surprise the average American consumer, who likely sees the smart as a small step up from a Segway scooter in terms of safety. Bring on the Hummer side impact test!
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Isn’t that about the same star rating as a Trailblazer?
Anyone else notice that the red chase car’s front is a bit crumpled? I wonder what happened …
Without crash test dummies, it’s really not possible to judge the result.
From here, it looked as if the steering column would have gone into the chest of the driver. I’m thinking that you’ve got a dead body in the nicely preserved driver’s seat.
i have faith in german engineering, and i doubt they would release (at least unwittingly) an unsafe product on the market. plus, the new smart got 4 stars in the euro ncap test (crashed with dummies inside):
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/smart_fortwo_2007/303.aspx
That woman’s voice is grating.
In the name of balanced reporting bunter 1 its the same stars as a Tundra.
Now in the real world outside of the lab in real conditions with real human bodies.I think I’ll take my chances with the Trailblazer or for that matter the Tundra.
i doubt they would release (at least unwittingly) an unsafe product on the market.
I wasn’t arguing that the car was unsafe. But no car is going to perform very well hitting a solid barrier at 70 mph, and the commentary in the video could be misleading. What’s most relevant is the safety of the driver and passengers, and that wasn’t determined in their test.
the new smart got 4 stars in the euro ncap test
That test is conducted at 40 mph. Not that I have a problem with that, but 70 creates substantially different results from 40. Fortunately, very few accidents involve collisions into fixed objects at a 70 mph closing speed, so there won’t be many real world situations like the one in the video.
“the smart is safer than you might think.”
The Smart is also more expensive than one might think. It’s nice they put some of that high MSRP into safety though.
Assuming that most drivers think they are above average in ability, most drivers will be more worried about how the vehicle will fair when hit by some other vehicle (driven by an average person, who causes the accident). The crash tests don’t account for this possibility, and that is the downfall of light vehicles (and low-to-the-ground vehicles) in safety perception.
Everyone has a self-interest in buying a vehicle safe for themselves in a crash, but nobody has an interest in buying a vehicle that is safe to others in a crash. That leads me to the conclusion that the government has crash-testing all wrong. The government should mandate that vehicles cause only a certain low threshold of damage to other vehicles in a crash.
I agree with Pch101, it certainly looks like that steering wheel would have crushed the chest of the driver.
The other thing that they barely mention in the video is the lower part of the cabin. In the brief shot of the footwell, it seems that even if the driver were to survive, he/she would certainly be legless.
I noticed that the car hit the barrier at an angle and due to its small size and light weight bounced/slid off the concrete. What happens in a real head on with either the concrete or another vehicle? I would bet that after a real head on, at say 40 mph for each vehicle, the Smart would resemble a coke can you stepped on. Crumple zones are what save people in crashes. For my money I’ll take something with more out front sheet metal. Iguess Smart owners are buying life and extended care insurance with the money they save on gas. A guy I know drives a Smart 35 miles to work each day on the highway, that’s just nuts.
Hitting a wall at 70MPH? Isn’t that about the speed that the S-class Mercedes carrying Princess Di was going when it hit the wall?
That’s an ancient Fifth Gear Clip.
Just found it?
Crumple zones only work up to a point, then you run out of zones and the mass to defend yourself with. Without significant mass to oppose another object your going to lose everytime. Just hope something smaller than your car and not fixed to the ground is on the other end./
Au contraire, the commentary in the video was very fair and complete: they do point out that, while the Smart may survive the 70mph crash well, its occupants wouldn’t. The explain how, no matter the vehicle, internal organs cannot withstand such an immediate deceleration.
mikey :
April 4th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
In the name of balanced reporting bunter 1 its the same stars as a Tundra.
Now in the real world outside of the lab in real conditions with real human bodies.I think I’ll take my chances with the Trailblazer or for that matter the Tundra.
The TrailBlazer folds like a cheap suitcase, if I remember correctly. GM’s newer cars do much better.
Heck, even the updated old-as-dirt W-Body (GP/LaCrosse/Impala) do considerably better.
Size doesn’t mean as much as the uninformed consumer thinks in a vehicle crash.
For the price of a Smart, you can buy other cars (e.g. Honda Civic) with more room, better performance and comparable gas mileage. That changes the Smart’s crash worthiness from a significant consideration to an irrelevant curiosity.
You have to be somewhat insane to think that a vehicle that only scores 4/3 stars in a frontal collision against only itself at 1600lbs stands a chance against a 4500+lb vehicle with 5 star ratings. They should run it into the wall at 90mph to get an idea how it would do against a ‘normal’ large car, let alone a truck. Even the side tests are based on the vehicle being able to move after being hit. A 4 star driver/3 star passenger rating with only 1600lbs of mass? Thats horrible. An Expedition EL scores quadruple 5-star ratings against 6000lbs of mass, an exponential resistance to damage.
If it were to hit head on with an SUV, both traveling at 25mph, the SUV would completely reverse the direction of travel of a Smart, nearly tripling the tested impact forces, at that point it would be a slaughter of the smart occupants. The smart would feel a 90mph impact force, the SUV about 25mph. And owners are driving them thinking they are ‘safe’. Not even getting into it being a very poor value for the price in the first place.
I have always wondered why there is no standard of impact energy in crash testing(probably because it would be a horror show for smaller vehicles), nor any record of reported injuries per accident for vehicles in the real world. I have seen many ‘5-star’ small cars with the owners having to be cut out of them when the other larger vehicle has an unscathed driver standing on the side of the road watching.
I have always wondered why there is no standard of impact energy in crash testing(probably because it would be a horror show for smaller vehicles), nor any record of reported injuries per accident for vehicles in the real world.
You hit the nail on the head Kevin. As long as they hide the true facts, simple minded people will believe in the fantasy star ratings.
“Hitting a wall at 70MPH? Isn’t that about the speed that the S-class Mercedes carrying Princess Di was going when it hit the wall?”
At least, if not faster. An amazing testimony to that vehicle that the one properly seat-belted occupant in that crash survived.
I have always wondered why there is no standard of impact energy in crash testing(probably because it would be a horror show for smaller vehicles), nor any record of reported injuries per accident for vehicles in the real world.
The IIHS reports loss data that includes an index for injuries, so this information does exist.
http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/composite_intro.html
There’s no conspiracy against testing methods and data. Governments throughout the world test cars in similar ways.
Obviously, crash tests can’t anticipate every possible scenario. But increasing the standards will create more negative test results, which will result in higher standards, which in turn will result in higher costs and R&D requirements imposed on the automakers. And I’m pretty sure that the automakers don’t want even more and higher standards, if they can avoid them.
Matthew Danda :
“Hitting a wall at 70MPH? Isn’t that about the speed that the S-class Mercedes carrying Princess Di was going when it hit the wall?”
Umm – The facts of that accident were: Princess Di was not wearing a seatbelt nor were 2 other occupants. They all died. The bodyguard upfront was belted-in and survived.
From the numerous pictures I have seen the S-Class Mercedes took the impact very well and the crumple zones upfront worked as intended. The unbelted passengers colliding with the car (also known as the secondary impact) is what killed them.
Very impressive. Not something to try at home though!
Oddly enough, There is one on our lot now parked right next to an F250, who’s bumpers are higher then the tops of the tires on the smart. In a collision the energy of the truck’s impact wouldn’t even start to dissipate before its already in the cabin. I’ll pass on these.
Still I’d feel safer in a SmartCar than I would on my motorcycle in city traffic. Too many cellphone talking, distracted drivers to notice me. Been there, done that. If I get hit it is likely going to less damage to me in a SmartCar than riding my Honda. True my Honda MIGHT give me enough power to get out of the way or maybe I’ll lay it down trying to stop or turn with short notice.
The SmartCar is an excellent city car. Places like NYC where a person is in slow traffic for the majority of your trip is a good application of the Smart.
Around here (TN cities) I spend 5 mins in slow downtown traffic and then I’m on some bypass or loop interstate that gets me to the other side of the city. The amount of time in the Smart would never be a problem. My trips are time-wise short enough that anything with a/c would be plenty comfortable from a 20 year old Datsun up to a BMW or Caddy.
Its that high speed “mixing with big traffic” where everybody is running along at close quarters and 75 mph and then somebody does something stupid and everybody has to slam on the brakes. Will the big service truck behind me stop in time? Will the over-done lady in the Escalade yammering away on her cellphone look out her passenger window and see me? Will the 60,000 pound semi-truck hauling steel that I would prefer was hauled on a train instead even notice if he hits me?
Going slower than the rest of the traffic helps to a point. Everybody has to go around me b/c I am running the speed limit certainly makes them aware of me. Going TOO slow makes the road dangerous for all of us as everyone is switching lanes and jockeying around me. Rolling-roadblocks come to mind.
I LOVE small cars. I wish the whole country were driving small cars too but they aren’t. We’re not ONLY in the city around here and unfortunately our interstates are occupied by huge trucks and huge SUVs and everybody seems to have a phone call in progress all the time.
Fortunately I don’t have to leave my small town between the TN cities often and here a Smart would be excellent. Low speeds, urban traffic and not much highway time ever. Of course the short distances make most anything affordable MPG-wise.
Heh, I got a ride in the one in the lot, didn’t realize it was one of our vendors that owned it. Honestly, after riding in traffic for years, I’d feel safer on the bike.
Just a note: the Smart Car has front and side airbags: http://usatoday.feedroom.com/?fr_story=3b7ac0ab3b59c412fa247004e3f6c64780d55af4&rf=sitemap