Just two cars get top ratings in revised NHTSA tests

[DC Car Examiner]

 

After automakers mastered the previous run of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration frontal and side-impact crash tests, making the maximum rating of five stars the norm, the agency redesigned its tests to better separate the best from the rest.

 

In the first round of the new tests, released Tuesday morning, just two vehicles out of 16 -- the Hyundai Sonata family sedan and BMW 5-Series luxury sedan -- earned a five-star rating. Most of the tested vehicles earned four stars, and the best-selling Toyota Camry and Nissan Versa earned just three and two, respectively.

 

Continued at link:

http://www.examiner.com/autos-in-national/crash-test-ratings-slide-as-nhtsa-toughens-tests

[NickF1011]

Good to se the beefed up tests. A 5-star safety rating on a new vehicle hasn't really meant much lately. A little disappointed to see the Taurus slid to 4/5 though.

[73mach1]

This already seems bogus to me. The only reason the Taurus recieved 4 stars was a 1.6% difference in rollover from the Sonata. Is 1.6% that different? That could just be the quality of the tires!

[fordmantpw]

This already seems bogus to me. The only reason the Taurus recieved 4 stars was a 1.6% difference in rollover from the Sonata. Is 1.6% that different? That could just be the quality of the tires!

 

They have to draw the line somwhere. The same reason a 90% is an A, but an 88.4% is a B! If the tires were the only problem, then they should put different tires on it to make it 5 starts.

[xr7g428]

If the geniuses at NHTSA had given this a little thought they would have simply added a 6th star. That way you could compare a three year old car with a new car, and understand the difference. Now it looks like the new cars is not as good as the one it replaced.

[DC Car Examiner]

If the geniuses at NHTSA had given this a little thought they would have simply added a 6th star. That way you could compare a three year old car with a new car, and understand the difference. Now it looks like the new cars is not as good as the one it replaced.

 

Ours goes up to ELEVEN.

 

A more challenging test says more about how cars differ than statistically insignificant differences between great and really great in an easy test.

[xr7g428]

Ours goes up to ELEVEN.

 

A more challenging test says more about how cars differ than statistically insignificant differences between great and really great in an easy test.

 

The difference between the two points could be an order of magnitude if needed. By your logic we should just make the mile longer in order to keep speeds down.

Edited October 6, 2010 by xr7g428

[DC Car Examiner]

The difference between the two points could be an order of magnitude if needed. By your logic we should just make the mile longer in order to keep speeds down.

 

In an easy test, there just isn't as much difference between two cars. You're uninjured vs. REALLY uninjured. Greater differences are exposed as the test gets more demanding.

 

For example, you could tell a fair bit about how two cars handle by taking each around a curve at 30 mph. But if you do it at 50 instead, you'll see even more, especially if that's past the point where one of the two is competent.

[Deanh]

meh, I think is getting out of control...betcha Im safer in a Pinto with a full tank than a majority of the nimrods in their 5 stars..........

[aneekr]

meh, I think is getting out of control...betcha Im safer in a Pinto with a full tank than a majority of the nimrods in their 5 stars..........

I agree; while I wish Deanh caliber driving skills could be impressed on every motorist in the USA, we'll probably see driverless, autonomously guided cars (and also see :pig: ) before that ever materializes.