2012 MKZ, other luxury sedans earn low ratings in tough new IIHS test

[DC Car Examiner]

It wasn't one of the four that earned the lowest rating of Poor -- those were the A4, C-Class, IS (pictured below), and ES -- but the 2012 MKZ is the second-lowest rating of Marginal. Just two of 11 tested cars were the top score of Good; one was Acceptable.

 

 

40 miles per hour, with the impact concentrated on 25 percent of the front end. Details:

http://www.examiner.com/article/four-luxury-sedans-fail-new-insurance-institute-for-highway-safety-crash-test

[RichardJensen]

Is the NCAP flawed?

 

Yes.

 

But the NHTSA doesn't arbitrarily change its tests in order to justify raising insurance premiums.

[BORG]

I guess the IIHS had to reset the clock somehow since everything was acing their existing tests.

[DC Car Examiner]

Is the NCAP flawed?

 

Yes.

 

But the NHTSA doesn't arbitrarily change its tests in order to justify raising insurance premiums.

 

NHTSA and IIHS both add tougher tests as cars master the old ones. NHTSA redesigned its entire rating system just two years ago.

[RichardJensen]

NHTSA and IIHS both add tougher tests as cars master the old ones. NHTSA redesigned its entire rating system just two years ago.

 

That doesn't contradict what I just said.

 

Altering a test so that a vehicle which would appear safe under an old test now appears to be a death trap under a new test is incredibly misleading. Especially when it will be used to justify increased premiums for companies that have somehow found money to spend on extravagant advertising campaigns.

[DC Car Examiner]

That doesn't contradict what I just said.

 

Altering a test so that a vehicle which would appear safe under an old test now appears to be a death trap under a new test is incredibly misleading. Especially when it will be used to justify increased premiums for companies that have somehow found money to spend on extravagant advertising campaigns.

 

How are the two situations any different, except for you assuming unscrupulous motives from one group? And unlike NHTSA, IIHS isn't even discontinuing the easier test -- it will still be around. And they're saying quite explicitly that cars that did well in the old test are very safe.

 

If you don't like the basic idea of insurance companies funding crash tests, fine, so be it. But that's not an argument against tougher tests in general, which have been implemented both by IIHS and NHTSA as too many cars perfect the old system.

[RichardJensen]

- it's not much of a leap to conclude ulterior motives when a testing agency is sponsored by a group of for-profit companies that generate their profits by, basically, exaggerating risk.

 

- the NHTSA, when it has reevaluated testing criteria has almost always done so in scientifically defensible steps. Not by launching a brand new test and playing up the horrific results of it.

[jpd80]

In Australia we are under NCAP and ANCAP, a Aussie version aligned with it.

We're seeing once comfortable 5 star rating cars now struggling to get 4 stars with no explanation to consumers - that is misleading

Edited August 14, 2012 by jpd80

[lfeg]

Well, IIHS operates under the idea is that its reason for being is to show that cars are inherently unsafe. And if just about any car sold in the US gets a good or better rating on the current tests, it is time to change the test.

 

I can devise a test that guarantees failure for anything, so I am sure that when they set down test procedures one goal is that only a small percentage of vehicles will be acceptable. What I am waiting for is a side impact test simulating a 30,000 lb plow truck with a V plow impacting the drivers door window at 50 mph. Just to cover those situations when some careless driver pulls out of a driveway or side street into the path of a plow truck on a major highway in the winter. (Yeah, I have seen it happen, pretty ugly.)

[jpd80]

I agree that tests should get tougher - What about this: if you want six stars then devise a newer test like the IIHS 25% frontal and

let's say, a higher speed pole test. If manufacturers want to stay with 5 stars that fine but those moving to 6 stars will be preferred.

Edited August 14, 2012 by jpd80

[MKII]

If it were any other organization then the self serving IIHS recommending these new standards, I would not be doubting the recommendation.

[Harley Lover]

- it's not much of a leap to conclude ulterior motives when a testing agency is sponsored by a group of for-profit companies that generate their profits by, basically, exaggerating risk.

 

x2

 

The IIHS cannot ever claim the moral high road when its funding comes from " group of for-profit insurance companies".

Edited August 14, 2012 by Harley Lover

[NickF1011]

Why is IIHS testing a vehicle that is being replaced by a new model in a few months' time anyway?

[DC Car Examiner]

Well, IIHS operates under the idea is that its reason for being is to show that cars are inherently unsafe. And if just about any car sold in the US gets a good or better rating on the current tests, it is time to change the test.

 

I can devise a test that guarantees failure for anything, so I am sure that when they set down test procedures one goal is that only a small percentage of vehicles will be acceptable. What I am waiting for is a side impact test simulating a 30,000 lb plow truck with a V plow impacting the drivers door window at 50 mph. Just to cover those situations when some careless driver pulls out of a driveway or side street into the path of a plow truck on a major highway in the winter. (Yeah, I have seen it happen, pretty ugly.)

 

The thing is that each time the IIHS implements one of these tests, nearly ever car finds a way to achieve the top score within a few years. Each test they've implemented started out with a high failure rate: 40 percent offset in 1995, SUV side-impact in 2004ish, roof crush in 2009 or 2010....

 

Certainly the insurance companies have a profit motive, but it's about encouraging design changes that help them pay out less in injury claims. But if anyone can provide any data showing a spike in insurance premiums among these cars, please feel free.

[akirby]

The thing is that each time the IIHS implements one of these tests, nearly ever car finds a way to achieve the top score within a few years. Each test they've implemented started out with a high failure rate: 40 percent offset in 1995, SUV side-impact in 2004ish, roof crush in 2009 or 2010....

 

Certainly the insurance companies have a profit motive, but it's about encouraging design changes that help them pay out less in injury claims. But if anyone can provide any data showing a spike in insurance premiums among these cars, please feel free.

 

Maybe the better question is whether insurance premiums have gone down as cars have gotten safer? I know mine haven't. This gives them an excuse not to lower premiums as cars get safer.

If their costs go down due to fewer injuries but their premiums stay the same, who pockets the difference?

 

It would be much better if they used absolute numbers rather than relative measurements. Let's go back to the old 5 star rating system from 10 or 20 years ago. Why not just add stars as cars get better? So a car that was 5 stars in 2002 would still be a 5 star today but newer cars may be 6 or 7 stars now. It keeps the relative rankings intact.

 

Resetting the bar forces car mfrs to keep up or risk sales from poor public perception - even though the 2 star cars of today are much much better than the 5 star cars from 20 years ago.

And those expenses get passed on to the customers. That's probably good when you're talking about percentage improvements in the double digits but at this point we're talking about tiny fractions of improvement in real world outcomes and at some point it's simply not worth the cost.

[NickF1011]

Maybe the better question is whether insurance premiums have gone down as cars have gotten safer? I know mine haven't. This gives them an excuse not to lower premiums as cars get safer.

If their costs go down due to fewer injuries but their premiums stay the same, who pockets the difference?

 

Injuries might be down, but cost of repairs has certainly increased dramatically. And considering most claims don't involve injury of any kind, the bulk of the money insurance companies are dishing out is likely for vehicle repairs.

Edited August 14, 2012 by NickF1011

[akirby]

Injuries might be down, but cost of repairs has certainly increased dramatically. And considering most claims don't involve injury of any kind, the bulk of the money insurance companies are dishing out is likely for vehicle repairs.

 

Understood but I think we hit that plateau about a decade ago or more when we added dual airbags and crumple zones and painted bumpers. Since then I think it's just been the normal rise in the cost of goods. I could be wrong - I don't think I've seen actual repair cost averages.

[Extreme4x4]

Yes, but alot of the extra cost associated with repairing vehicles of today, comes from the manufacturing methods that are changed to do well in these tests.

 

It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

[NickF1011]

Understood but I think we hit that plateau about a decade ago or more when we added dual airbags and crumple zones and painted bumpers. Since then I think it's just been the normal rise in the cost of goods. I could be wrong - I don't think I've seen actual repair cost averages.

 

Not so sure. Add in things like reverse sensors, radar arrays for active cruise control, active headlights, HID's, LED's, power liftgates, fancier/bigger wheels, and even more airbags than before...

[jasonj80]

Why is IIHS testing a vehicle that is being replaced by a new model in a few months' time anyway?

 

I fully expect the 2013 Fusion and MKZ to get good marks in this test when they are tested.

 

 

Injuries might be down, but cost of repairs has certainly increased dramatically. And considering most claims don't involve injury of any kind, the bulk of the money insurance companies are dishing out is likely for vehicle repairs.

 

Injuries contribute most to the cost of insurance of a vehicle. Replacing a $30,000 car is cheap vs a few days i the Hospital and Months of Physical Therapy

Edited August 14, 2012 by jasonj80

[RichardJensen]

The thing is that each time the IIHS implements one of these tests, nearly ever car finds a way to achieve the top score within a few years. Each test they've implemented started out with a high failure rate: 40 percent offset in 1995, SUV side-impact in 2004ish, roof crush in 2009 or 2010....

 

Certainly the insurance companies have a profit motive, but it's about encouraging design changes that help them pay out less in injury claims. But if anyone can provide any data showing a spike in insurance premiums among these cars, please feel free.

- And every time the IIHS implements a new test, they do it with huge fanfare and an attempt to shame car companies that don't hew to their preferred course of action.

 

- You and I both know that data is confidential, and that individual insurance costs vary widely across the same model for any number of reasons.

 

Bottom line is this: Don't take my money and tell me you're doing me a favor.

[ANTAUS]

I'm all for it, if the benefit is to increase safety for the consumer, why not.

[BORG]

If all things are equal and one performs better than the other, I don't have a problem with this change.

[NickF1011]

Injuries contribute most to the cost of insurance of a vehicle. Replacing a $30,000 car is cheap vs a few days i the Hospital and Months of Physical Therapy

 

For the individual yeah, but insurance companies probably total at least several dozens cars for every major injury they pay for.

[akirby]

I'm all for it, if the benefit is to increase safety for the consumer, why not.

 

It doesn't bother you that a really, really safe 5 star rated vehicle that was a top safety pick last year is suddenly touted as being unsafe now? Spin it all you want, that's the net result of this new test.