range Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 Honda's Fit failed the frontal (and rear) test of the recent IIHS test of B-cars. The airbag deployed "too early". The IIHS was nice enough to give Honda a mulligan and is not releasing the results of the failure to consumers despite these cars being on the road today. Anyway, Honda is going to recall the Fit and apparently 'slow down' the air bag which, as I understand the technology, will make for worse results at speeds other than what IIHS is testing. Is it smart for Honda to optimize the air bag deployment timing just for this specific IIHS test? What will these changes do to the NHTSA results, or real-life situations? The Fit also received a "Poor" rating from the IIHS on rear impact. No recall for that though, I guess it's more expensive to fix than a software change. Like the 2006 Civic 2dr, the Fit also earned only 3 stars in NHTSA side impact testing despite the air bags. "The Institute conducted two frontal tests of the Fit. In the first test the frontal airbag deployed too early, allowing high forces on the driver dummy's head. Honda is modifying the airbags in cars built after November 2006 and says it will recall cars built earlier. In the second test of a Fit with the design change, the frontal airbag deployed properly, and injury measures recorded on the dummy's head were low. The published rating is for vehicles with the design change." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bec5150 Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 I can't imagine feeling more secure in one of these subcompacts because some insurance wrecking crew said "hey, it's got more stars." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
630land Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 But aren't they supposed to be 'perfect' cars? And aren't they also supposed to be so great for 'bringing small cars to America, right when gas prices went up'??? If Ford brought out a B class car early, as some demanded, and it got the same crash tests, Ralph Nadar and all would be bashin them for 'killing people'. Where are they now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAdams Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 (edited) For what it's worth, the Pilot actually had a similar issue when it was first released and Honda adjusted the airbag's deployment accordingly. Also, the Fit's poor rear score is not from the structure but from whiplash due to crappy head restraints. Honda has started releasing vehicles with active head restraints but the Fit, since it's a direct Japan transplant, hasn't gotten them yet. Head restraints are an often overlooked item and there's no excuse for it. Keep in mind that the Fit earned a GOOD rating in both the frontal offset and side impact tests from the IIHS. In NHTSA tests, it got 5 stars for driver and front passenger in the front impact test and 5 stars for the front seat and 3 stars for the rear seat in the side impact test. After reading the headline, you'd think the Fit was a total death trap. Looking at the facts, however, may lead you to a slightly different conclusion. Edited December 22, 2006 by RAdams Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2005Explorer Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 (edited) After reading the headline, you'd think the Fit was a total death trap. Looking at the facts, however, may lead you to a slightly different conclusion. When compare the Fit to other vehicles on the road (F150, Silverado, Suburban, Expedition, Explorer, etc.) it is a death trap. Even compared to larger cars (Five-Hundred, Crown Vic, etc.) the poor Fit does not stand a chance in a collision. Tiny cars are always going to be dangerous no matter what you do. I don't think Honda intentionally tried to make the Fit unsafe, it is just hard to design something to be safe in high speed collisions when there is nothing around you. In the real world it comes down to size and weight on which vehicle is going to win in a collision. If my Explorer gets hit by a big truck, I am done, if my Explorer hits a Fit, they are done. For the most part, crash test ratings don't apply much in the real world. Sure, they improve the vehicle and allow the manufacturer to make it as safe is possible, but in the real world, bigger always wins. It comes down to what you value. If you want great fuel economy (for the most part) you have to sacrifice size. Size is the best indicator of real world safety. And again, no matter what vehicle you buy there will always be something bigger out there unless you buy a semi. The only difference is that if you buy a Fit everyone will be bigger then you! Edited December 22, 2006 by 2005Explorer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRyanC Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 Well with that kind of logic "When compare the Fit to other vehicles on the road (F150, Silverado, Suburban, Expedition, Explorer, etc.) it is a death trap. Even compared to larger cars (Five-Hundred, Crown Vic, etc.) the poor Fit does not stand a chance in a collision." I can say that the drivers of the F150, Silverado etc... should then be charged with volentary man slaughter in any degree of an accident resulting in death or not. As well as everyone should be driving around in nothing larger than a C-segment vehicle. Image if GM make 40 A/B/C segment cars and only 2 trucks DRyanC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2005Explorer Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 Well with that kind of logic "When compare the Fit to other vehicles on the road (F150, Silverado, Suburban, Expedition, Explorer, etc.) it is a death trap. Even compared to larger cars (Five-Hundred, Crown Vic, etc.) the poor Fit does not stand a chance in a collision." I can say that the drivers of the F150, Silverado etc... should then be charged with volentary man slaughter in any degree of an accident resulting in death or not. As well as everyone should be driving around in nothing larger than a C-segment vehicle. Image if GM make 40 A/B/C segment cars and only 2 trucks DRyanC No because the driver of the Fit could have chosen a larger vehicle themselves. No one is forcing a tiny car on anyone and I don't really see why they are that popular. It is not like the fuel economy is that great. Heck a Ford Focus, which is quite a bit bigger then the Fit still gets 27 city/ 37 highway. Compare that to the Fit which gets 33 city / 38 highway. The Fit weighs about 300lbs. less the the Focus so you would assume it would do WAY better on fuel, however it does not, at least not on the highway. The only way you could charge someone with voluntary manslaughter is if pickups, SUV's, and large cars were illegal to purchase. Last time I checked they are perfectly legal to purchase and drive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRyanC Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 You missed the point completely. Just imagine, half full/half empty, ying/yang DRyanC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.