The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has introduced a more rigorous side-impact crash test, and the initial results for Small Suvs are concerning. Out of 20 of the latest model small SUVs evaluated, only one achieved a “good” rating, highlighting potential safety vulnerabilities in these popular vehicles during serious side collisions.
“We raised the bar with this new test because side-impact crashes continue to be a significant source of fatalities and injuries,” stated IIHS President David Harkey. “The fact that the Mazda CX-5 is the only small SUV to earn a good rating right off the bat demonstrates that enhanced protection in these more severe side crashes is definitely achievable, and necessary across the board.”
Nine small SUVs managed to secure “acceptable” ratings in this challenging new evaluation. These include 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 models received lower scores, with eight small SUVs – the Chevrolet Equinox, Ford Escape, GMC Terrain, Hyundai Tucson, Jeep Compass, Jeep Renegade, Kia Sportage, and Lincoln Corsair – earning “marginal” ratings. Alarmingly, two small SUVs, the Honda HR-V and Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross, were given “poor” ratings, indicating significant weaknesses in side-impact protection.
These ratings are applicable to the 2021 and 2022 models for most vehicles tested, except for the Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross (2020 and 2022 models tested) and with the exception of the Compass and Tucson, the ratings carry over to 2022 models. Becky Mueller, IIHS Senior Research Engineer and the driving force behind the updated test protocol, commented, “These results are a clear call to action for manufacturers. While not unexpected given the increased stringency of the test, they underscore the variability in side-impact protection currently offered by small SUVs designed to perform well in the original, less demanding test.”
Understanding the New, More Stringent Side Impact Test
The original IIHS side-impact test, introduced in 2003, has been instrumental in improving vehicle safety over the years. In fact, all 20 small SUVs assessed in this latest round earned good ratings in the original test, a testament to the progress made. A previous IIHS study from 2011 showed that drivers in vehicles with a good side-impact rating were significantly less likely to die in left-side crashes compared to those in vehicles with poor ratings. Despite this progress, side-impact collisions still accounted for a concerning 23 percent of passenger vehicle occupant fatalities in 2019, highlighting the need for further safety enhancements.
To address these ongoing risks, the IIHS developed this updated side-impact test, which dramatically increases the energy involved in the simulated crash. The new test utilizes a heavier barrier, weighing 4,200 pounds – closer to the weight of contemporary midsize SUVs – and strikes the test vehicle at a speed of 37 mph. This is a significant increase from the original test’s 3,300-pound barrier at 31 mph. Collectively, these changes result in a collision with 82 percent more energy, creating a far more challenging scenario for vehicle safety structures and occupant protection systems. Furthermore, the striking surface of the new barrier is redesigned to more accurately mimic the impact characteristics of a real-world SUV or pickup truck colliding with another vehicle.
The rating methodology for the updated test remains consistent with the original. It evaluates the structural integrity of the occupant compartment, injury measurements gathered from dummies positioned in both the driver and rear passenger seats, and the effectiveness of airbags in protecting the heads of these dummies. The SID-IIs dummy, representing a small woman or a child around 12 years old, is used in both seating positions.
Disappointing Results: Majority of Small SUVs Fall Short
The results of the new, tougher side-impact test reveal considerable disparities in the level of protection small SUVs offer, particularly concerning pelvis and chest injuries. Only a handful of the tested vehicles achieved good or acceptable scores across all injury measures for both front and rear occupants.
One crucial factor contributing to these results is the way the new, redesigned barrier interacts with the vehicle structure. Observations during testing suggest that the barrier tends to bend around the B-pillar, the structural pillar situated between the front and rear doors. This behavior, mirroring real-world vehicle-to-vehicle collisions with SUVs and pickups, leads to depressions forming in both the front and rear doors of the impacted vehicle. This intrusion can compromise the occupant space, even if the B-pillar itself effectively withstands the higher-speed impact forces.
Manufacturers will likely need to enhance the horizontal door beams to mitigate this intrusion and refine their torso and pelvis airbags to provide broader coverage and improved cushioning in response to this new test.
Implications for Safety and Future Improvements
Real-world crash data consistently shows a strong correlation between robust vehicle structures and higher survival rates in side-impact collisions. While all 20 small SUVs earned good ratings for structural integrity in the original side test, only eight maintained a good rating in the new, higher-energy evaluation. Notably, the Honda HR-V, the worst performer in terms of structural integrity, exhibited a concerning B-pillar failure where it began to tear away from the frame. This structural weakness allowed the side of the vehicle to crush inward, reaching alarmingly close to the driver’s seat center.
The small SUVs that received marginal or poor overall ratings generally struggled with a combination of structural deficiencies and elevated injury measurements for both dummies, particularly in the chest and pelvis regions. For example, the HR-V’s weak B-pillar contributed to higher injury readings from the dummies. Similarly, the Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross’s poor rating for driver chest protection was attributed to both structural weakness and inadequate seat-mounted torso airbags.
Interestingly, the Chevrolet Equinox and its GMC Terrain counterpart, despite being marginal performers overall, demonstrated strong structural performance. However, the Equinox’s marginal rating was ultimately due to insufficient head protection and a heightened risk of head injury for the rear passenger, along with elevated chest injury measures for the driver.
The nine small SUVs that achieved acceptable ratings fell short of a good rating for various reasons, highlighting the complexity of side-impact protection. These shortcomings included a marginal driver chest injury in the Buick Encore, inadequate head-protecting airbags in the Nissan Rogue, and heightened driver pelvis injury measures in the Toyota RAV4, among others.
“There isn’t a single, simple explanation for why side-impact crashes remain so deadly,” Mueller concluded. “However, these new test results offer a clear and detailed roadmap for manufacturers to make targeted improvements that can ultimately save lives.”
The urgency for manufacturers to implement these improvements is clear. For the time being, both the original and updated side-impact test ratings will be published for all evaluated vehicles. A “good” rating in the original side-impact test will remain a requirement for the coveted Top Safety Pick and Top Safety Pick+ awards until 2023, when the new, more stringent side-impact test is slated to replace the original as the benchmark for these safety accolades.
