157. Worst Crash Test Ratings of all Time Compilation 7
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 08. 2024
- Rover 100/Metro/114/114i/111i/115 D/R6, Austin Metro, Kia Sephia/Mentor/Shuma/Spectra, Ford Sierra/Scorpio/P100, Merkur XR4Ti, Ford Courier/Everest/Ranger, Mazda Bravo/Fighter/Proceed/B2500/UN, Ford Ranger J97M/Everest, Mazda BT 50, Hyundai Sonata/EF/Sonica, Kia Optima/Magentis, Audi A4/B8/Typ 8K, Toyota Camry XV50, Daihatsu Altis, Kia Soul/Track'ster/TrackSter/Track'ter/TrackTer, Mazda CX 9, Ford Edge, Honda Pilot/MR V, Honda Fit/Jazz, Chevy/Chevrolet/Holden Cruze, Daewoo Lacetti Premiere, Lexus IS XE20/IS 250/IS 350/IS 220d/IS F, Lexus ES/XV40/ES 240/ES 350/GSV40/ES 300h, Hyundai Accent/RB/Fluidic Verna/Solaris/Grand Avega/Verna/i25, Dodge Attitude, Toyota RAV4/XA40, Hyundai Tucson/ix35, Buick Encore, Opel/Vaux/Vauxhall Mokka, Toyota Prius c/Aqua, Toyota Corolla/E160/Axio/Fielder, Mitsu/Mitsubishi Mirage/Space Star/Attrage
Intro(duction): 亞洲電視 台徽 Asia Television Station ID [2013]
![Customer States & Mechanical Fails [The Best of 2023]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5mH82OA0xbo/mqdefault.jpg)
Somebody needs to design a U shaped airbag that deploys in the front driver's side corner for those front-offset crashes
no need a lot of the cars managed to keep the dummy connecting with the airbag the right way.
+thooke222 Agreed, corner airbags would seriously help reduce injuries. It could just be another set of bags to deploy in the corner where the left side air vent is. I'd rather have another air bag there for safety instead of the vent. I'm sure engineers can figure out some ways to develop more air bags in all the corners for every passenger and driver area.
Yup but they made side curtain airbags that come down in a off set crash.
This is very misleading. This is the small overlap test. Way to spam with your title
+FriscoBoate, I disagree. That's the kind of sideswipe wreck you get into on many roads at moderate speeds.
+FriscoBoater Small overlap crashes are a high risk for head and leg injuries, and this is shown. Misleading though it may be, it is in no way spam.
It's tested like that because people take evasive action when they are likely to be involved in a head on collision
+Jim Gordon no really, the small overlaps fucks everything it touches just about. Making a video of small overlap crashes and calling it the worst crash tests of all time is bullshit and misleading. This video was a waste of a title, and leads people to believe that these cars shown are unsafe because they saw them wrecked in the most fucked up way possible and the video never mentioned that they were being wrecked in a way that ruins pretty much everything. Just go look up "small overlap crashes" and you'll see what that test does to a car. Hell, look up small overlap crashes with poorly designed cars and then you'll really see something fucked up
someguy9897 Get into a "small overlap" crash with one of these cars yourself, then spout your ignorant bullshit.
Until then, enjoy your kneecaps and shins.
Ha at 4:20 the Buick encore side curtain airbags be like "have I missed it? Have I missed the battle?"
For some reason, these are really fascinating.
True
From 2:00 on the tests shown are the new IIHS "small overlap", impact with only around 20% of the front surface of the car. This test is not conducted by NHTSA. It is an independent non-profit organization conducting a non-recognized test. Very few manufacturers have designed their vehicles to excel at this criteria. But, in the "moderate overlap" of 50% of the front of the vehicle (which is performed by NHTSA), almost ALL cars do exceptionally well. The 20% small overlap test "misses" most of the crash structure of modern cars, allowing the impact to be absorbed much closer to the firewall and hinge pillar of the vehicle.
Heck, even the EXTREMELY UNSAFE Pontiac Trans Sport did well in the gov's crash test. That just proves the government tests are too lenient. The Opel/Vauxhall Sintra is basically the same car as the Chevy Venture. 2001 Chevrolet Venture/Pontiac Montana NHTSA Frontal Impact vs 254. Why do people buy a Montana? Another video about its safety
And yet "small overlap" is the most likely outcome in a head on crash- quite often drivers will attempt to avoid the accident, but not quite manage.
+rasvial But this test is conducted with a non-deformable barrier. Crashes with another car will result in an impact with a deformable opponent car.
yes- and the non-deformable barrier is also stationary, where in real life you could expect a head on collision to occur with another vehicle traveling your speed in the opposite direction. Or the other case- where a driver loses focus and slams into a telephone pole or something (which is for all practical purposes non-deforming)
rasvial
A car travelling in the opposite direction to you will still be less force than a rigid, non-deformable barrier. That's why they use normal deformable barriers in the standard Euro NCAP test.
2:24 Kia Soul - Kia takes your soul. (XD)
JadanXS which is weird because the 2010 was highly rated in safety
I'm an automotive engineer, we have a structural design built around IIHS'S tests. it passed and everything! we pitched it to 18 car manufacturers, designers and fellow engineers. No one is willing to buy safety these days. Airbags aren't everything.
Who the hell drives into the corner of a building?
Um the small overlap test is made to replicate when two cars going different ways collide on one side of the front of the car (more commonly the drivers side). This kind of crash is the most common which is why the government created this test.
@@stxrrydayz No. The old 40% overlap test with deformable barrier closely replicated a realistic crash between two cars. Because the IIHS's "small overlap" (10% overlap) test uses a *fixed* barrier instead of a deformable one, it emulates crashing into the corner of a building or other completely fixed structure, or hitting another car at *twice* the speed of the test. Remember, IIHS is *not* a government organization aimed at making cars safer, it's an insurance industry one aimed at keeping insurance premiums as high as possible by making sure that most cars get poor ratings in IIHS crash tests. This is why, any time that "too many" cars start getting good ratings in the IIHS's current test, they come up with some new, more severe test that nobody can currently pass, regardless of how little bearing the new standard has on reality.
The small overlap tests in the later part of the video are much more rigorous than full frontal crash test at the beginning.
+thejeffinvade Yeah, They're actually pretty safe cars, but there are very few cars that can get a "good" rating on the small overlap tests, because it's a relatively new test.
@@serendipitydoctorxqy6122 Remember that IIHS is an insurance industry group. Their goal isn't safer cars. It's making as many cars as possible get poor ratings in their crash tests, so that they can justify jacking up the insurance rates on those cars. Any time "too many" cars start getting good ratings in their current test, they devise some new test that's even harder to pass--regardless of how much bearing it has on real-world crashes.
i feel like you could throw one of jupiter's moons at the iihs crash barrier and it would be fine
This video is rather misleading. The small overlap test the newer cars were subjected to is much, much harder than the 40% overlap test that is usually done. The cars that are shown here are probably much safer than most cars on the road in the US.
It just shows that if a crash is unavoidable, the driver should hit the other car/object with as much of his car as possible. The bigger the overlap, the safer it is.
***** And given that I see some moron cross the center line while texting on an almost daily basis, this is the sort of impact I worry about most.
Fair enough. I guess this is more something for when computers will automatically steer to avoid (or lessen) impacts, much like these city stop features where the car automatically brakes.
kada jawi It would be nicer to see people realizing that they are in control of a ton and a half of metal and actually put the friggin phone down and concentrate on driving.
the video shows that there is still very much to done
Dave Cain I totally agree. When you're driving, pay attention to the bloody road. You can still text when you reach your destination. However I feel like the speeds and distances in the US are to be blamed too... If you drive for hours at slow speeds that is incredibly boring and sleep inducing. Raise the speed limit to 200 km/h (120 mph) and people will start paying attention. Well, at least if everyone starts to make use of that. Germans, except for truck drivers, tend to pay more attention to the road when driving. That's what keeps accident rates nice and low, despite the high speeds they drive at. Or perhaps because of that.
Love this series!
I hope cars get better and because of this! :)
Agreed!
Keep up the good work! lol
htest
@@00crashtest hu
It should be noted that most of these tests were the new small front overlap test. When many of those vehicles were designed years earlier, the manufacturers had no idea that they would be tested like that, and so many of them failed. Today, manufacturers are making more of an effort to get better results.
they were being lazy, and couldn't be bothered. some companies had already done their own research into small overlap crashes such as Volvo. so when they conducted the test it scored the highest rating.
Matthew Berndt Productions Wrong.
Volvo is in the same boat. Their latest offerings all failed the 10% test.
tcpnetworks you seriously have no idea what your talking about, are you trying to make things up as you go along? first of all they don't even conduct a 10% small overlap, its a 20% small overlap. and second of all where is this evidence that Volvo has failed this "10% test". I have just checked the IIHS, Euro NCAP, and ANCAP for any new ratings and none have conducted this test and furthermore no Volvos received anything but good ratings (with 2015 year models tested). stop trying to pretend your an expert at something your not. if you give some valid evidence i'll believe you. but I know you won't.
tcpnetworks Burn.
Thats the problem; manufacturers are only trying to get good safety ratings, so that they can advertise that. They don't give a shit about the actual driver
I believe the most recent models shown use a test called "10% Overlap" which was previously to 2013-14 an untested crash angle.
Most of these manufacturers have gone on to improve crash ratings for this particular test.
I just watched the 2012 Toyota Prius V and it deploys knee airbags, but also deploys the front tire for you legs as well.
I saw yestarday a Prius 2012 bending the chassis at an impact of no more than 50 km/h...
People. Find the car, called "cherry amulet" and you'll see what failed crash test really is
Artem Lokhovitskiy holy fucking shit
The Kormorant Commodore is Worse.
The 2013 Kia Soul got good rating in everything except the small overlap. The 2014 soul improved that.
Many of those were small overlap crash tests, which pretty much all cars failed at some point until they started to improve it in recent times...
any Lada would get "suicide machine" rating among those "poor" ones lol
The most important safety component on any car is the nut behind the wheel.
+Deevo037 Absolutely true. It's too bad most of them are clueless about automobile dynamics.
Jim Gordon As far as I am concerned the clueless shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel at the best of times.
Deevo037 Right. But the problem is, you and I might be as safe as possible behind the wheel but the person in the lane next to you isn't. Paying attention is a lost art. With all these new technology packed vehicles, it takes some of the focus away from driving and puts it elsewhere.
a lot of cars failed when the small overlap test was created, but after the corrections they were fine
I was thinking about the Fit and Mirage to replace my junk Yaris, I am now thinking Civic.
Never crash cars that looks bad as heck.
Small overlap crash tests are not what cars are designed for. There is not a single car that passes that test, although the Mitsubishi Mirage (the last one) did quite well. But I think that is a coïncidence.
+Ronald de Rooij If possible hit head on.
+Ronald de Rooij That test is designed to see how likely, drivers who can't see in front of them, are to survive their own stupidity :)
+Ronald de Rooij Except maybe for the Volvo XC90.
I have never seen any other car deflect the damage like that model.
XC90 2014 small overlap /watch?v=lPL0Vi_8fiI
XC90 2016 small overlap /watch?v=Rf7t_D0CSgg
The Audi Q7 2016 deflects the same way, and the mirage you mentioned was impressive for it's size!!
+Ronald de Rooij Cars are absolutely 100% designed for this test. There are in fact several vehicles with bumpers and frames that are specifically designed for deflecting the SORB impact and giving more of a glancing blow rather than a straight on hit. The vast majority of cars do pass this test. I really have no idea where you are getting your information from, but I am a crash safety engineer so I know where I am getting mine ...
what is small overlap?
To be fair, that minor overlapse crash destroys almost anything!!
Coffee please Eh most of the Toyota products you saw that scored poor ratings in 2013 got good ratings in 2015. It's how you build the frame Toyota needed to make structural improvements and they did.
Oh I like Toyota don't worry... just saying that the test destroys everything lol
+Ronald f-ing mcdonalds Yes... Not really fair to call these the "worst" of all time. Only the newest generation of cars were built to withstand this sort of collision. Can't hold manufacturers like Honda and Toyota to blame for failing tests that were started AFTER the models tested were already in production. Although this does make a compelling case for getting a new car...
Jordan Cohen Yeah I'm pretty sure my 03 Camry would do poorly in this test although it did well in the moderate overlap one.
I don't really understand the rating... for example, if you see the Buick Encore/Opel Mokka in this video, the passenger cell looks quite horribly deformed after the crash. But if you see Euro NCAP videos, it's way better, and it's got excellent ratings there. Is this just an effect of the smaller overlap or are the tested cars completely different versions, like, say, Indian city cars? Can someone help me out please?
The IIHS has two types of overlap tests: moderate, and small. The ones shown here are probably the small overlap tests, which are more strenuous on the structure.
Then I better not show my uncle this video ^^ Thank you!
He has one of the cars in the video?
An Opel Mokka. But I don't see him that often anyway, so who cares^^
I once was a passenger in one, and I think it's a very nice car.
+Toras The videos of Euro NCAP are the updated versions after the original version
I don't think I will ever drive again! I was impressed by the CX-9 it really compacts itself and then flies in a million pieces. Sure wouldn't want my family in that one or any of these in this video.
OK that small overlap crash is brutal.... not sure what CAN pass.
Hyundai Tucson: and here's your airbag.... aaaaand it's gone..
Any best crash test ratings??
One of those sierras got frank williams paralyzed.
all 2015 model cars are now passing this overlap test
It's important to remember that IIHS isn't about safety, it's about the insurance industry rating cars as dangerous so they can charge higher premiums for covering them. Every time the auto industry gets cars to the point where they're routinely passing an IIHS test, they change the conditions to make it more severe. First it was increasing the speed from 30 mph to 35 mph. Then it was going from the fixed-barrier no-offset to two-car 40% offset tests. After it proved too expensive to keep using two cars for every test, they switched to using the deformable aluminum barrier with the 40% offset test, which they justified as providing a more accurate simulation of a crash than the rigid fixed barriers used by NHTSA with zero offset. Now they've gone back to rigid fixed barriers with a 10% offset, something that's essentially impossible to protect against because there's just not enough of the width of the car involved to absorb the energy.
All in the name of taking more money from the motorist by raising insurance rates.
I like how practicly all of these we're cars made in Asia.
This test is quite demanding but on the road is a situation that can occur and manufacturers must prepare their cars for the worst, it seems to me that implementing what is important is saving lives
Mazda CX-9 omg. it's horrible.
all of the ones after the half way mark are the 10% small overlap test, its a new test and very few have passed it
I'm surprised with the target they are using. Most accidents are with other vehicles which also have crumples zones like the test car, so why are they crashing cars into a solid object? Make the block big enough, a tank would fail this test.
they'r implementing a worse-case scenario. a car that would be good enough to do good enough in such a test would be very good in most other crash scenarios, that's the point.
The concrete block test wouldn't be a worst case scenario, still suck, but there are other factors that reflect the majority of accidents which is vehicle on vehicle. I know this test used for the purposes of consistency but accidents are not consistent and most of the time involve multiple vehicles/obstructions. even the size of either object involved effect the outcome. I would like to see result of these scenarios, Example: A car hits the back of semi and is hit by another vehicle from behind. The resulting test would provide data from the first impact and secondary impact on an already weakened structure We're on youtube and seen loads of videos of that scenario. Impact tests are great, no question, I just think the multi-impact testing of vehicles as the roads become more crowded, speeds going up and drivers possible over-reliance on technology.
What Sul said and also, a tank would not fail this test. Look up Volvo crash tests, the entire cabin stays intact in even the worst accidents
Is this a collection of videos that just look bad, or is this based on their actual scores?
Car Companies Are All About Luxury But Not Safety
Most of these toward the end are the new small-overlap crashes, which is a very new test that most companies don't design for yet. Some actually didn't look too bad. I have a Honda Fit just like that and, even though it didn't get a great rating, to me it looked like it took the hit pretty well.
It was concentrating on the same car for a year
I'm surprised the Nissan Quest wasn't in this video.
I like the merkur xr4ti. Looks like the firewall would end up in the trunk in an accident.
Just by thinkin logic... how can new cars be more safer in crashes if there was a thinner metal and more plastics on their bodies? Only safety is smart electronics
3:43 - Holy shit, that was our rental car when we visited the U.S. last fall and drove from the airport in Newark to Wisconsin and back. Now I get why cars made for the American market feel so hollow - because they are. It's like the passenger cell is part of the crumple zone. Compared to that my 1998 VW Golf MK4 is solid as a rock at the core - and still only had a medium/average rating, I believe.
CX9....... Wow. That was horrific.
Since the invention of the cell phone, I drive a big lifted 1 ton dually diesel with steel beam reinforcement under the front bumper, and a big winch and brush guard in front of that. Text all you like.
I see so many here calling BS but the Camera doesn't lie. Can you respond in tenths of a second? No.
Pop Eyed agreed!
***** 亞洲電視 台徽 Asia Television Station ID [2013]
+Garry Vincent Bevowsky its traumatic
00crashtest from 2:00 speed of crash?
In the real world, how frequently do collisions like this even occur? I mean striking an immovable object with the front driver side corner.
Scooter George Its actually pretty frequent which is why they have started testing this way. It is designed to reflect a bungled overtake or veering into an oncoming traffic lane only slightly.
It is fair to say the test is somewhat exaggerated though as the object you hit will almost always be a deforming one and both cars will pivot round each other rather than one side of one car having to take all the forces as seen here.
soundseeker63
If it's another car that is hit, that car will compress, resulting in much less force than if solid concrete is hit.
+Scooter George a lot. Usually it is a slight overlap head on crash with another car, but think about guard rails and trees
honestly about 3 months ago I was on scene of an accident and watched a young woman die. she cross the center line of road and hit a tree doing well over 40mph. she hit actually center of the driver side "frame rail" on her Pontiac sunfire.
it pushed the structure back violently, the tire assembly pushed into foot area and dash also was pushed into her.
scary how some cars look good on paper and people trust them with their lifes
I work in insurance field it isn't very common, 75% are accidents from behind...that's most common by far
Wow, good to know how many of these new cars are terrible on safety tests!!
They all seem pretty safe to me
A quel vitesse sont réalisés ces crash test .
SUVs seem less secure than they feel
Yes they are.
suv' are in general a lot less safe than sedans
depends on the SUV. size still matters. also these tests are older tests, at the same time cars failed these as well. I noticed a lot of 2013 models, they failed because nearly all of them could not handle partial small frontal collision (Only honda really passed that one).
SUV's have always been quite unsafe. SUV's only exist because they were able to take advantage of a loophole that considers them trucks instead of cars by using a truck chassis which used to exempt them from the same safety requirements so their bumpers were higher than a cars and would hit other drivers in the head in side crashes. The type of people who bought SUVs felt more secure and safe in a huge vehicle and drove much more carelessly leading to more severe crashes. One of the absolute biggest problems in the 90's with SUVs were rollovers from having such a high center of gravity which resulted in many deaths of the driver and passengers. It was a very big problem and something most SUV owners never considered. It doesn't matter how safe it is at hitting other drivers, when you're rolling there's not much that can help you.
Great vid, keep up the good work!
Although these are IIHS tests, that are much hard to score good ratings. I wonder how many cars managed to score good on these tests.
When the test was introduced only 10 or so cars that earned good, but now there are around 30, and counting.
The second test was from the iihs the insurance institute for Hilary safety.
2:13
And the Camry still kept the #1 spot in America
Camry's are incredibly reliable and still very safe overall. Don't make judgements on such little information.
+Limitbreakur I never said they were bad...
They're everything a car should be and they are far more fun to drive than any american piece of shit car. The only thing that's more fun to drive are real sport (corvette for example) cars and luxury sport cars.
Scotty kilmer should see this
Honestly
Most of these cars are new
Its 2014 and cars are still shit boxes
10% overlap has always poor results... this are not the worst, this is almost the standard for this test so far...
God those old sierras are worse than Opel kadett
I feel like Toyota hasn't been up on their game in safety for a while
Why is it that the cheep Chevy Cruze had side curtain airbags deploy but the expensive Lexus didn't?
3:05 is safety too!
Mazda CX-9 holy shit. It just flattened the front seat. Like holy fuck never getting a Honda, Toyota or Mazda
2:25 The head completely missed the airbag! Kia= Killed In Accident!!!
In most of these small overlap crashes, the head missed the airbag. It wasn't just Kia, Toyota, Honda, and Lexus all had the same problems.
Side airbags can mean all the difference. A couple of the cars enveloped the driver which would have prevented immediate fatal injuries. Most of these though, the driver is dead.
Jo LC you’re right but I never think any cars do too well in this type of test to be honest.
The way the metal bended on these cars make it look like they were mad of foil
Ever thinking about doing a rollover test?
2.32 was not even bad. Even the passenger feets. It was safety for that speed.
That is stupid that the Courier had no airbags. Someone said that the Courier had optional airbags. BULLSHIT!!! Airbag are required BY LAW and MUST be in EVERY vehicle they make!
AUDI A4 ?!!! What that's crazy
The A4 is not that save
If the driver knows how to drive, the car will be safe. The main problem is that people don't give a shit about safety and my life depending on those selfish idiots is a very frustrating fact.
What speed are these cars doing? Why are the majority of the catastrophic failure collisions conducted against a solid, sharp object? These don't look much like the ANCAP and Euro NCAP tests where we get to see data and the frontal collisions are conducted against partial offset, deformable crash barriers.
How fast did they drive? This certainly isn't the usual speed at tests like these.
volvo makes one of the safest cars on the planet they were crashing their cars for safety a lot longer then other car companies even before it became regulated to do so.
how about NOT crashing your cars into inanimate objects?
the driver's head hits the wall on the Mazda vx9 crash:(
🥶
I could only manage 3 minutes 32 seconds I couldn't watch anymore
I think the actual crash test dummies edited this video.
what speed is this at
*_why cant they demo a head-on CENTER collision? O_o_*
The title isn't right, but the video is interesting....
How was the fit bad
I like to see what happens with the front wheels...
Nothing resist to a steel wall
That's why I only like the 1st generation Honda Pilot
It's really not fair to call these crash tests the worst of all time. Small overlap tests, which are what were used here from the Audi onward are brutal because they bypass the crumple zone protection of the car that would normally come into play in a full frontal collision, which is what was used in the first few cars. The tests are NOT the same. Not even close.
To lump a (at the time of publishing) production model IS250 or a Camry, which are some of the safest cars in existence, into the same video as a 20+ year old Rover 100 (which was already rubbish in 1997) when the crash test methodologies between the two are nothing like eachother, is highly misleading.
You as a channel devoted to crash tests should know this.
That's why I got a 2014 Lancer :)
(Voted top safety pick 2014)
Must suck to be the dude who has to clean up all of this.
what speed?
I'm sure they would all do better in the small overlap tests ( ;
4:20 curtain airbags seemed delayed on that buick
i did not see my 2005 crv in hear is that a good thing
5:22-5:32 where's that from
I owned a 1994 vw Corrodo, I wrecked it into freeway retaining wall at between 75 and 80 MPH. This was at about a 45 to 60 degree angle with no breaks. It does not get more solid than concrete, and it actually happens a lot. I survived, without major injury and so did everyone else in the car. I literally walked away from it. So did everyone else who was in the car. The cars you see here, its not even 50MPH. When two cars collide in off set head on collisions, its not going to be one car doing 35 into concrete like seen here. Its going to be two cars, weighing more than one ton, both doing 35 or more, probably more which at the point of impact, would be 70 mph. The way these cars are acting in these tests above, it means they are well more than death traps, they are body manglers.
FYI: Two cars colliding head-on would not equal a 70mph collision with a wall. It would equal a 35mph collision. Think of it this way: When you hit a wall, the wall doesn't move. If you are going 35mph and hit a stationary car, the other car will move upon impact, lessening the force to the driver, so it's like hitting a wall at say, 25mph. Two cars hitting each other balance out the forces, and thus the speed equivalent is not "doubled", it's just 35mph. Because wall's don't move, it's like they are already going 35mph.
Vw jettas also has good structural integrity.
just because there bad crash test does not mean that there getting better
The poor results caused by the fact that most of the tests are 15% offset crash (aka "small overlap"). This test always shows very poor results with just any car, as the energy passes the engine and the crash bars in the front an goes right into the A-pillar and the front wheel - which is therefore almost always pushed into the cabin, while the A-pillar is collapsing. Check 5:05 to see how small the overlap is and how the crash barrier misses engine block and most of the energy absorbing front structure of the car.
Modern cars are optimized to withstand a 40% offset crash and perform fairly well. With the new small overlap crash tests (additionaly used since about 4-5 years) the energy is concentrating on a much smaller area - thus puts about 5 times more stress to the car at the same speed.
See here for more: www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/ratings-info/frontal-crash-tests
Wow I don't get it, why are they doing so poorly?