The new test for the honda fit does not make it as Safety top pick as older models. "For the 2016 model year, qualifying for the Top Safety Pick award was made more difficult. Vehicles must now score a Good rating in the small overlap front test, and they still must score Good in the moderate overlap front crash, side crash, roof strength, and head restraint tests."


IIHS Top Safety Pick+ and Top Safety Pick Vehicles - Consumer Reports

2015 IIHS TOP SAFETY PICKs


Has anyone implement a safty feature such as blind spot or lane assist, frontal warning system (aftermarket)?

 

Why are there no sub-compacts on the list? Versa Note, Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic are all not included. Why?

 

Because the IIHS is an insurance industry group that wants everybody to drive big cars. The goal of the IIHS is to "prove" that big cars are safer, so they keep trying to come up with tests that small cars can't pass.


Mandatory disclaimer: given that I am a "biker", and that the IIHS has a track record of being "anti-motorcycle" (pushing for mandatory helmet laws, among other things), I am not likely to have an objective opinion regarding anything the IIHS says or does. In they end, they are an insurance industry shill, whose purpose is to cut costs for the insurance industry.

It appears that the IIHS has moved the "bar" since last year's tests. That's what they do. It's not that the Fit is "worse" than last year, just the standards have been raised.


I still believe that the best way to survive an accident is not to have one in the first place. PAY ATTENTION out there!

 

The 2016 Corolla earned a "Marginal" in the small overlap test, the 2016 Civic hasn't yet been tested, and the Note hasn't been tested (but its non-note version scored a poor rating).
Other cars haven't been tested or they haven't yet released results for this category. IIHS usually likes to release tests in groups by vehicle type.

 

Back before the '15 was introduced and after the '13 failed the small offset test, Honda promised in a press release that the '15 would get a "good" in all categories.

They didn't come through, and they actually had to do a quick bumper fix and pay for a do-over to squeeze out an "acceptable" on the small overlap test.

Now the piper is being paid. If a Kia Soul can get a "good" on the small-overlap, why can't a Fit?

 

Reading ahead in the IIHS web page (that is why I bought a honda fit becuase it was safe and in the last car I injure my back so hard that I can not walk as before anymore).
Anyways there is a little difference in the way they test:
2015(where honda fit was top pick) ~"a vehicle must earn good ratings in the moderate overlap front, side, roof strength and head restraint tests, as well as a good or acceptable rating in the small overlap front test."
2016 ~"a vehicle must earn good ratings in five crashworthiness tests — small overlap front, moderate overlap front, side, roof strength and head restraints — as well as a basic rating for front crash prevention."


The only difference I found was "basic rating for front crash prevention". So that is why it did not pass. Here is what it is:
Here it is 2016 video of iihs top awards


If you want to add an adtermarket to imporve security of front crash prevention you can buy a Garmin NuviCam LMTHD

Here a review:

 

Kinda dumb, when the rating system changes and downgrades the safety, rather than the safety itself changing.

 

^ But the game is changing. Standards for safety are improving, so a rating system must increase its ceiling to accurately gauge vehicle safety.

A single driver airbag used to be a big deal. Now every car has a one. We can't continue praising cars with a single driver airbag for 20 years.

What it's really reflecting is that the Fit is not keeping pace in the field of the current safety technology.

 

When near a whole car segment cannot obtain the safety rating, to me the message is "Go buy a larger and more expensive vehicle". Is it even possible for sub-compacts to pass this safety rating?

 

Big brother is watching you ... err, watching after you ... to keep you under control ... err, to keep you safer ... you will comply ... err, you will love it!

 

The tech will eventually trickle down into the cheaper car segments. But yea, for now the message seems to be, "You have to pay more for better technology (and safety)." Which isn't really a new message at all. Luxury cars get the better tech, then it trickles down. Isn't that the way it's always been?

 

Meh. Not something I'm going to get worked up over.

 

The Scion iA, which is a rebadged Mazda 2 sedan, received the highest "Top Pick +" rating, which is why it doesn't show up on the "Top Pick" list.

The video is pretty spectacular, with the car losing its hood, battery, and a cascade of plastic bits, but the driver was well protected, there was no footwell intrusion, and the driver's head didn't hit anything hard.


It's a pity that Mazda decided at the last minute not to bring the 2 hatch to the US. It was a business decision as they thought that most people who would buy a 2 would buy a 3 if the 2 was not available.

Any manufacturer is capable of achieving a "good" rating. All it takes is engineering, and Honda doesn't want to redesign the Fit so early in its cycle.

 

Good read.

 

In all honesty I dislike that the IIHS has broken down the safety ratings for each vehicle into different categories. That is fine if a subcompact gets into a crash with a subcompact. But my 2015 Fit has a higher on paper safety rating than my 2014 F150! That is silly to me as if I were to be in a crash, what one I would rather be sitting in.

I would like to see a rating developed for all cars, excluding 18 wheel commercial trucks. This would give me as a consumer a much better idea of what is safest for my family.


Yes this would 99 times out of 100 show the largest vehicle is the safest, but I would still like to see the numbers so I can make an educated decision on the matter.


I will never get my wish, but a guy can dream right!

 

I have felt the same way about the IIHS. They are NOT a government agency, and are funded by insurance companies.

For years, their results have been biased. When you read or watch their reviews, it's the same script: "most full-size cars and SUVs passed our test, few subcompacts did....for that reason, we do not recommend you buying a subcompact, even the one or two that passed, because you will surely die"

I'm surprised that they even recommended the Fit and Chevy Spark last year. That didn't last long

 

Nearly 60 percent of fatal accidents are single-vehicle, either running off the road and rolling or striking an obstruction.

For accidents of that type I'd much rather be in a Fit than an F150 or any other body-on-frame vehicle.

Yes, pit a Fit head-on with a pickup and the fit will lose, but the Fit also has a better chance of avoiding the accident entirely. In a collision with an obstruction or a rollover a pickup or other body-on-frame vehicle is at a definite disadvantage.

 

You hit the nail on the head George. Driving my 1992 Ford Explorer and my 2015 Fit back-to-back is like day and night. They both are very good at what they do, but behave so differently on the road.

The Explorer just doesn't have the quick maneuvering capabilities of the Fit, or any modern subcompact, to avoid an accident. It's steering is vague, slow, and the handling doesn't inspire confidence. Avoiding an accident would be easier in the Fit.

However, if my two cars were in head-on with each other, I'd rather be in the Explorer because it weighs twice as much and the laws of physics put the Fit at a disadvantage.

But the IHHS's recommendation that we should all be in SUV's and trucks, for the purpose of crash avoidance alone, is absurd