http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16273695/

video shows a red fit crashing into a wall, and reporters saying small cars are less safe than bigger cars. and something about the fit airbags opening late, maybe honda will have a sofware update soon. from listening to the reporters, they would have us all driving tanks, really.

 

I guess they found it a surprise that small cars are not as safe as the large ones...i knew that when i was 7.

 

i read this in the la times today. I made a post about it with a rant on how the main thing wrong wtih this country is the crappy tanks everyone drives. I posted the link in the news thread, still awaiting it to be posted

 

The way I look at it is 4 wheels are better than two, seeing as I traded my motorcycle for the Fit. So Its 1000% more protection to me.

 

just visited the iihs website,the fit is basically good front and side (the front crash good is based on reconfigured software)but although it has acceptable geometry of headrestraint/seats it rates poor in rear collisions where the stationary car is hit from behind at 20mph,and the time is measured from impact to head contact with the restraint.it notes that rear collisions though usually not serious are very common and the injury involved is whiplash for the most part.The Versa got a G_G_G off the bat,but the yaris was rated equal to the fit only with the optional side bags which are usually uncommon in the standard option packages available at dealers on hatchbacks and when special ordered drive the price of the yaris hatchback to one comparable to the fit.

 

Howdy,

Just read a report released today at the IIHS site that rates several cars for crash tests; the Fit was rated Good for Front and Side crashes, but Poor for rear ones.

The report mentions that rear tests are not even conducted on cars where the head restraints don't meet their guidelines- these are automatically rated poor. Nothing in my quick look at the report indicated whether this was the case for the Fit, or if the test was actually carried out and the Fit failed.

Report also mentions there will be a recall coming to fix a glitch with the airbags deploying too soon, for all Fits manufactured before December 2006.

Dunno if there's anything Honda can do about the rear test results- I doubt they would recall them all to put in new redesigned head restraints. So in the meantime, just don't get rear ended, and you'll be OK.

http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr121906.html

 

earlier ones, fit got good for front and back, but poor for side.

 

to the right of the report it mentioned that the geometry of the seat/restraints was A acceptable therefore the fit was tested,further the report stated rear collisions tho rarely serious are common,the test of a stationary(fit) hit by a 20mph moving vehicle tested the time from collision to head contact with restraint,(whiplash) a frequent factor with rear end collisions and insurance claims

 

I thought it wasnt deploying soon enough and that it was any Fit produced prior to November 2006.

Neal

 

I was just going to post this, glad it's up already. The airbag thing was what jumped out for me. I'll contact my dealer in the next week or two and inquire about it.

Thanks!

 

Bah. I hope they get that airbag problem fixed; that doesn't sound very good, especially for me with my July Fit.

But yeah, given as how the other two crashes are of the more serious type, I'd rather have good ratings in those than rear crashes. Whiplash has a short recovery time, at least.

 

The problem with saying that we should all drive larger cars is that, it would never stop. There's always going to be a larger vehicle on the road, and if we buy all cars to cater to this fact, we'll all be driving semis. Even the largest SUV wouldn't fare so well if a 16-wheeler smashes into it on the highway, so why don't we all just get commercial licenses and drive semis to the grocery store and to work?

IIHS is even encouraging people with subcompacts like the Fit, Yaris, Accent et al to purchase Civics and Corollas instead, since they would be heavier and thereby safter in a crash. While this may be true, I don't want to own a car that 2039320392 people already own, just because the larger weight might save me in a crash. If the car has standard safety features, and isn't a death-trap on four wheels, I'll take my chances. It's not even about gas mileage; it's about being unique and driving the car I want to drive.

Like someone else said, I think most of us know that we're not as "safe" as those in larger cars, if you're only taking weight of the car into consideration, but these larger vehicles also have other factors that make them vulnerable in crashes (shorter braking times, more chance of rollover). No car is perfect, and it's irksome how people are trying to build this whole "OMG don't drive a small car because you will DIE in a crash!1111!!" frenzy.

 

I spent a few minutes looking at the ratings for Honda and some other vehicles for the rear collision test results, and there are a few surprises:

1) The Accord also rates Poor (through 07), but Civic rates Good (since 06, Poor prior to that)
2)CR/V and Element also rated Poor, latest CRV rates Good.
3)Spot checking other brands gives similar results.

I don't know if the IIHS standards are different for the larger cars, but it sure seems funny that nobody seems to mention that the results don't seem to be much different overall from the bigger cars.... .


Link to IIHS rear end collision results for all Hondas:

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/head_res...nts.aspx?honda

 

Here is the real interesting reading:

"The seat/head restraint combinations in every car except the Versa that we tested this time around wouldn't provide adequate protection against whiplash," Lund says.

But then where they talk about the actual testing procedures (bold for emphasis:

"Rear crash protection is rated according to a two-step procedure. Starting points for the ratings are measurements of head restraint geometry — the height of a restraint and its horizontal distance behind the back of the head of an average-size man. Seats with good or acceptable restraint geometry are tested dynamically using a dummy that measures forces on the neck. This test simulates a collision in which a stationary vehicle is struck in the rear at 20 mph. Seats without good or acceptable geometry are rated poor overall because they cannot be positioned to protect many people."

They way I see this is if they pass the "geometry" test, then the rear test is conducted with the seat outside of the car. The top statement appears they did not like the design of the seats (which the IIHS takes their measurements with the rests in the lowest position if they adjust for their head to rest measurement) and therefore....

....did they actually "test" them in the Fit?

Anyhow, NHTSA (the only testing in the US that has any status, required testing before importation) gave the car five stars in both front and side crash, and four in rollover if memory serves.

 

the P rear collision Does not indicate SERIOUS injury it is rather related to how rear end shock travels thru the car and the configuration of seatbelt seat head restraint.Since Honda reconfigured the airbag software to pass the front collision test one can assume the problem with rear end poor rating is not related to say proper adjustment of the front seatbelts.Honda does not seem complacent as some of the other companies quoted in the msnbc article who defend poor results by claiming to surpass federal requirements.A solution is obviously in the works,but whether it will be available as a retrofit,remains to be seen.In the meantime let tailgaters pass.

 

Yes, they did test them in the fit - the detailed test results indicate indicates both the ratings for the 'geometry test' and the 'dynamic test', if it was done. Cars that got 'Marginal' or 'Poor' in the geometry test didn't get a 'dynamic test'.

The Fit got an 'Acceptable' rating for the 'geometry test', but a Poor in the actual 'dynamic test'. If you look around, there are lots of cars, including much larger cars than the Fit, that also received Poor in this test.

 

I could not find the actual test values anywhere, only the four-colour glossies, but a couple of things in their Procedures for Rating Seat/Head Restraints are notable.

That's rather steeper than the normal Fit seat position, so the headrest will be further away than it should be (assuming, which may be a stretch, that the driver is looking at the road rather than the sky). I don't think you could actually drive with the seat at 25°, unless you'd got your shins shot off in the war.

So it seems that a car is penalized if the headrests can go lower than whatever is ideal for an "average-size male" -- IIHS doesn't actually say what that is, but I'd bet well over half the population is shorter.

 

It seems to me that if the car has active headrests (they snap forward automatically upon rear impact), then it will rate good in the rear end collision test. Thats why the new CR-V and Civic have improved scores.

Hopefully the next gen Fit will get this safety feature.

 

The 06/07 Civic and 07 CR-V have Active Head Restraints hence the better rating.
Neal

 

I didn't know that - thanks. Does the 07 Accord not have Active Head Restraints, then? It still rates Poor for '07 in their tests. It seems odd that they'd include a feature like that in the Civic and leave it off of the more expensive Accord........