I've read on other sites that people think the Honda Jazz/Fit will not sell well in the US because its too small for our roads. More to the point the cars on the road are too big for the small Honda.

Now I see in the english online Paper News & Star an article about a lady killed in her Jazz when she hit a Vauxhall Corsa! The Corsa is a small car too and that driver is in the hospital. Imagine what would happen if a Hummer or Suburban hit this car!

Kinda Scary

 

The Honda Fit/Jazz was one of the first cars to take advantage of Honda's current highly sophisticated crash-test facility and as such was tested with things like side impacts, rollovers, full frontal and offset frontal impacts, and even impacts on pedestrians. As such, I expect it to do well in NHTSA and IIHS impact tests. (I believe that IIHS has lauded the Honda crash test facility as one of the finest of its kind in the world.)

 

I agree that Honda builds safe cars. I guess when you drive a small car that would fit (pun intended) into the bed of a large pickup, then ya have to be a bit concerned. :-)

 

the pic is small. can you make it bigger please??

 

To me safety is the MOST important issue with the Fit (or any other car for that matter). Until the Fit is fully tested and deemed safe by the IIHS I am in no hurry to buy the car. If I'm correct that the weight of the Fit is around 2,350 pounds, then it falls below the 3,000 pounds that's generally considered safe for American road cars. This depends on other safety equipment also, I'm sure.

 

well a chevy aveo weight wise from edmunds.com is 2343lbs which would make it even lighter than the Fit. So I doubt the Fit would be worse off against that car make.

 

The Fit is also bigger than the current Civic Si HB as well as the current VW Golf. Having said that, the Fit is most likely as big, if not bigger, than all the previous compact vehicles of the '90s.

 

buy a volvo or something...

safe compare to what ???

what car is really really safe??

 

I'd like to see what would be left of a Hummer that collides with a typical 68 wheel road train (tripple boggey semi-trailers or 3 x 44 foot trailers) under speed unlimited condition in the Northern Territory, Australia. The road train would not even notice the splat on the roo bars.

Safety is relative. There is always something bigger and badder out there.

For its class the Jazz/Fit is one of the safest cars and also very pedestrian friendly. Big ridged 4 wheel drives built on truck instead of car chassis are not safe as the occupants absorb impacts in collisions instead of the vehicle.

Anyone see that new 4WD from China that was the 1st vehicle to score a ZERO rating in European crash tests. It had airbags but the whole steering column went through the head of the crash test dummy at quite low speed.

 

I agree the the Fit is bigger than the Civic of the 80's-90's. My Civic Si was small, and I never realized it until we bought the Weak Dawg Toyota Tacoma truck. The Tacoma is a small truck by US standards. I saw a Civic a few weeks ago that looked like my old Si, and I was kinda shocked as to how small it was. From photos I've seen of the Fit, it is tall for it's size. If the Fit is the same height as the Scion Xa, then it would be close to the height of my little truck. One thing I like about the truck is the height, and I can see better when I'm driving. If the Fit is about the same height, I would think that being able to sit in a higher position would itself be a safety factor.

 

HA! That's great. That instills me with so much confidance in Chinese automotive technology

 

The Chinese Jiangling Landwind x6 - check out the videos with the article. Remember that this is a heavy, offroader. Watch as the front wheels push up into the cabin.

http://paultan.org/archives/2005/09/...in-crash-test/

They are still selling this vehicle despite the zero crash rating score.

I'll take my chances in the Jazz instead anyday.

 

Here are some results ratings based on Euro NCAP:
( of 5 )
kancil - 0
iswara - 0.5
kelisa - 0.5
myvi - 0
savvy - 4
waja - 3.5
picanto - 1
getz - 2
Chevy Spark - 2
Cherry QQ - 0
dadi trekker - 0 ( flop big time )
satria Gti - 4
ATOZ - 1

Makes even the Hyundai and Malaysian Waja look good.

The Honda Jazz was the 1st super mini sized car to be given a 3 star rating for pedestrian protection, proving that even the smallest cars can be pedestrian friendly.
Occupant Protection : 4 stars
Child Protection : 3 stars
Pedestrian Protection : 3 stars

 

Good one vividjazz..

Jazz is much more safer than a lot of the cars out there.. with Euro NCAP rating of 4 stars.. it is even better than my other bigger car.. (looks big and tough..but only got 3 stars...)

It all depends on how you friggin drive man.. if you drive like 100km/h straight into the wall.. good luck with that...

I am happy with the Jazz

http://world.honda.com/news/2004/4040624.html

 

ANCAP crash test

Honda Jazz 2003 - on




Overall Evaluation

Overall score 25.65 out of 37 Pedestrian rating
15.02 points out of 36 (42%) Category SMALL CAR Variant VTi 5 DR HATCH Engine 1.5L litre Kerb weight 1030 kg Test vehicles built 2/2003 Crash test date December 2003 Test by Euro NCAP



The HONDA JAZZ scored 9.95 out of 16 in the offset crash test. The passenger compartment held its shape reasonably well. Protection from serious chest and leg injury was marginal for the driver.

The vehicle scored 15.69 out of 16 in the side impact crash test. There was a slight risk of serious abdomen injury for the driver.






Safety features



The tested model of HONDA JAZZ was introduced in 2003.

Dual front airbags are standard equipment. ABS brakes are also standard.

The front seat belt buckles are mounted on the seats and the upper anchorages are adjustable. These features improve the fit of the seat belt. Pretensioners are fitted to the front seat belts to reduce slack in the event of a crash. A three point seat belt is fitted to the centre rear seat. This provides better protection than a two point seat belt.




Structure



Frontal offset crash test

Body region scores out of 4 points each: Head/neck 4pts, chest 2.49pts, upper legs 2pts, lower legs 1.47pts.
The passenger compartment held its shape well except that the front part of the driver's floor was pushed rearwards 158mm. The brake pedal moved rearwards by 92mm and upwards 27mm, relative to the driver's seat. The dash moved 41mm towards the driver. The steering wheel hub moved rearwards 76mm, upwards 35mm and sideways 18mm, relative to the driver's seat. The front ("A") pillar moved 82mm rearwards. The width of the driver's doorway shortened by 72mm. All doors remained closed during the crash. After the crash high manual effort was required to open the driver's door. This door locked during the impact.

The airbag cushioned the head of the driver and contact was stable. Steering column components were a potential source of injury for the driver's knees. The passenger's head was cushioned by the airbag.

The 3yo child dummy in the rear seat experienced a much higher chest deceleration than is typical in this type of test. This suggests an increased risk of injury and it might result from a relatively stiff vehicle body.


Side impact crash test

Body region scores out of 4 points each: Head 4pts, chest 4pts, abdomen 3.95pts, pelvis 4pts, backplate modifier: 0.25 deduction.

The vehicle was not eligible for a Pole Impact Test since it did not have head-protecting side airbags. This test can earn eligible vehicles an extra two points.




Modifiers for Test Scores



Offset crash test Head No deduction Chest No deduction Upper leg Variable & conc. loading 2pt deduction L & R Lower leg No deduction Foot score Score 4 points

Injury Scores Refer to the information sheet "How the test are done"
Offset Crash Test
at 64 km/h
Side Impact
Crash at
50 km/h
Driver
Passenger
Driver
Head HIC

Acceleration (g for 3ms)
615

60.3
321

43.2
102

32.3
Head Injury Criterion (HIC) is a measure of the potential for head injury. At a HIC of 1000 one in 6 adults will suffer from life-threatening injury to their brain.
Neck Shear (kN)

Tension (kN)

Extension (Nm)
0.40

1.5

32.8
0.65

0.95

19.4
-

-

-
Chest Acceleration (g for 3ms)

Compression (mm)

Viscous Criterion (m/s)
52.5

32.6

0.16
32.8

24.7

0.07
-

14.5

0.1
Chest compression of 75 or more, or chest acceleration of 90 or more indicates poor protection from serious chest injury.
Abdomen Force (kN)
-
-
1.02
Pelvis Force (kN)
-
-
3
Upper Legs Force Left (kN)

Force Right (kN)

Knee Disp. Left (mm)

Knee Disp. Right (mm)
1.45

0.97

2.6

1.54
0.04

2.36

0.07

1.79
-

-

-

-
An upper leg axial force of 10.9 or more indicates poor protection from serious upper leg (femur) injury. Lower Legs Force Left (kN)

Force Right (kN)

Index (upper/lower) Left

Index (upper/lower) Right
2.33

1.72

0.49/0.35

0.46/0.97
2.52

1.83

0.27/0.18

0.21/0.23
-

-

-

-
A lower leg index of 1.2 or more indicates poor protection from serious lower leg (tibia) injury.


Bonus points (maximum 5) Pole Test: Not eligible Seat belt reminders: Not eligible


Pedestrian rating



15.02 points out of 36.

Child head impacts 1.38pts; adult head impacts 7.64pts; upper leg 2pts and lower leg impacts 4pts.

About ANCAP crash tests

The Australian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) gives consumers consistent information on the level of occupant protection provided by vehicles in serious front and side crashes.

The program is supported by Australian and New Zealand automobile clubs, the State government road and transport authorities of NSW, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia and the New Zealand Government.


About the Tests

Each vehicle model tested in ANCAP is subjected to an offset crash test into a barrier, a side impact test and a pedestrian impact test. A pole test is optional.

The vehicles purchased for the test program were typical of those vehicles available to new car purchasers.

The offset frontal crash test simulates colliding with another vehicle. In this test, 40% of the car, on the driver’s side, initially makes contact with a crushable aluminium barrier at 64km/h. The side impact test consists of running a 950kg trolley into the driver’s side of the test vehicle at 50km/h. The trolley has a crushable aluminium face to simulate the front of another vehicle.

A pole test is an optional extra test, available at the manufacturer’s cost, if the vehicle performs very well in the side impact test and is fitted with head protecting side airbags. The vehicle impacts a steel pole lined up with the driver’s head, at 29km/h sideways.

The pedestrian impact test estimates injuries to pedestrians struck by a vehicle travelling at 40km/h.



Pedestrian Impact Tests

Pedestrian Impact tests are also carried out, which estimate head and leg injuries to pedestrians struck by the test vehicle travelling at 40 km/h. The results from this test are listed in the ratings below. Pedestrian impacts represent 18 per cent of the fatal road crashes in Australia and New Zealand.


EuroNCAP

European NCAP (EuroNCAP) testing procedures are substantially the same as ANCAP testing procedures. However, the EuroNCAP results are to be used as a guide only, as the structure and equipment of the European specification model may differ materially from that of the Australian or New Zealand vehicle of the same name.

Also, if different safety equipment is fitted, the Australian or New Zealand vehicle of the same name is likely to provide different levels of protection to those noted.


Test Results

To simplify the crash test results and the pedestrian impact results, ANCAP has assigned an occupant rating and a pedestrian rating in stars to each vehicle model. The occupant rating considers the injury measures to the head, neck, chest, abdomen, pelvis, upper and lower legs and the deformation of the vehicle’s structure. The star rating assigned on the basis of the crash test results combines offset and side impact results, and points where advanced seatbelt reminders are fitted, plus points when the optional pole test was conducted. The pedestrian rating considers the injury measures to the head, upper legs, knees and lower legs when struck by a vehicle travelling at 40km/h. Detailed test results are available by calling one of the numbers on the back of this brochure, or by visiting one of the websites.


Making Comparisons

ANCAP results are intended to be used to compare the crash protection provided by vehicles in severe crashes.

Occupants of heavier vehicles in real-world two-vehicle crashes typically fare better than people in lighter vehicles. This is why crash test results shouldn’t be compared among vehicles with large weight differences. In many singlevehicle
crashes, weight offers no safety advantage.


Changes in test protocols

There have been minor changes to the test protocols applied by ANCAP since the Euro NCAP scoring system was adopted in 1999. Due to these changes, care should be exercised when comparing results across years. Below is a
table which specifies the test protocol versions applied in respect of each testing period.



Test date Nov 1999 -Oct 2000 Nov 2000 -Oct 2001 Nov 2001 -Nov 2002 Dec 2002 -Jan 2003 Feb 2003 -Nov 2003 Dec 2003 -Jun 2004 Jul 2004 -onwards Test protocol Offset version 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.1 3.1 4.0 4.0 Side impact version 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 4.0 Pole version 2.0 3.0 3.1 3.1 4.0 4.0 Pedestrian version 2.0 3.0 3.1 3.1 4.0 4.0 To determine the crash test period in which a test on a particular vehicle was conducted, click on the particular vehicle in the results tables and see the full report.

EuroNCAP testing protocols are also used in the Australian program.

 

Where are the Fits built?

 

That Chinese SUV looks alot like the 95 Honda Passport (also Isuzu Rodeo) that I had. I hope mine was better in a crash. Glad I never found out.

 

Japan, China, Thailand and Brazil.

 

Offset frontal and side impact test lab footage of Honda Jazz. Really picks up the rear wheels when airborne.

http://honda.lulop.com/post.php/3023

 

Euro NCAP information for Jazz

http://www.euroncap.com/content/safe...?id1=1&id2=188