All right. I'll answer in a few ways.

First, let's proceed under the assumption that the wall is an immovable object. Made of tungsten and a thousand feet thick.

Scenario 1: I'll bring in your earlier egg/ping pong ball premise in the following:

I'd rather be in a loaded Fit that crumples properly (egg) than an empty Fit that does not crumple properly (ping pong ball). I and all passengers would be far more likely to survive in the one that crumples because it controls how that energy is dissipated.

Scenario 2: Now, let's leave behind the egg/ping pong ball question and assume that we're discussing a Fit that crumples properly for either scenario since, thankfully, modern cars do NOT act like a ping pong ball.

I'd rather be in the empty Fit that crumples than the loaded Fit that crumples. Of course. Yes, less mass and energy to dissipate upon impact.

But that really has less to do with the vehicle. I'd say the same thing if I were in a Maybach, a Fit, a Suburban, or Miata.

Potentially, loading up a light car has a more detrimental effect due to the load carried being a larger proportion of it's total mass. So, the occupants are potentially safer in a larger car simply because they have less effect on it's mass and the car is designed to crash a larger mass.

Bonus Scenario 3: If we change the wall to another Fit that is then moving at equal speed, in opposite direction as the Mayach, the Maybach that crumples that's crashing into it will have more mass to transfer to the Fit that crumples. The occupants of the Maybach will generally be safer in a crash between these two vehicles. The Maybach wins.

Did I cover what you're getting at in the above?

 

I think the weight question completely ignores the fact that heavier vehicles aren't heavier just because they have more junk inside. They are heavier because they are larger and contain more steel.

Modern vehicles are HIGHLY engineered and the weight placed upon the chassis is a major consideration when designing the chassis. In other words, heavier vehicles have heavier duty chassis'.

So, with that, I'll pose this question...would you rather be in a crash in a vehicle with a weak/lighter chassis or a heavier duty/stronger chassis?

For me, I'll take the heavier duty chassis.

Of course, this all ignores the ability to avoid the accident entirely. For that discussion we'd have to look at braking stats, skid pad numbers, etc. Sadly the Fit fails those tests quite miserably though since most heavier vehicles still manage better numbers.

Not hating on the Fit. Just saying it's a very poor choice for anyone with safety as a top priority. Sure, it's in the same ballpark as other cars in it's class, but it's in the least safe class. Economy cars aren't known for the best handling/braking or the best occupancy safety ratings.

 

Falling off a roof isn't so bad either, Its that dead stop at the bottom that hurts.

 

ive not tried that yet.

 

I don't consider it hating at all. I consider it not referring to the IIHS safety test details before forming an opinion. I searched and couldn't find failing test results for GK Fit brakes. Do you have a link?

2018 Honda Fit

Front overlap test is really the only safety test ONLY for vehicles of similar weight - GK Fit test result G.

Side (T-bone) safety test is across vehicle types - GK Fit test result G.

Roof safety test is across vehicle types - GK Fit test result G.

Equipped 2018 GK Fit ranks superior in Front Crash Prevention with optional Honda Sensing.

Economy a/k/a small cars aren't known to tip/flip as easily as the larger CUVs, SUVs and Trucks. I'd rather be in a better planted car (lower center of gravity) if I'm swerving to avoid an accident. The high GK Fit test results will likely protect the driver and passenger(s) as good as or better than a larger vehicle in a rollover event. (My comment is based on the side and roof numbers.) I admittedly have an unabashed bias in favor of small econoboxes... sexy or not doesn't come into the conversation (although good styling is a plus). But I look at actual IIHS results when discussing safety. I don't wax intellectual over engineering theories without concrete and objective test results.

 

im pretty sure over the course of 10yrs, the fit has evolved quite a bit and safer than wat the GD was 10yrs ago. safety is something you have to pay for. if you want a tank of a hatch that actually performs well and comfortably dd-able, id suggest getting the GTI. i dont know wat the safety numbers show but i can tell you that it has the agility and power of a sports car in a hatch disguise.

 

I think the Fit's brakes are adequate for the car, even with the rear drums. They're not great, but I've driven worse and they're performance is similar to other cars in it's class. It beats most actually on the 70-0 brake tests I saw when researching for my next commuter car.

 

Amabento, you are ignoring that the iihs tests only use a fixed object for the crash testing. In the real world, cars run into each other, not just concrete walls.

Here's straight from the iihs Site where they address the issue themselves...

"Given equivalent frontal ratings, the heavier of two vehicles usually offers better protection in real-world crashes. In 2009, IIHS demonstrated this principle with a series of tests in which small cars were crashed into larger cars, all of which had good frontal ratings in the moderate overlap test."

In other words, crash that G rated Fit into a G rated mid sized sedan and that G becomes less than good.

Regarding braking. The stats speak for themselves...

Car and Driver 70-0 braking test results -
2018 Honda Fit Sport - 179 feet
2018 Camry v6 - 167 feet
2018 Honda Accord - 162 feet

The Camry and Accord also pull significantly higher g's on a skid pad.

Once again, I like the Fit and don't hate on them, but it's not the right choice if safety is your number one concern. The average mid-sized sedan offers better braking, better handling, and more mass.

 

Just some more food for thought...

I wasn't able to find this years numbers, but in 2011 the average passenger vehicle sold weighed 4,040 lbs.

The iihs test uses a 3,300 lb barrier for it's side test.

Shouldn't the test use the average weight? Shouldn't the testing be done by crashing the average weight into the vehicle instead of using a fixed object?

I bet we'd see some crazy results for light vehicles, but I don't think they want to publish that kind of information since it could lead the safety conscious crowd into larger, heavier vehicles that get poorer fuel economy.

All just food for thought. For me, safety ratings have to be taken with a huge grain of salt. In the end, driver ability is probably the largest factor in driver safety.

 

 

Those braking numbers are not theoretical.

Neither are these skid pad numbers..
2018 Honda Fit Sport - .81g (better than 2015 model)
2018 Camry v6 - .87g
2018 Honda Accord - .90g

Not saying that I'm personally going to run out and buy a Camry or Accord. Just saying once again that, if one's goal is safety, the Fit isn't the best choice.

 

 

The crumple zone thing definitely makes the side test a tough one. Maybe that's how they got to the 3,300 lb number? Figuring that a solid 3,300 lbs is like a crumpling mass of more weight?

I'm not concerned about the Fit's test results either. I think it's pretty darn good for it's size/class.

My only point is that it's just not the best choice if safety is concern number one. The mid and full size car classes have always been the overall safest vehicle options. You get manufacture's max effort paired with a medium amount of mass.

 

 

Fit versus sedan: sedan wins
sedan versus SUV: SUV wins
SUV versus pickup: Pickup wins
pickup versus box truck: truck wins
box truck versus semi-truck: semi wins
semi truck versus freight train: train wins

No matter how big a vehicle you drive, there's a bigger one out there.

 

Just like bringing a knife to a gun fight....lol

 

This is true, science will win on this as a moving object will do more damage than a stationary object. Running into something exerts more force especially if it hits a soft spot, where a stationary object just absorbs the impact and they are set to test crunch zones not to test the entire car. real life scenarios differ as you will have other distracted drivers, poorly maintained vehicles...ect.. contributing to the outcome such as weather, pile-ups, rollovers, just so many combinations unlike a controlled crash test.