Status Report Vol. 33, No. 5, May 9, 1998 - Insurance Institute for ...

STATUS REPORTINSURANCE INSTITUTEFOR HIGHWAY SAFETYVol. 33, No. 5, May 9, 1998Styling recalls 1960sSafety is up-to-the-minute ’90sThe Volkswagen Beetle of the 1960s is a pop culture iconto which the 1998 New Beetle pays homage, right down tothe built-in bud vase in the dashboard. But the reincarnatedBeetle’s crashworthiness performance is as up-to-the-minuteas its styling is retro. In fact, the New Beetle sets the standardamong small cars for how well it protects its occupantsin serious crashes, as measured in the Institute’s frontal offsetcrash test at 40 mph.The original Beetle didn’t earn safety kudos. In 1966,Ralph Nader told a Senate subcommittee that “it is hard tofind a more dangerous car.” That may have been true in the1960s, but the 1998 New Beetle is a whole different story.

2 Status Report, Vol. 33, No. 5, May 9, 1998Best performer: The Institute hasevaluated 16 small cars for crashworthiness,“and the New Beetle is the best byfar,” Institute President Brian O’Neillpoints out. Here’s what’s special aboutthis car compared with other small 1997-98 models the Institute has evaluated:1. The Beetle is the only model to earnan overall evaluation of good and a “bestpick” designation. Among the other 15ABESTPICKOVERALLCRASHWORTHINESSEVALUATIONS,SMALL CARSVOLKSWAGEN NEW BEETLE1998 modelsHONDA CIVIC1996-98 modelsTOYOTA COROLLACHEVROLET PRIZM1998 modelsFORD ESCORTMERCURY TRACER1997-98 modelsHYUNDAI ELANTRA1996-98 modelsSATURN SL1995-98 modelsMAZDA PROTEGE1995-98 modelsNISSAN SENTRA1998 modelsVOLKSWAGEN JETTA/GOLF1994-98 modelsMITSUBISHI MIRAGE1997-98 modelsDODGE/PLYMOUTH NEON1995-98 modelsKIA SEPHIA1996-97 modelsGOODACCEPTABLEMARGINALPOORGAAAAAAAMPPPGAMPmodels, 9 are rated acceptable, 2 are marginal,and 4 are poor overall. This also isthe only model among the 16 to earn agood evaluation for structural performancein the Institute’s frontal offsetcrash test — impressive because the testis so demanding of vehicle structure, orsafety cage.2. The Beetle is the only model amongthe 16 with head restraint geometry ratedgood, indicating the restraint is highenough and close enough to the back ofan average-size male’s head to limit relativehead and torso movement in rear-endcollisions. Such movement often causeswhiplash injuries.3. The Beetle sustained by far the leastamount of damage in four low-speed(5 mph) crash tests — a total of $134 damagecompared with more than $1,000 damageto most small cars and more than$3,000 damage to the worst performer(see “Bumpers are excellent,” p.5).4. The Beetle is one of only a few smallcar models with airbags to protect peoplein side impacts. It’s also one of the fewwith shoulder belt crash tensioners toprevent slack from allowing excessive forwardmovement in a crash and devices tolimit belt force on occupants.Crashworthiness evaluations are basedprimarily on performance in a 40 mphfrontal offset crash test. All vehicles arerated in three categories and then assignedoverall evaluations of good, acceptable,marginal, or poor. Head restraintdesign and bumper performance in lowspeedcrash tests don’t affect the overallevaluations but are considered when establishingvehicle rankings within each group(small cars, midsize four-door cars, etc.).“The Beetle’s excellent crashworthinessdesign plus its bumpers that resist damageindicate the commitment Volkswagen’s seniormanagement — Rudiger Schmidt inparticular — has made to becoming aleader in this area,” O’Neill points out.“Now this commitment of Volkswagen ispaying off with two 1998 car models — thePassat as well as the (continued on p.6)

INSIDE THE OCCUPANTCOMPARTMENT, ONLYTHE DEPLOYED AIRBAGINDICATES THESERIOUSNESS OFTHE OFFSET IMPACT.THE DRIVER SPACEWAS MAINTAINEDEXCEPTIONALLY WELL.

IMPROVEDOLD DESIGN1998 PASSAT1995 PASSATWith the 1998 Passat, Volkswagen correctedproblems evident in the previous model. One ofthese was poorly controlled dummy movementdue in part to excessive floor buckling and seattipping. When the 1995 model was tested, thedummy’s head finished between the roof railand door frame (left). In the 1998 Passat test,dummy movement was well controlled (above).New model designs show automakers focus on offset testingSince the early 1990s, automakers havedesigned new vehicles to do well in federalNew Car Assessment Program (NCAP) fullwidthcrash tests, but the manufacturershaven’t always focused on improving performancein frontal offset tests like theones the Institute conducts.This is changing. Two automakers inparticular — Toyota and Volkswagen —have made great strides in building morecrashworthy cars than they did in thepast. These and other import and domesticautomakers now routinely do frontaloffset testing using deformable barriersduring the new car development process.Offset test programs providing consumersinformation on vehicle crashworthinessalso are conducted in Australia, Europe,and Japan. Even the U.S. government iscontemplating offset tests to complementNCAP full-width rigid barrier tests.“There’s a recognition now among automakersthat the best way to assess vehiclefrontal crashworthiness is with bothtest configurations — offset plus full-width,”says Brian O’Neill, Institute president.Full-width barrier tests like NCAP’s aregood measures of restraint system performance,but they aren’t as demanding ofvehicle structure. Offsets are demandingof occupant compartment integrity butnot as demanding of restraints. In offsets,only part of the front end hits the barrierso a smaller part of a car’s structure mustmanage the crash energy.When the Institute in 1992 asked 17 automakersabout their test programs, 8manufacturers — all imports — said in additionto compliance and NCAP tests, theywere doing some type of offset crash (seeStatus Report, Vol. 27, No. 15, Dec. 19,1992). Various types of barriers, offset angles,and test speeds were used. Now themost common offset configuration is 40percent of a vehicle’s front end into a deformablebarrier.Volkswagen’s New Beetle is designed toperform well in a range of crash tests, includingoffset frontal and full-width testsand low-speed bumper performance evaluations.This small car is the first of itssize class to earn a crashworthiness “bestpick” rating from the Institute.Earlier this year another Volkswagen,the redesigned 1998 Passat, earned thesame top rating. This is a marked improvementover the poor performance ofthe 1995 Passat (see Status Report, Vol. 33,No. 2, March 7, 1998).Toyota proved this year that it’s workingto improve offset test performance.The 1996 Previa van got a poor overall ratingfrom the Institute, but the all-new 1998

OLD DESIGN1998 SIENNA1996 PREVIACrash performance differencesbetween Toyota’s 1996 Previaminivan and its newly designed1998 Sienna are easy to see.There was a lot of occupant compartmentintrusion in the Previa(above), and too much slack in thedriver belt. In the Sienna test (left),the dummy stayed in position, andthe occupant space held up well.Bumpers are excellentDamage to VW’s New Beetle isminimal in low-speed crash testsThe New Beetles now arriving at dealershowrooms are equipped with excellentbumpers. Both front and rear bumpers willprevent much of the damage that can occurin low-speed collisions, the kind ofcrash that frequently happens in congestedurban traffic. This is the finding of a seriesof four Institute crash tests conductedat 5 mph — little more than walking speed— to assess bumper performance.In all four tests, damage to the Beetletotaled only $134. “This is way below whatwe typically see,” Institute President BrianO’Neill says. “There was much less damagethan to any other 1997 or ’98 small carwe tested. In fact, the Beetle is the onlycar the Institute has tested that begins tocompare with the 1981 Ford Escort, whichsustained no damage in any of the fourtests at 5 mph.”In comparison, the second best performeramong 1997-98 small cars was theSaturn SL, which sustained more thanStatus Report, Vol. 33, No. 5, May 5, 1998 5$600 damage in the same four tests. Allother small cars except the Toyota Corollasustained more than $1,000 damage. Theworst performer, the Hyundai Elantra,sustained more than $3,000 damage.The Institute’s low-speed crash testseries includes front and rear flat-barrierimpacts plus two localized impacts, frontinto-angle-barrierand rear-into-pole.In the most demanding of the fourtests, rear-into-pole, the Beetle sustainedno damage at all. Only the Saturn matchedthis performance. In contrast, the Elantrasustained more than $1,700 damage in thesame test.The Beetle’s superior bumpers “showwhat can be accomplished when a manufacturerdecides to make damage resistancea priority,” O’Neill points out. Headds that the flimsier bumpers on competingmodels “mean lots of unnecessary damagein minor impacts, higher insurancebills, deductibles paid out of consumers’pockets, and the major inconvenience ofdoing without a car while it’s in the shopto repair damage that likely wouldn’t haveoccurred to the Beetle in the same lowspeedcollision.”Sienna is the best minivan the Institutehas ever tested. The redesigned1997 Camry earned a“best pick” rating, too, after itspredecessor 1995 model was ratedacceptable. Likewise, Toyotamodified the structure of the1998 Avalon to do better infrontal offset tests. The car improvedfrom marginal in 1996 toacceptable in 1998.“We expect to see bigger improvementsin models fromother automakers, too, as theyintroduce new designs,” O’Neillsays. “It’s easier to incorporatestructural improvements in vehicleswhen new models are beingdeveloped than it is to modifystructures without changing theentire design of the car.”DAMAGE REPAIR COSTS: 1997-98 SMALL CARS, 5 MPH TESTSFront Rear Front RearInto Into Into Angle Into TotalBarrier Barrier Barrier Pole DamageVolkswagen New Beetle $16 $0 $118 $0 $134Saturn SL2 $105 $50 $501 $0 $656Toyota Corolla LE $0 $316 $283 $250 $849Nissan Sentra GXE $368 $0 $624 $37 $1,029Dodge Neon Highline $132 $81 $331 $494 $1,038Volkswagen Jetta GL $141 $0 $718 $236 $1,095Honda Civic LX $55 $80 $797 $460 $1,392Ford Escort LX $237 $148 $757 $642 $1,784Mazda Protege LX $599 $135 $461 $700 $1,895Mitsubishi Mirage DE $562 $243 $856 $972 $2,633Kia Sephia LS $353 $438 $727 $1,298 $2,816Hyundai Elantra $228 $386 $717 $1,711 $3,042Repair costs reflect March 1998 prices

(continued from p.2) Beetle— that earn good overallcrashworthiness ratings.”The Institute tested theNew Beetle twice at 40 mph.In the first test, it earned agood overall evaluation. Butfollowing discussions withVolkswagen about restraintsystem performance, the automakerreduced the size of 30 cmthe airbag vent hole and requesteda second test. The Institute’scrashworthinessevaluation covers both tests,but the ratings are based onthe second test because theairbag design change will beintroduced in this model year. 20 cmIn both tests, there wasminimal intrusion into thedriver footwell area. Dummymovement was reasonablywell controlled during bothtests at 40 mph, although theairbag and safety belt system 10 cmdid allow the dummy’s headto contact the steering wheelthrough the airbag late inboth crashes.Measures taken from thedummy’s neck, chest, andboth legs in the offset testsindicate low risk of injury toBrakePedalthese body regions. However,forces on the head fromhitting the steering wheel in the first testwere high enough to indicate the possibilityof minor head injury — rated acceptable.In the second test, the forces recordedfrom head contact were lower.“The structural performance was impressive,”O’Neill explains. “The front-endcrush zone managed the crash energyvery well so that damage was kept awayfrom the occupant compartment. Thedriver space was maintained so well that,after the 40 mph crash tests, the deployedairbags were the only obvious indicationsinside the occupant compartments thatthe impacts had been serious. Later, whenFootRestIntrusion measurements,40 mph offset crash test,three small carsKia SephiaHonda CivicVW New Beetle 1st TestVW New Beetle 2nd TestLeftToepanCenterToepanRightToepanLeftDashwe measured the precise amounts andpattern of the intrusion into the New Beetle’soccupant compartment, our initial assessmentwas confirmed. There was muchless intrusion than in the other small carswe previously tested” (see graph, above).How performance is assessed: Instituteresearchers use a 40 mph offset crashtest to evaluate three important aspects ofpassenger vehicle crashworthiness. Thefirst is how well the front-end crush zonemanages crash energy and the safety cagelimits occupant compartment intrusion.The second is injury risk measured on adummy representing an average-size maleRightDashin the driver seat. The thirdaspect is how well the dummy’smovement is controlledduring the impact.Vehicle structure, injurymeasures, and occupantrestraints are evaluatedseparately in the Institute’s40 mph frontal offset crashtest — even though thesethree aspects are related— because good performancein any one of thethree categories by itself ina single test isn’t sufficientto reliably indicate goodcrashworthiness. The samecrash test is used to evaluatenew cars by the EuropeanUnion in cooperationwith motor clubs and byan Australian consortiumof state governments andmotor clubs.The Institute’s crashworthinessevaluations alsoreflect the adequacy offront-seat head restraintdesigns and bumper performancein four crash testsat 5 mph.Complementary tests:The federal governmenthas been testing new passengervehicles in 35 mphcrash tests since 1978.This New Car Assessment Program hasbeen a major contributor to crashworthinessimprovements — in particular, theimproved restraint systems in new passengervehicles.The Institute’s frontal offset test, whichinvolves 40 percent of a vehicle’s frontend hitting a deformable barrier at 40mph, complements the federal test involvingthe full width of the front end hitting arigid barrier. The government’s test is especiallydemanding of vehicles’ restraintsystems but not so much so of vehiclestructure. An offset test is more demandingof vehicle structure.

556575Fatal crashes rise with highway speed limitsFindings of new federal report reinforce Institute’s 1997 speed limit studyWhen Congress repealed the nationalmaximum speed limit in 1995, it told theU.S. Department of Transportation tomonitor the impact of higher limits andreport back. Now the report is in, andresults “follow the historical pattern,”the government says — deaths are upwhere speed limits are up.“States that increased speed limits in1996 experienced approximately 350more interstate fatalities than wouldhave been expected based on historicaltrends — about 9 percent above expectations,”the report says. “Concurrently,the interstate fatalities in states that didnot increase speed limits in 1996 wereconsistent with pre-1996 trends.”Last year, the Institute analyzed theeffect of higher speed limits on urbanand rural freeways during the last 9months of 1996 and found fatal crasheswere up 12 percent over what was expected(see Status Report, Vol. 32, No. 8,Oct. 11, 1997).There are some analytical differencesbetween the two reports. For example,the Institute study focused on 12 statesthat raised speed limits prior to August1996 and included other freeways aswell as interstate highways. The federalreport covered 32 states, some not raisingspeed limits until August 1996, andwas restricted to interstates only.But neither these nor other differencesobscure the bottom line — the significantevidence of an increase in fatalitiesfollowing the latest round of speedlimit increases.For more, see “Report to Congress:The Effect of Increased Speed Limits inthe Post-NMSL Era,” U.S. Department ofTransportation, February 1998.

STATUS REPORTINSURANCE INSTITUTEFOR HIGHWAY SAFETY1005 N. Glebe Rd., Arlington, VA 22201 703/247-1500 Fax 247-1588 Internet: www.highwaysafety.orgVol. 33, No. 5, May 9, 1998VW Beetle gets a style and safety update,outperforming other small cars . . . . . p.1Automakers focus on vehicle performancein offset crash tests . . . . . . . . . p.4New Beetle bumpers ace Institute lowspeedtests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p.5Higher speed limits associated withmore highway deaths . . . . . . . . . . . . . p.7NON-PROFIT ORG.U.S. POSTAGEPAIDPERMIT NO. 252ARLINGTON, VAEditor: Kim StewartWriter: Maria KaufmannArt Director: Joyce ThompsonContents may be republished with attribution.This publication is printed on recycled paper.ISSN 0018-988XThe Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is an independent, nonprofit, scientific and educational organizationdedicated to reducing the losses — deaths, injuries, and property damage — from crashes on the nation’s highways. The Instituteis wholly supported by automobile insurers:Alfa InsuranceAllstate Insurance GroupAmerican Family InsuranceAmerican National Property and CasualtyAmica Mutual Insurance CompanyAuto Club South Insurance CompanyAutomobile Club of Michigan GroupBaldwin & Lyons GroupBituminous Insurance CompaniesBrethren Mutual Insurance CompanyBrotherhood MutualCalifornia Insurance GroupCalifornia State Automobile AssociationCameron CompaniesChubb Insurance CompaniesChurch MutualColonial PennConcord Group Insurance CompaniesCotton StatesCountry CompaniesCUNA MutualErie Insurance GroupFarm Bureau of IdahoFarm Bureau of IowaFarmers Insurance Group of CompaniesFarmers Mutual of NebraskaFidelity & DepositFirst Mercury Insurance CompanyFoundation ReserveFrankenmuthThe GEICO GroupGeneral Accident InsuranceGeneral Casualty Insurance CompaniesGrange InsuranceGuaranty National CorporationHarleysville Insurance CompaniesThe HartfordHeritage Mutual GroupKansas Farm BureauKemper Insurance CompaniesLiberty Mutual Insurance GroupMaryland Insurance GroupMerastarMercury General GroupMetropolitan Property and CasualtyMiddlesex MutualMontgomery Insurance CompaniesMotor Club of America Insurance CompanyMotorists Insurance CompaniesMotors InsuranceMutual Service InsuranceNational Grange MutualNationwide Insurance EnterpriseNorth Carolina Farm BureauNorthland Insurance CompaniesOklahoma Farm BureauOld Guard Insurance CompanyOmni Insurance GroupPekin InsurancePEMCO Insurance CompaniesThe Progressive CorporationThe PrudentialRanger InsuranceResponse InsuranceRoyal & SunAllianceSAFECO Insurance CompaniesSECURAShelter Insurance CompaniesSouthern HeritageState Auto Insurance CompaniesState Farm Insurance CompaniesThe St. Paul CompaniesTokio Marine GroupUnited Auto Insurance CompanyUSAAUSF+GViking Insurance Company of WisconsinVirginia Mutual Insurance CompanyWarrior InsuranceWisconsin MutualYasuda Fire and Marine of America