# Insurance Institute ---bad rating



## crystal red cruze (Apr 11, 2011)

The Insurance Institute for Highway safety, rated the Cruze as Marginal. So what happened from 2011 the brand new Cruze to 2013 that made the Cruze so bad on safety? It's the same car for three years. They were saying it was good the first two years?


----------



## ErikBEggs (Aug 20, 2011)

Different kind of test.

The Cruze is very good in all areas. However, that test was frontal offset crash as opposed to just frontal crash. The Cruze earned the highest rating in a case of it crashing head first into a wall or another vehicle. However, that particular crash was if the Cruze hits the end of the wall with a small section of the front (not the whole thing). The idea is to reflect how the car would take the impact in a frontal collision where both parties try to avoid the impact and only hit head on in a front corner. The Cruze performs "marginally" in that scenario.


----------



## giantsnation (Oct 11, 2012)

Not sure where you saw that but the Cruze is listed as a Top Safety Pick. IIHS-HLDI


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

ErikBEggs said:


> Different kind of test.
> 
> The Cruze is very good in all areas. However, that test was frontal offset crash as opposed to just frontal crash. The Cruze earned the highest rating in a case of it crashing head first into a wall or another vehicle. However, that particular crash was if the Cruze hits the end of the wall with a small section of the front (not the whole thing). The idea is to reflect how the car would take the impact in a frontal collision where both parties try to avoid the impact and only hit head on in a front corner. The Cruze performs "marginally" in that scenario.


As does almost every other car on the road today. The "offset frontal crash test" is only a couple of years old so almost every car on the road is failing this test - it wasn't a design criteria for them even though most "head on" crashes on two lane roads fall into this category.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

obermd said:


> As does almost every other car on the road today. The "offset frontal crash test" is only a couple of years old so almost every car on the road is failing this test - it wasn't a design criteria for them even though most "head on" crashes on two lane roads fall into this category.


yes and the offset percent matters too as to how safe the car is. I think video below is similar to the test that they are doing. Problem with previous testing is most people in crashes try to swerve to avoid and don't hit square on, so the offset crash test makes the most sense. Who wouldn't try to avoid an accident? 
Chevrolet Cruze | 2011 | 20% Small Overlap Crash Test | NHTSA High Speed Camera | CrashNet1 - YouTube


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

The test is only partially valid. I would like to see what happens if the other vehicle was collapsing up as well. Solid objects are usually hit on the passengers side.


----------



## zr1000a1 (Jan 25, 2012)

Frontal offset test information

IIHS vehicle ratings
There are two offset tests now. Moderate and small offset.

Discussed here:
http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...-luxury-cars-fair-poorly-new-crash-tests.html

Honda aces crash test. Kia and Nissan fail - Aug. 8, 2013


----------



## socalcruze (Aug 4, 2012)

Aussie said:


> The test is only partially valid. I would like to see what happens if the other vehicle was collapsing up as well. Solid objects are usually hit on the passengers side.



This is a most valid point. This test is *not* a simulation of a "country road" accident exactly for this reason. The impact severity would be roughly half of what is seen here if it were two equivalent vehicles each crushing in their safety zone. This test is more akin to hitting a bridge pier with no intervening standard crash barrier. It appears to me the highest potential damage is to the driver's left foot - other than that, the Cruze seems to do very well.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

Aussie said:


> The test is only partially valid. I would like to see what happens if the other vehicle was collapsing up as well. Solid objects are usually hit on the passengers side.


However, one _perfect_ example of this new test was Princess Diana's car crash...driver's front quarter into a solid cement column.


----------



## socalcruze (Aug 4, 2012)

70AARCUDA said:


> However, one _perfect_ example of this new test was Princess Diana's car crash...driver's front quarter into a solid cement column.


Actually, that accident was a perfect example of why you should always wear a seatbelt (and, depending on which report you believe, that you shouldn't get in a car driven by someone who is intoxicated).


----------



## 99_XC600 (Feb 24, 2013)

Anyone who doubt's how important crash protection is should go watch some footage of the Russian Dash Cam's that are on YouTube. Yes, the majority of the people in these crashes are idiots but really points how important the engineering is when it goes to protect you.


----------



## zr1000a1 (Jan 25, 2012)

Call me crazy, but I want the car to perform well on both sides, no matter if I am a passenger, driver, or in a different country where the steering wheel is on the "other" side and or driving on the "other" side of the road. Before we go down the rabbit hole of rationale, if playing crash test dummy for the day, would you rather be in a car that does really well or marginal or poor? Arguing whether the test is valid or not is kind of silly.


----------



## kfr291 (Aug 11, 2012)

spacedout said:


> yes and the offset percent matters too as to how safe the car is. I think video below is similar to the test that they are doing. Problem with previous testing is most people in crashes try to swerve to avoid and don't hit square on, so the offset crash test makes the most sense. Who wouldn't try to avoid an accident?
> Chevrolet Cruze | 2011 | 20% Small Overlap Crash Test | NHTSA High Speed Camera | CrashNet1 - YouTube


a drunk, a sleeper, or a complete idiot in other words


----------



## prince_bigd (Jul 16, 2013)

in this cars price and size range has anthing recieved a good rating in this new partial offset test? I actually recall seeing that many other much larger and more expensive cars have recieved marginal or poor ratings. I went on youtube and watched the actual videos for several cars during this test. I came away impressed by how well the cruze held up. It showed some inflection but the overall cabin integrity appeared to remain mostly intact. It faired better than most in the videos i watched.


----------



## zr1000a1 (Jan 25, 2012)

Yes, there was one car that ruled them all, but as in the traditions of Beelzebub, Lucifer, Nosferatu, Sauron, and Voldemort, it shall go unnamed. Maybe if by removing the vowels it will be safe and not so “Precious.” 
Here goes nothing.....C_V_C. Ya meet the nicest people in or on a H_N_D_, but they might all be, “Of the Devil.”
I feel like a big evil eye of Mordor is watching me!


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

While this small offset crash test is relatively new and the type of crash is not necessarily a high volume one, this type of impact has been almost always fatal to the occupant on that side of the vehicle, hence the reason for the test. This type of crash not only concentrates the impact forces on the structure, but it also induces very violent spinning vectors to the vehicle. Most cars spin more than 90 degrees away from the impact site. The forces are nearly equal to a side impact crash. There were multiple reasons for the compact cars failing to meet the test criteria. 
1. Some seat belts spooled too much belt out allowing the occupant to enter the crush zone.
2. Some cars didn't deploy the side curtain and side impact air bags in this crash and allowed the occupant to hit the door and side window hard enough to cause life threatening injury.
3. Some cars' bodies deformed so much that the occupant was struck by the collapsing structure. One car had the steering column displaced by 5 inches and the driver missed the air bag allowing the head to strike the windshield/dash.

This information was available on the IIHS website back in early March, so I'm sort of baffled by the timing of the report. Perhaps it just came out because of new model year introductions. Honda re-engineered the '13 Civic body one year after bringing out the new generation in 2012 just to meet this test. As I said in another post, I believe this is why Chevy has delayed the second gen. Cruze until the 2016 MY. For what it's worth, the Dart barely made the grade as the test tore the door hinges out of the body in the test.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

giantsnation said:


> Not sure where you saw that but the Cruze is listed as a Top Safety Pick. IIHS-HLDI


If you look at the details of the report, you'll see that the Cruze scored "Marginal" on the small offset crash test. This doesn't keep a car out of the "Top Safety Pick" category. IIHS now has the "Top Safety Pick +" category for cars that exceed all of the tests. 

The Times They Are A Changin'


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

How many of you will rush out and sell your car because of this new test? Not me that is for sure.


----------



## 99_XC600 (Feb 24, 2013)

Aussie said:


> How many of you will rush out and sell your car because of this new test? Not me that is for sure.


Not likely...simply for the fact that I don't want to drive a Civic.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

socalcruze said:


> This is a most valid point. This test is *not* a simulation of a "country road" accident exactly for this reason. The impact severity would be roughly half of what is seen here if it were two equivalent vehicles each crushing in their safety zone. This test is more akin to hitting a bridge pier with no intervening standard crash barrier. It appears to me the highest potential damage is to the driver's left foot - other than that, the Cruze seems to do very well.


Head on collisions have double the kinetic energy of a single car slamming into a fixed object. Both cars are moving towards each other so the impact severity would comparable to a car crashing into a bridge abutment. The crumple zones in the cars will dissipate a lot of the impact but you are at double the speed. The real issue with this type of crash is that there are powerful sheer and torque forces that come into play because the center of gravity is offset from the impact and most cars simply cannot handle the sheering forces that are created.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Jim Frye said:


> Honda re-engineered the '13 Civic body one year after bringing out the new generation in 2012 just to meet this test. As I said in another post, I believe this is why Chevy has delayed the second gen. Cruze until the 2016 MY. For what it's worth, the Dart barely made the grade as the test tore the door hinges out of the body in the test.


That's a great point, I assumed it was so ford and GM would have some more time to work on their team effort new automatic.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

spacedout said:


> That's a great point, I assumed it was so ford and GM would have some more time to work on their team effort new automatic.


Was that the dual clutch 6 speed that ended up in the Focus with bad shifting issues. I thought they had parted ways on that project when GM went ahead with the second generation 6T40 generation.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Jim Frye said:


> Was that the dual clutch 6 speed that ended up in the Focus with bad shifting issues. I thought they had parted ways on that project when GM went ahead with the second generation 6T40 generation.


No, earlier this year it was announced they were partnering to make a new trans for the compact segment. I believe its a 9 speed auto. One has to wonder though looking at what both have produced in the compact segment for automatics, how good will this thing be? 
Ford and GM team up on 9-speed transmission - Apr. 15, 2013


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Man, and I think 6 speed autos are busy. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

socalcruze said:


> Actually, that accident was a perfect example of why you should always wear a seatbelt (and, depending on which report you believe, that you shouldn't get in a car driven by someone who is intoxicated).


FWIW, I was referring to the _"...sudden *STOP* upon *impact*..." _not the problems the driver and passengers brought upon themselves.


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

70AARCUDA said:


> FWIW, I was referring to the _"...sudden *STOP* upon *impact*..." _not the problems the driver and passengers brought upon themselves.


I have read that it is quite usual for high profile royals to not wear seat belts so that guards can get them down low quickly in case of an attack.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

Aussie said:


> I have read that it is quite usual for high profile royals to not wear seat belts so that guards can get them down low quickly in case of an attack.


That is what I recall reading from the official (French?) incident report.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

jblackburn said:


> Man, and I think 6 speed autos are busy.


Ya with 9speeds I am guessing you build an engine with a very low/tight power curve and let that thing shift like a dump truck. Probably never would see 3,000RPM, even with your foot to the floor.


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

spacedout said:


> Ya with 9speeds I am guessing you build an engine with a very low/tight power curve and let that thing shift like a dump truck. Probably never would see 3,000RPM, even with your foot to the floor.


I once had a Holden Brougham (yes the name is correct) V8 with a 2 speed powerglide in it.


----------



## CruzeTech (Mar 23, 2012)

The Cruze has changed since 2011. The 2011-2012 test came out great withy he frontal offset. 2013, they went to the "smart" airbags, which obviously aren't performing as well. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

The test has changed as well. In 2011 the offset was 50%. Now it's more like 20%, which imparts a lot more lateral forces on the car.


----------



## zr1000a1 (Jan 25, 2012)

There are a total of three frontal crash tests done in the United States, among other tests. NHTSA does a full frontal crash at 35 mph.

Insurance Institute does two frontal impacts. One at 40%, the other at 25% at 40mph. 
IIHS-HLDI: Crash Testing*&*Highway Safety

http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr080813.html
The small car tests story on the IIHS site

Frontal offset test information
small (25%) and moderate (40%) offset at 40mph

IIHS vehicle ratings
Links to descriptions of the 5 tests they do and for search ratings

Crash Test 101 - Understanding tests and ratings
Consumer Reports article

5-Star Safety Ratings | Safercar -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

zr: Nicely done!


----------



## zr1000a1 (Jan 25, 2012)

The 2014 Toyota Corolla only got a marginal on the newest IIHS small (25%) frontal offset crash. For a major redesign and knowing this was going to be tested, this is a fail. It rated good on the other tests by the IIHS. 

Toyota Corolla struggles in new crash test - Oct. 4, 2013


Vehicle Details


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

It also scored poorly with C&D, who summed up the '14 Corolla with this:

"If the Furia concept and Toyota's touted quest to put more passion in its cars raised your hopes for a driver-centric Corolla, prepare to be disappointed. Heaps better than last year, the 11th generation is still every inch a Corolla."

This is a really tough crash test of cars. Only one compact rated "good" in this test.


----------



## zr1000a1 (Jan 25, 2012)

It will be interesting to see how long it takes Toyota to do a a structural update and retest. i figure by the mid refresh they will be dropping the vvt-i version of their engine and going standard with the valvematic, probably dropping the 4-speed auto, and possibly introducing a turbo direct injected engine. If they do go a turbo route, will it be smaller displacement and geared/boosted for fuel economy or performance? I suspect smaller than 1.8 and be fuel economy focused.

This puts the Civic squarely on top of the heap for now when it comes to crash tests, and probably sales. Honda is starting to remind me of the VW and Volvo of the past, where you could expect them to do well in the safety and crash tests. 

The Odyssey and Pilot and 4-door Accord got all "good" ratings, including the small frontal offset test. The 2-door Accord rated an "acceptable" and the CRV got a "marginal" in the small frontal offset test.

For the right deal, I would still have no problem grabbing a 2014 Corolla. When I need excitement I jump on my bike. For the right deal Chevy, Ford, Mazda, Toyota, Honda, Subaru, etc. could all be parked in my driveway. Got to admit, I have been kind of in the Zoom, Zoom mood lately. Nothing a Focus ST or slightly used Beemer could not cure.

I know, that's just crazy talk! Better just keep driving what I have for now. Frugality is the word for the day in this economy.


----------



## zr1000a1 (Jan 25, 2012)

Fallout of the new small offset test knocks some Toyota's off the recommended list of Consumer Reports.
Toyota Camry and RAV4 | Safety Concerns - Consumer Reports News

Might as well also post an initial article on the latest reliability survey ratings from CR.
2013 Car Reliability Survey | Car Brands Rise and Fall - Consumer Reports News


This is pretty entertaining listening to these guys talk about their excitement over the new Caddy's, Corvette, GM, etc. They even take a few shots at the competition. When did GM buy out CR?:1poke:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/...ast-episode-14-gm-2014-corvette-cts/index.htm


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

zr1000a1 said:


> 2013 Car Reliability Survey | Car Brands Rise and Fall - Consumer Reports News


I just saw this earlier today and caught this snippet.



> Domestic brands are led by General Motors, with GMC, Buick, and Chevrolet ranking above the brands from Chrysler Corp. and Ford Motor Company. GMC is the lone domestic brand in the top 10, claiming the 9th spot. Buick is close by in 12th spot. All Buicks except the V6 LaCrosse were average or better. *The only dark spots for Chevrolet are the Camaro and Cruze, both of which earned below-average reliability scores.
> 
> *


If you think these are bad go back to when the 1st started this test and all the car makers were like, IDGAF we passed government mandated testing. Blazer/Jimmy and Rodeo/Passport did not do well. I'm not going to go sell my car from what the links above say, my history of car crashes are all me stationary at an already red light and I get rearended at speeds of 40 mph. Looking online at salvaged Cruze for parts they all didn't look to bad off.


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

You think cars have it hard on the offset test? 

Link below shows what low speed fatal crash dummy test look like for trailers. 

DEADLY Crashes: 2013 IIHS Crash Tests - YouTube


----------



## Dennis_Mn (Jan 20, 2012)

What I take from this is the same advice that our state police give when you are about to hit a deer-- hit it square, don't swerve. Most severe car-deer avoidance situations involve a swerve into the trees. Much softer to hit the deer. So for now I will try to crash square when the situation comes up.


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

Dennis_Mn said:


> What I take from this is the same advice that our state police give when you are about to hit a deer-- hit it square, don't swerve. Most severe car-deer avoidance situations involve a swerve into the trees. Much softer to hit the deer. So for now I will try to crash square when the situation comes up.


 That and roll over depending on where you are. I literally seen where a car swerve, still hit the deer and rolled over on the PA turnpike.


----------



## zr1000a1 (Jan 25, 2012)

Merc6 said:


> You think cars have it hard on the offset test?
> 
> Link below shows what low speed fatal crash dummy test look like for trailers.
> 
> DEADLY Crashes: 2013 IIHS Crash Tests - YouTube


Nice link! Reminds me of the movie, "Seven-Ups" chase scene. Crash is at the 9:30 mark:
The Seven-Ups Car Chase (1973) - YouTube


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Quit reading about this stuff, a key disadvantage of a FWD drive vehicle with all that extra weight with a combined engine and transaxle. And no air bags for your legs, don't want to think about getting my legs chopped off. And with traction control and most of these head on collisions, still talking about 35 mph or in this very low speed range.

Then they are making cars so quite now, gives a false sense of security of when driving on the roads. Been 18 years since I was hit by a stupid kid that should have never been given a drivers' license in the first place. He was in a no passing zone and pulled right in front of me when I was riding my motorcycle with an impact speed of 55 mph. Witnesses said a flew 40 feet before hitting the pavement. Doctors told me in 2-3 years, would be fully crippled and in a wheel chair, showed them.

But I still think about this the instant I start up a car and drive very defensively. And watch very carefully even 50-100 yards ahead.

These are things you learn when being a victim of an accident.

Top law firms in your area are retained by the major insurance companies, have to settle for second best. Was told by the opposing insurance company no need to hire an attorney, we will take good care of you, a blatant lie. 

You get a court order to release your vehicle for a complete inspection, any modifications can cancel your claim, they lie and cheat like crazy and have the crooked attorneys in the world.

DMV is worthless, can't sue them for issuing a license to a retarded kid. Ha, even with my latest kid getting a driver's license after a long two month wait, canceled her appointment because there was a 1/4" of snow on the ground. Only your insurance company is liable.

Case dragged on for three years, my automotive and health insurance was paying all the bills. A bunch of my own insurance companies showed up demanding and getting every cent back for medical expenses I was paying stiff premiums for. Wasn't enough awarded money to buy a cup of coffee.

You don't even think about stuff like this until it happens to you.


----------



## zr1000a1 (Jan 25, 2012)

Had a close call a month or so ago with a Durango pulling out to pass a semi tractor trailer on a two lane black top near the Trenton, Ohio Miller beer plant. I quickly scrubbed off a bunch of speed on my bike while getting over near the very small shouldered ditch (looked like a painful and possibly fatal CLIFF at that moment) hoping the minivan behind me would brake hard and not run me over. Luckily the minivan was far enough behind because I had accelerated kind of hard when coming out of a slower 35mph zone back to 60mph or so just to have that extra distance. The Semi also looked as if he braked pretty hard too to let the YAHOO over. I would of liked to buy that semi driver a beer or two at that plant! 
It was like something was whispering in my ear that day to keep distances all around and lone wolf it more. 

Fellow drivers, please give lots of distance when following a motorcycle. STUFF happens, whether an animal jumps out, a traction issue happens, oncoming, side streets, stuff in the road, etc. Even a mechanical problem could make a motorcycle slow down quickly or lose control. 

Snapped a clutch cable once on a shift. You really do not want someone on your butt when you are dealing with that in traffic. Newer bike transmissions only seem to want to find nuetral or a false nuetral, especially without a clutch, when you do not want it! Game is pretty much over when you have to come to a stop, usually with a locked up and skidding rear wheel at the end. Fun stuff. Sure I can probably get it to grind and pop out of gear when I have time, fooling around with no one behind me and a fully functioning clutch for backup, just not when time is of the essence and I need to!


Animals and basketballs are other big fears while riding!


----------



## razercruze15 (Feb 15, 2016)

I see totalled car accidents every day almost.
I saw one today, a CIVIC had its entire front end ripped off to the side.

Last week on the highway, a scion TC was flipped on it's roof, facing opposing traffic.

CA drivers aren't necessarily all bad; its the sheer amount of cars/people and the diversity of them that there are always a % of bad drivers. This is natural in the second most populated city in the US.

Now, regarding the Cruze frontal side impact crash test thing, manufacturers are still having trouble getting a top safety pick +, last I checked.
Also..Cruze def. beats a smartcar =P

The slow- motion .. gives me chills.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j9RqljSJAQ


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Full frontal and partial frontal tests were done at 35 mph, see they raised that to 40 mph now, in either case, don't try this at 41 mph.

"Both the IIHS front-crash scenarios use an impact speed of *40 mph* instead of *35 mph*; and only the left front of the car hits the barrier. The 40-percent overlap test uses a deformable barrier while the 25-percent overlap test uses a rigid barrier."

Ever look at ALL of the new car models, even the BMW looks like the Cruze save some minor cosmetic changes.











All are built to DOT standards to meet their standards, government is designing cars now.

Somebody mention Honda, also looks like a Cruze.










Could list a lot more, but should be getting the point.

Ha, 40 mph means 40 mph, but better to drive at 39. Or just don't aim your Cruze or whatever at a steel wall.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

I would expect the second generation Cruze to pass the Small Offset Crash Test with no problems. They spent an extra year on design & engineering and the new chassis looks like it's designed for that purpose. If they miss the target again, forget my buying one.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

Jim Frye said:


> I would expect the second generation Cruze to pass the Small Offset Crash Test with no problems. They spent an extra year on design & engineering and the new chassis looks like it's designed for that purpose. If they miss the target again, forget my buying one.


Pretty much any new vehicle coming out or in development targets Good in the SORB test. To not meet that would be disappointing - like how a few Hondas and Toyotas bombed it, despite their vehicle being released after the test had come out - they had to rush in a fix for the next model year).

Every future program we're working on must have a Good in SORB.

Not that 90% of car buyers even care.


----------

