Side crash tests, 05 Legacy vs 05 Outback

[StringFellow]

Since the 2 are based on the same car why does it appear (I could be wrong) that the Outback gets better side impact ratings.

 

This links shows that the legacy only got a marginal rating for a side impact:

 

http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/side/s0411.htm

 

But here it shows the Outback with 5 star side impact ratings:

 

http://www.nhtsa.gov/NCAP/Cars/3256.html

 

Why is there such a difference between the Legacy and the Outback?

 

-S

[red beast]

because we're up higher

[eamiller]

Remember this, the IIHS side impact test is a different animal from the ANCAP, NHTSA, and EuroNCAP. They use a 5th percentile (approx 4'11" in height) female dummy and a ram which represents a full size truck in both weight and frontal configuration. This represents the "worst case scenario" when it comes to side impacts. The NHTSA test (and others) uses a car based ram and a 50th percentile male dummy. This is more representative of the "average case scenario". The biggest problem that the Legacy has with the IIHS test is insufficient coverage of the torso by the side airbag for someone so short. In addition, there appears to be not enough pelvic protection either. Head protection is great though, as is the overall strength of the vehicle structure.

 

I have no doubt that the Legacy will earn 5 stars as well, as it has done superbly in the ANCAP test which is similar to the NHTSA.

[Guest *Jedimaster*]

because we're up higher

+1

[Legasee]

Remember this, the IIHS side impact test is a different animal from the ANCAP, NHTSA, and EuroNCAP. They use a 5th percentile (approx 4'11" in height) female dummy and a ram which represents a full size truck in both weight and frontal configuration. This represents the "worst case scenario" when it comes to side impacts. The NHTSA test (and others) uses a car based ram and a 50th percentile male dummy. This is more representative of the "average case scenario". The biggest problem that the Legacy has with the IIHS test is insufficient coverage of the torso by the side airbag for someone so short. In addition, there appears to be not enough pelvic protection either. Head protection is great though, as is the overall strength of the vehicle structure.

 

I have no doubt that the Legacy will earn 5 stars as well, as it has done superbly in the ANCAP test which is similar to the NHTSA.

 

wow...that is great info!

[Ken S]

My guess is that when the IIHS side impact test results came back for the Legacy (which they did twice), Subaru probably decided not to test the OB because it would produce similar results. Aside from a couple inches of ground clearance, the two vehicles are structually similar and, my guess is that, would produce similar results.

 

Now why they didn't put the Legacy in the NHTSA side impact test, I don't know.

 

Subaru is probably designing in tweaks to the Leg/OB to score better on the tests as we speak.

 

Ken

[XT6Wagon]

Take anything that the IIHS says at face value at your own risk.

 

They are paid by the insurance companies, and they definitely have the insurance companies intrests at heart well before your intrests.

 

More over they wouldn't know sience if it bit them in the ass. They love to use subjective ratings as well, they can use that to shove a car into whatever "rating" they want. Oh is car A relatively safe, but popular as hell? well just give it a marginal rating so the insurance companies can jack the rates up some. Cause well you know the guy saw something "he didn't like" and so he *feels* that it only has poor head protection. Then some other car he will rate as good for head protection despite the fact that not only does the head bounce off the A pillar it went OUTSIDE the car at one point. and if the seat was intact his head would be outside the car if sitting upright because the roof folded up so bad.

[harrydog]

Take anything that the IIHS says at face value at your own risk.

 

They are paid by the insurance companies, and they definitely have the insurance companies intrests at heart well before your intrests.

 

More over they wouldn't know sience if it bit them in the ass. They love to use subjective ratings as well, they can use that to shove a car into whatever "rating" they want. Oh is car A relatively safe, but popular as hell? well just give it a marginal rating so the insurance companies can jack the rates up some. Cause well you know the guy saw something "he didn't like" and so he *feels* that it only has poor head protection. Then some other car he will rate as good for head protection despite the fact that not only does the head bounce off the A pillar it went OUTSIDE the car at one point. and if the seat was intact his head would be outside the car if sitting upright because the roof folded up so bad.

 

I have no love whatsoever for the insurance industry, but I think your wrong on this. What motive would the IIHS have in rating a care "safer" if it really isn't? If their incentive is to rate popular vehicles lower so insurance rates can be higher, why is the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry rated so highly? Those cars are "popular as hell". The Legacy is not all that popular really.

Get over it. The Subaru Legacy did not perform all that well.

[racerdave]

Or you could see what happens to a Legacy and its driver in a real-world crash:

 

http://www.legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15913

[harrydog]

But that was only at 20 mph.

[raz-0]

My guess is that the side impact reinforcements in the door line up better with a truck level bumper in the higher outback than in the regular legacy. I also suspect there are secondary issues in the LGT involving a 4'11" head and shoulder level and the beltline of the car, especially if they did not completely adjust driver seating position for heigth. Also, if you adjust driver seating position for distance from steering wheel, the 4'11" dummy is not going to get the benefit of being partially protected by the b-pillar. They are also more exposed at hip level to the parking brake with little to no padding.

 

Looking at the pics, the car doesn't seem all that damaged for what occured. That may be a problem in that more energy is transferred to the occupant (look at the malibu based on the same epsilon platform, it scores well and gets a LOT more beat up). however, looking at the pictures on their own site, it kind of looks like they didn't hit the car in the same spot as cars that scored better like the galant and camry. The galant and camry look like they were struck with the peak of the angular "truck" froont right at the b-pillar. The legacy looks like it was struck just ahead of the b-pillar.

 

Regardless of the cause, the reason it scores low in torso numbers is the force over time is enough to break bone, and the ammount of deflection is enough to compress internal organs and "penetrate" to a meaningful level to the chest cavity. Meaning you could get a broken ribs, puntured lung, and a bruised heart (maybe).

 

Personally I think their side impact test needs some refinement. Their setup just doesn't look like it is representative of the wide range of side impact scenarios leading to injury. I assume they based the geomoetry on max claim payout or something, but it'd be nice to know what it is supposed to represent. It also strikes me as a moving target as this is also being approached from the other end of the problem, namely bumper height on trucks and SUVs. Which seem to be getting more reasonable.

[XT6Wagon]

Like I said the IIHS doesn't really give a shit about science or safety. Its a tool of the insurance companies. Safety then does come up as insurance companies do like safety, but its not at all a primary goal like they would have people believe.

 

Basicly for all we know the legacy DID do fine, but for whatever reason they decided that they wanted a different car rated higher. Not saying that this is what happened, only that its POSSIBLE. Think on that. WITHOUT altering data, or in anyway "cheating" they can set the ratings to whatever they want. That is the power of including SUBJECTIVE "data" in the evaluation.

 

More over wouldn't the use of a 95 percentile dummy be er... smart? Last I checked a 4' 11" dummy is damn short for a woman in america. Seems really stupid to use a dummy that represents as few people as possible.

 

Last if they really want to represent the worst case for most cars... use a old 80's crown vic. basicly built like a battering ram and has very minimal energy absorption on its side. A modern pickup/SUV is worlds better as they tend to dump lots of energy in folding up the front end, and in motion of the body. IE climbing over the hit object, or lifting the rear end up. Oh wait thier sled does mimic the crown vic better. Just at 4x4 ridehieght. Nothing like using a sled with minimal at best energy absorption while all modern trucks and SUV's absorb quite a bit of energy in an impact.

 

I could go on to show how retarded the IIHS is about most of thier tests.

[harrydog]

Man, some people will certainly go to great lengths to rationalize why these crash test results may be illegitimate. It may all be totally meaningless data which should be completely ignored. Sure, anything is possible.

But I don't think so.

[XT6Wagon]

What I am saying is that the IIHS ratings are NOT scientific. They are not "the truth".

 

So we don't actualy KNOW if thier results are A. accurate or B. inaccurate. Do you really want to make choices based on ratings that may not reflect reality?

 

even the US government claims that thier test isn't "proof" of how a car will actualy do in a real world test. They only claim that thier tests are properly managed and objective. Key word there is OBJECTIVE. Personal opinion has nothing to do with how a car does in the ratings. Now I'm assuming that if the person managing the test feels that something atypical happened they can request a re-test. I know ford got the Focus restested after making minor changes to the A-pillar plastic trim. They also recalled the very early focuses w/o the updated trim to replace said trim. The IIHS has in the past refused to retest the F150 when it had a bad result for the old extened cab. They refused to do it even when Ford offered them thier pick of any F150 out of thier pool of trucks like the one previously tested. Which brings up the point.. how can you trust the IIHS if they don't trust that thier own test is repeatable??

[raz-0]

well I don't know about the degree of scientific. I would like some detailed info on methodology, repeatability, and tolerances to see if what they are measuring sounds meaningful. For example, do they strike the car at the midpoint between the axles, square on the b-pillar, or what?

 

For example, they clearly define what they measure for occupant compartment intrusion. I can make some inferences about how their numbers apply to me. The numbers for side impact are based ona single hit and a 4'11" dummy. What assumptions are being made, and how they apply to me a 250lb 6'7" adult male is completely opaque.

 

Their structural integrity ratings are reasonably clear and meaningful because there is some definition of what they are measuring.

 

however, with regard to personal injury, what exactly is being measured? my guess is not the safety of you and I overall, but the ability of the vehicle to reduce the insurance companies' outlay for expensive and long term medical bills. For example, if you watch the side impact videos, you will notice there are no forearms on the dummies. For you and I, having our left hands shattered and crippled might be important. For them, it's a decent medical bill, but relatively minor compared to a head injury or the trauma care for internal bleading in the chest cavity. Me, I;d take a couple broken ribs over a shattered hand/wrist/forearm any day. Punctured lung to go with? Maybe. where I live the time to a hospital is relatively short. in the middle of montana.. no.

 

 

for some crash videos go here... too abd the legacy aint there.

 

http://www.progressive.com/RC/VSafety/rc_crash_videos.asp

 

the hit the rear passenger takes onthe noggin in the new beetle is nasty looking.. glad I don't fit back there. Also if you watcha few, it is painfully obvious that shifting the point of impact will radically alter the results for the rear passenger.

 

So did they pick an arbitrary impact point, or is that the impact point most common to a larger number of fatal accidents? If the latter, is it based on a comprehensive compilation, a few randomly selected case studdies, or a few deliberately chosen case studies?

 

Myself, however they chose the test, I'd like to see it with a surrogate for small woman, average woman, average man, and large man. Then maybe a test for front and rear passenger survivability.

 

Watch the videos.. 8" towards the rear and all those rear passenger ratings are going to get a LOT worse. If the results are not very tolerant of variation, it's not very meaningful to convey safety.

[harrydog]

6'-7" 250 lbs? Please sir, don't interpret any of this as a personal attack!! ;-)

Look, seriously, I don't think I really disagree with either of you on most of the points being made here. Of course the IIHS test results are not the final word on crash protection. There are certainly flaws in the methods used. But on the other hand, I don't think you should simply discount them as bogus just because a car you like has not done well. Along with the NHTSA tests they are a good tool to use when making a purchase decision. Subjectivity does come into play, but it seems to me there is a lot of hard data also.

http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/details/small_front.htm

For me personally, even though I'm disappointed that the Legacy didn't do better, that alone would not stop me from buying one.

[raz-0]

6'-7" 250 lbs? Please sir, don't interpret any of this as a personal attack!! ;-)

Look, seriously, I don't think I really disagree with either of you on most of the points being made here. Of course the IIHS test results are not the final word on crash protection. There are certainly flaws in the methods used. But on the other hand, I don't think you should simply discount them as bogus just because a car you like has not done well. Along with the NHTSA tests they are a good tool to use when making a purchase decision. Subjectivity does come into play, but it seems to me there is a lot of hard data also.

http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/details/small_front.htm

For me personally, even though I'm disappointed that the Legacy didn't do better, that alone would not stop me from buying one.

 

Well, I'm not saying ignore the IIHS. I'm saying take the test with a grain of salt as it is 3 years onld and likely still evolving. It's also a harder test to make credible.

 

the offset head on collisiontest between similar vehicles doesn't strike me as having quite as many variables as the side impact test, and it definitely had room for improvement over the years it was developed. The offset head on, at worst has about 3 feet to vary the impact without it being a non-collision, or turn into a full head on collision test. The side impact test however has more like 8 feet, and the results on the passenger cabin are going to vary more. In addition, there are some oddities to the statements made. For example, a car with a higher marginal rating has the exact same description of the potential risks to the driver as the legacy with a poor rating. If you are going to develop multi-tiered ratings, you would like to think it actually represented different outcomes.

 

personally, I'd like to see the video of it. I don't think the test is worthless, but I think it needs some more development. I think the fact that they do not provide a pdf explaining the injury criteria like they have for the offset head-on collision reinforces that notion.

 

looking at the videos, I'd be MUCH more concerned about a poor or marginal head score than a poor or marginal torso score. I suspect the pelvis score is due to getting bounced between the side of the vehicle and the well anchored e-brake handle. which for me is less of an issue since I'm tall and my hip is less lined up with it.

 

But like I said, I'd still like to see the video of the legacy.