General Motors‘ Korean designed, US built Chevrolet Spark’ was the only US market minicar of 11 tested by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) to achieve an ‘acceptable’ rating in the organisation’s small overlap front crash test.
This, IIHS said, made “these tiny vehicles the worst performing group of any evaluated so far”.
Go deeper with GlobalData
The Spark’s acceptable rating in the test, along with good ratings in the institute’s four other crashworthiness evaluations, earned the model an IIHS 2014 Top Safety Pick award.
“The Spark was among the initial award winners announced in December. The new small overlap test results for the rest of the minicar group mean that no other models in this size category join the Spark in the winner’s circle yet,” IIHS said.
“Spark’s impressive performance in IIHS’s most stringent test yet demonstrates the intensive efforts of our global safety team to deliver big safety in a small package,” said Gay Kent, General Motors general director of vehicle safety and crashworthiness. “Spark’s safety structure makes extensive use of high-strength and ultra-high-strength steels and its robust passenger protection package includes 10 standard air bags.”
GM said the Spark’s relatively short wheelbase of 93.5 inches required engineers to strengthen the car’s front end structure to better absorb and distribute impact energy around occupants. A cradle extension offers additional support in frontal collisions.
How well do you really know your competitors?
Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.
Thank you!
Your download email will arrive shortly
Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample
We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form
By GlobalDataIntroduced in 2012, the small overlap test replicates what happens when the front corner of a vehicle collides with another vehicle or an object such as a tree or utility pole. In the test, 25% of a vehicle’s front end on the driver’s side strikes a rigid barrier at 40 mph.
The test is more difficult than the head-on crashes conducted by the government or the longstanding IIHS moderate overlap test because most of the vehicle’s front-end crush zone is bypassed. That makes it hard for the vehicle to manage crash energy, and the occupant compartment can collapse as a result. Nevertheless, in many size categories, manufacturers have found ways to improve vehicle structures to meet this challenge.
“Small, lightweight vehicles have an inherent safety disadvantage. That’s why it’s even more important to choose one with the best occupant protection,” said Joe Nolan, IIHS senior vice president for vehicle research.
“Unfortunately, as a group, minicars aren’t performing as well as other vehicle categories in the small overlap crash.”
In contrast to the minicar group’s performance, most models in the small car category, which are a little larger, have done much better in the test. There are five good ratings and five acceptable ratings among 17 small cars that have been evaluated so far.
Looking at the component ratings that make up the overall marks, every minicar, including the Spark, rates marginal or poor for structure, the most fundamental element of occupant protection. When a vehicle’s structure doesn’t hold up, injury risk is high. Collapsing structures can knock frontal airbags and seats out of position, exacerbating the problem.
Worst performers
In both the Honda Fit [Jazz in some markets but note the model tested is about to be replaced by a Mexican built full redesign in the US – ed] and the Fiat 500, intruding structure seriously compromised the driver space and the dummy’s head didn’t stay in contact with the frontal airbag. The 500’s driver door tore open at the hinges.
All the vehicles tested except the Spark and the Mazda 2 [Demio] also scored low ratings for restraints and kinematics. Seven of the 11 were downgraded for allowing too much occupant forward motion during the crash. In these cases, either the safety belt didn’t do a good enough job holding the dummy in place, or the dummy’s head missed or slid off the frontal airbag. The side curtain airbag, which has an important role to play in small overlap frontal crashes, provided insufficient forward coverage in eight of the minicars and didn’t deploy at all in the Toyota Yaris. In many models, the steering column moved sideways, and in three cars the seat tipped.
The two worst performers were the Honda Fit and the Fiat 500. In both cases, intruding structure seriously compromised the driver’s space and the steering column was pushed back toward the driver. In the case of the Fit, the dummy’s head barely contacted the frontal airbag before sliding off and hitting the instrument panel. During the test of the 500, the driver door opened after the hinges tore. An open door creates a risk that the driver could be partially or completely ejected.
Injury measures on the dummy’s left legs were marginal or poor for many models. In most cases, potential injuries involved the lower leg, but the Fit, 500 and Hyundai Accent were downgraded for left thigh or hip injury. The Fit and 500 were the only vehicles to record elevated injury risk to the right leg as well.
Despite its marginal structure, the Spark achieved an acceptable overall rating because the dummy’s movement was fairly well controlled and its injury measures were low. The Spark was the only vehicle with good injury measures for all body regions, including the lower leg and foot, generally a problematic area in the small overlap test. This may be related to the fact that the structure around the lower part of the occupant compartment held up better than other minicars, despite intrusion in the upper part.
IIHS noted that neither the Spark nor the other minicars in the test group offer front crash prevention, an increasingly common safety feature that can prevent or mitigate some kinds of frontal crashes.
For 2014, vehicles must be available with front crash prevention to qualify for the IIHS highest safety award: Top Safety Pick+.
Karl Brauer, senior analyst for Kelley Blue Book, said: “Occupant protection during a crash is always more challenging for smaller vehicles but the latest results of the IIHS small overlap test confirm just how difficult it is to maintain passenger cabin integrity in a minicar.
“With only one in 11 cars earning an acceptable rating, it rests with the automakers of these models to upgrade their structural integrity while maintaining the low purchase price that defines the category.”
