CONSUMER NEWS    RECALLS    COMPLAINT FORM    SCAM ALERTS  


Complain about a product or service

Small Claims Guide | Class Actions | Lemon Law | FAQ | Resources | Newsletters | Spanish
Automotive    Education    Electronics    Family    Finance    Health    Homeowners    Shopping    Travel   
NEWS   Latest |  Archives |  Auto |  Cells, etc. |  Computers |  Financial |  Health |  Homeowners |  Parents |  Privacy |  Scams |  Seniors |  Travel

Kia Spectra Flunks Frontal Crash Test

Mazda 3 Performs Best in Field of 5 Small Cars



December 20, 2004
The Kia Spectra received the worst rating of any car tested since 2001 while the Mazda 3 was the best performer in a recent series of frontal offset crash tests conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS).

"The Kia Spectra's poor performance was a surprise," says Institute chief operating officer Adrian Lund. "Most manufacturers have figured out how to design vehicles to do a good job of protecting people in frontal crashes. Kia lags behind its competitors."

The Kia is the first vehicle the Institute has rated poor in a frontal crash test since 2001.

The Mazda 3 earned a good rating and the added designation of "best pick" for frontal crash protection. The Hyundai Elantra also earned a good overall rating, but only after three tests revealed two design problems that led to recalls. The Suzuki Forenza and Saturn ION are rated acceptable, and the Kia Spectra earned the lowest rating of poor.

The ratings reflect performance in a 40 mph frontal offset crash test into a deformable barrier. Based on the results, the Institute evaluates the crashworthiness of passenger vehicles, assigning each vehicle a rating from good overall to poor.

The better performers among the vehicles with good ratings receive the added designation of "best pick." If a vehicle earns a good rating, it means that in a real-world crash of similar severity a belted driver most likely would be able to walk away with only minor injuries.

Kia a disappointment

"The Spectra has several problems that added up to a poor rating," Lund says. The structure is rated acceptable because of too much intrusion into the driver footwell area. The dummy's head bottomed out the airbag and then went part way out the open side window and hit the door frame. High forces were recorded on the dummy's head, and there were possibilities of injuries to the neck, chest, and both legs.

"There are many better choices for buyers," Lund says. "Eleven small car designs now earn good ratings in the Institute's frontal offset test, and nine of these also are designated 'best picks.'"

Mazda 3 is top performer

This car is a new design for 2004, replacing the Mazda Protege, which was rated acceptable for frontal crashworthiness. In the test of the Protege, there was moderate intrusion into the driver's footwell area, which contributed to high forces recorded on the dummy's right leg. There also was some rearward movement of the instrument panel during the crash.

"In contrast, the Mazda 3 is one of the best performers in its class in the frontal test," Lund points out. Measures taken from the head, neck, chest, and both legs of the driver dummy indicate low risk of injury.

Lund adds that "the Mazda 3's structure held up very well and there was very little intrusion into the occupant compartment. This is the only 'best pick' in this newly tested group of small cars."

Elantra is tested three times

When the Institute tested the Elantra in 2001, it earned a poor rating mainly because its airbag inflated late, resulting in high forces on the dummy's head. Hyundai redesigned the frontal airbags for the 2004 Elantra and asked the Institute to test the car again.

"When we tested the 2004 model the airbags worked fine, and at first it looked like a good performer," Lund says. "But there was a major problem. After the crash there was fluid leaking from the gas tank."

Hyundai identified a fuel hose clamp that was improperly positioned, which led to the puncturing of the tank during the crash. Hyundai recalled the affected models to reposition the hose clamp and requested the Institute to test an Elantra with the fix. No fluid leaked in this re-test, but the driver airbag failed to deploy.

Hyundai engineers will modify the software that determines whether and when to fire the airbags in 2005 models built after December 2004. The company also will recall cars manufactured earlier to fix this problem.

When the Institute tested a third Elantra with the hose clamp and airbag problems fixed, the car performed well.

"The structure was good and injury measures for the neck and chest were low," Lund says. "But there was the possibility of a head injury and a right leg injury, so the Elantra isn't good enough to be a 'best pick.'"



Report Your Experience
If you've had a bad experience -- or a good one -- with a consumer product or service, we'd like to hear about it. All complaints are reviewed by class action attorneys and are considered for publication on our site. Knowledge is power! Help spread the word. File your consumer report now.


Consumer News

July 9 2008

Recent Recalls & Safety Alerts

Print, mail, etc.




FREE CONSUMER NEWSLETTERS

The Daily Consumer
Afternoons M-F

Sign up now!


Consumer News & Alerts
Every Sunday

Sign up now!


Knowledge is free.
Knowledge is power.

Back to the top |


Home | Rogues Gallery | Good Guys | Complaint Form | News | Recalls | Search | Site Map | FAQ |
Consumer Resources | Small Claims Guide | Lemon Law | Newsletter | Contact Us
Advertise With Us | Testimonials | Newsroom | RSS Feeds | Video | Job Postings

Advertisement


Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use

Advertisements on this site are placed and controlled by outside advertising networks. ConsumerAffairs.com does not evaluate or endorse the products and services advertised. See the FAQ for more information.

Company Response Welcome If complaints about your company appear on our site, we welcome your response. Please see the Response Form for more information.

For more information, see the FAQ and privacy policy. The information on this Web site is general in nature and is not intended as a substitute for competent legal advice.  ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. makes no representation as to the accuracy of the information herein provided and assumes no liability for any damages or loss arising from the use thereof. 

Copyright © 2003-2008 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc.  All Rights Reserved.