These 5 new cars have some of the worst safety assessments – Jalopnik

Together with fuel efficiency, safety is the most important functions that buyers consider when buying a car. This is according to data from Statista Consumer InsightsThose nearly 5,000 potential car buyers in the US investigated to find out what the most important factor will be for them. In reality there are numerous options for new car buyers for whom safety has the top priority, because today’s cars are safer than a few decades ago, thanks to advanced driver’s assistant systems that help prevent collisions.

These cars also contain well -designed twist zones that act as a pillow and absorb the impact in the case of a crash. The occupant compartment itself is surrounded by a tough safety cage, usually made of high-steel with a high sign hose to better protect the residents. Consequently, cars now have lower percentages of accidents -related fatalities, according to around 10 deaths per 100,000 people, according to the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). For comparison: the number of crash deaths in 1997 was around 18 deaths per 100,000 people.

But although these figures suggest a significant improvement in general car safety, for various reasons, modern vehicles have not all been built according to the same high safety standards, and this has led to some lower crash test classifications than their contemporaries. As a result, we have put together five new cars with some of the worst safety assessments based on crash tests performed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) to give you an idea of ​​which models you are on their care.

Kia’s Fastback Sedan has a lot for it, with its fascinating design, spacious and well -sorted hut, generous safety features and excellent rich quality that often come in for praise. Performance is also no problem for the medium -sized sedan. In the GT-Vendae it claims a respectable 290 hp and 311 pound-foot torque, which feels abundant, the fastback sedan to 60 mph propagate in 5.4 seconds.

The K5 has done extremely well since debuting for the 2021 model year, but unfortunately it does not have the best reputation when it comes to safety. It is one of the deadliest cars on the road called by Iseecars, with about seven fatal accidents per billion miles. The data from IIHS show that the K5 has lung the moderate overlapping front collision test, which achieved the worst possible “poor” rating in general. The Institute also assessed the protection for the head and neck of the rear passenger as ‘arm’ and ‘marginal’ for the limitations of the chest and the rear passenger and dummy -kinematics.

After an impact, the IIHS assessment of the rear passengers dummy showed that the belt in the rear seat of the pelvis on the abdomen, where these could cause serious abdominal wounds. The IIHS was also concerned about the ability of the K5 to protect occupants in a side collision, so that the overall performance is assessed as ‘marginal’. The structure and safety cage was also considered a disappointment for the K5, because it received a “marginal” score and the protection of the hull of a driver and rear passenger interest both considered “marginal”.

With the starting prices determined from $ 22,995 (before zoning loading costs), the mildly renewed Volkswagen Jetta represents a great value, in which some well -controlled ride, a considerable amount of technology and a considerably large cabin and trunk is combined. The VW Jetta is also supplied as standard with the IQ.Drive Suite of Driver Assistance Tech of the brand, which adaptive cruise control, blind-spot monitoring, automatic emergency braking and lane assistance. But the poor safety performance is quite a disadvantage.

An aspect that the Jetta abandoned is the audible and visual safety belt reminder system, which scored the lowest possible assessment of ‘poor’ in IIHS tests. There is also room for improvement in the collision performance of the Jetta, where it received a general score of “acceptable” from the IIHS, which also rated protection for the driver’s pelvis and the torso of the rear passenger as “marginal”. In the meantime, the IIHS scored the Jetta “marginal” in vehicle-to-pedestrian front crash prevention in general because of the ability of its automatic emergency brakes and pedestrian monitoring system to avoid or reduce a clash with vulnerable road users.

The Nissan Sentra is not always a popular choice with car buyers due to worries about the continuous variable transmission (CVT), including quality problems. According to IIHS data, there is also a bit of a safety problem to fight with. During the testing of the crash, the performance of the Sentra in the updated moderate overlapping front test was generally considered ‘moderate’ because of poor safety safety and ‘acceptable’ protection of the head and the neck of the driver, which reduced the overall score. Similarly, the protection for residents is assessed as ‘acceptable’ in the case of a side collision.

And while Nissan gives the current eight-generation Sentra as standard an impressive amount of clashing mis bonge technologies, including forward collision warning, pedestrian detection, warning for lane threats, as well as forward automatic emergency brakes, iihs’ crash, not very effective tech tests. The Institute gave the compact sedan the second lowest “marginal” rating for pedestrians’ gestures and the lowest assessment of “arm” for both the front crash prevention as well as headlights for the vehicle and headlights, with the standard halogen headlights and available LEDs that are both poorly perform.

But the Sentra is not all bad news. It achieved the top classification of “Good” for small overlapping front test test and is one of the cheap cars that actually recommends consumer reports, with prices from $ 22,730 including delivery costs. That brings you a 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine that produces 149 hp and 146 LB-FT torque, a standard 7-inch touchscreen infotainment system and Apple CarPlay and Android Auto. Depending on the version, higher decorations, such as an 8.0-inch display, leather seats, heated front seats, a heated steering wheel and a sunroof.

The medium -sized Altima is another car that places a question mark based on the safety standards of the Sedans of Nissan. Testing of the IIHS shows that the Nissan Altima was not doing well in a side crash, where the Institute has the worst possible assessment of “poor” that quotes poor protection for a driver’s basin and torso. In the test, the Dummy driver would have taken a hard blow to the head after he hit the driver’s windowsill. Head protection was considered “insufficient” and “marginal” protection was registered for both the head and the neck.

Despite the significant injury risk for the driver, things went pretty well for the rear passenger in the side impact crash test, with protection of the hull, the pelvis, as well as head and neck all rated as ‘good’. Unfortunately, the structure and safety cage did not stand well in the test and therefore got a “poor” rating. The IIHS also considered the standard automatic emergency brake of the Altima with pedestrian detection system, as well as unlikely that the front-end vehicle-to-vehicle accidents effectively soften or prevents, giving it a ‘bad’ rating. The ability of the sedan to prevent you from hitting in a pedestrian is now slightly higher as ‘marginal’.

Just like the Nissan Altima, the Chevy Malibu did poorly in the updated Side Impact Crash test, which demonstrated a significant risk of injury to the driver in most categories. In general, it received a poor assessment and the protection of the driver’s torso and the pelvis was rated as poorly. Although it is considered to offer only “marginal” protection on the head and neck of the driver, with the dummy director who is eliminated to bash his head hard against the driver’s windowsill. The verdict also indicates that the construction of the Chevrolet Malibu safety cage is insufficient, proven by his ‘poor’ rating.

It is positive that IIHS assessment suggests that the Malibu offered good protection for the rear passenger around the head and the neck, the hull and the pelvis. The power of the standard automatic emergency brakes with pedestrian detection system to prevent the Malibu from standing out people as marginal, while it was given the lowest possible crash rating of “arm” in the front crash prevention test for vehicle-to-vehicle vehicle. And although it deserved a good assessment in almost all categories that were assessed, the Malibu achieved a moderate score in general for moderate overlap at the front because of the poor rear passengers restrictions and dummy kinematics.