GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,653 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Combined mileage for 2009 models (base price):

Aveo: 30 ($12,120)
Fit: 29, 30 or 31 ($14,550)
Yaris: 31 or 32 ($12,205)

Cobalt XFE: 30 ($15,670)
Civic: 29 ($15,205)
Corolla: 25 or 30 ($15,350)

Malibu: 26 ($21,395)
Accord: 24 ($21,555 w/ auto)
Camry: 25 ($20,915 w/auto)

In these economic times, Chevrolet has positioned itself well. And GM is not resting:

Aveo 5 is new for 2009. G3 is added to U.S. lineup.

In 1-2 years, U.S. will get the Cruze and the 1.4L turbo. (We will not see a new Civic of Corolla any time sooner.)

In 2 years we will get BAS+, presumably in the Malibu. (There will be no comparable technology in the Accord or Camry any time sooner.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,971 Posts
But the disappointing thing is crash ratings, to me.

If you don't care about crash ratings the Aveo and Cobalt are competitive in most other ways. If you do care, then the Fit and Yaris beat the Aveo and the Civic and Corolla beat the Cobalt.

The Malibu holds its own, though. The only crash test it hasn't aced is the IIHS rear impact test of head restraints. Otherwise, it has a perfect score. So it's an extremely solid competitor for economy and safety (and in my opinion, the clear winner for styling).
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,653 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
But the disappointing thing is crash ratings, to me.

If you don't care about crash ratings the Aveo and Cobalt are competitive in most other ways. If you do care, then the Fit and Yaris beat the Aveo and the Civic and Corolla beat the Cobalt.

The Malibu holds its own, though. The only crash test it hasn't aced is the IIHS rear impact test of head restraints. Otherwise, it has a perfect score. So it's an extremely solid competitor for economy and safety (and in my opinion, the clear winner for styling).
If you care about crash ratings, you would be a fool to buy a Fit. The crahs "ratings" only compare vehicles in the same class. That would be fine if everyone were driving a subcompact. But in the real world, you are far safer in a large vehicle with a poor rating than a subcompact with a good rating. For this reason, for these classes of vehicles, price and fuel economy are more important than crash ratings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,971 Posts
You're right that size matters more than crash ratings.

But I think using that fact to ignore crash ratings entirely is wrong. If anyone who cares about crash safety shouldn't get a Fit, then they shouldn't get a Malibu, Pilot, or Suburban either. Just bypass all the low level stuff and buy the biggest new or used 4WD heavy duty pickup you can afford.

That's absurd. If you want a truck and can afford a truck, get one. But that shouldn't be the only answer people have for safety.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,579 Posts
But in the real world, you are far safer in a large vehicle with a poor rating than a subcompact with a good rating.
How do you know THAT? I could agree you are probably safer in a large vehicle than a small vehicle provided both got the same rating at the same time (EuroNCAP changes standards with time, not sure about NHTSA, maybe this explains why it is so easy to get five stars from them).
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,653 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
You're right that size matters more than crash ratings.

But I think using that fact to ignore crash ratings entirely is wrong. If anyone who cares about crash safety shouldn't get a Fit, then they shouldn't get a Malibu, Pilot, or Suburban either. Just bypass all the low level stuff and buy the biggest new or used 4WD heavy duty pickup you can afford.

That's absurd. If you want a truck and can afford a truck, get one. But that shouldn't be the only answer people have for safety.
I agree with you that it is a matter of balance. People buying small cars will put more emphasis on purchase price and fuel economy, and less on crash ratings. Therefore, I disagree when you say that if you care about crash ratings "the Fit and Yaris beat the Aveo and the Civic and Corolla beat the Cobalt." I don't think you should say the more expensive, poorer mileage (on some models) Fit beats the Aveo just because it has a better crash rating. Small car purchasers do not buy cars based solely on crash ratings.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,653 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
How do you know THAT? I could agree you are probably safer in a large vehicle than a small vehicle provided both got the same rating at the same time (EuroNCAP changes standards with time, not sure about NHTSA, maybe this explains why it is so easy to get five stars from them).
Which vehicle would you rather be in?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,971 Posts
How do you know THAT? I could agree you are probably safer in a large vehicle than a small vehicle provided both got the same rating at the same time (EuroNCAP changes standards with time, not sure about NHTSA, maybe this explains why it is so easy to get five stars from them).
Check the vehicle injury statistics.

Insurance Institute of Highway Safety insurance losses by make and model, represented as '100' for industry average per million registered vehicles (high is worse, low is better):

http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/composite_cls.aspx

If you switch between the tabs, there's a very clear correlation between vehicle mass and medical injury liability losses (smaller = more injuries).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,880 Posts
Check the vehicle injury statistics.

Insurance Institute of Highway Safety insurance losses by make and model, represented as '100' for industry average per million registered vehicles (high is worse, low is better):

http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/composite_cls.aspx

If you switch between the tabs, there's a very clear correlation between vehicle mass and medical injury liability losses (smaller = more injuries).
It also suggests that a small car that does very well in crash tests can, in fact, be safer than a larger car that did not. In 2004-2006, very few small cars had particularly good crash test performance.

Though these data also are clearly heavily dependent on driver behavior.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
I feel safe in my BIG Tahoe! Plus the Fit looks ugly as all hell to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,579 Posts
If you switch between the tabs, there's a very clear correlation between vehicle mass and medical injury liability losses (smaller = more injuries).
Yes, but it does not show that a "worse-rated large car is better than a better-rated small car".

Actually, I've noticed some pattern that MIGHT prove Ifcar's assumption -check out the "worst" list: http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/composite_bw.aspx. It is mostly composed of small cars, but, apart from perhaps the Forenza and Sentra, those are "ricers" whose drivers I would cautiously surmise are neither the most careful, nor the most skilled (i.e. probably young) around. BTW, the worst of worst is the lumbering Escalade EXT, worse by one quarter than the Eclipse...

If you go by classes, small pickups seem to be better off than very large pickups (!), same for midsize vs. large luxury SUVs (with midsize SUVs bettering small pickups!), though the best thing you can drive is probably a very large minivan (table's glistening with yellow)...

A two-door Accord seems to be much less safe than a four-door, though I doubt this is because of the added weight of the rear doors... Dodge Chargers are far less safe than Chrysler 300s (don't think there's much difference in weight), and VW New Beetle Convertible somehow is rated better than ALL midsize cars!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,979 Posts
Combined mileage for 2009 models (base price):

Aveo: 30 ($12,120)
Fit: 29, 30 or 31 ($14,550)
Yaris: 31 or 32 ($12,205)
How did the Aveo's mileage improve so much from MY2008? Aveo always trailed the pack for subcompacts but it's mileage is right on the money for 2009. What happened???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,971 Posts
It also suggests that a small car that does very well in crash tests can, in fact, be safer than a larger car that did not. In 2004-2006, very few small cars had particularly good crash test performance.
Right. But if both are pretty well rated for crashes, the larger car almost always has a big edge. If I was going to buy a used sedan, the Five Hundred and Montego (especially the all wheel drive versions) and the Lucerne would top my list.

ifcar said:
Though these data also are clearly heavily dependent on driver behavior.
I completely agree. If you read the injury ratings in some statistics for Dodge Neons it is high. If you read it for Dodge Neon SRT-4s it is tremendously higher. I doubt the crash safety is any different, it's just drivers with more power than they can responsibly handle on tap.

But I think these injury statistics are probably the best we can get. They aren't great, but they're probably less inaccurate than other measures.

Bravada said:
Anyhoo, this is only moderately relevant, those statistics are much more, and they unfortunately prove that larger seems safer with regard to life protection, though for some reason SUVs are much safer than cars, while pickups are not:

http://www.iihs.org/research/fatalit...occupants.html
If you review the page you provided, you can see that pickup safety got closer and closer to SUV safety as time advanced.

The emphasis on active and passive safety features for pickups really did not increase until the last five years or so. I think 2009 is the first model year you can get side curtain airbags on an F-150, for example.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,366 Posts
Check the vehicle injury statistics.

Insurance Institute of Highway Safety insurance losses by make and model, represented as '100' for industry average per million registered vehicles (high is worse, low is better):

http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/composite_cls.aspx

If you switch between the tabs, there's a very clear correlation between vehicle mass and medical injury liability losses (smaller = more injuries).

Yeah, it's pretty much common knowlege if, for instance you take a 5-star small car and a 5-star large vehicle (SUV in particular) you will be much safer in the larger vehicle.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,637 Posts
Yeah, it's pretty much common knowlege if, for instance you take a 5-star small car and a 5-star large vehicle (SUV in particular) you will be much safer in the larger vehicle.
thats true and I've seen a few smart cars out on the freeway and I do not want to imagine what would happen if the Smart got into a wreck with a big vehicle such as a SUV, pickup truck, or a semi.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,557 Posts
Which vehicle would you rather be in?
The accord looks like it actually survived well in the crash, very little damage to the non-crumple zone area (around cabin). There is also another video of a dodge ram vs. a 1994 accord:

That car didnt do too good so it shows that crash tests do matter even vs. larger cars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,032 Posts
But the disappointing thing is crash ratings, to me.

If you don't care about crash ratings the Aveo and Cobalt are competitive in most other ways. If you do care, then the Fit and Yaris beat the Aveo and the Civic and Corolla beat the Cobalt.

The Malibu holds its own, though. The only crash test it hasn't aced is the IIHS rear impact test of head restraints. Otherwise, it has a perfect score. So it's an extremely solid competitor for economy and safety (and in my opinion, the clear winner for styling).
I looked up the IIHS and the NHSTA ratings for the Corolla and the Cobalt and they are the same. So, if one cares about crash ratings, how is the Corolla a better car for me?
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top