The least-safe cars of 2006

These automobiles come cheaply — and you get what you pay for

The 2006 model year is young. Not all new cars have crash-test scores available, but many do, and the slide show features the six with the worst crashworthiness.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15500917/

http://www.forbes.com/2005/10/21/cx_dl_1024featslide.htmll?partner=msnbc

I was glad not to see any GM cars make this list! But is that a toyota I see.

A Hyundai, a Kia, a Mazda, a Nissan, a Toyota, and a Suzuki....


Hmmmmm........ :think:

Mazda 6 is on the list, but what about Ford Fusion? Same car, different sheetmetal?

Or does Fusion include certain options that Mazda 6 lacks, such as side curtain airbags?

This article is somewhat odd...they make no mention of several cars and at least some of the ones they do list have been replaced by models that are total re-designs in which case, you have to wonder what the point is of talking about them now??? Also...

1. Probably even the worst of any of these cars are much more "safe" than cars of 10 or 20 years ago.

2. All of these cars are very small cars and I have to believe that has to come into play in how well a car will protect its occupants in a crash.

3. The article seems to be implying that that inexpensive cars should not be sold becasue they aren't "safe" enough...the proble is, you can't add a lot of high technology safety stuff to a car and keep the price down so what is someone on a tight budget supposed to do?

Everything has trade-offs, small engines and light weight give great gas mileage but if they also tend to equal less safe cars - someone has to decide what the priority is going to be.

Maybe someday the industry will produce a 2,500lb car that can cary 10 passengers; gets 500 miles per gallon (of water), can do 0-60 in under 3 seconds with a top speed of 240MPH and, if wercked at that speed will keep all 10 occupants totally safe from harm and cost $1,500 brand new but we aren't there yet.

Note the subtle bias in that article. Early on they say the six most dangerous cars come from hyundai, kia and suzuki. However, those 3 brands are only half the list, the rest are mainstay japanese brands toyota, mazda and nissan, however unless you flip through the whole slide show you'd never know.

These automobiles come cheaply — and you get what you pay for

The 2006 model year is young. Not all new cars have crash-test scores available, but many do, and the slide show features the six with the worst crashworthiness.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15500917/

http://www.forbes.com/2005/10/21/cx_dl_1024featslide.htmll?partner=msnbc

I was glad not to see any GM cars make this list! But is that a toyota I see.


I found it funny that they made excuses for the Corolla being on the list. While they made fun of every other car.

This link was also on my AOL homepage with the Cobalt SS in the picture, yet it wasn't on the list. I guess they were upset that GM didn't make the list?? :confused:

This link was also on my AOL homepage with the Cobalt SS in the picture, yet it wasn't on the list. I guess they were upset that GM didn't make the list?? :confused:

N/M they made up for it with "The worst American Cars 2006" link on the smae page. What is the point of that besides bashing American cars?

This link was also on my AOL homepage with the Cobalt SS in the picture, yet it wasn't on the list. I guess they were upset that GM didn't make the list?? :confused:

I noticed that on my page too.

Are the little Smart cars in the U.S. yet? If they are, they should be number one on the list, talk about a coffin on wheels.

I found it interesting that when MSN and others have tested cars with optional side curtain air bags are always tested without them. More times then not, the American car then gets bashed for not having them standard.....sucks when you have to eat your words. Wasn't is not too long ago that the Cobalt got blasted by someone when it was tested without side curtains against a Civic/Corolla (or something like that) that had them? They then proceded to blast the Cobalt for the poor crash ratings.

A Hyundai, a Kia, a Mazda, a Nissan, a Toyota, and a Suzuki....


Hmmmmm........ :think:

Well now... ain't that odd...

Seems the Aveo and Cobalt and G5 ain't on that there list, are they?

Not surprisingly all compacts and subcompacts it seems.

2006 Elantra is a 2001 design and the new redesigned '07's are on the lot. Someone posted on the Elantra forums a pic of his brothers car that rolled several times, the only damage a bashed fender, smashed windshield and several dents in the roof. The tone of the article leads me to believe that they are elitists.

Are the little Smart cars in the U.S. yet? If they are, they should be number one on the list, talk about a coffin on wheels.

Those are actually very very safe.

I was glad not to see any GM cars make this list! But is that a toyota I see.except for the fact one is on there.......

I found this on the internet.
http://www.thecarconnection.com/Shoppers/Drivers_News/Safety_2005s_Top_Safe_Vehicles.S241.A8466.html
"Toyota Corolla (base price $13,780): One of the most popular small cars ever built, the Corolla is also built to take a hit, with the latest "multi-stage" airbags that adjust the force of their deployment based on the severity of the crash. Corollas can also be equipped with electronic stability control, a very unusual feature in this price range. The Corolla earned the best-possible five-star rating in government crash testing."

"Crash testing indicates the Corolla is one of the safest cars in its class."
http://www.automotive.com/2006/12/toyota/corolla/reviews/index.html


The corolla is one of the top selling cars in the world. It does not make sense for Toyota to skimp out on the safety. One, they'd be sued by tons of people, and two, they'd lose most of their sells.

Those are actually very very safe.


Maybe if you hit another SMART car. Hit a real car with one though, and the driver is in some serious trouble. There is no room on the car to give at all in a crash, so the driver gets the pleasure of absorbing most of the shock of the impact.

Of course they're gonna have less safety features, they're cheap. Common sense.

Please, allow me to indulge myself again, and toot the "media-bias" horn just one tiny little toot...

In the original Forbes article, there is a sidebar in which they cite references to other "quality" or "safety" articles they have done in Forbes. The list follows below...
MORE FROM FORBES
• Slideshow: Least-safe cars 2006
• The worst American cars 2006
• Best-selling cars 2006
• Most satisfying cars
• Least reliable luxury cars
• The most fuel-efficient cars
• Hybrid buying guide

Now I don't deny that they listed the 6 "worst" safety units and Kia, Hyundai, Suzuki, Toyota and other foreigners were in there, but how can a company do an article entitled "The worst American cars 2006", and not do an equivalent "The worst Foreign cars 2006", or "The worst Import cars 2006", or "The worst German cars 2006", or "The worst Japanese cars 2006"?

You guys take 20 seconds and watch this slideshow... and read WHY these are the "worst". :rolleyes: IT'S WORTH IT.
Hint - one vehicle was rated poor because "...is one of four new-model American vehicles to which Consumer Reports assigns its lowest possible rating for predicted depreciation." Yes, PREDICTED depreciation boys and girls, that's what makes a car one of America's worst... not crash safety, dependability, quality, value, service, or anything tangible. The rest are no better IMO.
Get ready... GM and Ford get hammered.
http://www.forbes.com/2006/07/14/cx_dl_0718featslide.html

Muther-lovin-leghumpers! :mad:

Interesting how the two vehicles tied for "Least fuel efficient American Car"... were both TRUCKS!

except for the fact one is on there.......

Which one?

Which one?

http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/rc/images/chevrolet-optra.jpg

Ah. I watched the wrong slideshow I guess.

http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/rc/images/chevrolet-optra.jpg


:confused:

I don't see that in the 2006 least-safe car slideshow?

http://images.forbes.com/media/lifestyle/2005/10/24/9_1024feat.jpg

http://images.forbes.com/media/lifestyle/2005/10/24/9_1024feat.jpg

Ahh... I get it now.

That's not sold in the US... I wasn't aware that it was a rebadge of the Suzuki, I assumed it was a Daewoo.

it is a daewoo. badged as a suzuki in the US and chevrolet in canada. they also sell it as a buick overseas.


http://image2.sina.com.cn/qc/photo/BuickExcelle/1_33-148-2100-580_2003041922012.JPG

it is a daewoo. badged as a suzuki in the US and chevrolet in canada. they also sell it as a buick overseas.


http://image2.sina.com.cn/qc/photo/BuickExcelle/1_33-148-2100-580_2003041922012.JPG



My head. It spins!

Thanks for the clarification!

one day, when I'm driving down the road, I want to see a Smart car completely destroyed by an 18-wheeler. I mean torn apart like it was a Christmas present given to a hyperactive kid on a crack binge.

Least Reliable American Car
Chevrolet Uplander minivan (tie)

I don't know how they came to this conclusion. Unless my parents Uplander is an exception, its an early '05 model. I know they have had two very small things covered under warrenty, but other then that they have had no problems with ~15k miles.

I don't understand this one on the Ranger "Comparing identical models, an overwhelming majority of survey respondents gave higher marks to a V-8 than to a V-6, to a six-cylinder than to a four."

WHAT THE ****! What midsized truck, other then the Dakota and even that is stretching it, has a V8!? So the respondants wanted a V8. So does just about anyone who wants a truck. Just that alone doesn't constitute the title Least Satisfying. If this wasn't just America vehicals, you could give every midsized pickup for sale in the US that title except the Dakota.

That article just seems like an excuse for them to use some scathing criticisms...

They tested the cars with the minimum of equipment and are complaining they aren't safe.

That article just seems like an excuse for them to use some scathing criticisms...

They tested the cars with the minimum of equipment and are complaining they aren't safe.
Keep in mind; FORBS didn't do the testing (as they made clear in the article).

Also, maybe the vehicles tested were tested with the equipment they have because that's how most of them are sold...someone looking for as inexpensive a car as possible is probably unlikely to spring for such things as side air-bags if they don't have to.

If what you say is true it stil falls very much into the category of, "Not New News"

Its like having an article, "Least fuel efficient cars" and then having all SUVs on it... Oh wait. :rolleyes: