22. Dateline 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 IIHS Small Cars Offset Crash Test.flv
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 лют 2025
- Dateline NBC: Consumer Alert: Crash Course
small car, compact car, compact cars, compacts
Honda Civic, Toyota Corolla, Chevrolet Prizm, Geo Prizm, Saturn SL2, Saturn SL1, Saturn SW1, Saturn SW2, Saturn SC1, Saturn SC2, Ford Escort, Mercury Tracer, Hyundai Elantra, Hyundai Avante, Hyundai Lantra, Bimantara Nenggala, Mazda Protege, Mazda Familia, Mazda 323, Mazda Allegro, Mazda Artis, Mazda Étude, Nissan Sentra, Volkswagen Jetta, Mitsubishi Mirage, Mitsubishi Colt, Mitsubishi Lancer, Mitsubishi Signo, Mitsubishi Virage, Soueast Lioncel, Dodge Neon, Dodge SRT 4, Plymouth Neon, Chrysler Neon, Chrysler SRT 4, Kia Sephia, Kia Mentor, Timor S 515, Timor S 516
From Mrchevy baja (unlisted channel) (used to be bajabusta)
Website: testdrivejunkie.com/category/crash-tests
Video from • Dateline 1997 IIHS Sma...
MUST WATCH!!!!! My UA-cam Milestone!
• Video
"This is the Kia Sephia.... from Korea" best Rhyme I heard in a long time.
RATING: POOR
In 2021 the car companies love IIHS.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who recognized it
The Kia sophia from Korea. The death trap that was marketed in the US.
Honestly that rhyme was sublime. I only noticed cuz you wrote this. Good ear and happy new year!
Wow, it is weird to see that the automakers bashed the IIHS in the 90's, Now automakers rely on the IIHS.
Nicolas Whittington I
Nicolas Whittington exactly! They were thinking wrong!
I love their explanations: speed was too high, test was deceptive, we can't protect legs, cause we'll lower protection for head, we passed the minimum safety requirements. How does it compare to real life?
I would like to find a chapter in car user manual called: "Prefered accident conditions", where user will be informed he shouldn't be driving more than 35 mph during an accident, should aim directly at the obstacle, be it a wall, tree or another vehicle. When colliding off-center, you should tuck your legs. You would also be told that injuries sustained are within government specifications.
I'd also like to hear their rep telling public how much heavy injuries and deaths are acceptable according to them. Preferably with pie charts. Everything's looks better with pie charts.
Nowadays car companies brag about how their cars get the IIHS Top Safety Pick Plus award.
They have to cause thats what convinces there customers to buy there cars cause of the safety
9:59 The Kia Sephia from Korea. Because its never Dateline Consumer Reports without a darn rhyme about a car.
Nader Ammar I thought Kia was Slovakian. (this is from Top Gear)
I owned two of these little death traps (Neon), they were quite nimble and handled amazingly well, but they had no structural integrity
I remember when I was a little kid one of my neighbors had a Neon. Thought it was a cute name, but little did I know that said neighbor was driving a very poor performing car.
SOMEONE, left THE HEADPHONE JACK HALF IN
"They did extremely well; you would have survived in every one of those vehicles."
Key word: _survived._ As if the fact that people who have crashes in these vehicles, and will probably not be able to walk on their own two legs ever again, is not the real issue.
*I DON'T WANT TO SURVIVE! I WANT TO LIVE*
@@jarofdelisauce2266Poor lad. Just stay quiet and you'll be ok, we're heading back to the dealership.
Thankfully there aren't too many Neons on the road anymore.
Well the Dart was considered as the modern day Neon.
_÷@
= Yes
@DillyDally thats good. Except the SRT4, it's the best Neon.
The new Neon is just a rebadged Fiat Tipo in Mexico.
Dumbest car ever. Ugly as hell too
They should test at 70 or even 60 MPH the norm for freeway speed . Then that would be very scary . Thanks for the upload , good info . Gave a like .
yeah I bet the Neon and the Kia sephia will be very scary to see in a 70 mph crash test.
yep , I hear you on that one !
70 mph no matter what car you have your organs and body can’t survive going that fast and stopping that quickly
@@hoofaa17 it is possible in a particularly safe, modern (2018 or newer) car because modern cars are getting better at absorbing the energy, running it through the frame of the car, getting the forces away from the driver and increasing the time it takes to decelerate.
Jaymate nope, it can’t. A relative from Australia crashed at 70 mph, no intrusion into the cabin. He died instantly, no car can protect you from those types of forces from 70 mph to nothing. In the top gear episode on UA-cam they crash a smart car at 70 mph and listen to what they say near the end of the video
I had a Civic like that, glad to know it was acceptable
I simply find it amazing how all these auto makers where standing on the wrong side of history without even knowing so... adamantly defending their cars and heavily criticizing the Insurance Institute. Nowadays, they use their crash test scores from the IISH to promote and sell their cars... Isn't THAT ironic? LOL
Oh sí! Son pruebas reales. Estoy muy pendiente de los resultados para los autos que me interesan comprar. Pueden ser la diferencia entre la vida y la muerte. Algunos carros dicen ser muy seguros y fracasan en algunas de las pruebas más severas!
I distinctly remember Ford promoting their safety scores often. They were one of the few companies that generally did well.
@@honkhonkler7732
Volvos and Mercedes also did extremely well in these early tests.
@@darthgamer6080Not the first C Class, and the W210 only performed averagely.
if I had to get one of these compact saloons, I'd get the Saturn SL2 just so I could walk away from the crash. Saturn sure knew how to make small cars back in the day.
Not safe by today's standards, not safe at all. No side or curtain airbags either.
IIHS does good work. The guy in the glasses is a deceptive crook. Either that, or he's incredibly deluded or corrupt.
@TCL IIHS conducts crash test studies that are more rigorous and strict than the gov't standards. They are a huge part of why car safety has improved immensely over the last 30yrs. They put pressure on the manufacturers to do better. The government's own testing is pretty pathetic.
Your right, what a smuck.
It's amazing, how cars have come a long way since twenty years ago.
Yea
Yet the old car fools still claim their 50's, 60's and 70's classics are safer! 😮
Yea, 40 mph is “super fast” even though most people in Florida and in a lot of other states drive 50 mph on a 45. So the institutes test is a lot more logical than the governments test
Although I dont disagree with the findings of these older cars, I think a greater issue today is how cars made today make you feel like your going slower than what you are, have less engagement between the driver and the ground that causes needless speeding and complacency. These tests dont mean much when most of the populace is driving above the speed limit and being careless. Nothing against proper hooning, but here in the states most arent formally taught to drive so accidents are more common. These tests tell a lot about a common crash but we really need to fix our drivers educations infrastructure. These small cars are relatively safe when not going head on with 5000 pound truck or a modern 200hp grocery getter 4 door. I hope the research they find continues to improve safety in cars but I find the market seems to sell cars a bit differently than what is efficient, safe or cost effective for the consumer.
the main problem i see is that most cars today are suv's which are taller & heavier, and they are usually driven by less experienced coordinated people. and the modern cars make you feel slow and are removed from the road. i see everyone driving way faster now. also the distracting screens in cars.
I had a 2002 neon it was made out of Reynolds Wrap tin foil I shut the door one time with my hand on the door itself and it dented if you hit a bump in the road the doors would shake
1993spirit damn lol glad they stopped making those
that's offensive...
Reynolds Wrap is much stronger than the Neon
LMAO I bet it was the off-brand tin foil.
Thank goodness Dodge Neons and Kia Sephias are rarely driven nowadays
I’m scared of my neon now after seeing these videos. My daily is a 1998 dodge neon. It’s been a fantastic little car, but these videos scare the crap out of me. Literally a death trap.
Just 4 years later, the Elantra would flunk the offset test because of late airbag deployment and high head injury measures, along with movement of the driver seat. The 2004 Elantra improved in the same test because the airbags deployed on time.
However, it did take three tests for that generation Elantra to earn a Good rating in the offset test. The first test resulted in a fuel tank leakage, and the airbag never even deployed during the second test.
I feel better now since I own both a 1998 Honda Civic DX and a 2001 Toyota Corolla S.
they both suck
AutoXmachine they both sucksssssssss so much
VTEC bitches !
Well you bought japanese cars that's why they were light years ahead of the US
Mat Jiowoo You wouldn’t be saying that once you driven one.
20 mph isn't a fender-bender, and 3800 is pretty reasonable. A broken bone is going to run way more than that. Who cares about such a minor cost when the car is designed to sacrifice itself to protect something that cant be replaced...YOU
Agreed. The Escort wasn't bad either, for its time.
THANKS FOR PUTTING THIS UP!!!!!! the original guy took them down :(
I though the Jetta would be a lot safer
Yeah, but it has been already outdated back then. It's essentially a VW Golf III from 1991, usually a small 3 door compact car. It passed offset crash tests at 35mph, and other tests against heavier cars of the day with flying colors. This 40mph test was specifically developed to raise the bar and challenge those older designs. Let's put it that way: a Mercedes 190E or BMW 3 series from that era wouldn't perform well either. The first Mercedes 200 C class barely passed.
The Saturn tested is a design that debuted in 1991 and the Mazda chassis under the Escort goes back to the 80's.
Arbags
The 1999 Jetta got a good rating.
@@captmcneilYou're absolutely right.
Its called aerodynamics. Those cars are nice for nostalgic reasons but simply cant hold a candle to newer cars. Power, performance, interior, unibody, handling, abs, AC, power windows, reliability, and so on. Autos have progressed quite a bit since then. And any car that is extensively restored is expensive but doesn't mean its great.
That civic did amazing
"It almost never happens" WTF! Car crashes are one of the most common ways to die!
Especially the offset crash, which is the most common type of crash, since every single person drives past someone on the opposite side of the road.
"65,000 years of driving, that's how rare this is." The ignorance and idiocy of George Parker's comment is astounding. Who doesn't drive on a road that's exposed to someone else driving towards you on the other side of the road? We all do, unless you live somewhere where there's nothing but one-way streets. That's the very definition of an offset driving direction, or offset crash. What kind of tomfoolery is this fool up to?
All he cares about is big money. Was his second job a politician, because his lies would have surely made him a damn good one.
Nissan Sentra, no doubt the toughest car in the group. Mechanically and structurally. A great great car!
Spot on! I'd say the Sentra was the best all-around small car one could buy in the late 90's, next to the '99 VW Golf!
The Sentra had a structural performance of marginal.
No Chevy Cavalier?
@Theclassicplastic it was tested in Dateline 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 IIHS Small Cars Offset
What about Mitsubishi Mirage?
Nope. That's a 1998 or later corolla and a 1996 or later civic.
So fast, so severe? With the current 70 mph speed limits and traffic moving at 50 in a 35 zone, super-speeders, and monster personal use vehicles weighing three tons or more, inexcusably high power (who really needs more than 150 horsepower for daily driving?), 40 mph crash tests may be considered to be too slow. There is a trade-off between crash performance and manufacturing cost, but if one car does well in a particular test, what is the excuse that another doesn't in the same test?
5610winston Honestly, is you crash going 150 mph, you’re probably better of dying quickly. Why would you want to live with half of your face missing and many broken bones?
You can't survive hitting a solid object at 70 mph, even if the car didn't collapse, your body would.
1995-1999 NEON and Kia sephia Are A dead trap!!!
neons are fine
kia sephia is shit. Anything by kia will fuck your life up in a crash as shown.
So is the Mitsubishi Mirage.
bleachaholickk maybe from the 90’s but today they, as well as Hyundai, get lots of awards from the IIHS
You'd never catch me driving a deathtrap Neon or Sephia. Both of the legs of the Sephia driver were severely injured at the kneecaps, I cringed as the pulled the dummy from that car. Both cars were redesigned around 2000, and both did only marginally better than their predecessors.
Thanks! It's good to know! =D
I had a '94 Kia Sephia, it was a horrible car. I'm just glad I never got into an accident with it.
My sister had a 1997 Ford Escort ZX2. I had a 1998 Ford Contour SE in the late 90’s to 2005.
How come in some shots of the civic, it was grey and not blue?
6:40 6:41 1997 - 2000 Ford ESCORT LX ( MERCURY TRACER )
RATINGS: ACCEPTABLE
The results in IIHS and Euroncap are different. For example Civic in euroncap is a crap, Corolla is much better. Kia Rio is getting better and better and in IIHS it is a total crap. Probably there are some differences in these car for different regions?
antonarset, Yes
IHS is better than euroncap they test at high speeds And have a better facility with better technologies.
@@justenzo6342 what's IHS?
@@pong.o Insurance Institute for highway safety
@@justenzo6342EuroNcap actually pushed the offset frontal test to 40 mph, the American institute started off using a speed of 35. The American side impact tests are better though, with a higher more aggressive barrier, and at 40 rather than 30.
They all did better than my first car would have.
11:31 you should watch iihs more than government tests
I have a 97 Neon. My mom is making me sell it as it’s too unsafe
I have a 98 Neon and after she saw this, she wants me to get rid of it which I understand honestly but I do like a little car. It definitely feels unsafe though. It’s a go kart and it feels like it’s made out of a tin can 😂
Nice! I love my civic!
what year was this show broadcasted?
Probably 1997
@@kennethseah758 makes sense, I used to have a very similar civic (a couple of years ago) and it was a 1998 model, thank you! ☺️
Around September-October 1997
@@trippymoredd3016 thanks! 😄
1995 - 2000 HYUNDAI AVANTE ( ELANTRA ) RATINGS: ACCEPTABLE
1995 - 1998 MADZA 323 FAMILA ( PROTAGE )
RATINGS: ACCEPTABLE
1993 - 1997 NISSAN SUNNY ( SENTRA )
RATIGS: ACCEPTABLE
6:49 6:50 6:51
Saturn SL2 is actually an excellent car.
1:17 OMG ITS BEAMNG IN REAL LIFE!!
The Honda Civic is also as the Acura EL in Canada
8:44 and Chrysler in Canada, Mexico, Europe, Mercosur and outside the United States in general.
Deathtrap Neon! Elantra and Saturn are fine!
Im surprised the saturn did good considering it is made mostly of plastic i was scared to drive mine but now i dont have to worry too much
Fun fact: my classmate own a 1999 Nissan Sentra B14 which was acceptable
40mph is not too fast!!! You'd be going down the highway at 65!
Hopefully you at least attempt braking before you crash though.
This test simulates two cars of the same size and weight hitting
at a combined speed of 60 mph.
That AIAM sleezeball needs a reality check. Did anyone else notice that he was shaking his head "no" while he was saying that all of the cars did well?
That place is every cars worst nightmare
Seeing a Civic crashed like that breaks my heart
9:58
kia
Sophia
From Korea
🔥 She's spitting fire 🔥
The 1994 Nissan sentra preformed worse than this one, check out the video on the IIHS channel, Nissan Tsuru vs Nissan Versa
Why do they test the cars in about 40mp/h and not the topspeed...???
My dad happens to have a 1998 Honda Civic
At the end of the video the
Kia sephia testing if it
Was to crash with a truck the person would most likely die
13:41 RIP AE86
I really miss Stone Phillips!
Didn't know US had Escorts in the 90s.
"This is the Kia Sephia from Korea."
i wish iihs would of done a crash test on the 2000 mustang
they probably did
+Mat Jiowoo no they didnt....ive done research it
They should’ve done it with the full-size SUVs.
I have a 1999 Hyundai Elantra weights at 3200 pounds how's my car not safe
5:41 5:42 5:43 1995 - 2003 SATURN SLS
RATINGS: ACCEPTABLE
Mercury Tracer is also equivalant to a Ford Laser.
"is it something to be concerned about? I don't think so.". Then he hopped in his Honda Civic and drove off.
I'm glad I drive the 98 Corolla.
what about if I had a 97 corolla
corollas are crap
Mat Jiowoo screw you then
Exactly why i own a W126 560SEL Mercedes. Those cars are built like tanks i kid you not!
+George heinsman finally someone who understands me. old benzes are the best
I am getting a 90s civic as my first car 👍👍👍😶😶
Was there a test done for the Chevrolet Cavalier?
+BlueNinjakoopa553 Yes, IIRC, it received a poor rating for the frontal offset test.
+BlueNinjakoopa553 Yes. It received a poor rating. A concussion would be likely, as well as a severely broken leg. Depending on the crash, the driver may experience some more severe injuries due to the dummy flying about inside the vehicle during the crash. Instrusion was severe and the steering wheel column was rammed upwards, while the foot well was rammed back. The plastic inside the cabin was cracked when the dummy's head hit the windowsill.
+Josh Mckinnley The car is also relatively light (~2700LBS) compared to every other car. You'd probably die if you hit another car since the other car would most likely be heavier. Two of my friends have this car and I worry about them sometimes.
BlueNinjakoopa553 The Cavalier was one of the first cars tested by the Institute
TechTipsToday No one want to see your ass.
@thefassold they did in a separate episode, it got a poor
One would think that crash tests would be done to simulate the most common crashes that occur and grade correspondingly so.
They are you Muppet.
Couldn't watch. I cried ;(
THE FRICKING CARS DIE :(
HEARTLESS STUPID PINK PATRICK C0CK CREEP
+Super Trini Gamer the poor dodge neon 😭 I own one
And I have a Hyundai Accent :(
I had mirage. I tell you what - they should test 2DR Mirage coupe ! it's much harder
my moms 98 civic was crashed in 1999 and she never went to the hospital
good
at least that civic was destroyed
My uncle farted in 1997 and nobody called the cops.
So, would the results of the SeVille also go towards the DeVille? Because you said in the description that the DeVille was one of them, but I never saw it in the video. Just the SeVille. I just want to know if I'm as safe in my 97 DeVille as I would be with the older SeVille they show.
Then you should probably change to the 2000 because it got a good when the 1997 got a poor.
Then you should probably change to the 2000 because it got a good when the 1997 got a poor.
Victor Roman Or just never get in a crash I guess. I can't afford a 2000
@@boxman139You will, but you'll need to rebuild the engine with the longer head bolts.
okay thanks!
yup,the twin of the corolla
My dad owned a 2002 escort (last year made), had his first accident in 62 years of driving (he was 81). Low speed collision with the bar of a box truck (about 20 mph) on the passenger side. 3,800 worth of damage for a car worth about 5,000. He walked out with out a scratch but still, that much damage from no more than a fender bender?
So if I'm driving a 1998 Plymouth neon and Ive got my seat all the way back because I'm 6'4, would I still be in serious danger?
I'd be scared of that A-pillar in the Neon crushed all the way back the way it did in these two crash tests. The structural collapse of the car will repeat itself over and over again in a 40 mph offset crash.
Yes, very much so.
Good video, but static makes me wanna kms. Jk, I wanna do that anyway...
The Mitsubishi Mirage that’s my grandmas car she has been driving it since 1999
3:43 3:44 1995 - 1999 ACCEPTABLE HONDA CIVIC ( CIVIC FERIO )
i bet if they had tested a volvo it would have put all these cars to shame :D
9:58
This is the Kia Sophia from Korea(W rhyme)
4:19 4:20 1997 - 2002 TOYOTA COROLLA SEDAN ( ALL - NEW CHEVROLET PRLIZM )
RATINGS: ACCEPTABLE
:( will it ever comeback?
"Hits like Kia Sophia. From South Korea.."
Speed of crash test?
Meet or exceed "GOVERNMENT STANDARDS". LOL LOL LOL
Wild how Mitsubishi still has some of the most dangerous vehicles on the road
The Mirage and Mirage G4? Those are cheap cars, actually when IIHS released the small overlap test, Mitsubishi even scored better than some BMW, Mercedes and other cars, the 2008 Lancer earned acceptable when IIHS rated that test, the others got poor, I remember the C-Class got poor at that time, remember the last generation Lancer was released back in 2008. The new Outlander was also named the safest SUV in the market for the year 2023, fun fact, the Outlander got a good rating in the new updated side impact crash test, Volvo with it's XC60 got an acceptable rating, Cadillac with it's XT6 got a poor rating, not to mention the new Grand Highlander got an acceptable rating on the small overlap crash test.
What year was this episode of date line premiered
I'm not 100% sure, but I would say somewhere around 1997-98, since they tested the redesigned 1998 Toyota Corolla. But they also tested the 1997 Dodge Neon, so it was definitely before 1999 when the new-for-2000 Neon was introduced.
Also the VW Jetta and Golf were new for 1999, and they tested the 1997 model, meaning the '99 was still yet to be released.
My dad has a 1998 Honda Civic coincidentally it won
After about 60mph its purely luck if you survive in about any car.
jjmonns this is very true
Actually, you have a little chance at 60mph. 45mph is life-threatening for most.
Everyone here is correct. 40 mph is the average speed for a two-lane country, mountain, or forest road. Any collision about that speed is a greater chance for more devastating results in the event of that said collision.
The Dodge Neon is a deathtrap!
Update: In the new moderate overlap crash test with a crash dummy in the back seat, no small car earned a Good rating.
the full frontal crashtest may not telling you everything you need to know.... well how did you discovered it??
It was just a promotion for people at that time but accident like these never occur in real life unless a suicidal wants to go head on a brick wall ofcourse
So was this new in 1997? Car in Europe have been tested like that for years before, at 64 km/h into a obstacle that only covered 40% of the frontal area.
That's why European cars started getting 5 stars on EuroNcap crash tests in 2001 while American ones still couldn't get 3 stars.
derbigpr500 The fuck? Who exactly was testing cars in Europe before the creation of Euro NCAP (which launched in '96 and made it's first tests in '97)?
derbigpr500 How can American cars not get 3 stars? Are you daft? Have you seen the regulations we have over in the states? That is why so many cars over there can not make it over to the US.
+derbigpr500 Euro NCAP rates cars differently. It allows for much more leniency in the injury measures.
The R32-R34 Nissan GTRs are an infamous example of cars that could not pass safety regulations in the US.
The Institute?