Topic: Small Overlaftermath - Honda Fit Delisted From "Recommended" Cars By Consumer Reports

[Autos_Editor]

Consumer Reports responds to lackluster IIHS crash test rating for Fit

Read More...

[Fobroader]

but....but....what does that have to do with reliability....

[Frontier1]

^^^Agree...this and the last video I saw posted here by a member about CR tells me they want to play in the same sandbox as MT and RT.  Might as well seek paid advertising.

[PJ]

It hasn't gotten less safe, it's still great to drive, gets great mileage, has excellent resale and is one of the most reliable cars on the road.  CR is a total waste of time.

[rrocket]

It hasn't gotten less safe, it's still great to drive, gets great mileage, has excellent resale and is one of the most reliable cars on the road.  CR is a total waste of time.

+1

[tpl]

+2  but one does have to avoid concrete blocks now...unless one hits them head on.

[JohnM]

Better chance of avoiding concrete blocks or telephone poles in the Fit than in most cars on the road.  I don't suppose CR builds passive safety into it's ratings.

Cheers,
John M.

[Black Hatch]

Better chance of avoiding concrete blocks or telephone poles in the Fit than in most cars on the road.  I don't suppose CR builds passive safety into it's ratings.

Cheers,
John M.

You mean CR should incorporate salom times, breaking times in their safety ratings? man a Corvette would be awesome at those.

Back to the small offset, since those subcompact did so poorly, if you were driving one and found a collision is unavoidable would you turn your wheel back because the frontal "crash rating" was a lot better? ie moderate overlap was good.

[tooscoops]

isn't it the other way around? they don't look at active safety features?

either way... never been a fan of their systems... but quite frankly, if you think a minicar is going to score as well as a large vehicle in most accidents, you are ignoring physics... pretty sure anyone who actually thinks that any tiny car (with any badge on the hood) is the safest out there is delusional...

in the end, it shouldn't change anyone's purchasing decision on a car like this.

[Fobroader]

Better chance of avoiding concrete blocks or telephone poles in the Fit than in most cars on the road.  I don't suppose CR builds passive safety into it's ratings.

Cheers,
John M.

You mean CR should incorporate salom times, breaking times in their safety ratings? man a Corvette would be awesome at those.

Back to the small offset, since those subcompact did so poorly, if you were driving one and found a collision is unavoidable would you turn your wheel back because the frontal "crash rating" was a lot better? ie moderate overlap was good.

I think absolutely, the one with the best handling or brakes might not have to try out its passive safety systems if it can go around or stop before the danger.

[sailor723]

No surprise here. Scoring well in crash testing (along with reliability) has always been part of earning a "recommended" rating from CR.

Sounds like today's Fit was built to yesterday's safety standards. As cars advance most older models fall behind in a variety of areas (performance, FE, and safety etc) 

[mnztr]

I have no problem with the delist. Safety is far more important then reliability and fuel economy.

[PJ]

I have no problem with the delist. Safety is far more important then reliability and fuel economy.

Crash safety is an illusion. If you're really worried take an advanced driving course.  The safest car on the road is the one with the best driver. 

[Frontier1]

Better chance of avoiding concrete blocks or telephone poles in the Fit than in most cars on the road.  I don't suppose CR builds passive safety into it's ratings.

Cheers,
John M.

You mean CR should incorporate salom times, breaking times in their safety ratings? man a Corvette would be awesome at those.

Back to the small offset, since those subcompact did so poorly, if you were driving one and found a collision is unavoidable would you turn your wheel back because the frontal "crash rating" was a lot better? ie moderate overlap was good.

I dont think that margin is there really, but if it was I would look to ditch if possible.

[mmret]

I have no problem with the delist. Safety is far more important then reliability and fuel economy.

Crash safety is an illusion. If you're really worried take an advanced driving course.  The safest car on the road is the one with the best driver.

Truthy, but not really defensible.

[PJ]

I have no problem with the delist. Safety is far more important then reliability and fuel economy.

Crash safety is an illusion. If you're really worried take an advanced driving course.  The safest car on the road is the one with the best driver.

Truthy, but not really defensible.

Sure it is.  If you don't have an "accident" then you are completely safe.

[Black Hatch]

Better chance of avoiding concrete blocks or telephone poles in the Fit than in most cars on the road.  I don't suppose CR builds passive safety into it's ratings.

Cheers,
John M.

You mean CR should incorporate salom times, breaking times in their safety ratings? man a Corvette would be awesome at those.

Back to the small offset, since those subcompact did so poorly, if you were driving one and found a collision is unavoidable would you turn your wheel back because the frontal "crash rating" was a lot better? ie moderate overlap was good.

I dont think that margin is there really, but if it was I would look to ditch if possible.

In that case, the on-coming vehicle would "clip" and hit you like this small off-set crash...
Again would anyone turn into the on-coming vehicle because the "crash" rating for a moderate offset or frontal rating is better?
 I guess it's more instinct and I can see some value here for the small offset test for those that instinctively turn away but still get clipped.

[Jaeger]

+2  but one does have to avoid concrete blocks now...unless one hits them head on.

But isn't that something one would have sought to avoid before? 

[quadzilla]

I would like to see this same test done with the following...

a) Fit vs Fit
b) Fit vs Accord
c) Fit vs Pilot

I bet the results will be different every time. There isn't too many vehicles made today that look exactly like that concrete block (perfectly flat with a sharp edge) so I can't imagine it being as 'dangerous'.

Also what happens when the Fit is moved over 1, 2 or 3cm in either direction.

[sailor723]

I have no problem with the delist. Safety is far more important then reliability and fuel economy.

Crash safety is an illusion. If you're really worried take an advanced driving course.  The safest car on the road is the one with the best driver.

Truthy, but not really defensible.

Sure it is.  If you don't have an "accident" then you are completely safe.

A couple of points......

1.  Some accidents are unavoidable regardless of the handling prowess of the car or the skill of the driver. IE: oncoming car veering into your lane the instant before the two cars are about to pass each other due to drunk or drowsy driver.

2. The vast majority of drivers aren't nearly as good as they think they are.