Legacy crash tests on dateline NBC...

Hi All, I was just watching dateline NBC, and they were testing the Legacy...I caught the tail end of it, and basically, the side tests weren't that great. Did anyone have a chance to watch the show in it's entirity? I wonder if this could be true? Later, i.

All the crash test analysis completed here in Oz has been really good as Im sure like you do, we have side intrusion bars. It would be interesting to get further data on this.

[url]http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5480632/[/url] So Oz rates them the best, US rates them down... what's reality? And which test reflects reality? I dunno... I'd still rather be in a Legacy than my current car (Ford Mondeo/Contour)...

LOL who knows RD, depends on the jurno on the day I suppose but will try and dig up some stats.

they do mention in the article/test that the frontal is the 'best pick' which is always a good thing to know. I hope that no one is ever in such a side-impact predicment...but at least the passnegers' heads would be OK. Later, i.

"So what about the 2004 Subaru Legacy? It does come standard with front and side airbags. " [url]http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5480632/[/url] they were testing the 2004 legacy edit: i think they just made a typo. i think they were talking about the 2005 based on the comment about subaru fixed the side air bags. also, it received a marginal rating, but the article also states that the legacy and the rav4 were the only 2 cars that were tested. i bet you that 90% of the cars out there do not have a "best pick" rating for side impact. lol, i know my lancer didnt.

llmask, that's the way it's printed...however, if you look at the car they were testing in the video, it's definately a 2005. also, here's another bit of the same article... "The 2004 Toyota RAV4 and the 2005 Subaru Legacy are the first two vehicles to experience the double test. It's a one-two punch delivered in this high-tech crash hall at the Institute, an industry funded group that seeks to make cars safer and reduce insurance claims as a result. " So, in essence, it is a 2005...but with the airbag fix, they still got a 'marginal' rating...with less head injury. later, i.

It got the best rating for a frontal impact but got a "marginal rating" for the side impact. You can read all about it here straight from the source [url]http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle%5Fratings/ce/html/side/s0411.htm[/url] Kind of worrying since they said that in the Legacy the damage could be: [quote] Measures taken from the dummy in the second crash test indicate that rib fractures and/or internal organ injuries would be likely in a crash of this severity. Pelvic fractures would also be possible. Measures taken from the dummy's head, neck, and left leg indicate low risk of injuries to these body regions.[/quote] BUT it's far safer than my car... this is for the 2004 accord without the side air bags. And I have a 98 accord sans side air bags... :o [quote] Measures taken from the dummy indicate that serious skull fracture and/or brain injuries, plus rib fractures and/or internal organ injuries would be likely in a crash of this severity. In addition, loading to the shoulder was excessive. There was low risk of neck injury or pelvic fractures. [/quote]

That article almost made it sound like Subaru did the airbag recall AFTER they found the results from the side-impact were from poor performing airbags. I wonder how long it would have gone without a recall had there not been a side impact test early on. Ken

[quote name='Ken S']That article almost made it sound like Subaru did the airbag recall AFTER they found the results from the side-impact were from poor performing airbags. I wonder how long it would have gone without a recall had there not been a side impact test early on. Ken[/quote] thats the way it sounded to me too. I have to be honest, I'm not happy to hear about this "Marginal" side crash rating. Car saftey is important to me, and after reading the rave reviews the Legacy recieved from Australia, I am disspointed to say the least about this rating. -Nick

[quote name='TAckhouse1']I have to be honest, I'm not happy to hear about this "Marginal" side crash rating.[/quote] The question is, what is it marginal in relation to? It's a brand-new test, and no other cars have been tested in it yet. What if every other car on the market didn't even get a marginal, how would you feel about the Legacy then? ;) It reminds me of how the Forester was practically the only soft-roader that got a passing grade on safety tests. It didn't have great ratings - but it was better than nearly everybody else. So if you read it in isolation, you'd think that the Forester wasn't that great. If you read it in full... Cheers, Paul Hansen

[quote name='apexjapan'] The question is, what is it marginal in relation to? It's a brand-new test, and no other cars have been tested in it yet. What if every other car on the market didn't even get a marginal, how would you feel about the Legacy then? Paul Hansen[/quote] There is no indication at the IIHS web site that this is a brand new test. So far, they have tested about 25 cars, and in the side impact test the 2005 Legacy sedan was inferior to the similarly equipped 2004 Accord, Camry, and RAV4. Very dissapointing result from Subaru, especially since they have touted the safety improvements in the new Legacy. Who knows, maybe there was a problem with the airbags in the seats.

[quote name='inthedeck']llmask, that's the way it's printed...however, if you look at the car they were testing in the video, it's definately a 2005. also, here's another bit of the same article... "The 2004 Toyota RAV4 and the 2005 Subaru Legacy are the first two vehicles to experience the double test. It's a one-two punch delivered in this high-tech crash hall at the Institute, an industry funded group that seeks to make cars safer and reduce insurance claims as a result. " So, in essence, it is a 2005...but with the airbag fix, they still got a 'marginal' rating...with less head injury. later, i.[/quote] I think MSNBC needs to hire a fact checker. First they call it a 2004 instead of a 2005. Then they imply that after the front barrier test, the same vehicle (but now damaged from the front test) is subjected to the side impact test. Not true from what I have seen at the IIHS website. A new vehicle is used for the second test, the side impact test.

In the federal NHTSA side impact tests for the 2004 Legacy wagon and sedan, the wagon got better scores than the sedan. This federal test does not seem to be as thorough as the IIHS test, as it only measures chest injury. One can only hope that the 2005 wagon will do better than the sedan when it is tested by the IIHS. I expect we will hear soon from Subaru about this disappointing result, in the form of a press release. Maybe the airbags in the seats were improperly folded, as was found with the side curtain bags.

[quote name='outahere']There is no indication at the IIHS web site that this is a brand new test. So far, they have tested about 25 cars, and in the side impact test the 2005 Legacy sedan was inferior to the similarly equipped 2004 Accord and Camry..[/quote] From the article in question: "It's a new look at crash tests from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. After hundreds of front impact tests and side impact tests, now the Institute is carrying out both tests, one after the other, on the same model. So how will two popular models fare in this rigorous study? The 2004 Toyota RAV4 and the 2005 Subaru Legacy are the [b]first two vehicles to experience the double test.[/b] It's a one-two punch delivered in this high-tech crash hall at the Institute, an industry funded group that seeks to make cars safer and reduce insurance claims as a result." Cheers, Paul Hansen

[quote name='apexjapan'][quote name='outahere']There is no indication at the IIHS web site that this is a brand new test. So far, they have tested about 25 cars, and in the side impact test the 2005 Legacy sedan was inferior to the similarly equipped 2004 Accord and Camry..[/quote] From the article in question: "It's a new look at crash tests from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. After hundreds of front impact tests and side impact tests, now the Institute is carrying out both tests, one after the other, on the same model. So how will two popular models fare in this rigorous study? The 2004 Toyota RAV4 and the 2005 Subaru Legacy are the [b]first two vehicles to experience the double test.[/b] It's a one-two punch delivered in this high-tech crash hall at the Institute, an industry funded group that seeks to make cars safer and reduce insurance claims as a result." Cheers, Paul Hansen[/quote] I will say it again, the MSNBC article is inaccurate, ambiguous, and misleading. The IIHS announced its first "double test" front/side crash test results (for 12 small SUVs) on June 17, 2003. See their press release: [url]http://www.iihs.org/news_releases/2003/pr061703.htm[/url]

In looking over the ANCAP vs. IIHS side impact tests, there are notable differences. Although both tests are conducted at the same speed, IIHS uses a significantly heavier and higher barrier to simulate SUVs vs ANCAP. It looks like the Legacy has as stiff of a structure as the new Galant (IIHS' best structural performer) which seems to have affected the results. In the ANCAP test, the speed was lower, therefore less energy had to be dissipated. In that case, the Legacy's stiff structure allowed for stellar performance. In the IIHS test, it looks like the stiff structure caused the dummies to absorb more of the energy compared to the Camry/Accord (best overall performers). Given a choice, I would rather have the stiffer structure and take my chances. The less intrusion into the passenger compartment, the better. Especially in a side impact since there is so little survival space. People recover from cracked ribs/broken pelvises, they don't recover from deadly blows to the head. The Legacy did particularly well at head protection.

From a quote from the IIHS president "With the fix, the head airbags work properly and the dummy's head is protected. But O'Neill says because of the car's design, the driver's torso takes a heavy blow, possible broken bones and organ damage. If you were in a real world crash of this severity, you would not walk away,” says O’Neill. “You'd be hurt really badly.” While I am glad the head restraint is working now, but hearing this from the IIHS president, doesn't make me feel very comfortable now. And according to most sources, the legacy has a very rigid cage, but when you see the technical data. [url]http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/grey_midinexp_side.htm[/url] you will notice that the cage did not hold and remember that this test is done on a small female dummy with a child in the backseat; bigger women or men would definitely suffer more in the drivers side impact. troubling results indeed... :(

[quote]The Institute's side impact test is severe. Given the designs of today's vehicles, it's unlikely that people in real-world crashes as severe as this test would emerge uninjured. But with good side impact protection, people should be able to survive crashes of this severity without serious injuries. [/quote] While I am all for increased safety where possible... and I know not all accidents are avoidable or forseeable. I want as much safety as possible in that situation. My father, Mother and only brother are all EMTs, so I know what can happen in a car accident. At some point there is the law of diminishing returns. you can only add so many side beams, so many air bags, so many inches of door thickness before you reach a limit. The fact of the matter is, people get hurt in car accidents. Subaru should look at this data, and improve future designs, which should be the goal of all manufacturers. However, if drivers are mortified of these cars due to this testing data, they need a reality check. The laws of physics are laws we can't break. When two objects try to occupy the same space and time with those kinds of forces, bad things usually happen to those objects. People are going to continue to get hurt in car accidents no matter what cars they drive. maybe on average, some cars are better than others, and that is where my comments above about engineering improvements should continually improve. But if you are upset about side impact protection, then either drive a Ginormous SUV, or weld a nascar style cage inside your car. Doors are only so thick, unless you want to feel like pushing open a bank vault every time you want to get out of your car, and get 5 mpg, due to the weight of the steel armor. It just isn't practical to expect perfect safety in every circumstance, and a little healthy fear of vulnerability can keep you safer. I ride a motorcycle, and drive a Miata. Both are very very small. I am not trading either for a Hummer H1. If you wan't to be safer, keep the phone out of your hands, pay attention, and stay sharp, and encourage your freinds to do so too. I lapse as much as anyone, but that's my problem, and I constanly try to correct myself from doing that. But I'd rather explain to my wife/passenger later why I had to quicly avoid an accident, than actually have her get hurt in one. A good defense is a good offense. Conciously put yourself in a safe place on the road, and think strategically. Be prepared not only to stop ANYWHERE (not just at an intersection or sign/light) but also, to move, or accellerate at a moments notice. I have found situations where stopping would have probably killed me, but putting the hammer down turned the situation into a near miss. Bad situations, all, but I am still here. Everyone uses one lane. If someone is trying to use yours, you might have to use another empty lane, even if it is an empty oncoming lane. I'm just saying that there are limits to structural rigidity, and the best safety improvement you can make, is to drive well, and encourage others to, also.

[quote name='apexjapan'][quote name='outahere']There is no indication at the IIHS web site that this is a brand new test. So far, they have tested about 25 cars, and in the side impact test the 2005 Legacy sedan was inferior to the similarly equipped 2004 Accord and Camry..[/quote] From the article in question: "It's a new look at crash tests from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. After hundreds of front impact tests and side impact tests, now the Institute is carrying out both tests, one after the other, on the same model. So how will two popular models fare in this rigorous study? The 2004 Toyota RAV4 and the 2005 Subaru Legacy are the [b]first two vehicles to experience the double test.[/b] It's a one-two punch delivered in this high-tech crash hall at the Institute, an industry funded group that seeks to make cars safer and reduce insurance claims as a result." Cheers, Paul Hansen[/quote] Well if it truley is a different test, then what the Camry and Accord went though, then I would be intrested to see how they fair. -Nick

while i agree with you (iwannasportssedan) with everything you've said so far, but the bottom line is that if honda/toyota can produce a vehicle that provides above and beyond iihs standards in protection, subaru can and should be able to do it as well. i guess its just such a surprise in this day and age especially since the forester just received highest marks for the 2004. im not bashing subaru or anything, im just a bit disappointed and need to vent. hopefully they will fix this for the 06.

I'll have to second that. These crash results have all but gotten my choice of a Legacy GT wagon vetoed by my wife... Maybe we'll be looking at the Forester instead, but its a really disappointing and unexpected result. One wonders if there are more significant changes from the austrailian model than we have been lead to believe, or if they have simply picked a rotten Air Bag producer/distributer in the U.S. that no amount of re-folding will fix. -NP

It is impossible to compare the results of this test to any car other than the RAV4. Only 2 cars have taken this particular test.

Actually, the Legacy has the best cage out of all the cars there, since the numbers stand for how many centimeters the door has crushed beyond the left side of the pelvis. The Legacy's door would only go 2 inches beyond the pelvis, while the Accord's would go 16. [quote name='thatericguy']From a quote from the IIHS president "With the fix, the head airbags work properly and the dummy's head is protected. But O'Neill says because of the car's design, the driver's torso takes a heavy blow, possible broken bones and organ damage. If you were in a real world crash of this severity, you would not walk away,” says O’Neill. “You'd be hurt really badly.” While I am glad the head restraint is working now, but hearing this from the IIHS president, doesn't make me feel very comfortable now. And according to most sources, the legacy has a very rigid cage, but when you see the technical data. [url]http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/grey_midinexp_side.htm[/url] you will notice that the cage did not hold and remember that this test is done on a small female dummy with a child in the backseat; bigger women or men would definitely suffer more in the drivers side impact. troubling results indeed... :([/quote]

[quote name='rao']It is impossible to compare the results of this test to any car other than the RAV4. Only 2 cars have taken this particular test.[/quote] Incorrect. At the bottom of the IIHS web page that describes the side impact test results for the Legacy, there is a link that takes you to another page on the IIHS site, where you can compare the Legacy's side impact results to all the other cars and SUVs (around 25 total) that have had the IDENTICAL side impact test performed. There you can see that the Legacy has inferior results to the side airbag equipped Accord and Camry. Also take a look here, where only midsize sedans are compared: [url]http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/summary_midinexp_side.htm[/url]