Small May Equal Economical - But Does it Equal Dangerous Too? Disturbing Crash Test Video

Ouch.

That looks violent to say the least for the Fiat. Safe to assume by the way those dummies in the Fiat were tossed around, it looks fatal. In addition to the dummies, the Fiat's momentum was reversed, not good for the passengers.

Common sense tells me that bigger is still safer. At the same time, big and tall still means body roll, even if we're talking about the Cayenne or X5.

All we can do is hope that automakers would improve the structures of the SUV's even more; Mother Nature just makes it impossible for those little economy cars to be any safer.

I have a disturbing picture of a Jeep Commander bent by a lightpole and crushing the occupants inside because the roof is frameless. Too bad I don't have the image URL. Does anyone know where to find it? I think I found it on Autoblog.

By the way, just as Fifth Gear proved, the Smart car might survive the crash, but the occupants won't. If the Smart came to the US a little later, they probably won't have passed the new crash regulations.

As I've said before in a similar post, it's not as much as it is about size as it is about the weight of the cars, and the frame height match (or discrepancy) between the cars and the structural design of the car. A larger car that is not significantly heavier that has a poorly (or designed with different performance figures in mind) designed structure (think 10 yr old Volvo 9-series for example, which was designed to be very strong, but not as energy absorbing as today's cars) crashed with a modern day Mini cooper... the Volvo would be severely damaged, likely more so than the Mini. In fact, there is a video like this on youtube somewhere where Fifth Gear tested an old Volvo vs. a small compact car (forget which brand) - the compact car's cabin was intact, while the Volvo suffered severe intrusion.

Also, it's about whether or not the height of the frame is the same. Some SUVs design their impact-absorbing frame to match the height of passenger cars, while some don't. When there's a discrepancy, the structure of the SUV simply "runs over" the structure of the sedan, pushing far into the cabin than it normally would.

So while most of the time, compact cars are the lighter ones in a collision (and thus fare worse), it's more than just size.

Perhaps the new wave of small cars will see less of these behemoths on the road.

This video was in German and the whole point of this video was to show the EU that manufacturers need to redo their sagital crash absorbers. The main reason why the crash happend like it did is that the sagital crash-absorber(from front to back) of the Q7 is so heavily built and only placed in one height, that it just crashed through the passenger-room of the Fiat. What the ADAC said is what needs to be done is for the SUV-makers (and not only Audi) to design crash-absorbers in different heights so they can take more energy from the crash. Also the ADAC wants the parliament to force the manufacturers by law to check their inter-segment crash behaviour.

That was the jist of this video.

Thanks for the info, too bad the article skimps on the details.

Actually the Fiat did pretty good, looks like the A/B-pillar and cabin retains structural integrity.

The idiots that post the smart surviing a 70mph crash vs a wall, do relize theres a difference between a car retaining its shape, and the passangers inside it being whacked around till they die?

in both the audi video, and the smart vs e class, the small car not only stops forward progess, it gets push back. The amount of enery being transfered to the passangers of the small car, is far larger then that being transfered to those in the large car.

no matter how strong, if both cars have equal safety ratings, I'd choose bigger vs smaller.

What is the crash ratings of the Fiat? How would a 2007 civic do here? This Fiat doesn't look safe. Bigger will always be better if you can afford the gas.

Isn't it strange (and unsafe) to conduct this crash outside in front of a crowd of people? Even if it were just a demo, the plastic and glass pieces can be ejected at much higher speeds than the vehicles'. Unless there is a plexiglass barrier for the crowd that I can't see.

Instead of some ridiculous special license for a vehicle over 4000lbs how about have the vehicles acquire better fuel mileage and have all cars require better crash standards. The special license would just be another tax grab for the government in the name of the environment.

I rather drive a solid German built tank anyday. I saw an Audi A4 rear end a Matrix at a red light. The Audi was going at least 120km/hr and at impact maybe 100km/hr. The rear end of the Audi actually lifted at impact from the moment of inertia. Anyways my point being is if that was some small econo-box the driver and the passenger of that vehicle would have been severely injured.

The two makers that I have always trusted in terms of safety is Volvo and Mercedes-Benz. My father had an old 300SEL in 85. A dinky little 3-series was making a left and clipped the front of our car. It bounced off and ended up front in a corner store no joke. Thank god the 3 series of today has gotten bigger.

Yikes, it looked as if the Q7 punctured the Driver side bag in the Fiat causing it to deflate early, with the poor dummy head veering towards its left towards the A frame