IFL: Prius Tops All 14 Hybrids in Safety!

[Glider]

Informed For Life , a rating group in the State of Connecticut uses "a comprehensive approach to evaluating the relative safety of vehicles, utilizing ratings and fatality data provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)."

However, as pointed out by RodJo and Kens reacting to the original (second) table , the rating method used by IFL apparently penalizes hybrids that have non-hybrid "twins", because the IIHS doesn't crash-test them, and IFL puts in "Average" numbers for their IIHS numbers. In an attempt to give fairer rankings, I have substituted the final SCORE of the non-hybrid twin (as shown in red in the first table). I hasten to add that this "patch" is UNOFFICIAL and is only my opinion (and that of a few others). It is probably closer to the truth, but is still not completely right. The only way to get unbiased numbers would be for IIHS to either crash hybrid twins or to certify that it is OK to use the non-hybrid numbers in place of the hybrid numbers (which is what I am doing here). This is discussed later in this thread.

I just wanted to try to be fair.


UNOFFICIAL revised rankings for hybrid cars:

Rank	Make	Model	Type...	SCORE
1-2	Ford	Fusion	Sedan	52.6
1-2	Mercury	Milan	Sedan	52.6
3	Lexus	HS250h	Sedan	57.4*
4	Toyota	Camry	Sedan	57.6
5	Toyota	Highlander	SUV	60.0
6	Nissan	Altima	Sedan	60.9
7	Toyota	Prius	Sedan	64.9
8	Honda	Civic	Sedan	67.3
9	Honda	Insight	Sedan	76.8
10	Mercury	Mariner	SUV	79.8
11	Ford	Escape	SUV	79.9
12	GMC	Sierra	Pickup	83.8
13-14	Cadillac	Escalade	SUV	84.5
13-14	GMC	Yukon	SUV	84.5
15	Chevy	Silverado	Pickup	87.4
xx	Mercedes-Benz	S400	Sedan	unrated

* Used rating for IS250/350


ORIGINAL Rankings (as provided by IFL):

Rank	Make	Model	Type...	SCORE
1	Toyota	Prius	Sedan	64.9
2	Honda	Insight	Sedan	76.8
3	Toyota	Camry	Sedan	77.2
4	Ford	Fusion	Sedan	79.2
5	Mercury	Milan	Sedan	79.2
6	Nissan	Altima	Sedan	80.6
7	Toyota	Highlander	SUV	81.0
8	Chevy	Silverado	Pickup	82.7
9	Honda	Civic	Sedan	83.6
10	GMC	Sierra	Pickup	83.8
11	Cadillac	Escalade	SUV	84.5
12	GMC	Yukon	SUV	84.5
13	Ford	Escape	SUV	97.3
14	Mercury	Mariner	SUV	97.3
15	Lexus	HS250h	Sedan	unrated
16	Mercedes-Benz	S400	Sedan	unrated

[RodJo]

Originally Posted by Glider

The 2010 Prius ranks tops in safety from among all 14 hybrid sedans, SUVs and pickups ranked by:

Informed For Life

...

This is a significant statement about the safety in traffic of the Prius compared with other hybrids now on the road.

I don't see any such ranking on the website. When I enter the vehicles, there is no subcategory for hybrid and the numbers are different. For example, the 2010 Camry scores 57.6 and the 2010 Fusion scores 52.6, which are both better than the Prius. And I believe the Fusion Hybrid is heavier than its brother, so I think that would lower the score a little. Where/how are you getting the vastly different numbers?

[Glider]

Originally Posted by RodJo

I don't see any such ranking on the website. When I enter the vehicles, there is no subcategory for hybrid and the numbers are different. For example, the 2010 Camry scores 57.6 and the 2010 Fusion scores 52.6, which are both better than the Prius. And I believe the Fusion Hybrid is heavier than its brother, so I think that would lower the score a little. Where/how are you getting the vastly different numbers?

Sorry, I should have explained better. There are two issues to get the latest numbers and the correct ones.

First, you have to enter the data yourself (year, make, model) into the pull-down menu at the top of the page. Do not refer to the lists of cars they provide, because those data are not the latest results (for example, the list gives 2010 Prius as 72 , but the pull down menu gives the correct value, 64.9) I always started with 2010, and if there were no entry for that particular hybrid, I tried 2009 (which may heve been the latest year tested and rated).

Second, you have to be sure it says "hybrid" as part of the name when they also have a non-hybrid model (such as Camy and Camry Hybrid, or Fusion and Fusion Hybrid). The hybrid version usually has worse numbers than the regular model - I also would have expected them to be better. Maybe they have to reduce some metal members to offset the traction battery weight?

I think if you do this, you will the numbers as listed.

[SageBrush]

I'm pretty sure there is no data available from IIHS regarding the G3, '10 Prius.

[nooaah]

I can tell you first hand that this car is a virtual tank. Well, the 2008 at least!

[Glider]

Originally Posted by SageBrush

I'm pretty sure there is no data available from IIHS regarding the G3, '10 Prius.

Last Updated9/3/2009Year2010MakeToyotaModelPriusClassPASS.
CARConfiguration4-DR Hatchback 2WDw/SAB* = with Side-curtain AirBags as tested for side impact
[if not tested then w/SAB indicates SAB is standard equip.]w/SABw/ESC = indicates Electronic Stability Control is standard equip.w/ESCWeight (lbs.) per NHTSA [otherwise per IIHS]3098

RATINGS DATA
NHTSA frontal impact star rating (driver side)
NHTSA frontal impact star rating (passenger side)
NHTSA frontal risk (average of driver + passenger) 11%
NHTSA side impact star rating (front seat)
NHTSA side impact star rating (rear seat)
NHTSA rollover star rating
NHTSA rollover risk12%

IIHS frontal rating **GOOD
IIHS side impact rating ***GOOD
IIHS rear impact rating GOOD

RISK ASSESSMENT
(a) frontal impact fatality risk points (average vehicle = 38, including vehicle weight influence) 25.8
(b) side impact fatality risk points (average vehicle = 26) 11.9
(c) rear impact fatality risk points (average vehicle = 3) 1.0
(d) rollover fatality risk points (average vehicle = 33) 26.1
SCORE = sum of (a)+(b)+(c)+(d) (average vehicle = 100) 64.9
risk category for this vehicle:Medium Risk


* Airbag configuration as tested for side impact by IIHS =frnt & rear head crtn abs + frnt seat-mntd torso abs
** Vehicle actually tested by IIHS for frontal impact rating =2010 Toyota Prius 4-door
*** Vehicle actually tested by IIHS for side impact rating = 2010 Toyota Prius 4-door

The SCORE is proportional to the overall risk of driver fatality.

[kens]

I was kind of surprised by this, having purchased a 2010 FFH rather than a Prius based on safety reasons. (larger car = safer, other things equal).

It looks like the website's #'s on the FFH are off. The glitches are as follows:
1. It lists the FFH as a 2009 car, when in fact it wasn't produced until 2010.
2. More importantly, it has missing data in the IIHS frontal, side, and rear categories. I have no idea how Informed for Life generated the composite score w/o this data, but it seems likely that this explains the fact that the 2009 FFH was given a whopping 79.2, whereas the regular Fusion got a 58.5 for that year and a 52.6 for 2010. (the only difference between the cars in safety terms is that the hybrid has extra weight up front and in back).

And this problem in their analysis is not unique to the FFH. It holds for EVERY hybrid you listed aside from the Prius and Insight.

FFH 79.2, with missing data. Non-hybrid (2010) 52.6.
TCH 77.2, with missing data. Non-hybrid (2009) 63.6.
Milan FFH twin 79.2, with missing data. Non-hybrid (2010) 52.6.
NAH 80.6, with missing data. Non-hybrid 4-door 60.9.
Highlander Hybrid 81.0, with missing data. Non-hybrid (2009) 66.0.
HCH 83.6, with missing data. Non-hybrid 4-door 2009. 67.3.
Ford Escape Hybrid 97.3, with missing daga. Non-hybrid 79.7.

I'm not going to list all the huge gas-guzzling SUV hybrids. Even
listing the Escape makes me hold my nose
But they all have the same missing data problem.

If you think the non-hybrid numbers are pretty good approximations for the hybrid cars with the missing data, then the safety rankings would be FFH, NAH, TCH, Prius, ...

Edit: one additional note. I'm actually impressed by how close the Prius was to the Fusion, given the size difference. Also, note I'm not here to flame. As a former owner of a 2005 Prius (now owned by my in-laws), I have much appreciation for the car.

[RodJo]

Originally Posted by kens

I was kind of surprised by this, having purchased a 2010 FFH rather than a Prius based on safety reasons. (larger car = safer, other things equal).

It looks like the website's #'s on the FFH are off. The glitches are as follows:
1. It lists the FFH as a 2009 car, when in fact it wasn't produced until 2010.
2. More importantly, it has missing data in the IIHS frontal, side, and rear categories. I have no idea how Informed for Life generated the composite score w/o this data, but it seems likely that this explains the fact that the 2009 FFH was given a whopping 79.2, whereas the regular Fusion got a 58.5 for that year and a 52.6 for 2010. (the only difference between the cars in safety terms is that the hybrid has extra weight up front and in back).

And if you assume that the IIHS data for the 2009 FFH is the same as the regular Fusion (i.e. "GOOD") then it looks like the SCORE drops to 59.2 for the 2009 FFH.

I guss it just shows that the output is only as good as the input data....

[Glider]

Originally Posted by kens

It looks like the website's #'s on the FFH are off. The glitches are as follows:
1. It lists the FFH as a 2009 car, when in fact it wasn't produced until 2010.
2. More importantly, it has missing data in the IIHS frontal, side, and rear categories.... And this problem in their analysis is not unique to the FFH. It holds for EVERY hybrid you listed aside from the Prius and Insight.

FFH 79.2, with missing data. Non-hybrid (2010) 52.6.
TCH 77.2, with missing data. Non-hybrid (2009) 63.6.
Milan FFH twin 79.2, with missing data. Non-hybrid (2010) 52.6.
NAH 80.6, with missing data. Non-hybrid 4-door 60.9.
Highlander Hybrid 81.0, with missing data. Non-hybrid (2009) 66.0.
HCH 83.6, with missing data. Non-hybrid 4-door 2009. 67.3.
Ford Escape Hybrid 97.3, with missing daga. Non-hybrid 79.7. ...

If you think the non-hybrid numbers are pretty good approximations for the hybrid cars with the missing data, then the safety rankings would be FFH, NAH, TCH, Prius, ...

Edit: one additional note. I'm actually impressed by how close the Prius was to the Fusion, given the size difference...

I didn't think the greatly-changed Hybrid numbers were caused by incomplete input data, but it looks like that is largely the case. I wrote to IFL about this problem and received the following prompt reply (along with permission to post it):

Thank you for your feedback and suggestions.

The real issue is that NHTSA and IIHS determine which models and configuration of vehicles their test results apply towards, and these agencies favor the side of caution. This is not without merit since there are numerous examples of relatively small differences in configuration making significant differences in test results. A recent example is the side impact rating of the Honda Accord. The 2 door model received 5 stars by NHTSA whereas the 4 door model received only 3 stars --and only 3 of 400, 2009 models received such a low rating.

Therefore, my only choices are to either not post any results for those models with limited published ratings (per IIHS and NHTSA) or to consider that missing element to be "typical". To do otherwise would be arbitrary.

If you can get NHTSA and/or IIHS to test the hybrid models then the uncertainty is eliminated. Also, if the agencies do sufficient back-to-back testing of the hybrid vs. non-hybrid, they may be able to demonstrate that the structural and weight differences from hybrid to non-hybrid do not alter the crash test results.

Sincerely,
Michael D. Dulberger
Founder and President
Informed For Life, Inc.
email: info@InformedForlife.org
web: www.InformedForLife.org

[RodJo]

Originally Posted by Glider

I didn't think the greatly-changed Hybrid numbers were caused by incomplete input data, but it looks like that is largely the case. I wrote to IFL about this problem and received the following prompt reply (along with permission to post it):

Thank you for your feedback and suggestions.

The real issue is that NHTSA and IIHS determine which models and configuration of vehicles their test results apply towards, and these agencies favor the side of caution. This is not without merit since there are numerous examples of relatively small differences in configuration making significant differences in test results. A recent example is the side impact rating of the Honda Accord. The 2 door model received 5 stars by NHTSA whereas the 4 door model received only 3 stars --and only 3 of 400, 2009 models received such a low rating.

Therefore, my only choices are to either not post any results for those models with limited published ratings (per IIHS and NHTSA) or to consider that missing element to be "typical". To do otherwise would be arbitrary.

If you can get NHTSA and/or IIHS to test the hybrid models then the uncertainty is eliminated. Also, if the agencies do sufficient back-to-back testing of the hybrid vs. non-hybrid, they may be able to demonstrate that the structural and weight differences from hybrid to non-hybrid do not alter the crash test results.

Yes, using my example, if after you bring up the data for the 2009 FFH you should see that the IIHS ratings used in the calculation is "Average". That obviously penalizes a good vehicle and results in an unrealistic SCORE. I would think the better approach would be to consider the IIHS ratings to be the same as the non-hybrid equivalent (especially when the two models have the same NHTSA ratings). When you do that, your list changes significantly.