1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

IFL: Prius Tops All 14 Hybrids in Safety!

Discussion in 'Gen 3 Prius Main Forum' started by Glider, Sep 22, 2009.

  1. Glider

    Glider New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    135
    30
    0
    Location:
    Memphis
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    III
    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:

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

    * Used rating for IS250/350


    ORIGINAL Rankings (as provided by IFL):

    Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5
    0 Rank Make Model Type... SCORE[/FONT]
    1 1 Toyota[/SIZE][/FONT] Prius[/SIZE][/FONT] Sedan [/SIZE][/FONT] 64.9[/SIZE][/FONT]
    2 2 Honda[/SIZE][/FONT] Insight[/SIZE][/FONT] Sedan[/SIZE][/FONT] 76.8[/SIZE][/FONT]
    3 3 Toyota [/SIZE][/FONT]Camry [/SIZE][/FONT]Sedan [/SIZE][/FONT]77.2
    4 4 Ford [/SIZE][/FONT]Fusion [/SIZE][/FONT]Sedan [/SIZE][/FONT]79.2
    5 5 Mercury [/SIZE][/FONT]Milan [/SIZE][/FONT]Sedan [/SIZE][/FONT]79.2
    6 6 Nissan [/SIZE][/FONT]Altima [/SIZE][/FONT]Sedan [/SIZE][/FONT]80.6
    7 7 Toyota [/SIZE][/FONT]Highlander [/SIZE][/FONT]SUV [/SIZE][/FONT]81.0
    8 8 Chevy [/SIZE][/FONT]Silverado [/SIZE][/FONT]Pickup [/SIZE][/FONT]82.7
    9 9 Honda [/SIZE][/FONT]Civic [/SIZE][/FONT]Sedan [/SIZE][/FONT]83.6
    10 10 GMC [/SIZE][/FONT]Sierra [/SIZE][/FONT]Pickup [/SIZE][/FONT]83.8
    11 11 Cadillac [/SIZE][/FONT]Escalade [/SIZE][/FONT]SUV [/SIZE][/FONT]84.5
    12 12 GMC [/SIZE][/FONT]Yukon [/SIZE][/FONT]SUV [/SIZE][/FONT]84.5
    13 13 Ford [/SIZE][/FONT]Escape [/SIZE][/FONT]SUV [/SIZE][/FONT]97.3
    14 14 Mercury [/SIZE][/FONT]Mariner [/SIZE][/FONT]SUV [/SIZE][/FONT]97.3
    15 15 Lexus [/SIZE][/FONT]HS250h [/SIZE][/FONT]Sedan unrated[/SIZE][/FONT]
    16 16 Mercedes-Benz [/SIZE][/FONT]S400 [/SIZE][/FONT]Sedan unrated[/SIZE][/FONT]
     
    #1 Glider, Sep 22, 2009
  2. RodJo

    RodJo Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    423
    56
    0
    Location:
    Boston
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    V
    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?
     
    #2 RodJo, Sep 22, 2009
  3. Glider

    Glider New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    135
    30
    0
    Location:
    Memphis
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    III
    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.
     
    #3 Glider, Sep 22, 2009
  4. SageBrush

    SageBrush Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    11,627
    2,530
    8
    Location:
    Southwest Colorado
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Two
    I'm pretty sure there is no data available from IIHS regarding the G3, '10 Prius.
     
    #4 SageBrush, Sep 22, 2009
  5. nooaah

    nooaah New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    380
    5
    0
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    IV
    I can tell you first hand that this car is a virtual tank. :) Well, the 2008 at least!
     
    #5 nooaah, Sep 22, 2009
  6. Glider

    Glider New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    135
    30
    0
    Location:
    Memphis
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    III
    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)[​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]
    NHTSA frontal impact star rating (passenger side)[​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]
    NHTSA frontal risk (average of driver + passenger) 11%
    NHTSA side impact star rating (front seat)[​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]
    NHTSA side impact star rating (rear seat)[​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]
    NHTSA rollover star rating[​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]
    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

    [​IMG]
    * 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. ​
     
    #6 Glider, Sep 22, 2009
  7. kens

    kens New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    38
    5
    0
    Location:
    Palo Alto
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    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.
     
    #7 kens, Sep 22, 2009
  8. RodJo

    RodJo Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    423
    56
    0
    Location:
    Boston
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    V
    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....
     
    #8 RodJo, Sep 22, 2009
  9. Glider

    Glider New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    135
    30
    0
    Location:
    Memphis
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    III
    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: [email protected]
    web: www.InformedForLife.org
     
    #9 Glider, Sep 22, 2009
  10. RodJo

    RodJo Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    423
    56
    0
    Location:
    Boston
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    V
    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.
     
    #10 RodJo, Sep 22, 2009
  11. kens

    kens New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    38
    5
    0
    Location:
    Palo Alto
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    Although it's nice of Mr. Dulberger to reply to the email, his reply really doesn't make much sense. He says it's arbitrary to assume that a car is identical to the most similar vehicle tested.

    He is right that, as shown by his Accord 2DR vs 4DR example (and many other 2DR vs 4DR examples one can find in his site's data), it's not a perfect measure.

    But, as noted by RodJo, to use an AVERAGE car instead of the MOST SIMILAR car is even more arbitrary.

    More importantly, I think it's crucial to be transparent about this aspect of the methodology. Maybe it's explained somewhere on the IFL site, but if you look at the page for, e.g., a TCH there is no explanation of how the missing data could be affecting the score.

    That said, I should note that I think the composite index that IFL publishes really is a great idea. My quibble is just with the implementation.
     
    #11 kens, Sep 22, 2009
  12. Glider

    Glider New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    135
    30
    0
    Location:
    Memphis
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    III
    I edited my first post in this thread to try to give a fairer ranking based on modified IFL scores. Please see the new table shown there.

    - g
     
    #12 Glider, Sep 26, 2009
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)