2014 LEAF gets "Poor" rating in Small Overlap IIHS test

[bbrowncods]

I could care less about the test. All the test does is expose a weakness, or strength, in the car. Eventually there will be a fatality caused by a crash of the same type that this test exposes. Nissan will not have a leg to stand on because they knew that the car had this "flaw" and did nothing about it (assuming that they don't).

Another point is that this type of news will kill a car:
- Palph Nader's "Unsafe At Any Speed". Met standards.
- 1994: Nissan Van with engine fire problems, and a class action lawsuit pending, Nissan took the unprecedented step of recalling every Nissan Van sold in the USA - crushed en masse. Met standards.
- GM is currently going through with the ignition switch - a design that "met standards".

So the argument that a car meets standards for the date of manufacture doesn't make a bit of difference. Nissan needs to step up and deliver a remedy.

 

[Nubo]

No carmaker will ever tell you that their cars are "safe" because that is a relative term.

Their salespeople, OTOH, will do it at the drop of a hat. As for cars getting heavier and more complex, I'd rather have a slightly heavy car that gets 40MPG *and* provides adequate protection in a crash than have a car that gets 43MPG and doesn't. The roof pillars are indeed annoying, but then so is having your roof collapse in a rollover. What I would like to see is less 'building for the tests' and more 'building for real life crashes'.

Who defines "real life crashes"? This leads us back to standardized testing.

 

[LeftieBiker]

Who defines "real life crashes"? This leads us back to standardized testing.

Records are kept of actual crashes, including the circumstances. Those reinforced roof pillars, for example, came more from records of rollover crashes than from standardized tests. Ford trucks used to be notorious for collapsing roofs - until they put in heavier pillars.

 

[RonDawg]

I could care less about the test. All the test does is expose a weakness, or strength, in the car. Eventually there will be a fatality caused by a crash of the same type that this test exposes. Nissan will not have a leg to stand on because they knew that the car had this "flaw" and did nothing about it (assuming that they don't).

Another point is that this type of news will kill a car:
- Palph Nader's "Unsafe At Any Speed". Met standards.
- 1994: Nissan Van with engine fire problems, and a class action lawsuit pending, Nissan took the unprecedented step of recalling every Nissan Van sold in the USA - crushed en masse. Met standards.
- GM is currently going through with the ignition switch - a design that "met standards".

So the argument that a car meets standards for the date of manufacture doesn't make a bit of difference. Nissan needs to step up and deliver a remedy.

There is no "flaw." It was simply not designed for that particular IIHS test.

The Chevy Corvair met standards because back when that car was designed, there were pretty much no standards at all. They didn't come around until around 1968 (and as a direct result of Nader's testimony).

The Nissan Van's problems were due to Nissan stuffing the Hardbody pickup's engine into an engine bay not designed for something that large. In Japan that van comes with a much smaller engine, but Nissan felt the stock motor would be too underpowered for US emissions standards, and for US tastes. As a result the engine overheated.

GM's ignition switch problems did NOT meet standards. Testimony and their own documentation proved they knew there was a problem and covered it up.

If you don't like your car anymore, trade it in for a Volt. But you're not going to get anywhere by claiming it's a defect.

 

[mtndrew1]

To see what was "normal" not long ago, look at the IIHS's test of the Chevrolet Venture:

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/chevrolet/venture" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This same design was sold until 2005 by GM. Many hundreds of thousands of these vans (along with identical sister vehicles by Pontiac and Oldsmobile) were built and surely many people died because of GM's engineering choices. Of course there were no lawsuits or payouts due to crash performance as these vans met all applicable federal safety standards at time of manufacture. This is an inherent performance in the design, not something that can be recalled to "repair."

That link is NOT the same test the Leaf just did poorly in, it is the former, much less severe MODERATE OVERLAP test! The same test that the Leaf gets an IIHS "Good" rating for is the carnage you see at that link. Watch the slow-mo video for extra credit.

The whole point of the small overlap test is that it's brand new, testing a crash scenario that hasn't been tested before. As such, most vehicles tested end up performing poorly or moderately. The majority of cars for sale haven't been tested in small overlap at all.

There is no defect with the Leaf. This is a brutal test and it will take time for automakers to adjust. There is nothing for Nissan to repair or recall here, and passing this test will involve redesigning the front crash structures of the car in subsequent model years. As is good business sense Nissan will probably wait until the Leaf is seriously refreshed or redesigned before implementing changes.

I'm coming out of a Volt in a few months and likely into a Leaf and these results give me no pause whatsoever. The Leaf, like all modern cars, remains incredibly safe.

 

[bbrowncods]

GM's ignition switch problems did NOT meet standards.

I doubt GM designed the switch to fail on purpose. Once they found out it was defective they covered it up.

All my examples were real world defects, design flaws, whatever you want to call them, that contributed to killing people. There was no test to discover them. People using their vehicle is what brought out those issues. In this case we have an example of a test, rather than people dieing, to discover a flaw in the design of the Leaf that has the potential to severely injure someone in a partial front end collision.
No one can justify that the current design is OK now that everyone can see on Youtube what happens to the driver. Especially when there are alternatives. Was it intentional? No. Was it negligent? No. But now they know. What is Nissan going to do about it?

Look, I have made my point. I predict that Nissan will do something. And that is good. Until then the Leaf will start to die. I also predict that August sales will be <2000 and will never reach 3000 again until something is done.
Out.

 

[mtndrew1]

GM's ignition switch problems did NOT meet standards.

I doubt GM designed the switch to fail on purpose. Once they found out it was defective they covered it up.

All my examples were real world defects, design flaws, whatever you want to call them, that contributed to killing people. There was no test to discover them. People using their vehicle is what brought out those issues. In this case we have an example of a test, rather than people dieing, to discover a flaw in the design of the Leaf that has the potential to severely injure someone in a partial front end collision.
No one can justify that the current design is OK now that everyone can see on Youtube what happens to the driver. Especially when there are alternatives. Was it intentional? No. Was it negligent? No. But now they know. What is Nissan going to do about it?

Look, I have made my point. I predict that Nissan will do something. And that is good. Until then the Leaf will start to die. I also predict that August sales will be <2000 and will never reach 3000 again until something is done.
Out.

It seems to me that you might have a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of a defect as opposed to a design working as intended, but with undesirable outcomes.

Cars kill people every day. All makes, all models. There's nothing broken about the Leaf's structural design, it simply doesn't perform as well as some other cars (yet the Leaf performs better than some; see the Mazda5). Take an old Suburban that would bomb small overlap and crash it into a brand new Fit that aces small overlap and everyone in the Fit will be obliterated.

Driving safety is disproportionately weighted towards:

1) Seat belt usage
2) Absence of alcohol or other impairing substances
3) Adherence to the rules of the road
4) Alertness/sleepiness
5) Proper tire and brake maintenance
6-157) A bunch of other stuff
158) A vehicle's performance in small-overlap IIHS tests.

I predict the Leaf will have its best sales month ever in August and Nissan will continue to struggle to fill inventory given how quickly the cars are selling. When the Camry, Prius, and Civic bombed this test, sales weren't affected one iota. Then in revised model years the structure was changed to help the cars perform better in the test (except the Prius, which soldiers on). No recalls were given, no amendments made to the prior generation without the new structure. The cars remained as safe as they were when the buyers signed on the dotted line.

 

[cwerdna]

the test hasn't changed, the car hasn't changed so why has the rating changed?

I think it's the first time they did this "small overlap" test. As LEAF hasn't changed structurally, IIHS has also given a poor rating to the 2013 model.

The small overlap test was introduced in 2012 and they only do a few models at a time. The LEAF had not been previously run through this test.

There are a fair number of cars that previously were top safety picks which had poor results in this new test, including two of the Prius models.

It's called moving the goal posts. I haven't had time to read this whole thread, but all automakers optimize their cars to do better/well on standardized crash tests (tests that were known at the time of the car's original design e.g. NHTSA's, IIHS, Japan NCAP, Euro NCAP, etc.) IIHS didn't add this test until 2012. Leaf's structural design had to be completed WAY before it went on sale in December 2010.

FWIW, IIHS seemed to like to move the goal posts and then broadcasting that Toyotas would fail/do badly at some of their new tests, years after the car's engineering and design was finalized:
http://priuschat.com/threads/insurance-institute-for-highway-safety-vs-toyota.72369/#post-1618788" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://priuschat.com/threads/iis-and-a-preliminary-report.130908/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The question is what do you do if you have one of those cars when the results are announced? You've been driving it around for months or years. Did it suddenly become unsafe? And if you do move into a new car that scores higher on the current tests, might that car also score poorly on the next phase of testing to be introduced a few years from now?

Those are questions that each individual must answer for him/herself.

Yep.

With some of the FUD and misunderstandings going on this thread, those folks should use some logic. For cars that are never tested in this MUCH harsher small overlap test (introduced in 2012), should you immediately dump it because almost certainly never will be tested for it and the car was never designed to do well on it?

And, if it is tested and performs this way, should you immediately dump it because it "suddenly became unsafe"?

You are out of your freaking mind if you think a "poor" rating on one test makes a Leaf even in the same league as a motorcycle. They don't call those things "donor bikes" for nothing.

+100

On a motorcycle, what protection does the rider's body have in the event he's struck by a car or strikes an object? Even my friend who's very much into motorcycles (and has a few of his own) admits that even the worst performing car in a crash test is likely 1000 times safer than being in a crash on a motorcyclist.

Would this be considered a defective vehicle that would require Nissan to fix or replace?

No.

No, it passed all the required DOT safety tests at the time of manufacture. These IIHS tests test at a level beyond what the manufacturers are required to meet.

Should the minimum level that manufacturers are required to meet be raised? Probably, but that is a topic for another conversation...

Would this be considered a defective vehicle that would require Nissan to fix or replace?

Agree.

http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=435977" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; mentions

Note that federal law requires all vehicles to pass a 30-mph frontal crash test before they can be sold in the United States. The separate NCAP frontal crash tests are performed at 35 mph to make differences between vehicles more apparent. The full-width crash test maximizes energy absorption of the entire frontal car structure and illustrates the accompanying stresses on the vehicle's passenger restraints.

I don't know off the top of my head, but I find it highly likely that mandated 30 mph test is a full-width frontal crash, not an offset crash.

It seems to me that you might have a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of a defect as opposed to a design working as intended, but with undesirable outcomes.
...

Completely agree w/your post.

 

[cwerdna]

As mentioned already, but I think that this needs to be repeated, ALL cars that are sold new in this country must meet the NHTSA (government) crash tests. It is illegal to sell a new car here that does not meet that model year's safety and emissions standards.

The IIHS tests are sponsored by the insurance industry, and are above and beyond what the government requires. The insurance companies do that to help set rates for new cars by predicting repair and injury costs. Car companies will often go out of their way to advertise a good rating, but it is not required.

I was at my local Nissan dealer yesterday and a service technician spent perhaps 30 minutes trying to reassure the owner of a new Leaf whom I could see holding a printout of the recent IIHS tests. The owner claimed what you are, and that the car is no longer safe. Well, it is safe as of the standards in place at the time of its design. It is not "defective" as you claim.

No carmaker will ever tell you that their cars are "safe" because that is a relative term. If a cement truck full of concrete topples onto you, there is no car in existence that will protect you. They (under the watchful eye of their lawyers) will only state how the car did in certain tests.

As far as the 6 welds being missing from 200 cars, the reason that there was a recall lwas because with those welds missing, the car no longer met the safety parameters in place at the time the car was designed. It may still have met the NHTSA standard, but not the standards Nissan has intended for the car.

+1

Re: the the missing welds, from http://green.autoblog.com/2014/05/19/2014-nissan-leaf-evs-recalled-for-missing-welds/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and I'm sure you can find the same verbiage at safercar.gov when looking up campaign id 14V192000.

Report Receipt Date: APR 16, 2014
NHTSA Campaign Number: 14V192000

Component(s): Potential Number of Units Affected: 211

Manufacturer: Nissan North America, Inc.

SUMMARY:
Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) is recalling certain model year 2014 LEAF vehicles manufactured February 28, 2014, through March 12, 2014. The front structural member assembly may be missing welds, which could reduce the structural integrity of the vehicle if the vehicle is involved in a crash. As such, these vehicles fail to meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) number 208, "Occupant Crash Protection," and 305, "Electric-Powered Vehicles: Electrolyte Spillage and Electrical Shock Protection."

CONSEQUENCE:
Missing welds may effect the vehicle's integrity in the event of a crash, increasing the risk of injury to the vehicle's occupants.

REMEDY:
Nissan will notify owners, and dealers will inspect to see if any of the welds are missing. Any vehicle missing welds will be replaced, free of charge. The recall is expected to begin by mid-June 2014. Owners may contact Nissan at 1-800-647-7261.

 

[jelloslug]

Almost every car failed the small overlap test the first go around.

 

[bbrowncods]

Almost every car failed the small overlap test the first go around.

That statement is not relevant to the Leaf and its inability to provide the adaquit protection in a partial front collision of the type that is simulated in this test - hence the "poor" rating.

Other cars quite clearly did pass the test the first time, with their rating of "good".

 

[Nubo]

Who defines "real life crashes"? This leads us back to standardized testing.

Records are kept of actual crashes, including the circumstances. Those reinforced roof pillars, for example, came more from records of rollover crashes than from standardized tests. Ford trucks used to be notorious for collapsing roofs - until they put in heavier pillars.

Yes, fine. But again, who defines the parameters that constitute a "successful" crash test and the test methodology? To say that each manufacturer should "already be doing this", means that each would have separate approaches that would be incomparable by the consumer. That's why we have standardized crash testing.

 

[LeftieBiker]

Nope, they could work together in groups, or even as one group.

 

[jelloslug]

Almost every car failed the small overlap test the first go around.

That statement is not relevant to the Leaf and its inability to provide the adaquit protection in a partial front collision of the type that is simulated in this test - hence the "poor" rating.

Other cars quite clearly did pass the test the first time, with their rating of "good".

There was not one single car that did better than marginal on the first batch of small overlap test. Some high volume cars like the Camry were quickly redesigned to do better (that car had a poor rating) but most cars won't be redesigned until the next model comes out.

 

[blimpy]

I am trying to figure out which is dumber... thinking that a new test standard means a 5 star rated car last year is now "Unsafe" this year ?

or

Does this mean Nissan owes me a NEW CAR ? :lol:

---

I do 90% of my driving on twisting 2 lane roads populated by over privileged folk in high powered SUV's who Don't Brake For Anything,
and take their half of the road in the Middle !

Consequently, the asymmetrical head on collision, caused by some fool drifting over the center line ( and NOT responding
to imminent collision) is My Main Concern ! Practically nothing except something armed with missiles in safe in this situation !

Few cars do well when ALL the collision energy of a head on collision is concentrated is only 1 foot width of the frontal area !
Some are Far Worse than Leaf... Look at the IHSA test Videos. Some shed their doors, and their occupants ! Some crumple in the roof
and fold up in the middle top to bottom. I don't see other cars of similar size doing better. Those long nosed sedans are NOT similar sized.

 

[RegGuheert]

OT, but perhaps related: Last night NBC Nightly News highlighted recent IIHS Small-Overlap testing of minivans. They noted that the Nissan Quest achieved one of the worst performances of any vehicle to date on this test:

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety warns the Nissan Quest is one of the worst performing vehicles they have ever seen for this type of crash. "We had to cut the seat out to remove the dummy, but then we needed a crowbar to pry the right foot loose."

 

[Durandal]

Resurrecting this thread from the dead. (pun intended due to consequences of safety design.) Has anyone looked into potential reinforcement of the Leaf to help compensate? Obviously any such action done would be unscientific in practice as we could not reliably verify that the modifications actually helped. But, for the Prius, it looks like Toyota crafted a bolt-on reinforcement to assist on this issue.
https://priuschat.com/threads/confirmed-toyota-only-reinforced-one-side-of-the-prius-photos-inside.156820/

https://www.cars.com/articles/driver-passenger-may-not-get-same-crash-protection-1420680666372/

There's plenty of room available in the front compartment of the leaf, I can't help but wonder if something attached to the main structure of the drivetrain that extends towards the driver's side edge could assist, using something triangular similar to what Toyota added with the Prius..

Anyhow, daydreaming on Leaf improvements..