Organisation & Society
The HICs in the description are HIC-15, IIHS says that a HIC-15 of <560 is in the Good range, 560-699 is Acceptable, 700-839 is Marginal and 840+ is Poor. Any hard contact above 70 g marks it down one rating.Source: https://www.iihs.org/media/dcc9d5d6-c301-4f92-a7b5-dad13ffc7766/6h8G8A/Ratings/Protocols/current/measures_frontal.pdfNHTSA test number is 6087.
Note: I do not work for IIHS or am affiliated with them, this analysis is to the best of my knowledge.
Therefore, for this Civic, for the driver, the head/neck injury measure would be ACCEPTABLE, the HIC was in the good range but there was a momentary head contact of about 117 g when the head hit the A-pillar. Forces on the neck were good, but barely so, with a Nij of 0.77. The chest forces were GOOD (but barely so) with 58.4 G's but an impressive 22 mm of chest compression. Both legs would have been rated POOR, the right leg being subject to both major upper and lower leg injuries (maximum tibia index was 1.96) and the left foot's foot acceleration of 264 g's just barely putting that side into the poor category as well. It's obvious that structure would be rated POOR, and restraints and dummy kinematics probably ACCEPTABLE and possibly worse due to steering column movement. As such, it is almost certain that the Civic, were it graded on the IIHS scale in this test, would have received a POOR rating. However, the foot acceleration measurements seem questionable,
The van's driver would have had a POOR left leg rating due to a high foot acceleration, but everything else looked good. Structure is probably ACCEPTABLE for the van and dummy kinematics look GOOD. As such, the van would probably be ACCEPTABLE.
July 27, 2019 9:25 pm
I think I will stick with my 2001 Maxima and pay the cost of rather poor miles per gallon penalty. This video was almost scary.
Just let injury’s? No chest or head injuries…
I’d love to see this test done with a new Chrysler Pacifica and a new Civic. I wish NHTSA or IIHS would bring back these compatibility crash tests. I bet both vehicles would do better, especially the Civic. July 25, 2019 6:48 am
This Civic weighs about 2,500 lbs. The van weighs about 4,200 lbs. There’s a big reason for the damage discrepancy. The Civic did remarkably well for the weight discrepancy. It was the safest small car in 2001 after all with a 5 star NHTSA rating and good IIHS offset rating. Honda’s are usually very safe for their size and year. I wouldn’t want to drive a 2,500 pound anything, I drive a 3,600 pound 2011 Accord and feel quite safe in it, but I’d happily drive a new Civic from a safety standpoint.July 25, 2019 6:40 am
It’s a reason why those Honda’s got great gas mileage combined with the small engine and the beer can material it’s made of I see exactly why and I been looking for a older Honda to daily drive instead of my Jeep I think I’ll pass I’d rather keep driving my 13 mpg Jeep at least I know I’ll survive a crash in it lol.
The Caravan has always done well in accidents. A Caravan hit a brand new Ford F150 head on near Bullhead City, even though nobody died except for a dog, the Caravan fared a lot better.
This is the kind of crash the first responders get to and they’re in total amazement that one of the people survived (here, the Civic driver). With how mangled that Civic was I’m amazed the dummy didn’t record fatal injury measures. It looked significantly worse than the Civic in the Silverado vs Civic offset crash test. Injured, yes, but definitely alive. July 24, 2019 6:09 pm
Good grief, the Civic fared better when it hit that Chevy pickup than this van!
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.