...Which isn't to take anything away from Kia's 5 star result
Not at all.
though I wouldn't be caught dead in one.
Well judging by its crash rating, you'd have to try awfully hard to do that.
Though... if you
do crash a BMW, it's likely because you were having
too much fun, if you crash a Kia, it's probably because you were trying to drive with your face in the passenger footwell so you wouldn't be recognised,

but I bet Kia have been thoughtful enough to provide an airbag down there to cover that eventuality.
Sun Baked said:
The Insurance Institute doesn't follow Federal Guidelines, but is looked at a little more by the consumers.
The IIHS tests are certainly comparable to the Euro/Japanese/Australian NCAP procedures, both of which are far more stringent than the U.S.'s official safety body.
And there lies the problem in the U.S., the official agency responsible for car safety is the one with the less fastidious safety standards, resulting in, and allowing such abominations as the Chrysler Voyager, the Ford F-150 (and many others) to remain on sale for as long as they did in an inherently unsafe guise.
Sun Baked said:
BMW and Ford may argue that is was a fluke that their 4/5-star cars folded in crash tests,
I think it's unfair to claim that the 5 Series
folded in this particular test, if anything it backed up the claims that the 5 Series
is a massively strong car structurally speaking, though potentially to the detriment of those inside during a specific set of circumstances during an accident.
Such minor discrepancies as these in crash test performance can be easily attributed to something as minor as the material used on the seats, or the type of design of seat for example, and indeed it would appear that something as minor as this (an armrest) has caused the discrepancy in this case. The BMW performed
marginally worse than the other cars, a margin that was close enough to be potentially erased in another test on a another day.
I think it's fair to claim that the Ford folded though.

Though it puzzles as to why they were prepared to continue selling such a poor performing vehicle for such a long period of time without modifications.
Certainly from a european prospective, Ford (Europe) have long commanded a reputation for dedication to safety, they were the first manufacturer to fit as standard A.B.S. to a model range (Granada), and I believe they were amongst the first (if not the first) to employ computer-aided design in the design and development of crumple zones (Sierra).
Indeed, their current european range are considered amongst the safest, comparable to Volvo.
Sun Baked said:
but Kia and others immediately make changes instead of writing a letter.
Kia are in most respects no different from any other manufacturer. In this test their model performed well.
However, that does not extend to their other models, certainly in Europe their cars should be considered at best as only average (4 stars) and often far below what should be realistically accepted from a modern car (2-3 stars). Not to mention the overall poor safety for child occupants and pedestrians.
Sun Baked said:
Cannot really say the Insurance Institute's testing is all bad, since they have led to safer cars. Which cannot really be said about the Federal testing.
Cannot indeed, the IIHS testing is very much inline with almost all of the rest of the developed world, unfortunately that is not enough when you're not the official agency responsible for implementing car safety standards nationally.
Thankfully, many of the manufacturers are now designing cars to meet and exceed IIHS testing, and not merely to fudge their way through the NHTSA ones, and that is a good thing.
iGav said:
I think one of the major contributory factors to U.S. cars not taking off here was the Chrysler Voyager debacle back in the '90's, considered a very safe car in the states, it compressed like an accordion once Euro NCAP got their hands on it, a result that pretty much killed U.S. car manufacturers attempts at selling cars here for a decade.
Here's what Euro NCAP had to say about the Voyager.
Euro NCAP said:
Comments
The Voyager did so badly in the frontal impact that it earned no points, making it the worst of the group by some margin. The body structure became unstable and the steering column was driven back into the driver's chest and head. The Voyager acquitted itself better in the side-impact test, but there was still a fair risk of the driver injuring his abdomen. Chrysler chose the child restraints used in the tests, but the company makes no set recommendations to buyers. Euro NCAP believes it is the manufacturer's responsibility to provide proper restraint for every occupant and is surprised that Chrysler do not recommend a child seat for the Voyager.
Front impact
The steering wheel and air bag were forced upwards and into the driver's face, hitting his head hard and putting strain on his neck. The driver's chest also hit the steering wheel, increasing risk of injury. His knees were poorly protected too, and the chances of him injuring his left thigh were very high. The footwell spilt open and his lower legs and feet were poorly protected. The passenger also ran a considerable risk of chest injury.