Nissan Tops Midsize SUV Safety Tests

2009 Murano Scores Well In Front, Rear And Side Tests; Hummer H3 Gets Lowest Marks

(CBS/AP)  The 2009 Nissan Murano was the best performer in new crash tests of midsize sport utility vehicles, while the Hummer H3 had one of the poorest showings, according to results released Tuesday by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

The institute, which is funded by the insurance industry, said the redesigned Murano was the only vehicle among the nine tested to get the highest rating in front, side and rear crash tests. It praised Nissan Motor Co. for making electronic stability control standard on the 2009 Murano.

"You don't know what kind of crash you're going to get into, so you want a vehicle that affords the best protection in the most common kinds of crashes," Joe Nolan, the institute's senior vice president, said in a statement.

It was largely due to electronic stability control - a system designed to prevent vehicles from skidding out of control, and increasingly standard in more and more SUVs, CBS News correspondent Kelly Cobiella reports.

Nissan also credits better protection in side impacts.

General Motors Corp.'s H3 was the only vehicle in the group that didn't get the top rating for frontal crash protection. Instead, it got the second-highest rating of "acceptable" because the test indicated high likelihood of injury to the driver's right leg. The H3 also got an "acceptable" rating in the side crash test and the worst rating of "poor" in the rear crash test.

"The Hummer H3 meets or exceeds all federal crash safety standards. The Insurance Institute tests represent one measurement of crash performance," GM spokesman Alan Adler said in a statement.

He also said the company designs its head rests to meet a variety of driver sizes, rather than the average-sized man used in the institute's tests.

The institute said it downgraded side crash results for the H3, Kia Motors Corp.'s Kia Sorento and Chrysler LLC's Jeep Liberty/Dodge Nitro - which are built on the same platform - because they lacked air bags that protected the torso. All three had curtain air bags that protected the head, but the tests indicated a likelihood of injuries to the driver's rib cage.

The Jeep Wrangler also got a low rating for side protection because its side air bags are optional and the institute tests vehicles without optional equipment. The Wrangler was the only vehicle in the group without standard side air bags.

"We really expected that we would see a lot of good and acceptable performers here, but we had three vehicles that were only marginal or poor for side impact protection," said Adrian Lund of the IIHS. "And that did surprise us."

In addition to the H3, the worst performers in the rear crash test were the Mitsubishi Endeavor and the Jeep Liberty/Dodge Nitro. The Jeep Wrangler, Suzuki XL7, Mazda CX-7 and Mazda CX-9 all got the second-lowest rating of "marginal" on the rear test.

---

FYI: The complete list of how other SUVs stack up.

---

The rear crash test measures the risk of injury from whiplash, which is the most serious injury reported in 2 million insurance claims each year. The institute said three vehicles - the Mitsubishi Endeavor, Mazda CX-7 and Mazda CX-9 - would have been top safety picks if they hadn't performed so poorly in the rear crash test.

The institute's frontal crash test simulates a 40 mph crash and its effect on the driver, while the rear test simulates a 20 mph test. The side crash simulates what would happen if the vehicle was struck in the side by a sport utility vehicle at 31 mph. The side crash test uses dummies in both the front and rear seats.

[jaykay3141]

"My Murano ... does have problems with my right side blind spot but i know this and i take this into account when changing lanes" - Quetzal0666

From what I see on the roads you''re sadly in the minority when it comes to being careful (way to go, though!) But to step back for a minute, if a car''s design forces drivers to take special precautions to avoid pedestrians and other cars, regardless of how it protects its occupants it''s less safe overall than a car that makes it easier to avoid accidents in the first place.

A friend''s brother who owns a body repair shop told me he''s seen a noticeable increase in fender-bender collisions since designers all started playing "Me Too" with higher and higher beltlines, postage-stamp windows and ever-wider pillars. Yet according to an article in Forbes, this is being done because it gives drivers the FEELING (emphasis mine) of safety. So again, it doesn''t matter what happens to the other driver or whether there is any reality involved - so long as there''s an illusion that a person is safe when hidden in their metal cocoon, the car will sell.

No wonder they can sell things like the H3 and Mazda CX''s.

[oldpilot954]

I keep it simple. I buy what I can afford when I need a vehicle. Crash ratings help but most of the time I am buying used cars. I look at the job it needs to do and the price I have to pay. For my family I currently own 3 Chevys, one Toyota, and one Nissan. All of them were assembled in USA. All had a number of parts manufactured in other countries. The Toyota and the Nissan have the lowest maintenace and generally the best fuel mileage. I''m sold on those Japanese designed vehicles.

[dan_shields-2009]

go Nissan! if us Americans could learn how to make a car look cool, fuel efficient, most importantly; safe, then GM Ford and Chrysler would be slamming Toyota Honda and Nissan....so GM Ford and Chrysler get ur head out of ur @$$ and get busy i have faith in American cars seeing how im a Dodge guy and that we were once dominant in the auto industry..i believe we can do it again

[quetzal0666]

Actually My Murano is good on gas, and it has the best get up and go of any vehicle ive ever owned.
it does have problems with my right side blind spot but i know this and i take this into account when
changing lanes, for the $$$ i spent on it, it was very much well worth every penny of it.
Buy american? not a chance!!!

[incog-nito]

alabamasugar: For my money I''d get a Honda Odyssey or Toyota Sienna minivan. They have tons of room and get decent gas mileage for their size. They have great reliability (check out Consumer Reports, J.D. Powers, etc.). Unless you like off-roading, who needs a bulky gas-guzzling SUV? Actually you can''t really go off-road with most SUVs anyway. I like the Honda because it has a firmer ride and better handling than the Toyota.

[alabamasugar]

i would like to know.......... what is the safest car/suv/van that gets the best gas milage for people who drive a ton. if u have the answer please respond!!! ty all :)

[godseyesore-2009]

US auto industry can''t do a d*** thing right. No creative or sophisticated solutions for emissions, efficiency, gas mileage, OR safety. You would think ''hog'' design since 50''s would make their heavy thick tanks safe. No wonder US cars suck.

[jaykay3141]

The "Moron-o" and all of its fellow Suburban Useless Vehicles are everything that''s wrong with our "me-first, the %$#! with the rest of you" attitudes towards driving. Yeah, buying a small tank will protect you better than the next guy, but what happens when the next guy gets a mid-size tank? Do you go get a large one? Where does it end? Howitzers and RPG launchers?

Let''s get real. Designers AND buyers have to think about what their cars will do to *other* drivers on the road, not just themselves. The Nissan may be safe for its own occupants, but my neighbor has one and has found that its bizarre "pregnant roller skate" styling means you can''t see pedestrians and other cars behind it or to the side. Nobody seems to have thought about minor details like visibility. I guess the rule is that a car doesn''t have to be designed to avoid accidents, it just has to protect you when (not IF) you have one.

And before anyone starts flag-waving, take a look at Chrysler''s lineup of testosteronemobiles or the lumpy, hulking Ford Edge. The Japanese have simply joined the crowd, and we keep happily acting like sheep. Bahhh, bahhh, bleat, bleat!

[kennergirl]

The H3 scored worse in the REAR crash test only. That''s a big difference.

As for Maxify55, I guess you never do anything wrong behind the wheel of a car. You sound as if everyone else drives badly and you drive perfect! You want to know what price I''d pay to for the safety of my family on the road? Well I guess I put as much as I can afford. Just because you choose to drive a Suburban and I chose a Honda Pilot doesn''t make me any less of a mother as you are a father. I wanted a car that I wouldn''t have to worry about it leaving me and my kids on the road. I didn''t buy it for looks (Lord knows a Pilot isn''t the most attractive car on the road!) But I bought it because it has the highest marks in crash tests. So go drive around in your Tank if it makes you feel better. Just remember when you screw up one day on the road and run into someone else, I hope for your sake you don''t have to "peal them off their airbags" because you will have to pay dearly for it. Not only out of your pocket but your conscious too. (Besides let''s hope it won''t be with a semi...I don''t think your Suburban with it''s airbags could get out of that one!)

[quetzal0666]

Im Glad i got my Murano, thats for sure,..
It Never Even Occured to me to Buy american.

[oleander8]

To maxify55 - so in order to be safe on the road I have to get a bigger, heavier vehicle than yours? Where does that end?

[incog-nito]

Well the Hummer H3 may score the worst in crash tests, but it sure LOOKS tough and sturdy, so that the fools who buy it can FEEL safe when driving it.