NHTSA's press release issued today is at http://www.dot.gov/affairs/nhtsa0307.htm. The 2007 Legacy (passenger vehicle) and the 2007 Outback (SUV) both earned 5 star NHTSA passenger crash protection ratings in both frontal impact and side impact. The 2007 Legacy also earned a 4 star rollover resistance rating, which is determined primarily by a calculation involving vehicle center of gravity height and wheel track width. Surprisingly, the Mazda6 four-door, Pontiac Solstice convertible and its twin, the Saturn Sky Convertible, earned five stars for rollover resistance — but none of these models also attained five star crash test safety for all seating positions.

From the looks of it, just about every new car's safe.

that was expected, but why doesn't the IIHS test the Outback in crash tests? i understand its based off of the legacy, but still...

From the looks of it, just about every new car's safe.

it seems like almost every car does superbly on the gov't crash tests but when it comes time for the IIHS crash tests, many cars that got 5 stars completely fall apart. The IIHS tests are more demanding and more representative of what might happen in real life.

The IIHS tests are also factoring in the costs of damage to the car. They have a completely different agenda than the NHTSA... their pocketbooks.

From the looks of it, just about every new car's safe.

Looks like the Lacrosse sucked it up with its 1 star front seat/side impact rating. One of the main reasons people buy big cars is because they feel they are safer than small cars. I wonder how the 50 yo lady who bought this car would feel after hearing this news

...The IIHS tests are more demanding and more representative of what might happen in real life.

So says the representative from the insurance industry...:p

The IIHS tests are also factoring in the costs of damage to the car. They have a completely different agenda than the NHTSA... their pocketbooks.

So says the representative from the insurance industry...:p

thats true, but if you just look for yourself, the full frontal, lower speed govt test is far less dramatic, dare i say realistic, than the IIHS offset, higher speed crash tests.

thats true, but if you just look for yourself, the full frontal, lower speed govt test is far less dramatic, dare i say realistic, than the IIHS offset, higher speed crash tests.The IIHS frontal offset crash test is a rough approximation of the results of an offset collision (not squarely head-on) between two vehicles, each with the same mass and traveling in opposite directions at 20 mph. You're right - that's hardly realistic. Who drives around at 20 mph outside of a parking lot?

;17056650']The IIHS frontal offset crash test is a rough approximation of the results of an offset collision (not squarely head-on) between two vehicles, each with the same mass and traveling in opposite directions at 20 mph. You're right - that's hardly realistic. Who drives around at 20 mph outside of a parking lot?

Perhaps the thinking is that two cars travelling towards each other on a suburban street at a more realistic speed, say 35mph, would have scrubbed off some speed through application of the brakes before impact.
On the other hand, imagine if people could see what happens to a car involved in a head-on accident with another at 60mph. People could be frightened out of driving, or at least might drive more carefully; car safety might be leaps and bounds better than it already is

The IIHS tests are also factoring in the costs of damage to the car. They have a completely different agenda than the NHTSA... their pocketbooks.

Probably more than a grain of truth in this, but insurance companies' pocketbooks get hit hard when people they insure die or get seriously injured.