These 5 New Cars Have Some Of The Worst Safety Ratings

Along with fuel efficiency, safety is the most important feature buyers consider when buying a car. This is according to data from Statista Consumer Insights, which surveyed nearly 5,000 potential car buyers in the U.S. to find out what will be the most important factor to them. In truth, there are plenty of options for new car buyers for whom safety is top priority, as today’s cars are safer than they were a few decades ago, thanks to advanced driver assistance systems that help in preventing collisions.

These cars also feature well-designed crumple zones that act as a cushion and absorb the impact in the event of a crash. The occupant compartment itself is surrounded by a tough safety cage, typically made of high-tensile steel to better protect occupants. Consequently, cars now have lower rates of accident-related fatalities, at around 10 deaths per 100,000 people, according to the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). In comparison, the rate of crash fatalities in 1997 was around 18 deaths per 100,000 people.

But while these numbers suggest significant improvement in general car safety, modern vehicles, for various reasons, are not all built to the same high safety standards and this has led to some having lower crash test ratings than their contemporaries. As a result, we’ve compiled five new cars with some of the worst safety ratings based on crash tests done by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) to help give you an idea of what models to be wary of.

Kia’s fastback sedan has a lot going for it, with its captivating design, spacious and well sorted cabin, generous safety features, and superb ride quality often coming in for praise. Performance is also not a problem for the midsize sedan. In the GT guise, it claims a respectable 290 horsepower and 311 pound-feet of torque, which feels plentiful, propelling the fastback sedan to 60 mph in 5.4 seconds.

The K5 has done exceptionally well since debuting for the 2021 model year, but it sadly doesn’t have the best reputation when it comes to safety. It is named one of the deadliest cars on the road by iSeeCars, with around seven fatal accidents per billion miles traveled. IIHS’ data shows the K5 flunked the moderate overlap front collision test, earning the worst possible “poor” rating overall. The institute also rated protection for rear passenger’s head and neck as ‘poor,’ and “marginal” for the chest and rear passenger restraints and dummy kinematics.

After impact, the IIHS assessment of the rear passenger dummy found that the belt in the back seat rose off the pelvis onto the abdomen, where it could cause serious abdominal injuries. The IIHS also had concerns regarding the K5’s ability to protect occupants in a side collision, rating the overall performance as “marginal.” The structure and safety cage was also considered a let-down for the K5, as it received a “marginal” score, and protection of the torso of a driver and rear passenger pelvis are both considered “marginal.”

With starting prices set from $22,995 (before destination charge), the mildly refreshed Volkswagen Jetta represents great value, mixing together some well-controlled ride, decent amount of tech, and significantly spacious cabin and trunk. The VW Jetta also comes standard with the brand’s IQ.DRIVE suite of driver assistance tech, which bundles adaptive cruise control, blind-spot monitoring, automatic emergency braking, and lane-keep assist. But its poor safety performance is quite a downside.

One aspect that let down the Jetta is the audible and visual seat belt reminder system, which scored the lowest possible rating of ‘poor’ in IIHS tests. There’s also room for improvement in the Jetta’s side collision performance, where it received an overall score of “acceptable” from the IIHS, which also rated protection for the driver’s pelvis and rear passenger’s torso as “marginal.” Meanwhile, in vehicle-to-pedestrian front crash prevention, the IIHS scored the Jetta “marginal” overall for its automatic emergency braking and pedestrian monitoring system’s ability to avoid or mitigate a collision with vulnerable road users.

The Nissan Sentra isn’t always a popular choice with car buyers due to concerns over the continuously variable transmission (CVT), among other quality issues. Now, according to IIHS data, there’s a fair bit safety issue to contend with, too. During crash testing, the Sentra’s performance in the updated moderate overlap front test was deemed ‘moderate’ overall due to poor rear-occupant safety and ‘acceptable’ protection of the driver’s head and neck, which lowered the overall score. Similarly, protection for occupants in the event of a side collision is rated as “acceptable.”

And, while Nissan gives the current eight-generation Sentra an impressive amount of collision-avoidance technologies as standard, including forward collision warning, pedestrian detection, lane-departure warning, as well as forward automatic emergency braking, IIHS’ crash-avoidance tech tests found that these features aren’t very effective. The institute gave the compact sedan the second-lowest “marginal” rating for pedestrian front crash prevention and the lowest rating of “poor” for both the vehicle-to-vehicle front crash prevention and headlights, with the standard halogen headlights and available LEDs both performing poorly.

But the Sentra isn’t all bad news. It attained the top rating of “good” for small overlap front crash test and is one of the cheap cars that Consumer Reports actually recommends, with prices starting from $22,730 including delivery charges. That gets you a 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine producing 149 horsepower and 146 lb-ft of torque, a standard 7-inch touchscreen infotainment system, and Apple CarPlay and Android Auto. Depending on version, higher trims bring additional niceties such as an 8.0-inch display, leather seats, heated front seats, a heated steering wheel, and a sunroof.

The midsize Altima is another car that places a question mark on the safety standards of Nissan’s sedans. Testing from the IIHS shows that the Nissan Altima didn’t fare well in a side-ways crash, with the institute awarding it the worst-possible rating of “poor” citing poor protection for a driver’s pelvis and torso. In the test, the dummy driver is said to have taken a hard blow to the head after hitting it against the window sill of the driver door. Head protection was considered “inadequate” and “marginal” protection was recorded both for the head and neck.

Despite the significant injury risk to the driver, things went quite well for the rear passenger in the side-impact crash test, with protection of the torso, pelvis, as well as head and neck all rated as “good.” Sadly, the structure and safety cage didn’t hold up well in the test, and thus received a “poor” rating. The IIHS also considered the Altima’s standard automatic emergency braking with pedestrian detection system as unlikely to effectively mitigate or prevent front-end vehicle-to-vehicle crashes, giving it a ‘poor’ rating. The sedan’s ability to avoid smashing into a pedestrian, meanwhile, is rated slightly higher as “marginal.”

Similar to the Nissan Altima, the Chevy Malibu did poorly in the updated side impact crash test, showing a significant risk of injury to the driver across most categories. It received a poor rating overall, and protection of the driver’s torso and pelvis was rated as poor. While it is deemed as offering only “marginal” protection to the driver’s head and neck, with the dummy driver adjudged to bash its head hard against the window sill of the driver door. The verdict also indicates the Chevrolet Malibu safety cage construction is inadequate, evidenced by its ‘poor’ rating.

On a positive note, IIHS assessment suggests the Malibu offered good protection for the rear passenger around the head and neck, torso, and pelvis. However, the ability of the standard automatic emergency braking with pedestrian detection system to prevent the Malibu from striking people is rated as marginal, while it received the lowest possible crash rating of “poor” in the vehicle-to-vehicle front crash prevention test. And, although it earned a good rating in nearly all the categories that were assessed, the Malibu received a moderate score overall for front moderate overlap due to its poor rear passenger restraints and dummy kinematics.