Last post on Oct 17, 2006 at 4:51 AM
You are in the Kia Spectra/Spectra5
What is this discussion about?
Kia Spectra, Sedan
Dec 23, 2004 (11:41 am)
I personally have a problem with the Spectra being rated poor. All of the individual ratings were either marginal or acceptable. There were no poor ratings at all. I have to ask how the IIHS thinks the Spectra deserves an overall rating of poor when none of the individual ratings were poor. If anything, the Spectra should be rated marginal. Look at the Dodge Neon for example: It's structure was seriously compromised, there was little survival space left, the steering wheel broke off, and there was a poor reading for one of the legs. And yet it was rated marginal overall. It appears they arbitralily gave a poor rating just to make the headline of "first car rated poor since 2001" and make an example of an automaker that failed to make a huge improvement.
This car does not deserve the poor overall rating. It does deserve a marginal rating and I think Kia needs to address the problems.
#161 of 464 Re: IIHS rating [lngtonge18]
Dec 23, 2004 (11:57 am)
Actually, I think the Kia deserves the Poor rating at this point in time. Its 2005, and most brand new designs perform well in this test. In comparison to the Neon which you cite, yes, the Kia's structure did better than the Neon's,
HOWEVER, comparing the actual injury measures, the Kia does much more poorly than the Neon.
The Neon inflicted no serious injuries to any VITAL body parts/organs, as it was rated the highest mark for both Head/Neck and Chest.
In comparison, the Kia rated only a 'MARGINAL' for Head/Neck, which is a serious issue, and an Acceptable for the chest, also worse than the Neon.
For leg injuries, the Kia is rated Acceptable and Marginal, while the Neon is Poor and Acceptable. I cant speak for anyone else, but Id rather have better ratings in the vital organs area. A broken leg heals- risk of serious injury to the Head/Neck and a lower rating for chest pose a bigger problem, IMO.
I dont think the rating of the Kia as Poor is arbitrary, I think its based on Marginal kinematics and comparatively Poor injury measures.
As far as I know, the Injury measures for the Head/Neck and Chest are appropriately weighted more heavily by the IIHS than for the legs. Thats why you'll see a few 'Best Picks' which have an Acceptable for the legs.
#162 of 464 IIHS rating vs. real world. Any data online?
Dec 23, 2004 (12:53 pm)
Merry Christmas Everyone!
Does anyone know if there is any *real world* injury data published online?
It would be interesting to reconcile the IIHS "ratings" to real-life injury data on ANY particular car, just to see how accurate their injury projections are.
Please post the URL to any such info if you know it.
Dec 23, 2004 (7:03 pm)
Actually, look at earlier ratings. The Mirage was rated poor due to dummy kinematics and right leg injury measures that were rated poor. Otherwise, it did ok injury measure wise. The former Dodge Neon was rated poor due to poor right leg and dummy kinematics. The head/chest was rated good. Every car that has been rated poor was due to being rated poor in more then one independent area. I didn't see one other car that was rated poor with marginal/acceptable ratings. If the head injury was rated poor, like the 01-03 Elantra was, then of course it deserves a poor rating. But it wasn't and none of the other injuries were rated poor, so I think the overall poor rating was a bit much. They don't base the ratings by comparing it to the performance of other cars. They base it on preset boundaries. The Spectra's performance was definitely a disappointment but not quite poor.
#165 of 464 I'll second the above emotion...
Dec 23, 2004 (9:36 pm)
I've already given my opinion on the Lund survey. I'm not saying it's tainted I'm saying it's of limited use in the real world. It's slightly biased, too, or maybe biased isn't the right word. It's jumping to a conclusion that isn't totally true, to the detriment of a car that does have 4-wheel disc brakes and front, side and rear curtain airbags standard equipment. Like I said right after the test, more data to compare is required. Ingtonge's post above affirms what I was thinking about the frontal crash test that was thrust upon us the other day. Like I've said, I wouldn't let that result stop me from buying a new world order Spectra, nor would I let it upset my enjoyment of the nice new sedan or the new Spectra5. They have way too many positives to let a rotten apple spoil them.
#166 of 464 Re: I'll second the above emotion... [iluvmysephia1]
Dec 24, 2004 (9:31 am)
Just curious, have you ever realized that some criticism of any make and model of car is reasonable and warranted? The fact of the matter is that the new Spectra performed poorly in comparison to every new small car launched in the past 4 years.
Putting the overall rating aside, look at the category measures for the Spectra against any of its major competitors. There's no comparison. Kia undelivered. The "rotten apple" comment is really curiuos to me. Why pick the Kia over a better performing, lower priced, higher rated Elantra? Simply because of the logo?
My only point is that not all of criticism/negative results/tests of Kia's products are unwarranted, though you seem to dismiss most as biased, not representative, or irrelevant.
PS- Happy Holidays to all!
#167 of 464 Re: I'll second the above emotion... [iluvmysephia1]
Dec 24, 2004 (10:44 am)
It's not a "survey", but a test conducted under controlled conditions. It's not someone's opinion, but a rating based on test results and pre-determined, published criteria.
Kia blew it, just like Hyundai did with the '01-03 Elantra. Try to get over it. The good news is, Kia can fix it if they want to.
#168 of 464 There's nothing to "get over" here at all..
Dec 24, 2004 (12:11 pm)
I'm just curious why Mr.Lund couldn't resist tossing rotten potatoes at Kia when other rigs he lets go. Kind of like the officer who pulls over the cars he chooses while others he decides to let travel on.
Ingtonge said "I didn't see one other car that was rated poor with marginal/acceptable ratings. If the head injury was rated poor, like the 01-03 Elantra was, then of course it deserves a poor rating. But it wasn't and none of the other injuries were rated poor, so I think the overall poor rating was a bit much. They don't base the ratings by comparing it to the performance of other cars. They base it on preset boundaries. The Spectra's performance was definitely a disappointment but not quite poor."
Couldn't have said it better myself. Like I've said, Kia should probably respond to this crash result and fix what they decide to fix. I feel that the Kia Spectra is fortified enough to drive as it is and wouldn't put off a Spectra purchase if that was what I wanted, based on the Lund Report. It was indeed pick and choose "ticket writing" crash-testing IMO. Brings to mind a possible Clodsumer Retorts connection of some kind, eh?
Dec 24, 2004 (12:38 pm)
"It was indeed pick and choose "ticket writing" crash-testing IMO. Brings to mind a possible Clodsumer Retorts connection of some kind, eh?"
Seriously, did you ever consider that MAYBE, just MAYBE, the cars are evaluated based on performance, and they just don't measure up?
Any way you look at it, the Kia is NOT the equal of nearly all the other cars in its class for the frontal offset, whether it got a Poor OR a Marginal overall. (I dont consider the Cavalier a competitor any longer, and even with a Marginal, the Kia would only be as good as a lowly Neon).
Off to festivities..