When the IIHS started doing these tests there was major push back from auto makers, in retrospect the improvements made due to these tests and on going regulations has made vehicles vastly safer. The difference is incredible. Special mention to the Toyota Previa and Pontiac Transport.

 

Just a technicality, but the proper name is Pontiac Trans Sport.

The video doesn't go into this in detail, but, knowing what I do about the vehicles, I think the reason the Previa did so poorly is that it was a more or less a mid-engine design, with the engine further back than in most minivans, and relatively little actual vehicle-structure in front of the driver. The Trans Sport, which also did poorly, also has a somewhat different design from other minivans...a space-frame instead of a unibody.

Here is the AWD Previa's cutaway view....you see the engine and transmission (the engine is slanted at an angle) back between the front and rear wheels.

 

Good catch on the Trans Port I was being lazy. You are correct the Previa is literally a mid engine vehicle. The problem in part is the distance between the bumper and floor is short not much crush space. Previa is a super cool vehicle but also an odd design with some serious compromises. If you get in a frontal crash good chance you'll be maimed or die.

 

Yes...what is interesting about the GM Dust-Buster minivans (including the Trans Sport) is that they used a similar space-frame / plastic-body-panel structure as the S-Series Saturn cars (which did very well in the crash-tests of the period), yet, in the much larger minivans, did not hold up in a crash. Go Figure.

 

I particularly like how the manufacturers complained that the IIHS is "only interested in reducing the cost of insurance claims". Let's unpack that for a moment. Every single one of these vans--even the top-ranked Windstar--is totaled. Not one of them can be repaired and put back on the road. So there is no difference between the best and the worst from a property claim perspective. Call it roughly $30k across the board.

However, the cost of the medical claims varies substantially. The Windstar driver has minor injuries at worst. The Trans Port driver is either dead; or else disfigured and permanently disabled. Both of those things cost insurers a LOT of money, at least an order of magnitude more than the vehicle itself. Maybe, just maybe, "reducing the cost of insurance claims" is a win-win. I can't imagine any actuary who would be upset about a vehicle being a total loss in a serious accident, if the driver walked away and declined medical treatment. And of course, you as an owner probably prefer that outcome too.

 

You raise some interesting points....and I agree with them. The cost of replacing a 30-40K totalled van (and, of course, the older the van gets, the less it will be worth from depreciation) can be a drop in the bucket compared to what surgery and recovery/therapy from serious injuries can cost......assuming the occupants survive at all.

 

I knew some of those vehicles had poor protection but didn't realize how bad it was. I've been hunting for a Previa for years now I'm going to pass can't risk it.

 

Ha. And we think that these 90s-vintage minivans in that test lack protection in the front-end. They didn't do this kind of testing back in the 1960s, but can you just imagine what the results would be with a 40-MPH corner-impact on the old rear-engined VW Microbus? I, for one, would probably not want to even look at the results.