What's safer: SUV or car? (Q&A) | Auto Expert John Cadogan

Big issue for budding families: What’s safer - medium SUV or a conventional car?

Today’s report is inspired by you … if you’re a dude named Wayne who can’t decide if a Cerato is safer than a Sportage, or vice-versa.

"Which sort of car would be safer to drive on the freeway from Ballina to the Gold Coast: Kia Cerato or Kia Sportage? I'm thinking Sportage might be having extra height and weight, was also wondering about the low ride height of Cerato in an accident situation, as everything seems to be going SUV size now. Would appreciate your opinion." - Wayne

This question concerns Sportage and Cerato specifically, obviously, but it’s broadly applicable to the ongoing safety debate about these two classes of vehicles: The so-called ‘medium’ SUVs - including RAV4, Tucson, CX-5 and Forester - versus the so-called ‘small’ cars - including i30, Corolla, Mazda3 and Impreza.

The best answer I can give you is that ‘safety’ is a very complex issue, and also quite hard to define, and distill down into simple terms.

On balance I’d say they’re equally safe, and dimensionally much closer than you might assume. And it really depends what kind of crash you decide to have have. (The lottery-winning result there: don’t crash, at all, then you can drive all day in a car made entirely of use-by date-expired Claymore mines… What could go wrong?)

Drilling down into this: in a crash into an unyielding object, like a big tree, it really depends on the design of the car. In this sort of crash, the car absorbs all of its own impact energy, so energy-absorbing crumply goodness is a real plus. And the extra mass of the Sportage really doesn’t help.

In a car-to-car crash, it probably does help to be heavier, but not always. See, I would rather be in the Cerato in the case of a Cerato T-boning a Sportage. (See what I mean about not being straightforward?)

In a rollover, the extra mass of a Sportage might be a distinct disadvantage (in terms of the dynamic loads crushing the roof) and also the slight extra height might increase rollover risk.

Rollover risk is obviously mitigated significantly by systems like stability control - because cars that don’t slide sideways don’t roll, generally.

In terms of the dimensional differences: they’re not as great as you might think. I compared the base spec of each vehicle in the following analysis. There’s only 186kg difference in the mass (1320kg for Cerato versus 1506 for the Sportage) - so they’re hardly chalk and cheese. A Cerato with four people in it could actually be heavier than a Sportage with just the driver…

There is 21.5 cm difference in the height, but of that, only 3.2 cm is the difference in ground clearance. So in terms of the mass centres and the height of the heavy components (such as the powertrain) they’re very similar.

(You’re generally not going to crash ‘roof-to-roof’; you’re going to crash ‘bumper to bumper’, down at engine level. And the difference in ride height for the people inside is going to be more like - maybe - 10 centimetres or something. Hardly profound.

So, to me it’s really a case of ‘buy the vehicle you want’ - because the differences in safety really are both minimal and hard to quantify. Also, dollar for dollar, you’ll get a much nicer Cerato than a Sportage for any given pricepoint.

For example, at about $35k drive-away (after negotiating) you’d likely score a top-spec Cerato GT with a potent 1.6 turbo engine, whereas dumping the same cash on a Sportage gets you only a mid-spec SX with an adequate 2.0 atmo engine, and less standard equipment generally.

Safety’s just too complex to call it, when the vehicles are this close - at least it is if your … crystal balls are down for maintenance.

[HypocriticYT]

The safest vehicle is the one without a nut behind the wheel.

[bruceparr]

A brother in law of mine was involved in a head on collision with a police car. He was driving a large 4WD tractor. The police car hit one of the front tyres. He was fine but the policemen were all badly injured. So tractors are safer.

[lajya]

You're less likely to crash in a car (better control and handling) but once the crash has begun you're better off in the SUV.

[ericshutter]

avoid trees in all cars ... they are real killers 😁

[rodrigo]

SUVs have a high center of gravity and thats really bad for fast turns, suspension wont do miracles

[MrAndrew]

A few years ago I saw a pajero that had been t-boned by a magna. Pajero rolled, roof pillars crushed down to door height level. The Magna had heavy front end damage but the cabin/roof was okay. I think there's a bit of a myth about the inherent safety factor of SUVs/mid to large FWDs, especially regarding centre of gravity and rolling over in accidents.

[PlumberOntheJob]

Another fantastic video 😜
I prefer it when you’re in the garage not the studio

[johnphaceas]

The gossamer construction of my '81 Alfetta GTV tends to keep me focused on trying not to hit anything firmer than a vague notion.

[rogerpearson]

Best advice.."Dont have a crash" is still good advice as most require 2 players. You can just have shit bad luck no matter what you are driving even if it is one of the "tank" models. I hit a CX 9 in my truck and I think I came out worse but that CX 9 took a fair hit and didn't fold up like a coke can. I hit the right front corner just as she was turning in front of me I ended up on my side with a cut to my head while she ended up with a sore forearm presumably when the wheel kicked. Best possible result from car vs 68 Tonne B Double. Of course she could have been paying attention and it wouldn't have happened and happily ever after.

[xkimopye]

Car is safer lighter weight means better braking, lower centre of gravity leads to better handling dynamics and less chance of a rollover. It’s best to avoid the crash altogether and the car will be the better at avoiding the crash. And from the perspective of other road users and pedestrians, please choose the car, it’s safer for everyone else too.

[RJ-vbgh]

For you good folks down under... a funny bit of history... circa 1984 the US auto safety people required cars to pass a rollover test at a certain speed. As you can imagine station wagons weren't very good at playing roll over (at least without significant roof reinforcement). On the other hand there was no such requirement on trucks and vans... Hence the minivan and the SUV's were born to get around consumer safety requirements. As their roofs didn't require extra bracing they were cheaper to produce and lighter getting better gas mileage... For the most part this regulation also killed the "hard top" car without B pillars.


I honestly don't know if minivans or SUV's need to survive rollovers today, but I'm sure John knows and will someday share this info with us.

[rabidsminions]

Fast forward 8 or 10 years and the suspension components, tyres and brakes of the sedan and SUV are not what they used to be. The SUV being top heavy is more likely to have even greater risk of rolling than the sedan if the driver is speeding and has to make a sudden change if direction or gets hit from any angle other than a head on or rear ended. YouTube is full of SUV /Dual cab utes rolling over because they were hit from the side.

[GhostOfAMachine]

Anything that sits high have higher risks of rollovers

[markbryant]

Look people have it all wrong. It's not the speed that kills, It's the sudden stop!

[sonsofmatriarchy]

I thought i was watching INFOWARS here John!

[michaelm]

I'd be more inclined to compare mid sized wagon vs mid sized SUV for my future family car needs (e.g. Mazda 6 vs CX-5). It's a shame there is so little choice in "regular cars" above small size now since car manufacturers have led the sheeples down the SUV route. John do you think we will ever see a revival in normal family sedans and wagons as suggested recently by Mike Simcoe?

[Waterflow]

I’m glad someone thinking like this and decided to make a video on it, this is seriously important

[ritual]

I’d much prefer avoiding crashes altogether. I’ve been in a few and to tell you the truth, I don’t like them. They tend to hurt, sure the ambulance ride is kinda cool but the pain involved is not worth the ambulance ride. And then there’s the whole insurance thing, police and statements, really not much fun at all and that’s without really serious injuries. Serious injuries are another factor altogether. I try giving them (crashing) a miss most of the time.

[Mububban]

Speaking as a low budget used car shopper, I've got an old hatch and wagon to replace soon, but there is a shortage of >2014 wagons on the used market to buy. I'm discounting certain brands for reputed bad customer service or reliability, or lack of rear headrests. So I find myself having to look at SUVs which are not my preference, simply due to availability.

[dragancrnogorac]

In my opinion car which can turn better, brake better and have less likely chance to roll over is more safe car. These days cars are safe, equally safe. If you can avoid crash completely or partially that must safety benefit.
Imagine situation; cruising at 130km/h and spoted problem 50 meter ahead, let's say 40 ton truck is standing there.
Car no 1; honda S2000(sport tires)
Car no 2; Grand Cherokee(off road crap tires)
Which car is more safe in this situation?
Honda doesn't even hit truck or slightly bump into him... About Cherokee, can't brake hard enough, can't turn because handling is like boat and hits truck at 40km/h, air bag is activated, cuts and bruises all over the body, collarbone broken ...
I wanna be in Honda S2000...