Small cars have become increasingly popular due to their fuel efficiency, ease of parking, and affordability. However, this compact design often comes with significant safety compromises.
While modern engineering has improved vehicle safety across all segments, some small cars continue to fall short in crash protection, putting drivers and passengers at greater risk.
Physics plays a crucial role here smaller vehicles have less mass and less crumple zone to absorb impact energy during collisions.
Additionally, when small cars collide with larger vehicles, the laws of physics place them at a disadvantage.
The following list examines 12 small cars with concerning safety records based on crash test results, structural integrity issues, and safety feature deficiencies.
These vehicles have demonstrated inadequate protection in various impact scenarios, including frontal, side, and rollover crashes.
For consumers prioritizing both size and safety, understanding these shortcomings is essential when making purchasing decisions.
Remember that while this information highlights vehicles with safety concerns, it’s always advisable to research current safety ratings from organizations like the IIHS and NHTSA before purchasing any vehicle.
1. Smart Fortwo (2008-2016)
The Smart Fortwo, with its distinctive compact design measuring just 8.8 feet in length, represents one of the smallest passenger vehicles ever sold in North America.
Despite its innovative “Tridion safety cell” design, which attempts to distribute crash forces around the passenger compartment, the Fortwo faces fundamental physics challenges that compromise its crash protection capabilities.
In frontal collision tests, particularly against larger vehicles, the Smart’s minimal crumple zone provides insufficient energy absorption.
The IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) crash tests revealed that in moderate overlap frontal crashes, the Fortwo experienced significant intrusion into the driver’s space.
The vehicle’s small size and light weight (under 1,900 pounds) mean it gets pushed backward violently during impacts with larger vehicles, subjecting occupants to severe deceleration forces.
Side impact protection is another critical weakness. With minimal space between occupants and the vehicle’s exterior, side collisions pose a serious threat despite the inclusion of standard side airbags.
The vehicle’s narrow track width also contributes to stability issues, increasing rollover risk during emergency maneuvers compared to wider vehicles.
While the Fortwo includes essential safety features like electronic stability control, its fundamental size limitations create inherent safety compromises that engineering alone cannot fully overcome.
The 2014 IIHS small overlap test resulted in extensive structural deformation, earning the vehicle a “Poor” rating in this critical test.
These safety concerns, combined with the car’s minimal buffer zone in crashes, make the 2008-2016 Smart Fortwo a vehicle that offers significantly reduced protection compared to larger alternatives, especially in mixed-traffic environments where collisions with SUVs and trucks are possible.
2. Mitsubishi Mirage (2014-2020)
The Mitsubishi Mirage has long been marketed as one of the most affordable new cars available, with a starting price often below $15,000.
However, this budget-friendly approach extends to its safety construction, resulting in concerning crash protection deficiencies.
The Mirage’s ultralight body structure, weighing approximately 2,000 pounds, lacks the robust reinforcement found in more substantial vehicles.
Crash test results have consistently highlighted the Mirage’s shortcomings. In the IIHS small overlap front crash test, a particularly challenging assessment that replicates a collision with the front corner of the vehicle, the 2014-2020 Mirage received a “Marginal” rating.
Engineers noted significant intrusion into the driver’s footwell area and suboptimal dummy movement during impact, indicating potential for lower limb injuries.
The structure allowed the steering column to move excessively during frontal impacts, increasing the risk of chest injuries despite airbag deployment.
Additionally, the Mirage’s side impact protection raised serious concerns. The vehicle’s thin door panels and limited side structure provide a minimal buffer between occupants and collision forces.
While side curtain airbags are standard, they compensate only partially for the fundamental structural limitations.
The NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) tests showed higher injury probability scores in side impacts compared to class competitors.
Though equipped with expected modern safety features like antilock brakes and stability control, the Mirage’s fundamental construction prioritizes weight reduction and cost savings over structural integrity.
The vehicle’s small size, light weight, and budget-oriented engineering result in a safety profile that falls significantly short of similarly sized but more robustly constructed alternatives.
For budget-conscious consumers, these safety compromises represent a serious consideration when weighing the Mirage against slightly more expensive but better-protected small car options.
3. Fiat 500 (2012-2019)
The stylish Fiat 500, with its charming retro design and European flair, masks safety deficiencies beneath its fashionable exterior.
This subcompact, measuring just 140 inches long, suffers from fundamental limitations in crash protection despite Fiat’s attempts to enhance safety within tight dimensional constraints.
The vehicle’s diminutive size inherently restricts the crumple zone space available to absorb impact energy.
IIHS testing revealed significant safety issues, particularly in the challenging small overlap front crash test, where the 2012-2019 models received a “Poor” rating the lowest possible score.
During these tests, substantial intrusion occurred into the driver’s space, with the door hinge pillar and instrument panel moving inward significantly.
The steering column shifted upward, creating a concerning trajectory for the driver’s head despite airbag deployment.
Measurements taken from the crash test dummy indicated a high likelihood of injuries to the driver’s left leg and foot in real-world equivalent crashes.
Side impact protection, while improved over previous generations, still falls short of modern standards due to the limited space between occupants and the vehicle’s exterior.
The Fiat 500’s narrow width and relatively high center of gravity also contribute to stability concerns, with the NHTSA noting a higher-than-average risk for rollover compared to wider vehicles in its class.
Though equipped with seven airbags as standard equipment, including a driver’s knee airbag, these supplemental restraint systems cannot fully compensate for the structural limitations.
The 500’s lightweight (approximately 2,500 pounds) creates an inherent disadvantage in collisions with heavier vehicles, as it absorbs more energy from the impact while being pushed backward violently.
While later model years saw incremental improvements, the fundamental architecture remained largely unchanged, perpetuating these safety concerns throughout the generation.
4. Chevrolet Spark (2013-2015)
The first-generation American market Chevrolet Spark (2013-2015) exemplifies the challenge of balancing affordability with adequate crash protection in the minicar segment.
At just 144.7 inches long, this diminutive hatchback prioritized economy and urban maneuverability over robust safety protection, resulting in significant vulnerabilities during collisions.
The Spark’s most alarming weakness appeared in IIHS small overlap front crash tests, where it earned a “Marginal” rating—the second-lowest possible score.
During testing, substantial intrusion occurred in the lower occupant compartment, with the footwell area pushing inward nearly 10 inches.
The crash test dummy’s measurements indicated high probabilities of serious leg and foot injuries in comparable real-world accidents.
The steering column showed concerning movement during impact, increasing risks to the driver’s chest despite the presence of airbags.
Side impact protection presented another critical vulnerability. The Spark’s minimal side structure and the proximity of occupants to the vehicle’s exterior resulted in raised injury risks during side collisions, particularly when struck by larger vehicles.
While side curtain airbags were standard equipment, they couldn’t fully compensate for the fundamental lack of crush space inherent to the vehicle’s small dimensions.
Though equipped with ten standard airbags an impressive count for its segment and electronic stability control, these active and passive safety features couldn’t overcome the physics-based disadvantages of the Spark’s lightweight construction (approximately 2,400 pounds).
The vehicle’s narrow track width also contributed to stability concerns during emergency maneuvers.
While Chevrolet significantly improved the Spark’s safety in its 2016 redesign, the first-generation American model remains a concerning example of how cost constraints and extreme size reduction can compromise crash protection.
Budget-conscious consumers considering used examples of this generation should weigh these safety limitations carefully against the vehicle’s admittedly impressive fuel economy and urban-friendly dimensions.
Also Read: 12 Motorcycles With Deadly Speed But No Safety Features
5. Scion iQ (2012-2015)
The Scion iQ represented Toyota’s bold experiment in microcar design, measuring a mere 120.1 inches in length making it one of the shortest four-passenger vehicles ever sold in North America.
Despite Toyota’s reputation for safety, the iQ’s extreme dimensional constraints created inevitable compromises in crash protection that engineering ingenuity could only partially mitigate.
The iQ’s most significant vulnerability stemmed from its minimal front crumple zone, measuring less than 20 inches from bumper to firewall.
This limited distance provided insufficient space to gradually decelerate during frontal impacts, resulting in higher forces transmitted to occupants.
IIHS testing revealed concerning intrusion into the driver’s footwell area during moderate overlap frontal crashes, with structural elements moving inward significantly.
The vehicle was never subjected to the more demanding small overlap test, which would likely have exposed additional weaknesses.
Side impact protection posed another serious challenge. Despite innovative engineering, including a specialized high-strength steel structure and unique curtain airbag configurations (including the world’s first rear window airbag), the iQ’s occupants remained perilously close to potential impact points.
The NHTSA side impact tests showed marginally acceptable performance, but real-world collisions with larger vehicles presented substantially greater risks due to the height and weight disparities.
Toyota equipped the iQ with an impressive 11 airbags and standard electronic stability control, but these systems faced inherent limitations in compensating for the vehicle’s 2,100-pound weight roughly half that of a midsize sedan.
Physics dictates that in collisions between vehicles of disparate masses, the lighter vehicle experiences far greater deceleration forces, regardless of its safety equipment.
While Toyota’s engineering team made commendable efforts to maximize safety within severe size constraints, the iQ’s fundamental dimensions created unavoidable crash protection compromises.
The vehicle’s short production run and limited sales suggest that American consumers ultimately found these safety trade-offs unacceptable despite the microcar’s impressive fuel efficiency and remarkable parking capabilities.
6. Hyundai Accent (2012-2017)
The 2012-2017 Hyundai Accent, while offering attractive styling and value, demonstrated safety deficiencies relative to contemporaries in the subcompact segment.
Despite being larger than some vehicles on this list at 162 inches long, Accent’s structural design and safety engineering lagged behind competitors who were rapidly advancing small car protection during this period.
The Accent’s most troubling weakness emerged in the IIHS small overlap front crash test, where it received a “Poor” rating the lowest possible score.
During this challenging test, which replicates a collision with the front corner of the vehicle, the driver’s space was severely compromised.
Test results showed extensive intrusion into the footwell area, with the brake pedal moving inward nearly a foot. The steering column shifted upward significantly, creating a dangerous trajectory for the driver’s head despite airbag deployment.
Crash test dummy measurements indicated high probabilities of serious injuries to the driver’s legs, feet, and potentially the head in comparable real-world accidents.
Side impact protection also raised concerns. While equipped with standard side curtain airbags, the Accent’s side structure provided insufficient protection in crashes with larger vehicles.
NHTSA side crash tests showed raised injury risks compared to class leaders, particularly for rear-seat occupants who benefited from less sophisticated restraint systems.
Though the Accent included six airbags and electronic stability control as standard equipment, these features couldn’t overcome the fundamental structural deficiencies.
The vehicle’s approximately 2,500-pound weight created an inherent disadvantage in collisions with heavier vehicles, subjecting occupants to more severe forces regardless of restraint systems.
Hyundai significantly improved Accent’s safety in its 2018 redesign, addressing many of these concerns with a stronger structure and enhanced safety systems.
However, the 2012-2017 generation remains a concerning example of how even mainstream manufacturers sometimes prioritize cost considerations over optimal crash protection in entry-level vehicles, creating potential risks for budget-conscious consumers.
7. Suzuki Swift (2004-2011)
The Suzuki Swift, while offering spirited handling and impressive fuel economy, demonstrated substantial safety deficiencies during its 2004-2011 generation.
Though popular globally, this compact hatchback incorporated dated safety engineering that failed to keep pace with rapidly advancing crash protection standards, particularly in markets with less stringent regulations where it was sold without some safety features standard in North American and European versions.
The Swift’s most alarming weakness appeared in frontal crash tests, where its relatively soft front structure allowed excessive deformation into the passenger compartment.
European NCAP testing of the base model revealed concerning intrusion into the footwell area and dashboard, creating high risks of lower limb injuries.
The steering column showed significant rearward movement during impact, increasing the potential for chest injuries despite airbag deployment.
In versions sold without dual front airbags in developing markets, these risks were substantially higher.
Side impact protection represented another critical vulnerability. The Swift’s thin door panels and limited side structure provided a minimal buffer between occupants and collision forces.
While European and North American models received side airbags as standard or optional equipment, many global market versions lacked these crucial safety features entirely.
The vehicle’s relatively high center of gravity also contributed to stability concerns, with a higher rollover risk than more modern designs.
Though later examples featured antilock brakes and some included electronic stability control, many global market Swifts lacked these now-standard active safety systems.
The vehicle’s lightweight construction (approximately 2,300 pounds) created an inherent disadvantage in collisions with heavier vehicles regardless of market, as physics dictates it would absorb more energy from impacts while experiencing more violent displacement.
Suzuki dramatically improved safety in the Swift’s 2012 redesign, but the 2004-2011 generation still common in used car markets globally stands as a concerning example of how regional safety regulation disparities can result in substantially different protection levels for the same nameplate depending on where it was sold.
8. Toyota Yaris (2007-2011)
The first-generation North American Toyota Yaris (2007-2011) demonstrates how even respected manufacturers sometimes produce vehicles with significant safety compromises in their entry-level offerings.
Despite Toyota’s strong reputation, this particular Yaris generation incorporated concerning structural weaknesses and limited safety features that resulted in subpar crash protection compared to slightly larger competitors.
The Yaris’s most notable deficiency appeared in frontal crash tests. IIHS evaluations revealed troubling performance in the moderate overlap test, where the Yaris earned only an “Acceptable” rating rather than the “Good” scores typical of Toyota’s larger vehicles.
Engineering analysis showed that while the front structure managed initial impact forces adequately, the relatively short crumple zone allowed excessive energy to reach the passenger compartment.
The vehicle was never subjected to the more demanding small overlap test that began in 2012, which would likely have exposed additional weaknesses based on the performance of similar architecture vehicles.
Side impact protection raised even more serious concerns. In IIHS side crash tests, the 2007-2011 Yaris without optional side airbags received a “Poor” rating the lowest possible score.
Even with the optional side airbags, the vehicle achieved only a “Marginal” rating, indicating substantial intrusion and raised injury risks.
This performance stemmed from the Yaris’s thin door panels and limited side structure, providing minimal protection beyond the supplemental restraint systems.
Though equipped with standard front airbags and available side curtain airbags, the Yaris lacked standard electronic stability control until 2010 a critical active safety feature already common in competitors.
The vehicle’s approximately 2,300-pound weight created an inherent disadvantage in collisions with larger vehicles, subjecting occupants to more violent forces regardless of restraint systems.
Toyota addressed many of these concerns in subsequent Yaris generations, dramatically improving side impact protection and structural rigidity.
However, the 2007-2011 models remain common in the used car market, presenting budget-conscious shoppers with a vehicle whose Toyota badge masks safety compromises.
9. Nissan Versa (2007-2011)
The first-generation Nissan Versa, despite offering impressive interior space for its segment, incorporated safety compromises that became increasingly apparent as crash test standards evolved during its production run.
This 2007-2011 model represented Nissan’s entry-level offering in North America, with price-sensitive engineering decisions that ultimately affected its crash protection capabilities.
The Versa’s most troubling weakness emerged in the IIHS roof strength test, which measures rollover protection.
The vehicle received a “Poor” rating in this critical evaluation, indicating a substantial risk of roof collapse during rollover accidents.
Test results showed the roof could withstand only 2.7 times the vehicle’s weight before significant deformation occurred well below the 4.0 ratio achieved by safer competitors.
This structural deficiency created raised risks of serious head and neck injuries during rollover crashes.
Frontal crash protection also raised concerns as testing standards advanced. While the Versa initially received acceptable ratings in moderate overlap tests, the structure showed vulnerability at the vehicle’s corners.
When the more demanding IIHS small overlap test was introduced for later model years, similar vehicles based on this platform performed poorly, suggesting the first-generation Versa would have demonstrated significant weaknesses in this more realistic crash scenario.
Side impact protection represented another area of compromise. Although equipped with standard side curtain airbags from 2010 onward, earlier models offered them only as options and many examples on the used market lack this crucial safety feature.
The Versa’s side structure provided limited intrusion resistance regardless of airbag presence, creating raised injury risks in side collisions with larger vehicles.
Though affordably priced when new, the 2007-2011 Versa’s safety equipment lagged behind advancing standards.
Electronic stability control a feature proven to reduce single-vehicle accidents significantly remained optional throughout this generation, and many examples lack this now-standard technology.
These engineering decisions, combined with the vehicle’s relatively light weight (approximately 2,700 pounds), resulted in a safety profile notably inferior to slightly newer designs in the same class.
10. Honda Fit (2007-2008)
The first-generation Honda Fit, while revolutionizing interior packaging in the subcompact segment, incorporated notable safety compromises in its initial North American iteration (2007-2008).
Despite Honda’s generally strong safety reputation, this early version of the Fit demonstrated concerning vulnerabilities that the company would address in subsequent model years and generations.
The Fit’s most significant weakness appeared in side impact protection. IIHS side crash tests of the 2007-2008 models without optional side airbags resulted in a “Poor” rating the lowest possible score.
Test results showed substantial intrusion into the passenger compartment, with the crash test dummy recording dangerously high forces to the torso and head.
Even with the optional side airbags, which many examples on the used market lack, the vehicle achieved only a “Marginal” rating due to structural deficiencies that the supplemental restraint systems couldn’t fully compensate for.
Frontal crash protection, while generally adequate in moderate overlap scenarios, showed vulnerability at the vehicle’s corners.
The Fit’s short front end provided limited crumple zone space to absorb impact energy gradually.
When the more demanding small overlap test was later introduced, the first-generation architecture demonstrated significant weaknesses, suggesting the 2007-2008 models would perform poorly in this more realistic crash scenario.
Additionally, the early Fit lacked standard electronic stability control a critical active safety feature that helps prevent loss of control leading to accidents.
This technology wouldn’t become standard until the second generation, leaving 2007-2008 models without a system proven to reduce single-vehicle crashes by approximately 40%.
Though the Fit impressed with its innovative interior and spirited driving dynamics, its approximately 2,500-pound weight created an inherent disadvantage in collisions with larger vehicles regardless of structural design.
Honda significantly improved the Fit’s safety for the 2009 refresh and subsequent generations, addressing many of these concerns with structural reinforcements and expanded standard safety equipment.
However, the 2007-2008 models remain a concerning choice in the used car market despite the Honda badge.
11. Kia Rio (2006-2011)
The 2006-2011 Kia Rio represented the brand’s entry-level offering during a period when Kia was still establishing its reputation in North America.
While affordably priced, this generation Rio incorporated safety compromises that became increasingly apparent as crash test standards evolved during its production run, leaving it notably behind its contemporaries in crash protection capabilities.
The Rio’s most alarming weakness emerged in IIHS side impact testing, where it received a “Poor” rating the lowest possible score.
Test results revealed excessive intrusion into the passenger compartment, with the barrier striking the driver’s torso directly despite the presence of side airbags in equipped models.
Measurements from the crash test dummy indicated a high likelihood of serious torso injuries in comparable real-world accidents.
This performance stemmed from the Rio’s thin door panels and limited side structure, creating a minimal buffer between occupants and collision forces.
Frontal crash protection also raised serious concerns. In the IIHS moderate overlap frontal test, the 2006-2011 Rio achieved only a “Marginal” rating the second-lowest score.
Engineering analysis revealed substantial intrusion into the footwell area and excessive steering column movement during impact, creating risks of lower leg and chest injuries.
The vehicle was never subjected to the more demanding small overlap test, which would likely have exposed additional structural weaknesses.
Compounding these issues, the Rio lacked standard electronic stability control throughout this generation, offering it only as an option that few examples received.
This critical active safety system, which helps prevent loss of control leading to crashes, was becoming standard for many competitors during this period.
Antilock brakes another fundamental safety feature remained optional until late in this generation.
Though Kia dramatically improved Rio’s safety in its 2012 redesign, incorporating a stronger structure and expanded standard safety features, the 2006-2011 generation remains common in the used car market.
Budget-conscious shoppers should recognize that the extreme affordability of these older Rios comes with significant safety compromises compared to slightly newer designs in the same class.
12. Chevrolet Aveo (2004-2011)
The Chevrolet Aveo, marketed under various names globally including Daewoo Kalos and Pontiac Wave, represented General Motors’ budget offering in the subcompact segment.
Throughout its 2004-2011 production run, this dated design incorporated safety compromises that became increasingly apparent as crash protection standards advanced, leaving it notably behind its contemporaries in occupant protection capabilities.
The Aveo’s most troubling weakness appeared in IIHS side impact testing, where it received a “Poor” rating the lowest possible score.
Test results showed alarming intrusion into the passenger compartment, with the barrier striking the driver’s torso directly.
Measurements from the crash test dummy indicated high risks of serious torso and pelvic injuries in comparable real-world accidents, even in models equipped with optional side airbags.
This performance stemmed from the Aveo’s thin door panels and extremely limited side structure, providing minimal protection beyond the supplemental restraint systems that many examples lack entirely.
Frontal crash protection also raised serious concerns. In the IIHS moderate overlap frontal test, the 2004-2011 Aveo achieved only an “Acceptable” rating rather than the “Good” scores becoming common among competitors.
Engineering analysis revealed concerning intrusion into the footwell area and dashboard, creating risks of lower leg injuries.
The vehicle was never evaluated in the more demanding small overlap test, which would likely have exposed additional structural weaknesses based on similar platform performance.
Compounding these structural deficiencies, the Aveo lacked modern active safety features throughout its production run.
Electronic stability control a technology proven to reduce accident risk significantly was never offered on this generation, even as an option.
Antilock brakes remained optional on most trim levels, and many examples on the used market lack this fundamental safety feature.
Though affordable when new and on the used market, the 2004-2011 Aveo’s approximately 2,500-pound weight and dated safety engineering create inherent disadvantages in collisions, particularly with larger vehicles.
These substantial safety compromises make this generation Aveo among the least protective small cars of its era, despite wearing the Chevrolet bowtie badge.
