The data in this material is taken from numerous sources. To reference each source individually in the body of the material would be burdensome and confusing. Below is a partial list of the sources used in the authorship of these works.

Brochures: automotive manufacturers’ brochures, web sites, press kits, media-only manufacturer web sites, data books, technical bulletins, owner’s manuals and new model highlights and preview books.

Periodicals: Car and Driver, Road and Track, Automotive News, Motor Trend, AutoWeek, Automobile Magazine, Popular Mechanics, Consumer Reports, Consumer Guide, Kiplinger’s, Consumer’s Digest, The Complete Car Cost Guide, The Complete Small Truck Cost Guide, The Car Book, Four Wheeler, Petersen’s 4Wheel Off-Road, Open Road, Popular Mechanics, Popular Science and Trailer Life.

Marketing Research Firms: J.D. Power and Associates, Automotive Lease Guide and Strategic Vision, Inc.,

First Hand Data Gathering: Much of the data necessary is taken by Advanta-STAR employees’ hands-on inventories and investigations performed on new car dealer lots or with vehicles loaned by the manufacturer, its divisions or their agents for evaluation.Other Sources: Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) reports, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) crash tests and bumper tests, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports, the EPA Fuel Economy Guide, the EPA Green Vehicle Guide, Chrome Data PC Carbook Plus, IntelliChoice Car Center and Automotive Lease Guide (ALG)

The information, specifications, tests and evaluations in Advanta-STAR’s content are from numerous and varied sources. Our digital marketing and sales training tools for car dealers are fully vetted and based on firsthand investigation.

To reference each source in the body of the work would add too much to its bulk; therefore, this list is given as reference of the materials used. 

The information, specifications, tests and evaluations in Advanta-STAR’s content are from numerous and varied sources. Our digital marketing and sales training tools for car dealers are fully vetted and based on firsthand investigation.To reference each source in the body of the work would add too much to its bulk; therefore, this list is given as reference of the materials used.

NHTSA Crash Assessments

IMPORTANT NOTE (2011 model year): The NHTSA has changed its crash assessment program for the 2011 model year. All tests in the Advanta-STAR binders are from the previous testing program unless clearly labeled as the new 2011 tests. The new tests are not comparable to the old tests, and include different evaluation methods, crash test dummies and other criteria. As all of the data become available and are compiled, we will begin reporting on the new test results.

The NHTSA does not plan to re-test older models under the new plan. The old tests are still completely valid for vehicles that have not been substantially redesigned since they were tested, as long as those tests are compared to other vehicles tested under the old program.NCAP Tests 1978 – 2010 The comparisons of NHTSA crash assessments data are taken from the latest crash assessments published by the U.S. government. If one of the vehicles has been redesigned since the latest test data, a comparison is not done.

A comparison is done of vehicles of a comparable bodystyle, length and weight class. I.E. sedan to sedan, 1/2 ton to 1/2 ton, etc. However, if vehicles of similar types have not both been tested, the closest valid comparison is made.

FRONTAL TEST 

The NHTSA NCAP frontal test is performed at 35 MPH into a flat, immovable barrier. Five stars means a 10% or less chance of serious injury or death, four stars is 11% to 20%, three stars is 21% to 35%, two stars is 36% to 45%, and 1 star is 46% or greater chance of serious injury or death.Head Injury Index is the measurement of the pressure to the dummy’s head. Figures above 1000 indicate likely serious injury or death. Chest Forces are measured in G forces, so a chest G force of 50 would be 50 times your own weight. Measurements of 60 and above indicate likely serious injuries or death.

Femur loads, measured in pounds, are the forces on the dummy’s legs. Numbers above 2250 indicate serious injuries or death are likely.The test results can only be accurately compared among vehicles of similar weight and size to determine how actual vehicle-to-vehicle crashes will come out.SIDE TEST The NHTSA NCAP side test is performed by launching a 3015 pound object into the side of the test vehicle at 38½ MPH. Five stars means a 5% or less chance of serious injury or death, four stars is 6% to 10%, three stars is 11% to 20%, two stars is 21% to 25%, and 1 star is 26% or greater chance of serious injury or death.

Head Injury Index is the measurement of the pressure to the dummy’s head. Figures above 1000 indicate likely serious injury or death. Pelvic Injury potential is measured in G forces. Measurements of over 130 G’s indicate a high likelihood of serious injury or death.

Thigh forces are measured in pounds. A thigh force of greater than 2250 pounds indicates a high likelihood of serious injury or death.

Although measurements for head, neck, chest and pelvis are all taken and reported, head injuries are notused in the overall side impact evaluation. Unlike the frontal tests, the side impact test rating can be compared against vehicles of all different types and weights.

ROLLOVER TEST The NHTSA Rollover Rating System determines the likelihood of a single vehicle rollover. The major determinant factor is the “Static Stability Factor (SSF).” The SSF is calculated by measuring the track (distance between the left and right tire tread centerlines) and the center of gravity (how high the average weight of the vehicle lies).

The NHTSA also performs a dynamic maneuvering test, involving making a large steering movement to the left and then to the right (called a “fishhook maneuver”). Whether the tested vehicles tips during this test is also reported.

Five stars means a 10% or less chance of rollover, four stars is 10% to 20%, three stars is 20% to 30%, two stars is 30% to 40%, and 1 star is 40% or greater chance of serious injury or death.

No allowance for stability control with or without roll stability properties are factored into the Static Stability Factor. Visit the NHTSA website at http://www.nhtsa.gov for further explanations of their crash test methodology and ratings.

NCAP Tests 2011 – Present Starting with 2011 model year vehicles, the NHTSA updated its full line of crash assessment tests for the first time in over thirty years. The primary changes are:

The use of a fifth percentile female crash dummy (94% of the adult population weighs more and is larger) in the passenger positions of the frontal barrier and side barrier tests. This much smaller dummy is a replacement for the 50th percentile male dummy (average size and weight), which is still used in the driver’s position in the two barrier tests.

Evaluations are now made relative to other vehicles tested. This will make it much harder to get a five-star rating.

New side impact test into a pole at 20 MPH using female fifth percentile dummy. These test results are not comparable with the 1978 – 2010 NHTSA tests.

The comparisons of IIHS crash assessments data are taken from the latest crash assessments published by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. If one of the vehicles has been redesigned since the latest test data, a comparison is not done.A comparison is done of vehicles of a comparable bodystyle, length and weight class. I.E. Sedan to sedan, 1/2 ton to 1/2 ton, etc. However, if vehicles of similar types have not both been tested, the closest possible comparison is made.

MODERATE OVERLAP FRONT TEST Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) frontal crash tests are performed at 40 MPH into a deformable barrier at a 50% offset: that is only a portion of the front of the test vehicle strikes the barrier (about half). The subjective ratings of “Poor” to “Good” are judgments of the IIHS and don’t have any published statistical bearing on possible injuries in real-world crashes.

This test will continue to be done in addition to the new “Small Offset Frontal Test” described below. Tests of injury measurements on a 50thpercentile crash dummy (average adult male) on the head, torso, pelvis and legs. Also, the amount of intrusion into the passenger compartment is measured (in millimeters) on the steering wheel, dashboard and floor in numerous areas. Some subjective judgments are used when determining the “Structure” rating.

The test results can only be accurately compared among vehicles of similar weight and size to determine how actual vehicle-to-vehicle crashes will come out.The subjective ratings of “Poor” to “Good” are judgments of the IIHS, though years of experience allow the IIHS to state that a driver in a vehicle receiving a “Good” rating is 46% less likely to die in a real-world crash compared to a vehicle rated “Poor.”

SMALL OVERLAP FRONT TEST The small overlap Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) frontal crash tests are performed at 40 MPH into a deformable barrier at an offset of 75%: that is, only 25%of the front of the test vehicle strikes the barrier. The subjective ratings of “Poor” to “Good” are judgments of the IIHS and don’t have any published statistical bearing on possible injuries in real-world crashes. This new test is more severe than the previous IIHS offset frontal crash test initially started in 1995. Both tests will continue to be used.

Tests of injury measurements on a 50th percentile crash dummy (average adult male) on the head, torso, pelvis and legs. Also, the amount of intrusion into the passenger compartment is measured (in millimeters) on the steering wheel, dashboard and floor in numerous areas. Some subjective judgments are used when determining the “Structure” rating.The test results can only be accurately compared among vehicles of similar weight and size to determine how actual vehicle-to-vehicle crashes will come out.

PASSENGER SIDE SMALL OVERLAP FRONT TEST Starting in 2018, the IIHS determined that a number of car companies were specifically strengthening the driver’s side of vehicles to allow a good performance on the “Small Overlap Front Test” and not performaing similar changes on the passenger side. Although most small overlap crashes in the real world occur on the driver’s side, the IIHS wanted equal protection of rpassengers and began performing a mirror image of the Small Overlap Front Test.

This test is identical to the Small Overlap Front Test, except that the test occurs on 25% of the passenger side of the front, and the primary measurements are taken from a crash-test dummy in the front passenger seat. Additional measurements are taken from a second crash-test dummy in the driver’s seat for comparison.

SIDE TEST Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) side impact crash tests are performed by striking the test vehicle with a 3300-pound barrier at 31 MPH. The IIHS test uses a higher and taller barrier than the NHTSA test, to better simulate being struck by an SUV or pickup. Also, the test uses smaller dummies, representing a small woman or an adolescent.

Driver and rear passenger injury ratings are treated equally for the overall rating. Head, neck and torso ratings are weighted equally, followed by leg and pelvis ratings, head protection criteria and a measured analysis of the structural integrity of the passenger compartment after the test. Measurements include force to the head, torso, pelvis and legs; intrusion of the B-pillar towards the centerline of the left seat; and movement for the dummy’s head and possible contact with the striking barrier.

The subjective ratings of “Poor” to “Good” are judgments of the IIHS and don’t have any published statistical bearing on possible injuries in real-world crashes. Unlike the frontal tests, the side impact test rating can be compared against vehicles of all different types and weights.

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) roof crush tests are performed by pressing a metal plate against one side of the vehicle’s roof. The maximum force is measured before the roof is crushed. This figure is divided by the weight of the vehicle to find the strength-to-weight ratio. The weight of a base vehicle is used for the calculation. If a different version of the same vehicle weighs 10% more or greater than the base vehicle, a separate test is done.

The federal standard for rollover strength is 1.5 times the vehicle weight. IIHS research has determined that a ratio of 4 to one can decrease the chance of serious injury or death by 50% in rollover crashes. The IIHS rates vehicles with a 4 to one strength ratio or better as “Good,” 3.25 or higher is “Acceptable,” 2.5 or better “Marginal. Anything lower is rated as “Poor.”

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) tests the front seat crash worthiness of new vehicles. To determine the protection from neck injuries in low to moderate speed rear impacts the IIHS takes measurements on the geometry of the seats and their headrests. The distance from a 50th percentile male dummy’s head is measured from the headrest for height and distance. If the headrest is too far from the head or too low to provide protection, the car is rated as “Poor.”

Any vehicle with adequate headrest geometry is subjected to a dynamic test. A sled with the vehicle’s seats mounted onto it is slammed into a fixed barrier at 10 MPH (equivalent to a stationary vehicle being struck at 20 MPH by a vehicle of similar weight). Measurements are made to the shearing force against the neck, the time it takes for the dummy’s head to strike the headrest and the amount of motion the dummy’s head experiences.Visit the IIHS website at http://www.iihs.orgfor further explanations of their crash test methodology and ratings.

The history of injuries and fatalities is taken from the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI). Their data is already represented in terms of the number of injury and fatality claims per vehicle registered of cars that have not been significantly altered.

Bumper tests are always compared from the same source, either Consumer Reportsor the Highway Loss Data Institute. We take data from the latest version of either source. The figures represent the total of multiple tests. Vehicles whose bumper systems have been altered significantly are not used for comparison purposes.

Reliability Comparisons of overall reliability are taken from an analysis of the bar charts in Consumer Reports Car Issue. Since the comparison is of numeric data taken from a graphic source, it is only an approximation. The reliability figures are only taken for cars that have not been significant redesigned or who maintain their major systems. The data from different versions of the same car are not combined since sample sizes aren’t stated.

The data from Consumer Reports may not be representative since their sample is not taken universally, but from Consumers Union members, a group that may display certain differing characteristics from those of the overall car purchasing population of the United States.

For models that are evaluated between annual car issues of Consumer Reports, the data is extrapolated from a five level evaluation (“Much worse than average”, “Worse than average”, “Average”, “Better than average”, and “Much better than average”) or currently, 1 to 5, with 5 the most reliable. Other reliability comparisons are from J. D. Power and Associates. These ratings include Initial Quality, APEAL and Dependability. Initial Quality ratings by J. D. Power and Associates are compiled from the returned surveys of new car owners who receive a survey mailed to a statistically reliable sample. The findings are represented in problems per one hundred (100) vehicles. The fewer reported defects, the higher the ranking.

Dependability ratings by J. D. Power and Associates are compiled from the returned surveys of owners of three-year-old cars who receive a survey mailed to a statistically reliable sample. The findings are represented in problems per one hundred (100) vehicles. The fewer reported defects, the higher the ranking.APEAL ratings by J. D. Power and Associates are compiled from the returned surveys of new car owners who receive a survey mailed to a statistically reliable sample. The ratings are compiled from questions related to how well satisfied the owners are with their vehicles.

The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) determines test procedures used by manufacturers to rate engine horsepower and torque for advertising purposes. The three currently approved procedures in order of approval date are: SAE J1995, J1349 and J2723. Although differing in many technical aspects, all three provide similar if not identical ratings. The most stringent is the recently approved J2723 testing procedure, which calls for third-party verification.

Different manufacturers advertise horsepower and torque figures resulting from different procedures. A few years ago several manufacturers updated their horsepower and torque ratings to SAE J2723, including GM (newly introduced engines), Honda and Toyota. This resulted in different ratings from previous years when there have been no actual changes to the engines. Since no conversion exists between horsepower and torque ratings of one procedure to another, Advanta-STAR will utilize the figures advertised by the manufacturer regardless of the procedure used, as long as it a currently recognized SAE testing procedure.

In some comparisons, different acceleration times, braking distances, cornering forces, and other results are listed for the same vehicle. This is due to the nature of magazine tests: they are not the same, and produce different data. For these reasons, comparative data is taken from the same source. Every effort is made to compare similar powertrains, transmissions (automatic or manual) and brakes (ABS vs. non-ABS). Only when their have been no comparable tests or comparable vehicles are tests compared of dissimilar vehicles, and the differences are noted. Each car magazine or other testing source uses its own methods. Atmospheric conditions induce different results. Therefore one source may produce somewhat different results from another source, both testing the same vehicle model, powertrain and bodystyle. Even the same test source and vehicle may produce different results.

The fuel mileage comparisons are taken from the latest issue of the the EPA website: https://fueleconomy.gov, the EPA Gas Mileage Guide, the full EPA report, as reported in manufacturer’s literature or from the actual EPA mileage sticker on a representative model, whichever is available. Some vehicles (medium duty trucks) are not tested for EPA fuel mileage.

EPA fuel mileage figures are for comparison purposes only. Actual mileage may vary. The calculations used to obtain these results were changed for model year 2008 and then again in 2012; those for 2007 and before, 2008 through 2011 and 2012 to the present may not be compared against each other.

Price differences between regular unleaded, mid-grade and premium vary according to market conditions. Those differences listed in our comparisons are recent ranges nationwide, but are apt to change. Check with local gas stations or an up to date source of prices for comparisons, suchas: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/gasprices/states/index.shtml

All of the dimensions used are taken from measurements made by manufacturers, EPA, Advanta-STAR representatives or the measurements from automotive magazines, in that order of preference. If the measurements must be taken from different sources, they are checked with each other for accuracy, and if they differ from each other significantly, they are discarded. Interior dimensional comparisons are made with standard equipment; dimensions may change for options such as moon roof, sunroof, all-wheel-drive, full-size spare tire, hybrid powertrain or other options.

Legroom measurements are taken per industry standards with all adjustable seats in the rear-most position and reclining seats fully upright.

The comparisons of standard and optional equipment are taken from manufacturers’ web sites, brochures, data books, press releases, Edmunds, or Car and Driver’s website.

Comparisons of towing capacity are taken from the manufacturers’ brochures, owner’s manuals, data books, Consumer Reportsor Consumer Guide’s 4x4s, Pickups and Vans.

Never rely on Advanta-STAR comparisons to determine what a vehicle can safely tow. Options, passengers and other cargo alter the final figures; always consult the dealer or manufacturer to determine safe towing capacities and methods for a particular vehicle.

Historically, the manufacturer has calculated towing capacity without national standards. Different manufacturers use different calculations.

Recently, a standard for calculating towing capacities has been put into place by the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers), which involves the ability to accelerate, maintain speed and brake, over a variety of conditions and incline grades. As manufacturers adopt these voluntary standards, towing capacities may change.

However, whatever towing capacities are cited by the manufacturer and how they are calculated, they are always a relative guide to what will be safe and not void you warranty.SAE standard J2807 regards the standard testing of towing ratings and has been adopted by all major manufacturers for model year 2013 and beyond.

Insurance costs are taken from IntelliChoice, Kiplinger’sratings and/or Jack Gillis’ The Car Book. These publications are solely responsible for the accuracy of this data.

Resale values are calculated from IntelliChoice cost data or taken directly from Kiplinger’smagazine. These publications are solely responsible for the accuracy of this data.

Jack Gillis’ The Car Book provides individual maintenance and repair costs on individual components. IntelliChoice provides some maintenance costs for five-year periods. These publications are solely responsible for the accuracy of this data.