Not all cars are created equal, and some have safety records so concerning that mechanics and insurers alike have raised red flags. From poor crash-test performance to faulty airbags, braking failures, and structural weaknesses, these vehicles have consistently underperformed when protecting you and your family. While they may have once seemed like smart buys, Canadian drivers now think twice. Here are 18 vehicles with the most dangerous safety records in Canada:
Jeep Patriot (2007–2017)
While it looks rugged, the Jeep Patriot has a troubling safety history in Canada. Crash test scores were mediocre, especially in side-impact and small overlap front crashes. The base model lacked basic safety features like stability control until later years. The 2.0L and 2.4L engines were not the problem. Instead, the vehicle’s outdated chassis and minimal crash protection raised concerns. The interior was basic, lacked active safety tech, and braking performance was below average.
Dodge Journey (2009–2020)
Despite its popularity with Canadian families, the Dodge Journey proved a safety risk over time. It scored poorly in small overlap front crash tests and lacked many modern safety features well into its production run. The standard 2.4L engine that produces 173 hp struggled under full load, and braking distances were long. Interior materials felt cheap, and structural integrity in side collisions was a central weak point. Adding frequent electrical issues and aging tech, the Journey quickly went from a minivan alternative to a red-flag vehicle in the eyes of many mechanics and insurers.
Kia Rio (2012–2017)
Compact and affordable, the Kia Rio gained traction among urban Canadian drivers, but at a cost. Despite its 1.6L engine that produced 138 hp and nimble handling, the Rio fared poorly in frontal crash tests and side-impact protection. Early models lacked advanced safety features, and their light frame left occupants more vulnerable in collisions with larger vehicles. Mechanics noted structural concerns in winter conditions, especially corrosion around wheel wells and underbody components. For a car aimed at budget-conscious buyers, it ultimately cut too many corners where it counted most.
Chevrolet Spark (2013–2021)
Though marketed as a city-friendly, affordable hatchback, the Chevrolet Spark has consistently drawn criticism for its poor safety record. It comes with a 1.4L engine that produces 98 hp, which is underwhelming but adequate for city driving. Its crash performance isn’t adequate, which earned poor or marginal ratings in side and small overlap crash tests. The Spark also lacks rear-side airbags, which were present in earlier models, and many Canadians have reported braking and visibility concerns. While easy to park, its tiny footprint and light build make it less than ideal for real-world driving conditions, particularly on highways or in winter weather.
Ford Fiesta (2011–2019)
The Ford Fiesta was once a top subcompact seller in Canada. Still, a history of troubling safety and reliability issues followed. Crash test ratings were average at best, and early models lacked side curtain airbags. The 1.6L engine that delivered 120 hp was efficient, but many Fiesta models were plagued with braking issues and faulty transmissions, especially the problematic dual-clutch PowerShift system. The Fiesta’s small frame and limited rear crash protection didn’t inspire confidence, especially with families. Mechanics frequently caution against used purchases, citing repair headaches and concerns that the Fiesta doesn’t hold up under Canadian road conditions.
Nissan Versa (2007–2019)
The Nissan Versa gained attention for its affordability but came at a serious safety cost. Older models fared poorly in side and small overlap crash tests, with minimal occupant protection for rear passengers. The 1.6L engine was fuel-efficient, but the car’s lightweight build, bare-bones safety features, and no stability control in early models made it risky on highways. Interior quality was sparse, and thick pillars limited visibility. Mechanics warn that the Versa offers far less protection in a collision than its peers, making it a risky pick for families or daily commuters.
Mitsubishi Mirage (2014–Present)
The Mirage is one of Canada’s cheapest new cars but also one of the least safe. Its 1.2L 3-cylinder engine delivers sluggish acceleration, and its crash test results consistently rank among the lowest in its class. The structure offers minimal impact protection and long and inconsistent braking distances. Interior materials are dated, and the small cabin creates cramped passenger space. Despite the fuel economy being near 5.5L/100 km, experts caution that the cost savings come with a safety trade-off that is too big to ignore, and in terms of occupant protection, the Mirage does not deliver.
Chevrolet Aveo (2004–2011)
Once popular with young Canadian drivers, the Chevrolet Aveo has become a cautionary tale in subcompact safety. The 1.6L engine that delivered 103 hp was sufficient for city driving, but safety tech was virtually nonexistent in early models. Crash test performance was subpar, with weak side-impact protection and no electronic stability control. The interior lacked modern restraint systems, and airbags were minimal. Mechanics frequently report poor frame durability, especially after minor accidents. For those considering buying used on a budget, this aging compact car is far more dangerous than its small price tag suggests.
Chrysler 200 (2011–2017)
The Chrysler 200 aimed for mid-size appeal but quickly earned a reputation for structural issues. Crash tests revealed serious flaws in minor overlap front crashes, and many trims lacked advanced driver assistance features. The 2.4L engine and 184 hp were adequate, but the 9-speed automatic transmission was often jerky and unreliable. Poor rear visibility, a cramped backseat, and excessive brake wear didn’t help its case. Canadian winters also exposed rust-prone undercarriages and weak traction from the front-wheel-drive setup. Mechanics often suggest steering clear of the 200, especially for families looking for peace of mind behind the wheel.
Smart Fortwo (2008–2018)
Designed for urban efficiency, the Smart Fortwo severely lacks crash survivability. The 1.0L 3-cylinder engine with 70 hp offered little power, and its ultra-short wheelbase made highway driving risky. While the Tridion safety cell helped in minor impacts, the Fortwo performed poorly in real-world Canadian collisions, especially when hit by larger vehicles. It was also prone to tip-over hazards and suffered from braking inconsistencies. The cabin was noisy, cramped, and lacked side airbags in earlier models. Mechanics and safety analysts strongly discourage long-term use outside of downtown cores due to inherent safety limitations.
Hyundai Accent (2006–2017)
Despite being a budget-friendly favorite, the Hyundai Accent suffered from long-standing safety concerns. Early models lacked electronic stability control and offered only basic airbag coverage. Its 1.6L engine, producing 138 hp in later models, could handle the class, but the lightweight frame contributed to poor crash-test scores, especially in side-impact and small overlap front tests. Braking distances were longer than average, and road grip in winter conditions was a frequent complaint from Canadian drivers.
Suzuki SX4 (2007–2013)
The Suzuki SX4 tried to be an affordable all-weather compact, but it couldn’t shake off a troubling safety record. Its 2.0L engine was decent, and the available AWD was a bonus, but crash test results were inconsistent. Small overlap protection was weak, and interior safety tech lagged far behind the competition. Early models lacked traction control and had minimal side-impact safeguards. The cabin was also tight, visibility was poor, and rear-seat passengers faced an elevated risk of a collision. Many mechanics regard the SX4 as an outdated design that doesn’t meet modern Canadian safety expectations.
Fiat 500 (2012–2019)
The Fiat 500 charmed Canadian drivers with its retro styling, but safety took a backseat. Its 1.4L engine, producing 101–135 hp depending on trim, was fine for city driving, but its tiny build offered minimal protection in collisions, especially against SUVs or trucks. Crash tests revealed weaknesses in side and rear impact protection, and the short wheelbase made stability a concern. The interior space was cramped and lacking in head protection for taller passengers. Despite its quirky looks, mechanics, and insurers flagged the 500 as one of the riskier choices on Canadian roads, particularly for young or inexperienced drivers.
Dodge Caliber (2007–2012)
Marketed as a rugged alternative to a hatchback, the Dodge Caliber never lived up to its promises, especially on safety. The 2.0L and 2.4L engine options (158–172 hp) provided okay performance, but poor crash test scores and subpar build quality were major drawbacks. Side-impact protection was weak, and the high beltline limited visibility. Many models lacked safety features like side curtain airbags and electronic stability control. The ride was rough, braking was uneven, and interior materials degraded quickly.
Chevrolet Cobalt (2005–2010)
The Cobalt’s safety issues made national headlines, including a massive ignition switch recall that led to several fatalities. Beyond that, the Cobalt’s crash test scores were mixed, especially in side and rear collisions. Its 2.2L engine did not cause many issues, but the real problem was the lack of structural integrity and outdated safety features. Early models didn’t include side airbags or traction control, and braking performance was mediocre. Add in poor visibility and a hard-plastic interior, and you get a vehicle that Canadian mechanics still cite as one of the riskiest used buys on the market.
Dodge Grand Caravan (Pre-2020 models)
While the Dodge Grand Caravan was one of Canada’s best-selling minivans, it had worrying safety deficiencies in earlier models. IIHS crash tests revealed marginal ratings in side-impact protection and subpar structural integrity. Essential safety features like blind spot monitoring or automatic emergency braking were absent in most trims, even as competitors made them standard. The interior, though spacious, lacked rear-seat head restraints in some configurations, putting passengers at higher risk in rear-end collisions. Popular for budget-conscious families, the Grand Caravan too often traded price for protection, something no family vehicle should ever do.
Chrysler PT Cruiser (2001–2010)
Despite its retro charm, the Chrysler PT Cruiser was a safety disappointment. IIHS frontal offset crash tests revealed significant cabin deformation and a high risk of injury to the lower extremities. Side-impact scores were mediocre, and standard safety features like stability control and side curtain airbags were often absent. With a 150-hp engine and sluggish 0–100 km/h times exceeding 10 seconds, it wasn’t winning performance awards either. The tall, boxy cabin created visibility challenges, and its high center of gravity did not help in emergency maneuvers.
Scion iQ (2012–2015)
Designed to rival Smart cars, the Scion iQ packed a lot into a tiny package but didn’t deliver on safety. The 1.3L engine and 94 hp were sufficient for tight city streets but felt overwhelmed on highways. While boasted 11 airbags, its ultra-short frame severely limited its ability to absorb crash energy, especially in front or side impacts with larger vehicles. It also struggled in winter driving due to its short wheelbase and light curb weight. Interior comfort was minimal, and road noise was excessive.
22 Times Canadian Ingenuity Left the U.S. in the Dust
When people think of innovation, they often picture Silicon Valley. However, Canada has a history of innovation, too. Whether it’s redefining sports, revolutionizing medicine, or just showing America up at its own game, Canadian inventors, thinkers, and dreamers have had their fair share of mic-drop moments. Here are 22 times Canadian ingenuity left the U.S. in the dust.
22 Times Canadian Ingenuity Left the U.S. in the Dust
