Safety ratings aren’t forever. Whether due to aging designs, poor crash-test results, or outdated tech, several cars Canadians once trusted are now failing to meet modern safety benchmarks. If your vehicle’s protective features can’t handle today’s real-world dangers, your family could be more vulnerable than you think. From weak crash structures to failing electronic aids, these cars are falling out of favor with experts. Here are 20 cars losing their safety ratings in Canada:
2013–2016 Hyundai Elantra
The compact Hyundai Elantra once earned solid marks, but its outdated crash structure hasn’t aged well. Newer IIHS small overlap front tests scored poorly, revealing significant risks to drivers in offset collisions. Its 1.8L four-cylinder engine that produces 148 hp offers decent acceleration of 0–100 km/h in 9.1 seconds, but modern safety demands more than speed. The interior lacks rear-seat side airbags and comes with outdated stability systems. Canadian mechanics report issues with the airbag sensors and braking systems, too. As standards rise, the Elantra is quietly losing ground and possibly putting families at greater risk.
2011–2014 Chevrolet Malibu
Though once a midsize staple, the 2011–2014 Malibu is now sliding down safety charts. It earned mediocre marks in side-impact and small overlap front crash tests from IIHS and NHTSA. The 2.4L engine feels sluggish, taking 9.6 seconds to hit 100 km/h. The interior is roomy but lacks advanced driver-assistance features in newer vehicles, without forward collision warning or lane-keeping aid. Canadian winters highlight its weak traction control and slow-reacting ABS. For families relying on this car for daily duty, its fading safety credentials could be an unexpected hazard.
2007–2011 Toyota Camry
Toyota’s reputation took a hit with this Camry generation’s dismal small-overlap crash-test results. Even with a 2.4L engine and 158 hp, capable of 0–100 km/h in 9.3 seconds, the body structure failed to protect the driver’s space during impact. It also lacked side torso airbags in some trims, a serious omission for a family sedan. Interior build quality was reliable, but the absence of modern safety tech like automatic emergency braking or blind-spot warning feels jarring by today’s standards. While it’s mechanically dependable, the aging Camry’s crash performance should give Canadian families serious pause.
2014–2017 Jeep Cherokee
The Jeep Cherokee’s rugged image didn’t translate into top-tier safety. The 2.4L Tigershark engine, which produced 184 hp, delivers 0–100 km/h in 9.5 seconds, but the genuine concern is the weak small overlap crash-test performance and unreliable safety tech. Adaptive cruise control, lane departure warning, and blind-spot monitoring were optional or missing. Canadian reviews highlight cold-weather sensor failures and intermittent braking glitches. Combine that with early-model transmission hiccups and unpredictable airbag deployment, and the Cherokee becomes a concerning family ride.
2012–2015 Ford Focus
The Ford Focus’s compact design couldn’t withstand newer crash standards. While the 2.0L four-cylinder and 160 hp engine offers a respectable 0–100 km/h time of 8.8 seconds, the car struggles in side-impact and roof strength tests. Canadian safety data shows that crash-avoidance systems were missing entirely in most trims. Owners report frequent power steering failures and erratic stability control behavior, particularly in icy conditions. The interior may feel refined, but its lack of modern protective systems and subpar structure makes this hatchback a fading choice for cautious drivers who prioritize family safety.
2008–2012 Honda Accord
Once a top family choice, the 2008–2012 Accord has fallen behind on safety. The 2.4L four-cylinder engine is capable of a quick 0–100 km/h in 8.6 seconds, but crashworthiness tells a different story. It earned a “Marginal” rating in small overlap front crash tests, with poor cabin structure and footwell intrusion. Safety features like blind spot monitoring or lane-keeping assistance were absent from most trims. Canadian drivers also reported premature airbag warning lights and weak headlights. For a car that once symbolized peace of mind, its slipping safety scores are hard to ignore.
2010–2013 Mazda3
The 2010–2013 Mazda3 offered sharp handling and a fuel-sipping 2.0L engine, but its crash protection now feels outdated. It scored low in newer small overlap and side-impact tests, with structural weaknesses around the driver’s side door. Acceleration was decent, with 0–100 km/h in 9.2 seconds, but its safety equipment was sparse, as some trims had no automatic emergency braking, lane assist, or even rear airbags. Interior comfort was solid, but the infotainment and visibility were lackluster. As Canadian safety standards evolve, the early 2010s Mazda3 is no longer the safe bet it once was.
2014–2016 Nissan Rogue
Despite its popularity, this Rogue generation has developed a shaky safety reputation. The 2.5L four-cylinder engine delivers 170 hp, pushing it to 100 km/h in a lazy 9.8 seconds. It underperformed in small overlap front crash tests, earning only “Marginal” ratings. The Rogue also struggled with seatbelt retention and head restraint tests. Advanced driver-assistance systems were limited to higher trims and often unreliable in cold weather. Canadian mechanics also note repeated issues with ABS sensors and weak braking in snowy conditions.
2011–2014 Chrysler 200
The Chrysler 200 was marketed as an affordable midsize option but missed the mark in safety. Equipped with a 2.4L engine and taking nearly 10.2 seconds to hit 100 km/h, it was slow and vulnerable. IIHS small overlap testing showed significant cabin intrusion and a risk of lower leg injuries. Its safety features were minimal, and the traction and stability systems often lagged in Canadian winters. The interior, while nicely styled, offered little real protection. As crash tests get tougher, the Chrysler 200 finds itself left behind and potentially leaving families at risk.
2013–2016 Subaru Impreza
While Subaru is known for safety, this generation of Impreza has started to show its age. The 2.0L boxer engine delivers all-wheel-drive confidence but takes 9.9 seconds to reach 100 km/h. IIHS tests revealed poor small overlap crash performance, especially on the passenger side. Older trims lack EyeSight driver-assist tech, and Canadian drivers report inconsistent ABS and occasional airbag sensor errors. The cabin is practical, but with fading crash-test scores and no standard active safety systems, the Impreza is no longer the fail-safe choice it once was for families.
2015–2017 Kia Forte
The Kia Forte earned early praise for value, but its safety performance has not aged well. The 2.0L engine offers a decent speed of 0–100 km/h in 8.9 seconds, but that does not compensate for its crash-test shortcomings. The Forte scored poorly in small overlap front tests, especially on the passenger side, and lacked rear side-impact airbags in several trims. Advanced safety features were rarely standard, leaving many Canadian models without collision avoidance or blind spot monitoring. Add in weak winter braking performance and limited structural integrity, and the Forte is no longer the safe choice for budget-conscious families.
2011–2013 Dodge Grand Caravan
Canada’s former minivan king has lost its safety crown. The 3.6L V6 (283 hp) gives it strong pull and decent acceleration of 0–100 km/h in 8.4 seconds, but crash tests tell a different story. It earned “Poor” marks in small overlap and side-impact testing. The outdated platform lacks crash-avoidance tech and shows excessive cabin intrusion during collisions. Canadian mechanics also flag standard airbag warning lights and ABS failures in cold temperatures. The Grand Caravan’s roomy interior once made it a family favorite, but it now represents an outdated design that no longer meets modern safety expectations.
2009–2012 Volkswagen Jetta
This Jetta generation’s solid build belies its safety weaknesses. The base 2.0L engine was sluggish, taking over 10 seconds to hit 100 km/h, but more concerning is its weak crash-test performance. It scored low in IIHS side-impact and small overlap tests, revealing poor structural resistance. ESC was standard late in the cycle, but earlier models lacked it. Interior tech was minimal, and many Canadian drivers complained about failing sensors and faulty airbags. While once seen as a European bargain, this Jetta’s aging safety profile puts it on the wrong side of being acceptable to today’s families.
2013–2016 Mitsubishi Lancer
The Mitsubishi Lancer’s sporty image could not shield it from falling safety scores. Its 2.0L engine and 148 hp managed a modest 0–100 km/h in 9.8 seconds, but small overlap crash results were concerning, showing significant driver-side intrusion. Side curtain airbags and ESC were standard, but advanced safety systems were absent entirely. The cabin was basic, with low-grade materials and poor rear visibility. Canadian owners also noted unstable winter handling. Despite all-wheel drive being available on some trims, the Lancer’s outdated structure and lack of driver aids make it a risky choice for cautious households.
2011–2014 Buick Verano
The Buick Verano aimed to offer compact luxury, but it’s now falling behind in protection. Powered by a 2.4L engine that delivered 180 hp, it clocked 0–100 km/h in 9.2 seconds. Safety issues emerged in newer IIHS crash tests, where it struggled in small overlap and roof strength evaluations. Rear visibility was poor, and while it had decent interior comfort, it lacked modern crash-avoidance tech. Canadian drivers often cited unreliable sensors and spotty winter braking. Once marketed as a safe entry-level luxury car, the Verano shows cracks in its armor.
2012–2015 Chevrolet Sonic
The Chevy Sonic was once praised for being a small car with a big personality, but its safety story has changed. The 1.8L four-cylinder engine delivers an underwhelming 0–100 km/h in 10.3 seconds. While it scored well in basic crash tests initially, it received only a “Marginal” rating in the IIHS small overlap front test later. Safety features like forward collision warning and lane departure were unavailable, even as options. Canadian winters also exposed issues with ABS responsiveness.
2011–2014 Hyundai Tucson
This earlier-generation Tucson is starting to look like a safety relic. Powered by a 2.4L engine that delivered 176 hp, it posted a decent 0–100 km/h in 9.3 seconds. However, its small overlap front crash ratings fell short of modern standards. The roof strength rating also lagged behind rivals, raising rollover concerns. Entry trims lacked essential features like traction control and side-curtain airbags. Canadian owners frequently cite premature sensor failures and braking inconsistencies in icy conditions. The cabin was roomy, but the Tucson now feels stuck in a more vulnerable time without current crash tech.
2010–2012 Ford Fusion
The Fusion once competed strongly in the midsize sedan market, but this generation now carries safety baggage. Its 2.5L engine and 175 hp made for an 8.9-second 0–100 km/h sprint, but crash test performance has since aged poorly. Small overlap crash tests revealed significant structural deformation. Base trims lacked backup cameras and blind spot detection, which became expected even then. Interior space was ample, but Canadian models are now flagged for inconsistent airbag deployment and outdated restraint systems.
2011–2014 Toyota Yaris
The Toyota Yaris is not aging well in safety circles. With a 1.5L engine and a sluggish 0–100 km/h time of 10.7 seconds, it’s not built for speed or modern protection. It earned low scores in side-impact and small overlap crash tests, with notable intrusion around the driver’s footwell. No advanced driver-assist features were available, and the cabin lacked head protection for rear passengers. Canadian mechanics also note weak heater performance and visibility concerns in snow. It is small and efficient, but not regarding today’s safety benchmarks.
2013–2016 Jeep Patriot
The Jeep Patriot may look rugged, but safety was never its strong suit. Equipped with a 2.4L engine and 172 hp, it hit 100 km/h in a sluggish 10.1 seconds. Despite its SUV stature, it earned a “Poor” in small overlap front tests and showed weak side-impact protection. Stability control was hit or miss depending on trim, and advanced features like forward collision warning were completely absent. Canadian winters were harsh, with slow throttle response and brake system complaints. Inside, the spartan cabin lacked impact cushioning, which is far from reassuring for owners.
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
