2017 Kia Sedona earns Top Safety Pick+ from IIHS

To earn that coveted ranking, the Sedona had to perform well in six separate IIHS crash tests, including two newer, more challenging ones. 

Benoit Tessier/Reuters/File
A Kia logo is seen on media day at the Paris auto show, in Paris.

In the market for a minivan? If so, may we suggest you turn your attention to the 2017 Kia Sedona? It's been rated a Top Safety Pick+ by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

To earn that coveted ranking, the Sedona had to perform well in six separate IIHS crash tests. Four of those have been in place for a while: the front moderate overlap, side, and roof strength tests, plus the head restraint and seats test. On each of those, the Sedona earned the IIHS' top score of "good".

It also received a "good" rating on the newer and more challenging front small overlap test, which mimics a vehicle hitting a narrow object like a tree or light pole. Many otherwise sturdy vehicles have had trouble with this test--in the minivan category, that includes the Chrysler Town & Country, Dodge Grand Caravan, and Nissan Quest--but the Sedona prevailed.

Those scores qualified the Sedona for the rating of Top Safety Pick, but to earn the all-important "+", the Sedona also had to ace tests involving its optional front crash prevention system. In tests at both 12 and 25 miles per hour, the Sedona successfully avoided collisions, earning it a rating of "superior".

Among minivans currently on sale that the IIHS has tested, the Sedona comes in at the top of the pack. The only other Top Safety Pick+ in the field is the Chrysler Pacifica--though it's worth noting that the Pacifica's child seat anchors didn't perform as well as the Sedona's.

To peruse other minivan ratings from the IIHS, click here.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.