Both the Camaro and the Challenger have standard driver and passenger frontal airbags, front side-impact airbags, driver knee airbags, side-impact head airbags, front seatbelt pretensioners, four-wheel antilock brakes, traction control, electronic stability systems to prevent skidding, daytime running lights, rearview cameras, available collision warning systems, blind spot warning systems, rear parking sensors and rear cross-path warning.
A significantly tougher test than their original offset frontal crash test, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety does 40 MPH small overlap frontal offset crash tests. In this test, where only 25% of the total width of the vehicle is struck, results indicate that the Chevrolet Camaro Coupe is safer than the Challenger:
|
|
Camaro |
Challenger |
| Overall Evaluation |
GOOD |
MARGINAL |
| Restraints |
GOOD |
GOOD |
| Head Neck Evaluation |
GOOD |
GOOD |
| Peak Head Forces |
0 G’s |
0 G’s |
| Steering Column Movement Rearward |
1 cm |
8 cm |
| Chest Evaluation |
GOOD |
GOOD |
| Max Chest Compression |
21 cm |
26 cm |
| Hip & Thigh Evaluation |
GOOD |
GOOD |
| Hip & Thigh Injury Risk R/L |
0%/0% |
0%/0% |
| Lower Leg Evaluation |
GOOD |
POOR |
| Tibia index R/L |
.55/.45 |
1.46/1.01 |
| Tibia forces R/L |
2.5/1.4 kN |
4.8/2.4 kN |
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety rates the general design of front seat head restraints for their ability to protect front seat occupants from whiplash injuries. The IIHS also performs a dynamic test on those seats with “good” or “acceptable” geometry. In these ratings, the Camaro is safer then the Challenger:
|
|
Camaro |
Challenger |
| Overall Evaluation |
GOOD |
ACCEPTABLE |
| Head Restraint Design |
GOOD |
GOOD |
| Distance from Back of Head |
10 mm |
61 mm |
| Distance Below Top of Head |
14 mm |
28 mm |
| Dynamic Test Rating |
GOOD |
ACCEPTABLE |
| Seat Design |
Pass |
Fail |
| Neck Force Rating |
Low |
Low |
| Max Neck Shearing Force |
0 |
83 |
| Max Neck Tension |
417 |
456 |
(Lower numerical results are better in all tests.)

