For enhanced safety, the front and rear seat shoulder belts of the Lexus RC have pretensioners to tighten the seatbelts and eliminate dangerous slack in the event of a collision. The Dodge Challenger doesn’t offer pretensioners for its rear seat belts.
The RC’s optional pre-crash front seatbelts will tighten automatically in the event the vehicle detects an impending crash, improving protection against injury significantly. The Challenger doesn’t offer pre-crash pretensioners.
The Lexus RC has standard driver and front passenger side knee airbags mounted low on the dashboard. These airbags helps prevent the driver and front passenger from sliding under their seatbelts or the main frontal airbags; this keeps them better positioned during a collision for maximum protection. Knee airbags also help keep the legs from striking the dashboard, preventing knee and leg injuries in the case of a serious frontal collision. The Challenger doesn’t offer knee airbags.
The RC has standard Pre-Collision System, which use forward mounted sensors to warn the driver of a possible collision ahead. If the driver doesn’t react and the system determines a collision is imminent, it automatically applies the brakes at full-force in order to reduce the force of the crash or avoid it altogether. The Challenger offers an available collision warning system without the automated brake feature that would prevent or reduce the collision if the driver fails to react.
The RC’s lane departure warning system alerts a temporarily inattentive driver when the vehicle begins to leave its lane and gently nudges the vehicle back towards its lane. The Challenger doesn’t offer a lane departure warning system.
The RC offers optional Intuitive Park Assist to help warn the driver about vehicles, pedestrians or other obstacles behind or in front of their vehicle. The Challenger doesn’t offer a front parking aid.
The RC has a standard blind spot warning system which uses sensors to alert the driver to objects in the vehicle’s blind spots where the side view mirrors don’t reveal them. A system to reveal vehicles in the Challenger’s blind spot costs extra.
To help make backing out of a parking space safer, the RC has a standard rear cross-path warning system, which uses sensors in the rear bumper to alert the driver to vehicles approaching from the side, helping the driver avoid collisions. Rear cross-path warning costs extra on the Challenger.
The RC’s driver alert monitor detects an inattentive driver then sounds a warning and suggests a break. According to the NHTSA, drivers who fall asleep cause about 100,000 crashes and 1500 deaths a year. The Challenger doesn’t offer a driver alert monitor.
Both the RC and the Challenger have standard driver and passenger frontal airbags, front side-impact airbags, side-impact head airbags, four-wheel antilock brakes, traction control, electronic stability systems to prevent skidding, daytime running lights, rearview cameras and available all wheel drive.
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 Lexus RC is safer than the Challenger:
|
RC |
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 |
0 cm |
8 cm |
Chest Evaluation |
GOOD |
GOOD |
Max Chest Compression |
20 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 |
.56/.43 |
1.46/1.01 |
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) performs roof strength tests. In that test the RC earned the top rating of “Good” because its roof supported over four times the RC’s weight before being crushed five inches. The Challenger was rated lower at “Acceptable.”
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 RC is safer than the Challenger:
|
RC |
Challenger |
Overall Evaluation |
GOOD |
ACCEPTABLE |
Head Restraint Design |
GOOD |
GOOD |
Distance from Back of Head |
16 mm |
61 mm |
Distance Below Top of Head |
21 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 |
340 |
456 |
(Lower numerical results are better in all tests.)
For its top level performance in all IIHS frontal, side, rear impact and roof-crush tests, and its standard front crash prevention system, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety grants the RC the rating of “Top Safety Pick” for 2017, a rating granted to only 230 vehicles tested by the IIHS. The Challenger was not even a “Top Safety Pick” for 2016.