The Volt was not the only electric car in the latest test group. The Nissan Leaf was also among the small cars tested, and the IIHS took no chances when testing the safety of the batteries. “Post crash, technicians check for high voltage and high temperature, which could lead to a potentially fatal electrical shock and/or fire,” IIHS says. “No one can touch the car until given the all-clear. Technicians wear safety gear, including eye protection, rubber boots and rubber gloves. They’re tethered at the waist to a long pole, which can be used to pull them away from the vehicle in an emergency.”

Luckily, the IIHS says there were no issues with the batteries or electric systems in the Volt or Leaf.

The IIHS rating scale includes: good, acceptable, marginal and poor.

Click next to see which cars in the latest group of 12 aced IIHS’ crash test, and which cars left something to be desired, and see the last page for a video of the IIHS' small overlap front crash test.

Chevrolet Volt -- Top Safety Pick+

The Volt earned “acceptable” ratings overall and for both structure and restraints/kinematics in the small overlap front crash test. The IIHS also measures injuries on dummies within the vehicles, and all four areas—head and neck, chest, hip and thigh, and lower leg and foot—received ratings of “good.”

In the IIHS’ July 30 Status Update, Joe Nolan, IIHS senior vice president for vehicle research, says, “Electric vehicles have a unique challenge in the small overlap test because of their heavy batteries. The Volt performed reasonably well, earning an acceptable rating, while the Leaf struggled.”

The IIHS says driver space in the Volt was maintained “reasonably well” in the test, and injury measures taken from the dummy indicate a low risk of any significant injuries to a person in a similar crash.

The Volt received “good” ratings for four other crash tests the IIHS performed, and because it includes a front crash prevention system (deemed “basic” by the IIHS and receiving a one-bar rating on a scale of one to six, with six being the most advanced), the Volt was able to join five other small cars as a Top Safety Pick+.

In 2011, the Volt and the Leaf became the first mainstream plug-in electric cars to go through IIHS crash tests. Both earned top ratings, although that was before the small overlap front test was introduced.

Mini Cooper Countryman -- Top Safety Pick

To earn the top rating of “good” in the small overlap front crash test, the IIHS says automakers must focus on overall crash protection. “That means an occupant compartment that resists intrusion, safety belts that prevent a driver from pitching too far forward and side curtain airbags that provide enough forward coverage to cushion a head at risk of hitting the dashboard or window frame or things outside the vehicle,” IIHS says. “Collapsing structures can knock front airbags and seats out of position, exacerbating the problem.”

The Mini Cooper Countryman accomplished this more effectively than any other car in the latest group of 12, and is the only small car to earn a “good” rating in the small overlap front test.

Nolan says in the Status Update, “The Mini Cooper Countryman gave a solid performance. The Countryman's safety cage held up reasonably well. The safety belts and airbags worked together to control the test dummy's movement, and injury measures indicate a low risk of any significant injuries in a real-world crash this severe.”

The Countryman was introduced in 2011, IIHS notes, and is a larger four-door version of the two-door Mini Cooper (which has not been tested yet in 2014).

The overall “good” rating in the test includes an “acceptable” structure rating and a “good” rating for restraints and kinematics. The dummy injury measures received “good” ratings in all four categories as well.

The Countryman also received “good” ratings in the four other crash tests IIHS performed. However, the vehicle does not include a front crash prevention system, and therefore could not qualify as a Top Safety Pick+. It was, though, named a Top Safety Pick.

Ford C-Max Hybrid -- Top Safety Pick

The Ford C-Max Hybrid, a small four-door wagon, received an overall “acceptable” rating in the small overlap front crash test, which included a “marginal” rating for structure and an “acceptable” rating for restraints and kinematics.

The dummy injury measures received “good” ratings in all four categories. The C-Max Hybrid also earned “good” ratings in the four other crash tests performed. The vehicle qualifies as a Top Safety Pick based on the crash tests, but misses out as a Top Safety Pick+ as it does not include a front crash prevention system.

Mitsubishi Lancer -- Top Safety Pick

The Mitsubishi Lancer earned an overall “acceptable” small overlap front test rating by scoring “acceptable” for structure and “marginal” for restraints and kinematics.

Like the cars rated above it, the dummy injury measures were rated “good” in all four categories. The Lancer was named a Top Safety Pick, receiving “good” ratings in the IIHS’ four other crash tests, but lacking the front crash prevention system necessary for a Top Safety Pick+.

Scion FR-S -- Top Safety Pick

The Scion FR-S and the Subaru BRZ both earned overall “acceptable” small overlap front test ratings by receiving “marginal” structure ratings and “acceptable” restraints and kinematics ratings.

For the dummy injury measures, both small cars received “good” ratings in three of the four categories, but received “acceptable” in the lower leg and foot category.

Both cars also received “good” ratings in the IIHS’ four other tests, and both were named Top Safety Picks. The FR-S and BRZ lack front crash prevention systems.

Subaru BRZ -- Top Safety Pick

Scion xB

The Scion xB received an overall “marginal” small overlap front test rating by getting a “marginal” rating for both structure, and restraints and kinematics. Luckily for the dummy though, the xB earned “good” ratings in all four injury categories.

The xB received “good” ratings in IIHS’ four other tests, and the vehicle does not have a front crash prevention system.

Hyundai Veloster

The Hyundai Veloster also scored “marginal” for the small overlap front test, receiving “marginal” ratings for structure, and restraints and kinematics.

For the dummy injury measures, the Veloster received “good” ratings in thee of the four categories, but earned an “acceptable” rating for lower leg and foot. The Veloster scored “good” in the three of the four other IIHS tests, but received “acceptable” for the side crash test. The Veloster does not have a front crash prevention system.

Fiat 500L

The Fiat 500L is the first of four 2014 model small cars to receive an overall “poor” rating in the small overlap front test. All four cars received “poor” structure ratings, but the 500L scored the highest among the four in restraints and kinematics (“acceptable”).

Your hips and thighs could be in trouble if you get into the type of crash simulated by the IIHS small overlap front test, as that category scored “poor” in the dummy injury measures. Lower leg and foot was “acceptable.” The other two categories earned “good” ratings.

What went wrong for the 500L and the other cars receiving “poor” ratings for this test? The IIHS’ Nolan says the occupant compartment did not hold up. “A sturdy occupant compartment allows the restraint systems to do their job, absorbing energy and controlling occupant motion,” he says in the Status Update.

The IIHS goes into some detail in how the compartment was compromised, using the 500L as its example: “In the Fiat 500L, a four-door variant of the much smaller Fiat 500 coupe, intruding structure seriously compromised the driver's survival space, knocking the steering wheel back and to the right of the driver. That put the front airbag out of position so the dummy's head slid off the left side and hit the A-pillar. Although sensors in the head indicate the impact wasn't severe, contact with hard surfaces shouldn't occur.”

The IIHS adds that the dummy showed signs that would likely correlate to serious injuries to a driver’s left hip, and injuries to both lower legs would also be possible.

The 500L earned “good” ratings for the IIHS’ four other tests, but does not have a front crash prevention system.

Nissan Juke

The Nissan Juke scored an overall “poor” rating on the small overlap front test, receiving a “poor” structure rating and “marginal” rating for restraints and kinematics.

As for the dummy injury measures, the Juke earned “good” ratings in three of the four categories, but scored “poor” for lower leg and foot.

The Juke received “good” ratings for the IIHS’ four other tests, and does not have a front crash protection system.

Like the Fiat 500L, the Juke was done in by the occupant compartment on the small overlap front test.

Nissan Leaf

While the Volt earned an “acceptable” rating in the small overlap front test, the other electric car, the Nissan Leaf, struggled. The Leaf received a “poor” rating overall for the test due to a “poor” structure rating and “marginal” rating for restraints and kinematics.

In the dummy injury measures, the Leaf scored “good” for head and neck, and chest, but received a “marginal” rating for hip and thigh and a “poor” rating for lower leg and foot. “Significant intrusion left little survival space for the dummy, meaning likely knee and leg injuries,” says the IIHS. “The Leaf chalked up as much as 16 inches of intrusion in the lower occupant compartment and 14 inches in the upper occupant compartment. The instrument panel, parking brake pedal and steering column were all pushed back toward the driver.”

The Leaf received “good” ratings in the IIHS’ four other tests. It does not have a front crash prevention system.

Mazda 5

It was a tough go for the Mazda 5 in the small overlap front test. The small wagon scored the worst out of the 12 cars in the most recent test, getting “poor” ratings overall and for both structure and restraints and kinematics.

In the dummy injury measures, the Mazda 5 earned “good” ratings for head and neck, and chest, but received “poor” ratings for both hip and thigh, and lower leg and foot.

The Mazda 5 joins just two other cars—the 2014 Kia Forte (small car) and 2012 Toyota Prius v (midsize hybrid) as the worst performers in the small overlap front test.

Nolan says, “When we tested the Mazda 5, we saw a host of structural and restraint system problems. Parts of the occupant compartment essentially buckled, allowing way too much intrusion.”

The IIHS expands on the Mazda 5’s issues, noting that during the test, the steering wheel moved to the right, causing the dummy's head to barely make contact with the front airbag before sliding off the left side.

Furthermore, IIHS says, “The safety belt allowed the dummy's head and torso to move too far forward, so the head made contact with the left side of the dashboard. The side curtain airbag didn't deploy at all, exposing the head to contacts with side structure and outside objects.” Thedriver door also unlatched, “something that shouldn't happen and puts occupants at risk of being ejected from the vehicle,” says the IIHS.

The Mazda 5 did not sail through the four other IIHS tests either. While it earned “good” ratings for in the moderate overlap front test and in roof strength, it got an “acceptable” rating for head restraints and seats and a “marginal” rating in the side crash test. It is the only 2014 model to receive less than an “acceptable” rating in the side test, IIHS says.

“Measures taken from the driver dummy indicate a likely pelvis fracture, and measures taken from the dummy seated in the rear passenger seat indicate that rib fractures and/or other internal organ injuries would be possible in a crash of this severity,” the IIHS says.

The Mazda 5 does not have a front crash prevention system.

Below, Nolan provides insight into the small overlap front crash test: