That is what I thought. I did not think the side inpact crash looked as safe as the head on crash test. The Side Airbag looked good but what got me was the door seemed to cave in more than I would like. Since most of the idots on the road drive SUV and are women drivers on their cell phones I kind of worry about getting T-boned.
You can sort of tell the side impact is going as planned because both front & rear seats stay intact, both occupants heads hit squarely on their airbags (as indicated by the paint marks) and not on something hard or sharp, and there is not significant frame intrusion into the cabin, rather it flexes inward at the B-pillar (between the occupants) and crunches in a bit a the bottom of the door. (CT - please correct me if any of my quasi-analysis is way off base or you can add anything. . .).
However. . .it ranked "marginal" in "roof strength test," which is a brand new test designed to asses roof strength in a roll-over type incident (without actually rolling the vehicle over. . .it's tested by a big hydraulic metal plate crimping down on the vehicle). Here's an interesting article from 2010 mentioning that result, as well as a roof modification that I don't think ever happened, and I also read either in that article or somewhere else that (to paraphrase) "though the CT roof test was marginal, in NHTSA evasive maneuver tests the CT did well, thus its likelihood of rollover is not dire."