Only 2 of the 9 SUV's passed the safety crash tests

[travelnutz]

Most popular midsize SUVs FAIL crash tests with just two of GM's vehicles securing the top rating
The new Insurance Institute for Highway Safety crash tests looks at the safety of SUVs

Of nine models tested by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, only the Chevrolet Equinox and the GMC Terrain received the highest rating

But the Jeep Grand Cherokee, Toyota 4Runner and Ford Explorer got 'marginal' ratings, while the Kia Sorento, Mazda CX-9 and Honda Pilot all were rated 'poor.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2599413/Only-2-midsize-SUVs-rating-crash-tests.html#ixzz2yL1RELNk
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


ByAssociated Press

Published: 23:03 EST, 7 April 2014 | Updated: 11:42 EST, 8 April 2014


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2599413/Only-2-midsize-SUVs-rating-crash-tests.html#ixzz2yL0VOJOE
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[RedRocket204]

Fordlover wrote:
But IIHS always has to be looking for new improved ways to expose weaknesses in crush structure. Wonder what they'll come up with next? Perhaps an elephant sitting on the rear trunk while the car is filled with water and being fired at with a 50 cal? 😉

So, that happened to you too?

[Fordlover]

RoyJ wrote:

Lessmore wrote:

hammer21661 wrote:
Bigger is better. The more steel in it the safer I feel.

But, there's always something bigger.

What happens when a one ton dually hits a fully loaded Mack gravel truck head on...or a 3/4 ton pickup is involved in an accident with a locomotive.

There's lots of real big stuff out there in this world.

That's when you factor in probability - the chance of a Peterbilt hitting your dually is much lower than a Camry. Therefore, a pickup or big SUV is the sweetspot.

In occupational safety and hygiene, we use the term "ALARA", or as low as reasonably achievable. Here, we should apply the term ABARA, or as big as reasonably achievable. Achievable being practicality and affordability.

Multi vehicle vs single vehicle crash is almost always two sets of opposing criteria. The best single vehicle performer may be something like a Smart car, and the best multi crasher an M1 Abrams - nothing short of a D11 dozer can go up against one.

Getting hit by a big SUV in your Smart, or hitting an immovable mountain in your M1, both result in almost certain death...

I'd prefer to drive something that is nimble and able to avoid the accident all together. Which is why my daily driver is a powerful sports sedan, rather than a lumbering crew cab 8 foot bed dually. I chuckle when I see people commuting in these things.

[Fordlover]

Dadoffourgirls wrote:

Fordlover wrote:
This is a new test released by IIHS in 2012. As the SUV's are redesigned and updated they'll improve in this safety measure, as the Toyota did with it's 2014 redesign.

Cars.com:
Midsize SUVs aren't the only group struggling with this test. The small front overlap test has also proven difficult for many automakers and vehicle classes, including compact crossovers and compact sedans.

"The test is more difficult than either the head-on crashes conducted by the government or the longstanding IIHS moderate overlap test. In a small overlap test, the main structures of the vehicle's front-end crush zone are bypassed, making it hard for the vehicle to manage crash energy," IIHS said in a statement.

As you can see here, this test effectively shaves off the shell down the driver side of the vehicle. http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/ratings-info/frontal-crash-tests

Amazing how GM's met this requirement in their 2010 redesign!

It is, for sure. But I'd be much more interested in side impact, and moderate offset impact results while car shopping.

I've spent a lot of time in junkyards, and an accident with the small overlap type damage is extremely rare in my experience.

But IIHS always has to be looking for new improved ways to expose weaknesses in crush structure. Wonder what they'll come up with next? Perhaps an elephant sitting on the rear trunk while the car is filled with water and being fired at with a 50 cal? 😉

[Hannibal]

I wonder how an F350 would do if sandwiched between two large trucks? Our trucks aren't as solid as we like to think they are.

GM? Ah, who cares!

[RoyJ]

Lessmore wrote:

hammer21661 wrote:
Bigger is better. The more steel in it the safer I feel.

But, there's always something bigger.

What happens when a one ton dually hits a fully loaded Mack gravel truck head on...or a 3/4 ton pickup is involved in an accident with a locomotive.

There's lots of real big stuff out there in this world.

That's when you factor in probability - the chance of a Peterbilt hitting your dually is much lower than a Camry. Therefore, a pickup or big SUV is the sweetspot.

In occupational safety and hygiene, we use the term "ALARA", or as low as reasonably achievable. Here, we should apply the term ABARA, or as big as reasonably achievable. Achievable being practicality and affordability.

Multi vehicle vs single vehicle crash is almost always two sets of opposing criteria. The best single vehicle performer may be something like a Smart car, and the best multi crasher an M1 Abrams - nothing short of a D11 dozer can go up against one.

Getting hit by a big SUV in your Smart, or hitting an immovable mountain in your M1, both result in almost certain death...

[Lessmore]

hammer21661 wrote:
Bigger is better. The more steel in it the safer I feel.

But, there's always something bigger.

What happens when a one ton dually hits a fully loaded Mack gravel truck head on...or a 3/4 ton pickup is involved in an accident with a locomotive.

There's lots of real big stuff out there in this world.

[intheburbs]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:
LOL, aaaaaaaaa as you can see from the title of this thread, your big hunk of SUV steel did not do too well in crash tests now did it. Only 2 of 9 passed the test.

Ok, I'm going to make this simple so you might be able to understand.

1) These are midsize SUVs. No full-size vehicles were mentioned. Did you even read the article?

2) If you did read the article, you would have seen this:

The SUVs generally performed well on six crash test measurements done by the institute.

So, out of seven tests, they only had problems with one. I like those odds.

3) Another quote, if you actually read the article:

The test 'continues to challenge manufacturers more than a year and a half after its introduction,' the institute said in a statement.

The institute uses its crash test scores to prod automakers into adding safety devices or making their cars more crash-resistant.

So, IIHS is constantly moving the goalposts to nag manufacturers into making more and more changes to the vehicles. I agree with continuous improvement, but when is enough enough?

ETA: And I found this nugget on another site:

The new test is far more demanding on the vehicle structure than the 40% offset test. In the first round of test, most vehicles did poorly; only three vehicles got "good" or "acceptable" ratings.

So, ALL vehicles do poorly in this test, not just SUVs. Maybe the writer of the article might have an agenda?

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

intheburbs wrote:

McDonoughDawg wrote:
Properly designed crumple zone absorb energy and dissipate it much better than a big hunk of steel...but some of you continue on with your feelings about the more steel the better.

Yes, I'll take my bigger hunk of steel AND properly designed crumple zones. I like to have my cake, and eat it, too. My truck weighs 6500 lbs - I'll let my daughter drive that, instead of a Fiat 500 or Beetle.

Turtle n Peeps wrote:
You might want to rethink your statement. 🙂

This video is pointless. Where's the picture of the bunny with a pancake on his head? A 55 year-old car doesn't fare as well in a crash as a brand-new car? Holy crap! That's headline news! Where are Joan Claybrook and Ralph Nader?

LOL, aaaaaaaaa as you can see from the title of this thread, your big hunk of SUV steel did not do too well in crash tests now did it. Only 2 of 9 passed the test.

[intheburbs]

McDonoughDawg wrote:
Properly designed crumple zone absorb energy and dissipate it much better than a big hunk of steel...but some of you continue on with your feelings about the more steel the better.

Yes, I'll take my bigger hunk of steel AND properly designed crumple zones. I like to have my cake, and eat it, too. My truck weighs 6500 lbs - I'll let my daughter drive that, instead of a Fiat 500 or Beetle.

Turtle n Peeps wrote:
You might want to rethink your statement. 🙂

This video is pointless. Where's the picture of the bunny with a pancake on his head? A 55 year-old car doesn't fare as well in a crash as a brand-new car? Holy crap! That's headline news! Where are Joan Claybrook and Ralph Nader?

[agesilaus]

If you are basing your claim on 55 year old vehicles vs a current vehicle then you might have a point. I'm not sure what the weight differential was between those cars either.

Do you have a video of a 2014 Suburban vs a 2014 Cobalt? Or a 2014 Cooper vs a 2014 Ford F350?

Oh here you go:

2 cars vs 1 MDT

Looks like the truck might have cracked a headlight.

And this video directly addresses the question:

Little vs a little bigger

You can't break Newton's Laws (assuming you are in a non-relativistic frame of reference)

or

Pickup vs car


I would rather have been in the pickup on this one.

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

agesilaus wrote:
That may be true for hitting a immovable object, but if the collision is with another smaller vehicle, then the smaller vehicle will take most of the energy and damage.

That comes from the physics of inelastic collisions.

You might want to rethink your statement. 🙂

[agesilaus]

That may be true for hitting a immovable object, but if the collision is with another smaller vehicle, then the smaller vehicle will take most of the energy and damage.

That comes from the physics of inelastic collisions.

[McDonoughDawg]

Properly designed crumple zone absorb energy and dissipate it much better than a big hunk of steel...but some of you continue on with your feelings about the more steel the better.

Drive safe, don't get distracted, be defensive....slow down and enjoy the ride.

[Dadoffourgirls]

Fordlover wrote:
This is a new test released by IIHS in 2012. As the SUV's are redesigned and updated they'll improve in this safety measure, as the Toyota did with it's 2014 redesign.

Cars.com:
Midsize SUVs aren't the only group struggling with this test. The small front overlap test has also proven difficult for many automakers and vehicle classes, including compact crossovers and compact sedans.

"The test is more difficult than either the head-on crashes conducted by the government or the longstanding IIHS moderate overlap test. In a small overlap test, the main structures of the vehicle's front-end crush zone are bypassed, making it hard for the vehicle to manage crash energy," IIHS said in a statement.

As you can see here, this test effectively shaves off the shell down the driver side of the vehicle. http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/ratings-info/frontal-crash-tests

Amazing how GM's met this requirement in their 2010 redesign!

[Fordlover]

This is a new test released by IIHS in 2012. As the SUV's are redesigned and updated they'll improve in this safety measure, as the Toyota did with it's 2014 redesign.

Cars.com:
Midsize SUVs aren't the only group struggling with this test. The small front overlap test has also proven difficult for many automakers and vehicle classes, including compact crossovers and compact sedans.

"The test is more difficult than either the head-on crashes conducted by the government or the longstanding IIHS moderate overlap test. In a small overlap test, the main structures of the vehicle's front-end crush zone are bypassed, making it hard for the vehicle to manage crash energy," IIHS said in a statement.

As you can see here, this test effectively shaves off the shell down the driver side of the vehicle. http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/ratings-info/frontal-crash-tests