fancy and pricey luxury makes fail crash testing.

I agree nfq. It's a bit unfair to spring a new test on cars of any price point and expect them to do well. I like my chances in my Mercedes compared to my Sunfire. I'm pretty sure that test would rip the little Pontiac into pieces.
 
It only makes sense that they would fail at a new test that's never been done before.
Essentially, they can make tougher front-end's but then you lose out on fuel economy and cost. So which is it?

Cost, Safety, Fuel Economy. Pick 2.

Until something out of Demolition Man comes to market, this is just another Insurance thing to raise rates haha.
 
Every time the auto manufacturers have the testing regimen figured out, the IIHS just comes up with a new test. It will always be possible to create an "OMG the sky is falling" scenario by making that new test something that was never envisioned when the current generation of production vehicles was designed.

You don't have to go back all that many years, to encounter a generation of vehicles that was designed without consideration for offset-frontal impacts at all.
 
Brian P said:
Every time the auto manufacturers have the testing regimen figured out, the IIHS just comes up with a new test. It will always be possible to create an "OMG the sky is falling" scenario by making that new test something that was never envisioned when the current generation of production vehicles was designed.

You don't have to go back all that many years, to encounter a generation of vehicles that was designed without consideration for offset-frontal impacts at all.
Click to expand...

I'm all for improved safety in cars. The article explains why.

If this raises the bar for safety again, so be it. Its a win for the consumer in the end.

What I really, really, really like about surveys such as these though, are the car makers who's cars ace the test, whether they planned for it or not.

Every carmaker preaches that they make safe cars, but the tests such as these ones prove which makers put their money where there mouth is.


BTW.... NFQ...... I love cars.....all kinds.... more than motorcycles.

.
 
Here's the best article I've seen on the subject yet....

http://blog.caranddriver.com/iihs-adds-new-frontal-crash-test-most-cars-expected-to-perform-poorly/


SunnY S said:
What I really, really, really like about surveys such as these though, are the car makers who's cars ace the test, whether they planned for it or not.

Every carmaker preaches that they make safe cars, but the tests such as these ones prove which makers put their money where there mouth is.

.
Click to expand...

This is what I'm talking about......

"The Volvo S60 did relatively well because since the late 1980s, Volvo has incorporated elements of the small overlap test into its own internal evaluations. The S60 features a diagonal brace that runs from the base of its A-pillar down to the end of the front structural bumper. So even though its bumper technically isn’t any wider than normal, the brace served as a sort of wedge during the IIHS’s test, deflecting the car away from the barrier instead of the firewall absorbing the brunt of the impact as did nearly every other car in the test."

Great thinking and engineering with advanced safety BEFORE gov't required tests.
 
Safety is going backwards.

The one thing that needs improving is the nut behind the wheel. Every latest safety gadget or aid just makes the average driver even more dangerous.

Improving driver training and testing would do more help than any anti yaw while sipping my latte override button could achieve.
 
Its tough to pick the type if crash you will be in, how about rollovers?

http://www.thedigitalcenter.com/assets/show/6378

ARLINGTON, VA — New test results show that some automakers are doing a good job of designing vehicle roofs that perform much better than current federal rollover standards require. The roofs on other vehicles need improvement. In the first Insurance Institute for Highway Safety roof strength tests of midsize SUVs, 6 earn the top rating of good for rollover protection, 1 is acceptable, and 5 others earn the second lowest rating of marginal.

Midsize SUVs earning good ratings are the 2010 Chevrolet Equinox (twin GMC Terrain) built after March 2010, Jeep Liberty (twin Dodge Nitro), Toyota Highlander and Venza, plus the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Kia Sorento, both 2011 models. The 2010 Ford Edge is rated acceptable. The worst performers, which earn marginal ratings, are the Honda Accord Crosstour, Honda Pilot, Mazda CX-7, Mitsubishi Endeavor, and Nissan Murano, all 2010 models.
 
murf said:
Its tough to pick the type if crash you will be in, how about rollovers?

http://www.thedigitalcenter.com/assets/show/6378
Click to expand...

IIHS reports that less than 3% of all crashes are "rollovers", an insignifcant number, as compared to frontal crashes.


murf said:
ARLINGTON, VA — New test results show that some automakers are doing a good job of designing vehicle roofs that perform much better than current federal rollover standards require. The roofs on other vehicles need improvement. In the first Insurance Institute for Highway Safety roof strength tests of midsize SUVs, 6 earn the top rating of good for rollover protection, 1 is acceptable, and 5 others earn the second lowest rating of marginal.

Midsize SUVs earning good ratings are the 2010 Chevrolet Equinox (twin GMC Terrain) built after March 2010, Jeep Liberty (twin Dodge Nitro), Toyota Highlander and Venza, plus the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Kia Sorento, both 2011 models. The 2010 Ford Edge is rated acceptable. The worst performers, which earn marginal ratings, are the Honda Accord Crosstour, Honda Pilot, Mazda CX-7, Mitsubishi Endeavor, and Nissan Murano, all 2010 models.
Click to expand...

Oh, and by the way, its not 2010 anymore.......

Lets see how the 2012 and 2013 models of these same vehicles are doing in rollover tests.

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/roof/detailsbyclass.aspx?55

:laughing3:
 
Last edited:
Just following up on Brians point of how new tests surprise automakers.
Notice how they improve on the next opportunity?
Also, rollovers are a much bigger issue with SUVs that have a higher CG.

Sounds pretty significant :
More than 62 percent of all SUV fatalities happen because the vehicle experiences a rollover.
 
Last edited:
mikbusa said:
I like my chances in my Mercedes compared to my Sunfire. I'm pretty sure that test would rip the little Pontiac into pieces.
Click to expand...

At least the crash would be quieter and more comfortable!
<grin>
 
SunnY S said:
IIHS reports that less than 3% of all crashes are "rollovers", an insignifcant number, as compared to frontal crashes.
Click to expand...

Rollovers are involved in a very disproportionate number of fatalities, though. Trucks and truck-based SUV's are over-represented in rollover collisions, by quite a bit.

Total frontal crashes probably includes the sort of 10 - 15 km/h "love tap" that is the most common collision of all.
 
murf said:
Just following up on Brians point of how new tests surprise automakers.
Notice how they improve on the next opportunity?
.
Click to expand...

As stated before, this is whats great about "surprise new tests", it shows which automakers we're ready and/or engineered extra safety margin in their cars.

People who browse the IIHS website are generally interested in cars they can buy tomorrow, not 3 years from now.

Shame that Suzuki has a dwindling market share, I've always thought the Kizashi (horrid name) was one of the makes best efforts for putting together a competent sedan.

O well, that leaves only one automaker that brought their A game to this latest test. :smilebox:
 
Brian P said:
Total frontal crashes probably includes the sort of 10 - 15 km/h "love tap" that is the most common collision of all.
Click to expand...

From the CNN link posted above......

"While the so-called "small overlap test" may seem extreme, it mimics a type of crash that, according to the Insurance Institute's research, accounts for nearly a quarter of frontal crashes that seriously injure or kill front seat occupants."

Well done to the IIHS for bringing this type of test on board and forcing manufacturers to improve.
Forum Sponsor
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom