Only 2 of 13 small SUVs do well in crash tests
05-16-13, 08:43 PM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Only 2 of 13 small SUVs do well in crash tests
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/only-2...133503625.html
Funded by Insurance companies FYI
Funded by Insurance companies FYI
DETROIT (AP) — Only two of 13 small SUVs performed well in front-end crash tests done by an insurance industry group, with several popular models faring poorly in the evaluations.
Subaru's 2014 Forester was the only vehicle to get the top "good" rating in the results released Thursday. The 2013 Mitsubishi Outlander Sport was rated as "acceptable." But fast-selling models such as the Ford Escape, Honda CR-V and Jeep Wrangler received only "marginal" or "poor" ratings from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
Small and midsize SUVs, which get decent gas mileage and have the cargo and passenger space of larger SUVs, are among the fastest-growing segments of the U.S. auto market. Sales grew 50 percent from 2005 to last year, when U.S. consumers bought more than 2.5 million of them, according to Ward's AutoInfoBank.
The IIHS ratings are influential because many auto shoppers find them while researching vehicles on the Internet. The group says its crash tests and ratings are designed to get automakers to improve the crashworthiness of their vehicles.
The ratings are for the institute's "small overlap" crash test that covers only 25 percent of a vehicle's front end. The test was added to the IIHS evaluations last year, with the institute aiming to push automakers into bolstering the crash resistance of their vehicles.
The group's tests are more stringent than the U.S. government's full-width front crash test. The institute says that in many vehicles, a crash affecting one-quarter of the front end misses the main structures designed to absorb the impact of a crash. Yet such crashes account for nearly a quarter of the collisions that cause serious or fatal injuries to people in the front seats, IIHS said.
The new Ford Escape, the top-selling small SUV so far this year, got a "poor" overall rating, while Honda's CR-V, the No. 2 seller, got a "marginal" rating. Toyota's RAV-4, another big seller, hasn't done the testing yet because Toyota asked for a delay to improve the vehicle's structure, the IIHS said.
Other SUVs getting "poor" ratings were the Jeep Patriot, Buick Encore, Kia Sportage and Hyundai Tuscson, the institute said. The BMW X1, Nissan Rogue, Mazda CX-5, Volkswagen Tiguan and Jeep Wrangler two-door all got "marginal" ratings.
Ford said in a statement that the Escape is safe because it is equipped with advanced safety features and a structure designed to manage the impact of a crash. But the company said it takes new developments in crash performance seriously.
The Forester and Outlander Sport each received the IIHS' coveted "Top Safety Pick Plus" award because they performed well in multiple tests including the small offset crash. Many of the other SUVs, including the Escape and CR-V, won "Top Safety Pick" designations, but didn't get the "plus" due to their performance in the small offset tests. Only 20 vehicles across all car segments have received the IIHS "Top Safety Pick Plus" award.
"With the redesigned Forester, Subaru's engineers set out to do well in our new test, and they succeeded," Joe Nolan, the institute's vice president of vehicle research, said in a statement. "This is exactly how we hoped manufacturers would respond to improve protection."
All SUVs tested, except the Forester, were 2012 or 2013 models. The institute said tests of 2012 models were valid because no significant design changes were made between model years.
Honda said in a statement that the CR-V earned a Top Safety Pick award, which was the best when it was introduced in 2011. The company would not comment when asked if it's reworking the CR-V so it does better in the small offset test.
Chrysler said the Wrangler and Patriot both meet or exceed all government safety requirements and perform well in real-world driving. Like most of the vehicles tested, both were designed before the IIHS added the small offset test.
The IIHS tests have a big impact on car-buying decisions because people are concerned about safety when they shift to smaller vehicles, said Jeff Schuster, senior vice president of auto sales forecasting for LMC Automotive, an industry consulting firm. People buy the small SUVs, which also are called crossovers, or CUVs, because they perceive them to be safer than cars, he said.
The test results "could impact sales of these models, but more so with families and with parents purchasing these for their kids," he said in an email.
IIHS conducts its small offset test by crashing vehicles into a fixed 5-foot-tall barrier at 40 mph to simulate collisions with a utility pole or tree. The institute gives vehicles demerits when the structure intrudes into the passenger compartment, or if a crash dummy suffers injuries to head, neck, chest or other parts of the body. The group also measures how well seat belts and air bags protect people. "Good" is the top rating, followed by "acceptable," then "marginal" and "poor."
IIHS is a nonprofit research group funded by auto insurance companies.
Subaru's 2014 Forester was the only vehicle to get the top "good" rating in the results released Thursday. The 2013 Mitsubishi Outlander Sport was rated as "acceptable." But fast-selling models such as the Ford Escape, Honda CR-V and Jeep Wrangler received only "marginal" or "poor" ratings from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
Small and midsize SUVs, which get decent gas mileage and have the cargo and passenger space of larger SUVs, are among the fastest-growing segments of the U.S. auto market. Sales grew 50 percent from 2005 to last year, when U.S. consumers bought more than 2.5 million of them, according to Ward's AutoInfoBank.
The IIHS ratings are influential because many auto shoppers find them while researching vehicles on the Internet. The group says its crash tests and ratings are designed to get automakers to improve the crashworthiness of their vehicles.
The ratings are for the institute's "small overlap" crash test that covers only 25 percent of a vehicle's front end. The test was added to the IIHS evaluations last year, with the institute aiming to push automakers into bolstering the crash resistance of their vehicles.
The group's tests are more stringent than the U.S. government's full-width front crash test. The institute says that in many vehicles, a crash affecting one-quarter of the front end misses the main structures designed to absorb the impact of a crash. Yet such crashes account for nearly a quarter of the collisions that cause serious or fatal injuries to people in the front seats, IIHS said.
The new Ford Escape, the top-selling small SUV so far this year, got a "poor" overall rating, while Honda's CR-V, the No. 2 seller, got a "marginal" rating. Toyota's RAV-4, another big seller, hasn't done the testing yet because Toyota asked for a delay to improve the vehicle's structure, the IIHS said.
Other SUVs getting "poor" ratings were the Jeep Patriot, Buick Encore, Kia Sportage and Hyundai Tuscson, the institute said. The BMW X1, Nissan Rogue, Mazda CX-5, Volkswagen Tiguan and Jeep Wrangler two-door all got "marginal" ratings.
Ford said in a statement that the Escape is safe because it is equipped with advanced safety features and a structure designed to manage the impact of a crash. But the company said it takes new developments in crash performance seriously.
The Forester and Outlander Sport each received the IIHS' coveted "Top Safety Pick Plus" award because they performed well in multiple tests including the small offset crash. Many of the other SUVs, including the Escape and CR-V, won "Top Safety Pick" designations, but didn't get the "plus" due to their performance in the small offset tests. Only 20 vehicles across all car segments have received the IIHS "Top Safety Pick Plus" award.
"With the redesigned Forester, Subaru's engineers set out to do well in our new test, and they succeeded," Joe Nolan, the institute's vice president of vehicle research, said in a statement. "This is exactly how we hoped manufacturers would respond to improve protection."
All SUVs tested, except the Forester, were 2012 or 2013 models. The institute said tests of 2012 models were valid because no significant design changes were made between model years.
Honda said in a statement that the CR-V earned a Top Safety Pick award, which was the best when it was introduced in 2011. The company would not comment when asked if it's reworking the CR-V so it does better in the small offset test.
Chrysler said the Wrangler and Patriot both meet or exceed all government safety requirements and perform well in real-world driving. Like most of the vehicles tested, both were designed before the IIHS added the small offset test.
The IIHS tests have a big impact on car-buying decisions because people are concerned about safety when they shift to smaller vehicles, said Jeff Schuster, senior vice president of auto sales forecasting for LMC Automotive, an industry consulting firm. People buy the small SUVs, which also are called crossovers, or CUVs, because they perceive them to be safer than cars, he said.
The test results "could impact sales of these models, but more so with families and with parents purchasing these for their kids," he said in an email.
IIHS conducts its small offset test by crashing vehicles into a fixed 5-foot-tall barrier at 40 mph to simulate collisions with a utility pole or tree. The institute gives vehicles demerits when the structure intrudes into the passenger compartment, or if a crash dummy suffers injuries to head, neck, chest or other parts of the body. The group also measures how well seat belts and air bags protect people. "Good" is the top rating, followed by "acceptable," then "marginal" and "poor."
IIHS is a nonprofit research group funded by auto insurance companies.
05-16-13, 08:50 PM
#2
Lexus Test Driver
Just as I predicted. Today, the news media reported these cars performed poorly, but did not explain this was the new, tough offest test that everyone is struggling with. Poor reporting as usual.
These are safe vehicles being subjected to an extremely rare type of crash. The majority of frontend accidents involve hitting wide objects such as other cars, spreading the impact across the width of the vehicle.
These are safe vehicles being subjected to an extremely rare type of crash. The majority of frontend accidents involve hitting wide objects such as other cars, spreading the impact across the width of the vehicle.
05-16-13, 09:57 PM
#6
Yet such crashes account for nearly a quarter of the collisions that cause serious or fatal injuries to people in the front seats, IIHS said.
I have no doubt my current vehicles most likely would not fare well in this type of test, but I'm not going to go get rid of them because of it either... Just saying it is a potential concern and something I would look into, in the future...
05-17-13, 05:01 AM
#7
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
"IIHS conducts its small offset test by crashing vehicles into a fixed 5-foot-tall barrier at 40 mph to simulate collisions with a utility pole or tree."
does anyone here know anyone who has ever done that?
does anyone here know anyone who has ever done that?
Trending Topics
05-17-13, 05:22 AM
#8
I remember a kid from high school took out a utility pole... dont remember much about it though... just search Google images for "car hit utility pole and you'll see the dramatic results... hit just right, they are capable of splitting a car in half at even what I consider slower speeds, below 60 mph...
05-17-13, 06:33 AM
#9
Pole Position
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you travel at 20mph and hit an oncoming car at 20mph off centre, it's the same thing.
05-17-13, 09:02 AM
#12
Lexus Fanatic
In some cases, even with more airbags and better-designed crumple-zones, the thinner, more lightweight materials that go into the design of these CUVs these days (as compared to previous versions) aren't doing the crashworthiness of these vehicles any good. An additional issue (which the article doesn't address) is that the relatively tall height of these vehicles, in relation to their length and width, raises the center of gravity somewhat compared to small sedans, and makes them more potentially unstable in handling and more likely to flip over. The vehicle-stability systems help to some extent, but the best remedy (besides sensible driving) is the Roll-Control stability system, which many SUVs don't have because of the remaining Ford/Volvo patent on the system (it was Volvo-developed).
05-17-13, 10:26 AM
#13
Lexus Champion
Considering how the fender or doorskin on cars and light trucks is easily dented even at low speeds (much below 40mph), I don't think that the thickness of the sheet metal is going to help crashworthiness much. What does help crashworthiness at these higher speeds (40mph) is how the structure underneath the skin is designed.
If we are testing only full, head-on (100% overlap) crashes, as the American National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) conducts, that is relatively easy to pass. Design the front-end frame rail extensions (the structure that the engine and suspension are attached to) to deform (crush zone), absorbing the forces of the crash before it reaches the passenger compartment structure.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) conducts a medium-overlap (40% overlap) front crash test. This is harder to pass because one of the 2 front-end frame rail extensions bears much more of the forces from the crash than the other. The bumper and the rest of the front-end structure helps by spreading some of those forces to the other frame rail but even that may not be enough; the floor and the other structures of the passenger compartment have to be designed to absorb and deflect the forces away from the passengers. What has also helped increase survivability of these medium-offset crashes are the passenger restraints, the seatbelts and front airbags.
The IIHS and NHTSA also test side crashes. Door beams and side airbags (both seat mounted and side curtain airbags) have helped survivability.
The small-overlap (25%) crash test conducted by the IIHS is the newest test. Even more forces are placed on the frame rail extension on the crashed side and much, much less forces on the other frame rail, and side forces may start to be applied to the frame rail extension, which it may not have been designed for. It is getting harder to make those front frame rail extensions crashworthy and more forces will be placed on the passenger structure as a result. Shortcomings in airbag design may now be seen: there may be enough of a gap between the front airbag and the side curtain airbag that the driver's or passenger's head may hit the A-pillar. Covering that gap (if possible) will probably help. What will also have to be done is strengthening the floor of the passenger compartment. Stronger steel may help and I am thinking that how the various components in this area are joined may help also; more welds and/or adhesives in the front corner floor area may help. This technique may be possible without a great (and expensive) re-design.
Roll-over tendency is assessed by the NHTSA but not the IIHS, which tests only crashworthiness and survivability. The IIHS conducts roof crush test to make sure the passenger cabin does not deform too much after a rollover.
If we are testing only full, head-on (100% overlap) crashes, as the American National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) conducts, that is relatively easy to pass. Design the front-end frame rail extensions (the structure that the engine and suspension are attached to) to deform (crush zone), absorbing the forces of the crash before it reaches the passenger compartment structure.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) conducts a medium-overlap (40% overlap) front crash test. This is harder to pass because one of the 2 front-end frame rail extensions bears much more of the forces from the crash than the other. The bumper and the rest of the front-end structure helps by spreading some of those forces to the other frame rail but even that may not be enough; the floor and the other structures of the passenger compartment have to be designed to absorb and deflect the forces away from the passengers. What has also helped increase survivability of these medium-offset crashes are the passenger restraints, the seatbelts and front airbags.
The IIHS and NHTSA also test side crashes. Door beams and side airbags (both seat mounted and side curtain airbags) have helped survivability.
The small-overlap (25%) crash test conducted by the IIHS is the newest test. Even more forces are placed on the frame rail extension on the crashed side and much, much less forces on the other frame rail, and side forces may start to be applied to the frame rail extension, which it may not have been designed for. It is getting harder to make those front frame rail extensions crashworthy and more forces will be placed on the passenger structure as a result. Shortcomings in airbag design may now be seen: there may be enough of a gap between the front airbag and the side curtain airbag that the driver's or passenger's head may hit the A-pillar. Covering that gap (if possible) will probably help. What will also have to be done is strengthening the floor of the passenger compartment. Stronger steel may help and I am thinking that how the various components in this area are joined may help also; more welds and/or adhesives in the front corner floor area may help. This technique may be possible without a great (and expensive) re-design.
Roll-over tendency is assessed by the NHTSA but not the IIHS, which tests only crashworthiness and survivability. The IIHS conducts roof crush test to make sure the passenger cabin does not deform too much after a rollover.
05-17-13, 10:46 AM
#14
Lexus Fanatic
Considering how the fender or doorskin on cars and light trucks is easily dented even at low speeds (much below 40mph), I don't think that the thickness of the sheet metal is going to help crashworthiness much. What does help crashworthiness at these higher speeds (40mph) is how the structure underneath the skin is designed.
05-17-13, 10:56 AM
#15
Higher strength steels are used in chassis these days, giving greater strength but less weight, so add in computer designed crumple zones that theory really doesn't fly.
Last edited by Big Andy; 05-17-13 at 11:00 AM.