Most Small SUV's Fail IIHS Side Impact Crash Tests

[tnitsuj]

Link

 

[T3C]

not suprising

 

[bunker]

"The test is not as realistic as it could be," said Bilek, whose publication does not accept advertising from automakers or dealers. He said the movable barrier that the IIHS uses has less give to it than another vehicle, which is designed to crumple on impact. And he said the higher impact zone is not necessarily the best indicator of an accident with a larger vehicle.

"In most side impact, the impacting vehicle is full on brakes, which forces it lower," he said. "There's nothing wrong with giving people this information. Just don't make it your only decision on buying the car based on it. You should look at NHTSA and other information as well."

 

[NFS4]

I knew that the Element's lack of a cente B pillar would bite it in the ass. POS

 

[rufruf44]

Originally posted by: NFS4
I knew that the Element's lack of a cente B pillar would bite it in the ass. POS

To be fair, the RAV4 also a deathtrap despite the B pillar

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: rufruf44

Originally posted by: NFS4
I knew that the Element's lack of a cente B pillar would bite it in the ass. POS

To be fair, the RAV4 also a deathtrap despite the B pillar

You wouldn't see me in that tiny POS either

 

[LordMorpheus]

cleaning the gene pool, I see.

(note: why a 'small' SUV? I mean, they have no offroad capabilities, don't carry more people than a car, and have much less space than a similair sized pickup. Anyone who buys one is . . . . well, not EVERYONE, but the people I know who have bought one . . . well, this failure is a good sign for humanity)

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: LordMorpheus
cleaning the gene pool, I see.

(note: why a 'small' SUV? I mean, they have no offroad capabilities, don't carry more people than a car, and have much less space than a similair sized pickup. Anyone who buys one is . . . . well, not EVERYONE, but the people I know who have bought one . . . well, this failure is a good sign for humanity)

They have 4WD that can take them through your regular snowstorm. It's better than 2WD anyday, anyway as far as that goes. Gas effeciency (which is not being argued here) is another matter.

 

[Whisper]

All I can say is...

Goooooooo Subaru!

 

[RossMAN]

Originally posted by: Whisper
All I can say is...

Goooooooo Subaru!

Yep

It cracks me up how Mitsubishi SUV's ALWAYS are dead last in any crash test.

 

[KokomoGST]

I'm curious as to how regular sedans would holdup to those tests?
Also, wouldn't small SUVs also be sent rolling if struck on the side while they were also moving? I wonder if they tested that... roll likelihood?

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Whisper
All I can say is...

Goooooooo Subaru!

Yep. Subaru has been making some really good leaps of late. Better engines and now safety.

"Subaru Forester performed the best in a side impact crash test"

 

[Encryptic]

Originally posted by: NFS4
I knew that the Element's lack of a cente B pillar would bite it in the ass. POS

The Element is butt-ugly anyways. What possessed Honda to produce that abortion, I can't imagine. Guess they slept with Pontiac.

 

[iamwiz82]

i find it really funny that the wrangler did better so many other vehicles. Not bad for having removeable doors.

 

[Ryan]

The funny thing is, Honda only submitted it's CRV WITHOUT the optional side impact air bags, while Ford did (which is no doubt why they got such a good rating). When given the opportunity to have the CRV re-tested with the airbags, Honda did not resubmit the CRV

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: rbloedow
The funny thing is, Honda only submitted it's CRV WITHOUT the optional side impact air bags, while Ford did (which is no doubt why they got such a good rating). When given the opportunity to have the CRV re-tested with the airbags, Honda did not resubmit the CRV

That would be too smart!

 

[AsianriceX]

Originally posted by: rbloedow
The funny thing is, Honda only submitted it's CRV WITHOUT the optional side impact air bags, while Ford did (which is no doubt why they got such a good rating). When given the opportunity to have the CRV re-tested with the airbags, Honda did not resubmit the CRV

I watched the original airing on Dateline NBC and they stated that Ford resubmitted their car with the side air bags using their money. Now I still don't understand why Honda wouldn't put up the cash for another vehicle so they could get a better rating.

 

[Vadatajs]

Originally posted by: bunker
"The test is not as realistic as it could be," said Bilek, whose publication does not accept advertising from automakers or dealers. He said the movable barrier that the IIHS uses has less give to it than another vehicle, which is designed to crumple on impact. And he said the higher impact zone is not necessarily the best indicator of an accident with a larger vehicle.

"In most side impact, the impacting vehicle is full on brakes, which forces it lower," he said. "There's nothing wrong with giving people this information. Just don't make it your only decision on buying the car based on it. You should look at NHTSA and other information as well."

Tell that to the Yukon that was completely owned by a taurus right in front of my apartment building. Plus, I would grade the safety of cars based on the WORST case. You can still get tboned by a tractor trailer after all.