[unclejjg]

Small SUV crash tests.......thanks for putting the Jeep on the front page despite the fact that others failed miserably too. Geesh.....

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2013/05/17/only-2-13-small-suvs-do-well-in-crash-tests/

 

[Dave Z]

Agreed... though I wouldn't say "failed miserably." It's a new test and the cars weren't designed for it.


... yes, they have to design to the test

 

[unclejjg]

Agreed... though I wouldn't say "failed miserably." It's a new test and the cars weren't designed for it.


... yes, they have to design to the test

Yeah, that comment was more tongue-in-cheek. The point being, how about giving us the national "favorite son" benefit and toss a picture of Kia up there first.

 

[Stratuscaster]

Context - all the media outlets have run with it "they failed this 'critical' crash test" - but it's not critical enough to be part of the mandated batch of tests, now is it?

 

[chuzz]

On a brighter note, I saw a brand new Jeep Cherokee limited today. It was gorgeous. Bright silver color. Didn't get to see the inside as he was flying past me at over 70mph in a 55 zone. It was raining and I'm not that crazy to try to catch up and try to get a look.

 

[SheltonBreeden]

For a sad, sad, sad flaming car wreck of a mess, head over to TTAC for their coverage.
It makes the DOJ thread look like a Sunday afternoon trip for ice cream.
Or avoid if you would rather not support click prostitution.

 

[MoparNorm]

Just a comment:

"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. "
Did everyone look closely at the steel and concrete barrier? It more approximates an army tank than a modern utility pole, which by the way are now designed to breakaway in an impact.
The Jeep Patriot shown, was one of the first vehicles to achieve a government 5 Star safety rating. It's a primary reason I purchased it for my daughter.

 

[Chris Monaco]

Honestly, it's scarier to know that the Wrangler was rated as Poor and Marginal (Wrangler and Wrangler Unlimited, respectively) in the IIHS Side Impact test. There's a consequence to having the doors be easily removable.

Previously working in a vehicle safety department, whenever I see a Wrangler driving on the streets without its doors, it makes me shiver.

 

[Dave Z]

It more approximates an army tank than a modern utility pole, which by the way are now designed to breakaway in an impact.

Though I agree with what you're saying, even our newest utility poles are made of wood, buried in dirt and cement. Unless they're genetically engineering them...

 

[dak4x4]

Given enough speed and immovability of the object the car impacts, any car can be destroyed. You can beef them up structurally and you get excess weight and more fuel consumption. These tests are interesting, but somewhat irrelevant to the real world.

 

[MoparNorm]

Though I agree with what you're saying, even our newest utility poles are made of wood, buried in dirt and cement. Unless they're genetically engineering them...

Wood poles and trees are unbendable, but evolving standards are removing them from roadside locations or moving them underground, albeit at a slow pace, especially if you happen to be the one running into them.
Metal and concrete lighting and power poles in CA use "shear" bolts designed to give way in an impact and pipe is giving way to perforated strap and angle, also designed to give way.
The best solution is to not run into things. We just lost 75 feet of property fencing because a professional truck driver was texting as he drove down our 25 mph street.

Bottom-line, we can't fix stupid, only mitigate it.

 

[geraldg]

I would love to see a Smart car in this test.

 

[Chris Monaco]

I would love to see a Smart car in this test.

Honestly, it probably would perform quite well. The Smart ForTwo's tridion safety cell is very well-designed. Its well-engineered structure and low weight (small amount of energy to be absorbed in a 30 mph front test) combine to earn it "Good" ratings across the board for all its front crash test ratings. The Smart cars actually appear to bounce back after a crash to prevent intrusion while safely holding its passengers inside.

However, its incredibly low weight puts it at an extreme disadvantage when colliding with SUVs.

 

[valiant67]

Honestly, it's scarier to know that the Wrangler was rated as Poor and Marginal (Wrangler and Wrangler Unlimited, respectively) in the IIHS Side Impact test. There's a consequence to having the doors be easily removable.

I noticed the Wrangler tested did not have the optional side air bags. I guess if I keep looking at Wrangles, I'll pay extra for those.

 

[Chris Monaco]

Given enough speed and immovability of the object the car impacts, any car can be destroyed. You can beef them up structurally and you get excess weight and more fuel consumption. These tests are interesting, but somewhat irrelevant to the real world.

While I do think these tests are relevant, I do see your point that they don't always simulate real world conditions. I would love for them to incorporate vehicle weight into the safety ratings. Otherwise, a five-star rated microcar appears just as safe as a five-star rated SUV, even though the SUV is clearly safer in a collision between the two.

However, if that was better advertised, everyone would be driving around in full-sive SUVs. Shame that even the best engineering can't eliminate the tradeoff between safety and fuel efficiency in terms of mass.

 

[MoparNorm]

Honestly, it probably would perform quite well. The Smart ForTwo's tridion safety cell is very well-designed. Its well-engineered structure and low weight (small amount of energy to be absorbed in a 30 mph front test) combine to earn it "Good" ratings across the board for all its front crash test ratings. The Smart cars actually appear to bounce back after a crash to prevent intrusion while safely holding its passengers inside.

However, its incredibly low weight puts it at an extreme disadvantage when colliding with SUVs.

Yep. You can't engineer mass...

 

[SouthPawXJ]

While I do think these tests are relevant, I do see your point that they don't always simulate real world conditions. I would love for them to incorporate vehicle weight into the safety ratings. Otherwise, a five-star rated microcar appears just as safe as a five-star rated SUV, even though the SUV is clearly safer in a collision between the two.

However, if that was better advertised, everyone would be driving around in full-sive SUVs. Shame that even the best engineering can't eliminate the tradeoff between safety and fuel efficiency in terms of mass.

Yep. You can't engineer mass...

Relevant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he6TL15pJtw

 

[Dave Z]

As I recall, the Smart car got a dismal safety rating when tested against a concrete barrier, “despite” the wonderful safety cage, etc.

I thought it would do well based on the Mercedes hype but that turned out to be as mistaken as Mercedes being the world's first car and truck (both, again, invented in France many many years earlier).

 

[Miles11]

While the tests are interesting to watch, I think we need to remember that IIHS is funded by the insurance companies. While I'm no conspiracy theorist, I have to assume they use the data they collect to help determine the insurance rates on various vehicles, whether the data has real-world relevence or not. I also think it's a little suspect that Honda did so well on the new offset tests because they "found out" the test was coming and designed their vehicle around it, while other manufacturers didn't. How exactly did they find out?

 

[MoparNorm]

Relevant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he6TL15pJtw

My legs! What happened to my legs?!
That was not pretty to watch.