| wmquan |
This is a new side-impact crash test, though the MDX has not yet been tested. But it'll be very interesting to see how the MDX fares.
The Honda CR-V, previous 5-stars in the government side-impact test, got only a "marginal" in this new test.
IIHS has been working on a more "modern" side-impact crash test for some time. The current one, done by NHTSA, simulates a relatively small vehicle hitting the test subject -- something the size of a Toyota Corolla.
The theory has always been that a vehicle's side-impact protection system would perform fairly well against a vehicle of that height (e.g. doors match up pretty well against the nose of the intruding vehicle). But the concern has always been that getting t-boned by a taller vehicle (e.g. an SUV) was going to do a lot more damage. Much of the vehicle's nose hits high on the door and into the window area.
This shows how the IIHS test (on the right) uses a more SUV-ish barrier than the NHTSA test (on the left).
This is where side curtain airbags could help, but until now, there hasn't been much empirical test measurement.
The IIHS test uses a higher barrier, to simulate an SUV hitting you. Sure enough, in their first test series, some test subjects do well, but some do NOT.
Here are the results:
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings..._smsuv_side.htm
Here is the release summary:
http://www.iihs.org/news_releases/2003/pr061703.htm
One thing I don't like about this is that it'll be used by those anti-SUV folks out there. There's no coincidence that IIHS themselves elected small SUV's as the initial test subjects, figuring that they'd do the worse out of the SUV class.
Also, some of the vehicles tested were available with conventional side airbags (for the chest) but IIHS didn't buy those models. That'll make some vehicles do worse (like the CR-V LX which didn't have side airbags). Though it's unclear how much better those vehicles would have done with the side airbags (and the CR-V doesn't have head-protection airbags like side curtains).
Nevertheless, this is an important new crash test that will certainly be factored in my future vehicle purchasing decisions (along with many other points of info). |
|
|
| wmquan |
Here's an interesting item that IIHS mentions:
quote:
... when side airbags are optional the Institute tests vehicles without this option. If a manufacturer selling optional side airbags requests the Institute to conduct an additional test of a vehicle with this option and agrees to reimburse the cost of the vehicle, a second test is conducted. General Motors didn't request such a test for the VUE, but Ford did request a test of the Escape with optional side airbags. The Honda CR-V and Mitsubishi Outlander have optional side airbags to protect the thorax, but neither manufacturer requested a second test with this option.
This seems equitable to me. Let the manufacturer pay for part of an extra test if they want to defend the fact that they make side airbags optional. They only have to reimburse the cost of the vehicle, not pay for the test process itself. IIHS even tells the manufacturer how the non-equipped vehicle will perform.
It is curious that Honda did not request a second test of a side-airbag-equipped CR-V. It would have cost them about $22k -- petty cash for Honda. Why the heck did they leave that "marginal" score hanging out there?
Here's the conspiracy theory: Honda knows that a side-airbag-equipped CR-V still won't do as well as the Forester and Escape in the new IIHS test. They don't want IIHS to release that result and look bad. They'd rather leave doubt in people's minds ("buy the side airbag and you'll be fine, don't worry"). And perhaps later Honda will make side airbags standard equipment in all CR-V's, figuring that IIHS won't retest the current generation. Or, more likely, Honda will add side curtain airbags and pay the IIHS to test that one.
Honda knows exactly how the CR-V with side airbags would have done. Honda has become the expert at predicting how their vehicles will do in crash tests (they've predicted the IIHS and NHTSA scores of the CR-V, Odyssey, MDX, Pilot, RSX, etc.). The IIHS side-impact test, while new, has had its methodology public for a while. They've probably already run the test internally and realized that the lack of head-protection in the CR-V's side airbag would only improve their score, but not match the Forester's, or the airbag-equipped Escape.
Anyway, it's only a conspiracy theory and we don't have proof. But why else wouldn't Honda fork over the cost of a CR-V? |
|
|
| tigmd99 |
That's the problem with recent cars! Most manufacturer will do ONLY so much (or as little as possible) to do good on CURRENT crash tests. If you change a single variable, then everything goes down the drain!
As i have stated in the past, Honda/Acura seems to only do so much to do well on current tests. Why?? Because up until now, federal/government crash tests use a low bumper...thus, Acura's thorax side airbags was enough to get a good score. The lack of side curtain airbags on Acura brandnames is totally unacceptable! Honda, i can understand...but not a luxury brandname who is competing against the likes of Mercedes, BMW, Lexus, and Infiniti. If you notice, even Infiniti offers side-curtain airbags on ALL of their new models (QX4 is old design).
Just wait until IIHS tests the Acura TL vs. others in this new side crash test. Acura will be embarrassed! It will likely have the worst result of everyone else in it's class.
MDX?? Well, it is higher off the ground, so that's a good thing. However, the IIHS test clearly demonstrate the NEED for side curtain airbags. Simply, there is always another car that has a high bumper (F350, Excursion, lifted trucks, etc.).
In my opinion, this is where German cars/SUVs separate from competition. Mercedes, for example, crash tests their cars like crazy in all scenarios. Thus, Mercedes cars are often the safest around. Mercedes (despite crappy quality) will do extremely well on all crash tests. Honda/Acura (and to a lesser extent Toyota/Lexus) seems to do only so much (and as little as possible) to achieve good scores on current tests. :( The only saving grace to Toyota is that they do offer side-curtain airbags on all Lexus models. |
|
|
| A2MDXer |
quote:
Originally posted by tigmd99
As i have stated in the past, Honda/Acura seems to only do so much to do well on current tests. Why?? Because up until now, federal/government crash tests use a low bumper...thus, Acura's thorax side airbags was enough to get a good score. The lack of side curtain airbags on Acura brandnames is totally unacceptable! Honda, i can understand...but not a luxury brandname who is competing against the likes of Mercedes, BMW, Lexus, and Infiniti. If you notice, even Infiniti offers side-curtain airbags on ALL of their new models (QX4 is old design).
...Honda/Acura (and to a lesser extent Toyota/Lexus) seems to do only so much (and as little as possible) to achieve good scores on current tests. :( The only saving grace to Toyota is that they do offer side-curtain airbags on all Lexus models.
Thai,
Before you start beating the drum for Toyota/Lexus please notice that the CRV significantly outperformed the RAV4 (Toyota's competitor to the CRV) - and don't try to say that the Toyota is not a Lexus b/c you are grouping the Hondas and Acuras together - bottom line is neither Honda nor Toyota had a good showing here but the Honda is clearly better than its Toyota counterpart. And before you accuse me of Honda/Acura bias, remember that I have a RAV4 so these results (while not for my model year) concern me a bit. |
|
|
| wmquan |
Thai, wow, long post. I've quoted pieces of it and, to try to make it more readable, highlighted parts of responses.
quote:
Originally posted by tigmd99
That's the problem with recent cars! Most manufacturer will do ONLY so much (or as little as possible) to do good on CURRENT crash tests. If you change a single variable, then everything goes down the drain!
Agreed. I think Honda especially knows that a lot of their buyers look at crash test results, and has focused on them. That is, really, a good thing -- the alternative is to do horribly in them. But I'm not convinced that Honda has brought safety levels up in all ways, besides current crash tests. E.g. the MDX does great in current crash tests, but is the roof as strong as an ML350, let alone an XC90? Doubtful.
But without empirical crash tests, one isn't sure.
The same goes for the Lexus RX300 and probably the new RX330. The RX300 did well on crash tests, but I've seen some pretty bad roof pillar crushing. Obviously anecdotal crashes doesn't prove that its roof pillars are weak, but I suspect that they are.
quote:
As i have stated in the past, Honda/Acura seems to only do so much to do well on current tests. ... The lack of side curtain airbags on Acura brandnames is totally unacceptable! ...
Agreed that Honda in general has been horribly late in putting out side curtain airbags. I mean, seriously, after seeing these type of results, why would anyone buy a sedan/coupe or small SUV without side curtain airbags?j As you said, a mid-sized SUV does ride higher and may do better than a small SUV, but I suspect that vehicles like the MDX won't do as well. So we're also getting to the point where some won't buy ANY vehicle without side curtains.
But you do have to give Honda huge credit for doing fantastic on the other, more established tests. After all, they do measure some likely accidents. They've exceeded Toyota in this regard. Have you noticed that recent Toyota models don't do superbly on crash tests? E.g. the Highlander comes up a bit short in the IIHS offset-frontal test and the NHTSA full-frontal test. While the Camry can at least be bought with side curtains, the non-airbagged ones did pretty poorly in NHTSA's side-impact test. And the new 4runner had a disappointing 4-star driver's-side score in NHTSA's side-impact test, and you wonder what the IIHS test will show.
quote:
Just wait until IIHS tests the Acura TL vs. others in this new side crash test. Acura will be embarrassed! It will likely have the worst result of everyone else in it's class.
It may be moot, depending on the test timing. The new TL isn't too far away and will be improved, and have side curtain airbags. It may do better than the ES300.
quote:
MDX?? Well, it is higher off the ground, so that's a good thing. However, the IIHS test clearly demonstrate the NEED for side curtain airbags. Simply, there is always another car that has a high bumper (F350, Excursion, lifted trucks, etc.).
Frankly, given the state of the current competition, I would not buy a 2003 MDX. Simply because it doesn't have side curtain airbags. While riding higher will help it do better in tests, I'd have to see the new IIHS test show the current MDX pass with flying colors before I'd buy it without side curtains.
But Acura can make this moot, and the MDX a top choice again, by simply adding side curtain airbags for the 2004 models. And this is quite possible. But we don't know yet.
quote:
In my opinion, this is where German cars/SUVs separate from competition. Mercedes, for example, crash tests their cars like crazy in all scenarios. Thus, Mercedes cars are often the safest around. Mercedes (despite crappy quality) will do extremely well on all crash tests. Honda/Acura (and to a lesser extent Toyota/Lexus) seems to do only so much (and as little as possible) to achieve good scores on current tests. :( The only saving grace to Toyota is that they do offer side-curtain airbags on all Lexus models.
One example of where a manufacturer like Honda, or Toyota, only goes as far as doing well on current crash tests is vehicle structure. It's expensive to reinforce everything. It's typical to find some vehicles with slightly more intrusion into the footwell or at the dash. The MDX does pretty well but does have "minimal to moderate" footwell intrusion that could be more serious in crashes more severe than what the test measures. Whereas an ML or XC90 has just "minimal" footwell intrusion.
It's an improvement over the earlier Honda Odyssey, which had "moderate" footwell intrusion.
I have always felt that safety needs to be evaluated on three levels: the manufacturer's history of commitment to safety, the variety of safety features, and crash test results. Evaluating a vehicle strictly on crash test results does not give a complete enough safety picture. This is where the strength of the European brands in general, and especially MB and Volvo, come into play. They simply have a longer history of commitment to safety, of building vehicles with strong structures, developing survivability on the autobahn, etc.
Based on the above criteria, the XC90 and ML are the safest current SUV's around, period. To a lesser degree, the X5. The question is whether one is willing to trade off value, reliability, and resale to get the extra margin of safety. There are no absolutes in safety. Despite some misgivings, the MDX and RX300 (and probably RX330) are quite safe. But they are not the safest. |
|
|
| wmquan |
I mentioned before that IIHS seems to want to prove that the side-impacts are a problem. We have to keep in mind that they went out of their way to make sure the dummies suffer injury. The driver is the size of a 5th-percentile female! The dummy in the back represents an average (50th percentile) 12-year old child.
A larger adult won't necessarily suffer the same kind of head injury.
quote:
In each side-struck vehicle are two instrumented dummies, one in the driver seat and one in the rear seat behind the driver. These dummies are the size of a short (5th percentile) female or a 12-year-old child.
This is a bit questionable and overzealous. I'd have been happier with a 50th-percentile female dummy in the front, and keep the 12-year old in the back. |
|
|
| tigmd99 |
A2MDXer,
I agree that Toyota is not much better. I should have mentioned that...sorry, i forgot. RAV4 has always been pretty weak...remember, i used to own a CRV.
However, if you look at Lexus, all of it's vehicle has done very well on crash testing (all GOOD). And all of them comes with side-curtain airbags.
I am not here to say that Lexus is better than Acura. What i am criticizing is that, despite Honda's boasting of it's safety credentials, Honda fails to deliver when you just change one element of a crash test...in this case, move the bumper a bit higher.
Long time ago, i predicted that Honda is only doing so much to get good ratings on current tests.
Thanks. |
|
|
| sweetride01 |
| In my opinion even the new IIHS side test is not enough. While accidents vary enormously, we should make more of a worse-case scenario. The IIHS side test imitates a midsize SUV weighing 3,300 Ibs. Our Odyssey weighs 4200Ibs (close to 4600 w/fuel and a couple passengers). So COME ON! What about one of those 8500 Ib Hummer H2's? Their hood comes almost to the top of the window on our MINIVAN, which is not a low vehicle. They should also make the test 35 MPH, not 31. I think they should do 2 tests. One with a Crown Victoria at 35 MPH, and One with a Ford Excursion at 35 MPH. That would fail everything. As for the H2, It should NEVER have been allowed on the road in the first place. Someone should start a group lawsuit against GM. |
|
|
| ByeByeChrysler |
I saw the tests on Dateline NBC last night.
The Honda Element looked very bad, got a poor rating. |
|
|
| DaleB |
quote:
Originally posted by ByeByeChrysler
I saw the tests on Dateline NBC last night.
The Honda Element looked very bad, got a poor rating.
Not smart, releasing new models less safe than many older ones. They got the Civic right...jeez..what's with these people? |
|
|
| tigmd99 |
Dale,
Remember, with this new side-crash test, nothing is for sure anymore. The Civic will likely do bad also because it does not have side-curtain ABs. Civic side panels are only somewhat different from CRV's (structurally). And the Civic is LOWER than CRV.
This new crash test will screw up A LOT of cars, including Toyotas, Hondas, and Nissans. It will favor those that offer side-curtain.
Thanks. |
|
|
| wmquan |
I agree that vehicles that have previously scored 5-stars in NHTSA's side-impact testing may fare much worse in IIHS's new test. Especially if the vehicle does not have head protection airbags (e.g. side curtains).
After all, NHTSA had the CR-V at 5-stars side-impact, and look how it does in IIHS's test. As Thai said, the Civic will likely fare worse because it shares the components, doesn't have side curtains, and, big key, has the passengers lower than the CR-V does. The lower the passenger, the bigger the whack the IIHS barrier is going to deliver in the crash test.
Here's the funny thing -- the IIHS test isn't totally "new." IIHS has been working on this a few years and works with manufacturers to develop the test. They get comments, share information, etc. So automakers knew the test was coming out. The problem is that performing well in the test may require more than simply adding side curtain airbags.
In no particular order, so far IIHS's results seem to show that the keys to side-impact protection are a combination of:
- A strong structure/safety cage that minimizes intrusion.
- Conventional torso side airbags.
- Side airbags that provide head protection, like side curtains.
The Forester has some parts of all of these (though not perfect in any one, hence a "Good" but not "Best Pick" score). The CR-V tested had zero, and thus got a "Marginal."
Dale is right about the Element though -- it comes out after the CR-V and performs notably worse. Part of the problem is the lack of B-pillar and those "suicide doors." Boy, is that an appropriate term, or what? I think this takes care of the CR-V vs. Element arguments! Especially if you buy a CR-V with airbags which would have done better in IIHS's test. |
|
|
| Blackura |
I saw a CRV do the back bumper test on TV a while back and it did terrible. Broke my heart because I really like the CRV and was considering one.
Then the Element came out and I considered that, but it was the lack of B pillars that really gave me pause. I wanted to see what the side impact test would do to an Element, and I was also curious with the front impact too. If hit hard enough from front or rear, would the suicide doors pop open and earn their unfortunate name?
It's too bad though, because otherwise both of them seem to be fine mini-SUVs.
Phew! Really glad I went with the MDX. |
|
|
| tigmd99 |
WM,
As far as structural strength, the CRV has plenty. Why? Well, look at the NHTSA's result. It uses a bumper that is compatible with the CRV's side doors...and the CRV did exceedingly well.
With this new side crash test, i think that the main advantage will be those cars with side torso AND head-protecting airbags. Of course, hopefully, most cars have decent structural reinforcements on the side, which is true to most cars nowadays. NHTSA's side crash test results are pretty good for most cars.
Just to point out that the Jeep Wrangler did OK in this new test!! Am i the only one that is blown away by this??!! It did better than the RAV4!! It is funny and sad at the same time! :3: |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by tigmd99
As far as structural strength, the CRV has plenty. Why? Well, look at the NHTSA's result. It uses a bumper that is compatible with the CRV's side doors...and the CRV did exceedingly well.
I'm afraid that while the CR-V had plenty of structural strength for IIHS's offset frontal test and NHTSA's low-barrier side-impact test, it does not have enough for IIHS's side-impact test.
Note the structure/safety cage score:
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings.../side/s0307.htm
And it says:
quote:
STRUCTURE/SAFETY CAGE: The occupant compartment intrusion measurements were marginal.
In other words, there was quite a bit of intrusion into the passenger space. Unlike the NHTSA side-impact test, the IIHS side-impact test attempts intrusion on more structure, and at higher points. The CR-V didn't measure up in this case. Perhaps this is an example of your statement that Honda only goes far enough to do well in current tests?
While adding side-impact airbags and side-curtains would help, structure is key as well. Honda needs to add some more strength to the B-pillar and to the doors. |
|
|
| tigmd99 |
| Ahh, i see your point. I stand corrected. |
|
|
| DaleB |
quote:
Originally posted by tigmd99
Dale,
Remember, with this new side-crash test, nothing is for sure anymore. The Civic will likely do bad also because it does not have side-curtain ABs. Civic side panels are only somewhat different from CRV's (structurally). And the Civic is LOWER than CRV.
This new crash test will screw up A LOT of cars, including Toyotas, Hondas, and Nissans. It will favor those that offer side-curtain.
Thanks.
Excellent point, but the Element is a newer model, should they not have built it to the higher standard? They must know what's coming .... |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by sweetride01
In my opinion even the new IIHS side test is not enough. While accidents vary enormously, we should make more of a worse-case scenario. The IIHS side test imitates a midsize SUV weighing 3,300 Ibs. Our Odyssey weighs 4200Ibs (close to 4600 w/fuel and a couple passengers). So COME ON! What about one of those 8500 Ib Hummer H2's? Their hood comes almost to the top of the window on our MINIVAN, which is not a low vehicle. They should also make the test 35 MPH, not 31. I think they should do 2 tests. One with a Crown Victoria at 35 MPH, and One with a Ford Excursion at 35 MPH. That would fail everything. As for the H2, It should NEVER have been allowed on the road in the first place. Someone should start a group lawsuit against GM.
Good observation, that while the barrier is the height of a full-sized SUV, it is done at 31mph without the full weight of an SUV. 3,300 pounds is barely heavier than some small SUV's.
On the other hand, the dummy that IIHS is using is the aforementioned 5th-percentile female, equivalent to as 12 year old kid. Perhaps it sort of balances out.
If IIHS hit the vehicles with 4,500-5,000 pounds, very few vehicles (if any) would achieve a "good" score.
I wonder what the average speed of a side-impact collision is? Is it the 31 mph the IIHS uses? Side impacts usually happen in intersections, with street-legal speeds of 30-45 mph. Of course, some side impacts will be at much higher speeds. But IIHS must have done some specific research to arrive at the speed and weight. I wish they provided more documentation on the creation of the test. |
|
|
| Arzoo |
| One thing's for sure about these test results, Subaru is lovin it! |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by Arzoo
One thing's for sure about these test results, Subaru is lovin it!
Yup ... and the thing is, the Forester doesn't come away totally unscathed in the tests. IIHS noted that it should have head-protection in the rear (doesn't have side curtains, just a front side airbag that extends up to the head). Thus the rear passenger's head protection got only an "acceptable."
However, side curtains are rare in small SUV's, while they've become pretty common in newer mid-sized SUV's and standard in almost all luxury SUV's (Acura, hello?).
The NHTSA test never tested for head injuries, and its barrier is way too low. In fact, in NHTSA's side-impact test, they don't even put sensors in the dummy's head! They only measure lower injuries.
I think that these tests will really help force automakers to put in side curtains or similar head-protection devices. Dateline NBC's videos of the crash test was not pretty. You saw heads smashing against the pillar or door sill or, worse yet, against the intruding vehicle.
A while ago I decided I wouldn't buy another lower-riding vehicle (e.g. a sedan) without side curtains. (That's one reason I decided not to buy a Forester, it didn't have side curtains to protect rear occupants.) And would also prefer side curtains for a mid-sized or bigger SUV. I think now, given the broad availability of them for luxury SUV's, I now have them as a "must-have" in any class of vehicle that I will purchase. Unfortunately that means that until Acura puts side curtains in the MDX (perhaps in the 2004's?), I wouldn't go near one. |
|
|
| robrecht |
If Honda's smart, they'd install side curtain airbags in '04 models of CRV, Element, Pilot, and MDX or at least make them an option. Take the high road, put customer safety first, and continue to leverage their good safety data from NHTSA. The Acura MDX is right up there with the Volvo and BMW in the front impact tests of IHS. Honda should not loose this marketing advantage. People who buy SUVs, especially the higher priced ones, are very, very, very interested in family safety. It's not only the right thing to do, it's makes good sense from a marketing point of view.
Guess I feel strongly about this. |
|
|
| tigmd99 |
It is not always easy to add side curtain airbags to cars not designed for them originally. For example, it requires you to have a thicker pillar and the seats must have enough distance from the door.
My 4runner went for years without side airbags even though it has become a class standard. Toyota didn't add side airbags until the redesigned 4th gen (2003) 4runners. If you look at the 3rd gen 4runners (1996-2002), there is not much space between the door and front seats. Therefore, an airbag popping out from the seat will not have much room. |
|
|
| donsev |
quote:
Originally posted by wmquan
... and the thing is, the Forester doesn't come away totally unscathed in the tests. IIHS noted that it should have head-protection in the rear (doesn't have side curtains, just a front side airbag that extends up to the head). Thus the rear passenger's head protection got only an "unacceptable
Not to quibble, but I think you meant to say "got only an acceptable" - which is quite a bit better than an "unacceptable" (or Marginal or Poor).
Also, I could find no reference where the IIHS results specifically states that the Forester should have "head-protection in the rear". They may have made a general reference that small SUVs as a class should have rear head protection for side impact crashes, but all that I could find on the Forester where:
quote:
INJURY MEASURES:
REAR PASSENGER Measures taken from the dummies in the two tests, taken together, indicate that serious injuries to the head, neck, torso, pelvis, and left leg would be unlikely in a crash of this severity.
HEAD PROTECTION:
REAR PASSENGER In both tests, the dummy's head was contacted by the pillar behind the rear passenger door. This pillar is required by federal standard to provide some protection if struck by occupants' heads.
Were you able to find more detail? |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by donsev
Not to quibble, but I think you meant to say "got only an acceptable" - which is quite a bit better than an "unacceptable" (or Marginal or Poor).
Ah, yes, that is a definite typo. I will go back and edit the post to correct it, thanks!
quote:
Also, I could find no reference where the IIHS results specifically states that the Forester should have "head-protection in the rear". They may have made a general reference that small SUVs as a class should have rear head protection for side impact crashes, but all that I could find on the Forester where:
The statement came from Brian O'Neill, president of the IIHS, during the "Dateline NBC" segment. They showed the Subaru Forester first and had his running commentary on it. He commented that while the Forester's front head protection airbag helped greatly, that the protection should be in the rear as well. This while footage of the rear dummy was shown.
Bad timing -- just yesterday I finally showed my wife the "Dateline NBC" segment from our TiVo. I had recorded it but left it there for a chance to show it to her. Afterwards I deleted it or else I could get the exact quote for you. Couldn't find a transcript on the Internet.
I realize that the rear dummy didn't suffer injury despite the lack of head airbag. But a more severe side impact might cause it, especially without the head protection. I think there is room for that type of unproven extrapolation in the IIHS test even though such extrapolation may not be "linear." E.g. in some offset tests, IIHS has found no injury measures but found the vehicle's structure to be less than optimal and dummy restraints/kinetic questionable, and gave the vehicle a lower overall score as a result. The Buick Rendezvous was like that -- its structure was clearly collapsing under the standard IIHS offset test, and the dummy was moving around alarmingly, but not enough to cause injury. It was pretty clear that a more severe crash could cause serious injury.
Near the very end of the "Dateline NBC" segment, O'Neill commented how he thinks the test will compel manufacturers to produce safer vehicles. He was confident that they would get there eventually. He then added that "Subaru's got it" (or "gets it," I'm not sure which).
He probably sold a few thousand Foresters on that comment alone!
So yes, the Forester isn't perfect, that much is obvious from the lack of head protection in the back. But it's clearly the best at this test in the small-SUV class. It validates my evaluation earlier this year that the Forester was the safest small SUV -- it ended up placing only third in my vehicle purchase decision, but was the top SUV. (Had the XT been available at the time together with side curtain airbags, it would have won!)
Needless to say, after watching the video and the dummy heads in various test subjects smack against the door sill or against the barrier itself, my wife would never want another vehicle without side curtains either. I have to comfort myself (rationalize?) that the MDX's added height would help it in side impacts (even though the occupants do not sit quite as high as in some other mid-sized SUV's). Certainly can't afford to trade-in the MDX at this point. Hopefully it'll do okay in the new IIHS side-impact test. But there wasn't much in the way of side curtains when we bought our MDX (our second choice, the ML, didn't have it yet -- though I think our third choice, the RX, was getting it). |
|
|
| donsev |
quote:
Originally posted by wmquan
He commented that while the Forester's front head protection airbag helped greatly, that the protection should be in the rear as well.... Afterwards I deleted it or else I could get the exact quote for you.
Thanks, but not at all necessary. I was just curious about the statement and it sounds as if O'Neil was simply using the Forester as an example how in general side curtain air bags are better than no side curtain air bags. (well duh!)
Now pardon me for being a little intrusive here, but I am left with a nagging question about your individual purchase decision...
quote:
It validates my evaluation earlier this year that the Forester was the safest small SUV -- it ended up placing only third in my vehicle purchase decision, but was the top SUV.
Observing how methodically you evaluate the available information before making a purchase decision (dish washers included ;) ), I was surprised when you purchased (leased) the 9-3. Not because it isn't a great car (which it is) but because it has yet to be tested by either NHTSA or IIHS. I would have thought that the information risk (of not knowing the test results) would have outweighed the perceived value of its listed safety features. In other words (in my view of the world) a car with safety features of X, Y and Z, with unknown test result values, does not equal (or better) a car with safety features of only X, and Y but with crash test results of, say, 100% and 100%.
I understand that we would all like to have perfect information (and perfect test results!) but usually have to make decisions with missing or imperfect data (and sometimes we throw all the quantitative analysis out the window and just go with what our gut, or heart, tells us). So I am curious, did you assign an expected value to the the 9-3s eventual test results, or did you set a static cut-off of Curtain air Bags/No Curtain air bags? |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by donsev
Observing how methodically you evaluate the available information before making a purchase decision (dish washers included ;) ), I was surprised when you purchased (leased) the 9-3. Not because it isn't a great car (which it is) but because it has yet to be tested by either NHTSA or IIHS. I would have thought that the information risk (of not knowing the test results) would have outweighed the perceived value of its listed safety features. In other words (in my view of the world) a car with safety features of X, Y and Z, with unknown test result values, does not equal (or better) a car with safety features of only X, and Y but with crash test results of, say, 100% and 100%.
I understand that we would all like to have perfect information (and perfect test results!) but usually have to make decisions with missing or imperfect data (and sometimes we throw all the quantitative analysis out the window and just go with what our gut, or heart, tells us). So I am curious, did you assign an expected value to the the 9-3s eventual test results, or did you set a static cut-off of Curtain air Bags/No Curtain air bags?
Ah, I must leave an exhaustive message to reinforce your faith in my methodical nature
I evaluate safety in three dimensions: safety features, history of safety commitment of the manufacturer, and crash test results. I consider all of them important.
Safety Features
Obviously one can't be sure of the effectiveness of safety features, but I don't think one should ignore them even if there isn't empirical testing. Heck, we all knew that head-protection airbags were valuable, and there were actually some pole tests done to prove it. Though it took the new IIHS side-impact test to help drive it home.
IIHS has also done studies of active head restraints and found them to be useful in many cases.
Forester had AWD, front-head protection, active head restraints. Passat had ESP (but not AWD in the trim level I was looking at), "semi-legal" factory bi-xenon refits available, and side curtain airbags. 9-3 had ESP, Brake Assist, side-curtain airbags, bi-xenons with auto-levelling and headlamp washers, and active head restraints.
Rank: 9-3, Passat, Forester. Had AWD been really important I might have thought somewhat differently.
History of Safety Commitment
Probably the hardest to "measure" since it isn't a feature, you can't usually see it, and there aren't tests for some of the areas. Inconclusively answers the safety questions like:
- "Will the rear seatbacks collapse in an accident?"
- "Will the roof collapse in a rollover?"
I think a manufacturer which has been innovative and has safety throughout their entire model line, and has been doing all this for a long while, gets an edge over a manufacturer that copies more than innovates, limits safety in lower models, or simply hasn't been doing it that long. This gives the edge to MB and Volvo, and, to a slightly lesser degree, Saab.
I also believe that, in general, the European car makers (especially the German and Swedish ones) fit this criteria better. Years of designing for the Autobahn and higher safety standards (in Europe and Germany) have reinforced safety-in-design for a long time. I think the Japanese manufacturers are still playing catch-up here though some are doing an excellent job. Especially since some sell parts of their model line in Europe and thus have to meet the same standards.
I know you hate anecdotal, non-empirical information. I agree that there isn't empirical measurement of much of this and some evidence is circumstantial. E.g. rollover photos, manufacturers showing rollover footage. But then there are incidents that reinforce what is suspected without proving it. E.g. Honda being investigated by NHTSA for defective seat pins that may cause seatback collapse in an accident, whereas European manufacturers have been building seats to much higher specifications for years. Conclusive, no, but compelling to me, yes.
Subaru is a bit of a special case. The Forester gets its underpinnings from a rally car and that has to help. Subaru's commitment to AWD also sets it apart.
My rankings: Saab, VW, Subaru.
Crash Test Results
You're quite correct here. I would not have bought the 9-3 without crash test results. However, I did indeed have 9-3 crash test results for reference. Back in November of last year, EuroNCAP released a round of crash test results where the 9-3 became one of only three vehicles sold in the U.S. that have a EuroNCAP 5-star crash test score. The other two are the Mercedes-Benz C-class and E-class, not bad company at all.
So long as there are no apparent major structural differences in U.S./European versions, I consider the EuroNCAP as "admissible" as the IIHS & NHTSA tests. And, actually, more so in general. EuroNCAP conducts an offset crash test that I feel is instrumented slightly tougher than IIHS's test (which is in fact modeled on EuroNCAP's). EuroNCAP also conducts a better side-impact test than NHTSA's, though not as good as the new IIHS side-impact test. EuroNCAP also conducts a pole test which neither IIHS or NHTSA routinely does. EuroNCAP also performs a pedestrian test but that hasn't had much emphasis here in the U.S.
If there was an information risk, it was how to compare the vehicles not tested by the same agency. E.g. the Passat and 9-3 had been tested by EuroNCAP, but not the Forester. While the Passat and Forester had both been tested by IIHS and NHTSA.
By analyzing how the same vehicles did in both test, I'm fairly comfortable that the 9-3 will get a "Good" in the IIHS test, and probably a "Best Pick" designation, which would tie it with the Forester in that test. I'm also more certain that the 9-3 would get 5-stars in the NHTSA side-impact test because it got a perfect score in EuroNCAP's side-impact test and their test is tougher.
I'm much less certain on how it'd do in the NHTSA full-frontal test. It's much harder to figure that one because European vehicles don't seem to do as well in that test in general. Of course, there is considerable debate on its relevancy, though I still consider it significant. However, I do weigh it lower than IIHS's test.
So the EuroNCAP test was enough to provide me the good crash test result that I demand.
Ranking: 9-3/Forester (virtually tied without a comparative test), Passat.
Now, some asides:
I'll be the first to say that I wanted the 9-3 more than the Forester from an emotional standpoint. I think I would have been satisified with the Forester's safety -- but more so if it had only come with side curtains.
The other choice I'm not mentioning here is the TSX. I was leery about waiting until the last minute to buy the vehicle, as well as getting reamed for MSRP for the second time in three years! But in my safety equation, I didn't doubt that the TSX would do well in crash tests, but I still felt it behind in the other two areas (it has side curtains, but not active head restraints, and no Brake Assist).
Here's a rather stunning hindsight development from last week: the European Honda Accord, which should be crash-structurally the same as the TSX, only got 4-stars in EuroNCAP! More importantly, its crash-test point score was just 28, well short of, say, the 9-3, C-class, and E-class at 31 (more on this later).
I'm stunned because Honda seems to have placed extremely high emphasis on getting top crash scores. I wonder if they are focusing mostly on the IIHS and NHTSA tests and not EuroNCAP, and are engineering accordingly. But they had to have know they would eventually introduce the TSX here. Perhaps it has some improvements that will help it, though.
Finally, EuroNCAP's "five-stars" is not a true five stars, which is why I go by their point system instead. Too long a story for this already too-long post, but basically I consider only two vehicles to be EuroNCAP "five star" and neither is sold in the U.S. So while the 9-3 isn't truly EuroNCAP "five star' in my own mind, it still is one of the three highest-scoring vehicles from EuroNCAP available in the U.S. EuroNCAP's scoring system is pretty tough, I think of their five-star rating as an "excellent" score that IIHS doesn't have -- yet. |
|
|
| donsev |
Thanks for the reply, although a simple reminder that the 9-3 had undergone EuroNCAP testing would have been sufficient to restore my faith in your selection process;) .
Interesting news about the TSX EuroNCAP results. I am not aware of any structural changes/improvements between the Euro/JDM Accord and the TSX. Do you recall what point(s) of failure were cited for lowering its test score? |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by donsev
Thanks for the reply, although a simple reminder that the 9-3 had undergone EuroNCAP testing would have been sufficient to restore my faith in your selection process.
Nah, it was too inviting. Besides, I think that crash test results are only part of the safety equation, albeit one that requires at least a minimum level to pass go.
quote:
Interesting news about the TSX EuroNCAP results. I am not aware of any structural changes/improvements between the Euro/JDM Accord and the TSX. Do you recall what point(s) of failure were cited for lowering its test score?
Unfortunately, EuroNCAP insists on using frames, so this link will bring you to a page that is somewhat out-of-context:
http://www.euroncap.com/details.php3?id=car_169_2003
It seems like their primary criticism was of lack of fascia design to avoid knee and leg injuries. This might be an area that goes beyond what IIHS does; I think EuroNCAP also rates based on observation of design (including that controversial area that is producing too many 5-star vehicles in its testing). Nevertheless, they evaluate all vehicles using these criteria.
BTW, the XC90 just tested for five-stars as well, though it fell one point short of a true five-stars IMHO.
Ironic that, after all the emphasis on German and Swedish safety engineering, the two vehicles that do the best are French (Renault). To its credit, Renault seems to have engineered excellent structure, and they seem to have a "secret weapon." It's a "dual pretensioner," developed by Autoliv (which supplies to many European makes, including Volvo). Apparently there are two pretensioners (and force limiters) on the driver's belt (though not on the passenger's!). The net effect is that it helps keep the dummy kinetics low and minimizes impact with the fascia or other parts, helping with knee/leg injuries.
A similar albeit not equal benefit was achieved when Honda introduced a "dual-direction" pretensioning belt in the Civic (and presumably other Civic-based vehicles). There's still only one pretensioner but it removes slack from both directions of the belt. Honda claims it was instrumental in the Civic's good scores, for a relatively smaller vehicle.
I think knee airbags would probably provide the same effect. I was quite surprised when the E-class didn't get a "clean" 5-stars. I suspect if it had the knee airbags that were inexplicably omitted from the introduction version, it would have garnered one measly point to be a true 5-star vehicle. MB had already put them on the S-class so usually it flows down to new generations. Maybe this fall's model will get it (as the rumors have the E-class getting some of the S-class's PRE-SAFE components). |
|
|
|
