| Hondas and Acuras Fare Poorly in New IIHS Crash Tests
- Click HERE for Original Thread
|
| wmquan |
IIHS has begun a new type of crash test, focusing on the effectiveness of seats and head restraints in preventing neck injuries in rear-end collisions.
In recent years, a number of manufacturers have introduced "active" head restraints and modified seat designs meant to reduce whiplash injuries. Previously IIHS used a crude static measurement of the geometry of the restraint. Now they're taking the actual seat assemblies and putting them on a sled to simulate what happens to an occupant when their vehicle is rear-ended by a vehicle of similar weight at 20mph.
Overview:
http://www.iihs.org/news_releases/2004/pr111404.htm
Results:
http://www.iihs.org/news_releases/2004/pr111404_1.pdf
The Acura MDX and Honda Pilot have not been tested yet. The Honda Civic, Honda Accord, and Acura TSX were tested and all scored "poor." The Acura TL scored a "marginal."
Only a handful of vehicles scored a good, including all three Volvos tested, the Subaru Impreza, two Saabs (one of them a rebadged Impreza), one Jaguar, and certain Beetles.
IIHS says that this test will help spur manufacturers to add better seat/headrest designs over the next few years. Eventually everyone will score better. |
|
|
| G. COLTON |
If the seat dynamics are adequate then I think that the MDX will have a good rating. The head rest is high and just behind the head. I have driven vehicles where the head rest is so low and far back that I have wondered just how effective they would be.
G |
|
|
| closetobuying05 |
If I had seen this two weeks ago, I almost-surely would be buying a Volvo SUV instead of the Acura SUV now on order.
No BS.
I give high credibility to US gov't safety tests, and over time I am sure Acura will respond, even pre-emtvely try to get higher in the rankings, but if Volvo is already there...this info would have been invaluable to me when I made my purchase decision 2 weeks ago.
Side airbags and curtain airbags are what brought me to the MDX largely and caused me to abandon my avalanche, which otherwise was perfectly-ok for me in most other criteria. GM is waaaaaay late trying to get side-curtain airbags out and it cost them my soon-to-be SUV purchase, and my next-month's Suburban purchase (will likely go Toyota Sequoia). Sad to see the domestic manufacturer's avoiding side curtain (except Chrysler/Dodge) and losing sales because of it. |
|
|
| shootist |
quote:
Originally posted by closetobuying05
If I had seen this two weeks ago, I almost-surely would be buying a Volvo SUV instead of the Acura SUV now on order.
But the MDX hasn't been tested yet, has it? |
|
|
| bri328 |
closetobuying05 wrote:
"I give high credibility to US gov't safety tests, and over time I am sure Acura will respond.."
FYI: IIHS is not run by the government. As the name inplies, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is run by insurance companies.
Just because one Acura model didn't score well, doesn't mean that the MDX is automatically doomed for this particular test. |
|
|
| G. COLTON |
IF and WHEN the MDX is tested it may well be the safest. A test of a different vehicle has absolutely no bearing on any other models potential.
G |
|
|
| pilot_chip |
Hello, I'm just visiting the mdx site .
Any word on Honda Pilots ? |
|
|
| hammermdx |
quote:
Originally posted by pilot_chip
Hello, I'm just visiting the mdx site .
Any word on Honda Pilots ?
Here's the link for the Pilot site: http://hondapilot.org/ |
|
|
| pilot_chip |
quote:
Originally posted by hammermdx
Here's the link for the Pilot site: http://hondapilot.org/
Thanks. I'm already a member there but didn't see anything recent about the new IIHS tests. |
|
|
| Blackura |
quote:
Originally posted by closetobuying05
If I had seen this two weeks ago, I almost-surely would be buying a Volvo SUV instead of the Acura SUV now on order.
You still bought the best SUV on the market. Check Consumer Reports and you'll find the Volvo has the worst frequency of repair record while Acura has the best. And the vehicle is excellent overall with all the other crash tests done over the past few years.
This test deals mostly with the distance between your head and the headrest. If the headrest is too far from the back of your head when your vehicle gets hit your neck will be more severely injured than if your head didn't travel as far before contacting the headrest.
It also deals with the height of the headrest, so make sure the top of your headrest is at the same level as the top of your ears. This is easy to adjust unless you're abnormally tall. I'm 6'4" and the adjustment is fine for me.
I don't mean to imply this is not an important test; it is. But of all the crash tests they do, this one is the easiest to remedy. Perhaps aftermarket headrests will become a hot seller for vehicles that do poorly in this test. |
|
|
| RCtennis3811 |
| I figured the Volvos would get GOOD ratings. The only manufacturer on that list other than Saab which had active headrests was Nissan/Infiniti and all those vehicles scored either POOR or MARGINAL. |
|
|
| eurohazard |
I found it strange that the article talked about GM having such a poor showing. The irony is GM owns Saab. And Saab performed so well.
Why doesn't GM let Saab engineers build all GM seats? |
|
|
| peanutbutter |
All of the vehicles that did well in this test had active head restraints. Since the Acura MDX does not have active head restraints, I would have to reason that it probably would not have done too well in the tests.
The really sad thing is that this technology has been out for quite a while. I remember Volvo having this at least 3-5 years ago. They also had side curtain airbags for quite a long time. WHIPS, the Volvo restraint system, is on all of their models.
Where Volvo has been proactive in delivering the latest safety technologies, Acura has been reactive. Acura has been late with the side curtain airbags and traction control. Now we learn that they were late with active head restraints. |
|
|
| dmz |
It's all about economics. Most GM customer are not willing to pay what SABB owner are willing to pay for their car. All modern manufacturer has the ability to build safe car if money is no object. But they have a price point to meet and they have to decide on what to spend their budget on depending on what they think their customer base value the most. For Saab is safety first while GM is the biggest motor they can fit on their chasis :)
quote:
Originally posted by eurohazard
I found it strange that the article talked about GM having such a poor showing. The irony is GM owns Saab. And Saab performed so well.
Why doesn't GM let Saab engineers build all GM seats?
|
|
|
| wmquan |
I watched the Dateline NBC segment which had some more, interesting information.
Having the seat and head restraint work effectively is apparently more than just correctly positioning one's head near the head restraint. That's why the old IIHS test, which merely measured where everything was, was not effective. It's also why a lot of headrests previously rated "Good" are now rated poorly. It took a new dummy and test to measure the injuries in a dynamic test.
According to the footage, when a rear-end collision actually occurs, the dummy will shift and the seat and head restraint will move somewhat. So even if the dummy started out with a correctly positioned head restraint, the actual impact can still cause a serious neck injury. The article mentions this:
quote:
"If a head restraint isn't positioned behind an occupant's head, it cannot support the head in a rear impact," Lund adds. "But good head restraint geometry by itself isn't sufficient. A seat also has to be designed so it doesn't rotate backward in a rear impact because this would move the head restraint away from the head. At the same time, a vehicle seat cannot be too stiff. It has to 'give' so an occupant will sink into it, moving the head closer to the restraint. ...
"The principal reason for the failing dynamic performances of these seats was that the seatbacks rotated backward in the test," Lund says. "This moved the head restraint farther from the dummy's head, so initial contact with the head restraint took longer. The result was that the dummy's head wasn't supported in time to reduce the differential motion of the head and torso that leads to neck injury. So, although the auto manufacturers have been improving the geometry of the head restraints in their cars, in many cases they need to make further improvements to their seats and head restraints."
|
|
|
|
|
