CUV Poor Passenger Small-Overlap Performance - Ford Inside News Community
 4Likes
  • 1 Post By Bloggin
  • 1 Post By Bloggin
  • 1 Post By Logans Run
  • 1 Post By Bloggin
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 6 (permalink) Old 06-23-2016, 03:08 PM Thread Starter
FIN Staff Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 7,893
CUV Poor Passenger Small-Overlap Performance

IIHS warns of poor small-overlap performance for front passengers
Leftlane


Most recent crash tests performed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety show significant improvements in small-overlap performance, however the organization has warned that the same level of protection may not extend to the front passenger seat.

Asymmetrical reinforcements focused on the driver side appear to have prompted a deeper investigation into automakers' engineering decisions. The IIHS chose seven small SUVs with 'good' driver-side ratings and mirrored the small-overlap test to strike the opposite wheel.

"Only one of the vehicles, the 2016 Hyundai Tucson, performed at a level corresponding to a good rating, and the others ran the gamut from poor to acceptable," the institute said in a statement.

The 2015 Toyota RAV4 and 2014 Nissan Rogue were the only vehicles with frontal structures that appeared asymmetrical. The RAV4 was the worst performer, with 13 more inches of intrusion than on the driver side, while the Rogue's door hinge pillar was completely torn off. If the passenger small-overlap test was included in the formal ratings system, the RAV4 would have received a 'poor' rating and the Rogue 'marginal.'
2b2 likes this.
Bloggin is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 6 (permalink) Old 06-23-2016, 03:11 PM Thread Starter
FIN Staff Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 7,893
Re: CUV Poor Passenger Small-Overlap Performance

I really hope Ford secured both side of all vehicles for small-overlap protection.
2b2 likes this.
Bloggin is offline  
post #3 of 6 (permalink) Old 06-24-2016, 10:07 AM
Ford Flex
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,270
Re: CUV Poor Passenger Small-Overlap Performance

OK, so they devise a standard for offset crashes into immovable objects, which creates a situation where vehicles get re-designed to redirect energy from the drivers side. Now, we are going to see how the re-engineered vehicles are going to deal with the passenger side crashes with the same scenario. The funny thing is, the redesign to meet the first test may result in poorer results for the new test.
2b2 likes this.

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
Sherlock Holmes
Logans Run is offline  
 
post #4 of 6 (permalink) Old 06-24-2016, 02:31 PM Thread Starter
FIN Staff Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 7,893
Re: CUV Poor Passenger Small-Overlap Performance

^it can be done. 2016 Hyundai Tucson was able to do it. What IIHS is seeing is that the necessary structural enhancements were only added to the drivers side, while the passenger's side was unchanged. Looking at the Tucson, Hyundai just added the additional supports to both sides of their new model. But it does seem just crazy that auto manufacturers would knowingly not add protection for the passenger(spouse, child, friend), when they KNOW the protections reduce or eliminate injury to the driver.
2b2 likes this.
Bloggin is offline  
post #5 of 6 (permalink) Old 06-24-2016, 03:15 PM
2b2
Mercury C557
 
2b2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: N NW of Atlantis (Reno)
Posts: 22,734
Blog Entries: 6
Re: CUV Poor Passenger Small-Overlap Performance

^&^^
caught between that on-coming semi on the left and that killer-telephone-poll on the right

.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
2b2 is offline  
post #6 of 6 (permalink) Old 07-12-2016, 12:25 PM Thread Starter
FIN Staff Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 7,893
Re: CUV Poor Passenger Small-Overlap Performance

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has expanded its headlight assessment program, finding illumination deficiencies with 21 different small SUVs and crossovers.

Not a single model was deemed worthy of an overall 'good' rating. The Mazda CX-3 came closest, but only in the Grand Touring trim with LED headlights. The only other models to earn an 'acceptable' designation include the Ford Escape, Honda CR-V and Hyundai Tucson.

Some revisions will likely arrive via mid-cycle updates, as 'good' lighting ratings will be required to qualify for Top Safety Pick+ status beginning next year.


Read more: http://www.leftlanenews.com/iihs-tes...#ixzz4ECz8OzBb
Bloggin is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Inside News Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome