Jump to content

IIHS Tests Headlights for Midsize Crossover


Recommended Posts

 

Yes sir. The only Ford vehicle tested by IIHS with headlamps rated acceptable or better is Escape Titanium with HIDs. Headlamps on other Fords have too short illumination distance, excessive glare for other drivers, or both.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford as past history has shown doesn't care about IIHS, they have 0 top safety plus picks. They actually have no vehicles with standard or even midrange available AEB. (you can get it on a top of the line Fusion, 2018 F-150) the new Navigator that starts at $75,000 doesn't even offer it as standard equipment. Ford is odd with safety equipment in models depending on market, the European Edge has Auto-leveling LED headlights, larger side mirrors and AEB, which are not offered here. It received 5 stars in the Euro NCAP, but the score it did the worst on is rear seat passenger levels which would theoretically be helped by the inflatable rear seatbelt, the passenger knee airbag is not offered on the Euro Version.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this crap as standard is going to do nothing but make repair costs go up, driver's pay less attention to their poor driving and make a bigger case for buying an extended warranty. I'm all for safer cars and better visibility. However, this is out of hand. Everyone here talks how bad Ford did on headlamps. Did you see all the other less than "good" results? IIHS only cares about saving insurance companies money on claims. Period!. "On your side" is great as long as you are paying premiums and they​ are cashing in on our dumb asses. Just like our healthcare.

 

eventually your basic car will be like a 6 year old 7 series. No one wants the damn thing because of repair costs.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cars that did the best also have the most expensive headlights, which in theory means they are the most expensive to replace. Wouldn't that be counter productive for the insurance company making you buy something expensive to replace?

The cars now are just written off in accidents, and the insurance companies are okay with that. They are far cheaper than the medial bills someone might have if they are seriously injured in an accident. A few broken bones, surgery, 2 nights in the hospital and physical therapy is going to be more than a totaled Forester. However if the person never gets into an accident in the first place -- all those costs are eliminated.

I agree people should pay attention, but they don't and these systems may stop their car from hitting my car when they are not paying attention.

Edited by jasonj80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cars that did the best also have the most expensive headlights, which in theory means they are the most expensive to replace. Wouldn't that be counter productive for the insurance company marking you buy something expensive to replace?

They don't care because they can just raise premiums. Every vehicle has a "symbol" they use to calculate their rate. It's interesting how this all of a sudden has turned into an awful abomination by the auto makers. When the same vehicle a year or so ago was a "best buy".

 

I truly hate insurance companies. Legalized bookies if you ask me. Tell me the truth. We only want to receive premiums and not pay out. If we do then your rates go up or we drop you. Also, look for a loop hole not to pay. That sums it up to me.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this crap as standard is going to do nothing but make repair costs go up, driver's pay less attention to their poor driving and make a bigger case for buying an extended warranty. I'm all for safer cars and better visibility. However, this is out of hand. Everyone here talks how bad Ford did on headlamps. Did you see all the other less than "good" results? IIHS only cares about saving insurance companies money on claims. Period!. "On your side" is great as long as you are paying premiums and they​ are cashing in on our dumb asses. Just like our healthcare.

eventually your basic car will be like a 6 year old 7 series. No one wants the damn thing because of repair costs.

I agree on headlight costs. The cost to replace my MKZ right headlight was $1200.....plus labor!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just another test for IIHS to try to give legitimacy to their existence. I understand the need for improvement. But at what point do they stop testing things that will make a real world measurable difference, and they start critiquing the color scheme of your infotainment system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes sir. The only Ford vehicle tested by IIHS with headlamps rated acceptable or better is Escape Titanium with HIDs. Headlamps on other Fords have too short illumination distance, excessive glare for other drivers, or both.

We can always count on you to agree with something negative about Ford. Just go ahead and overlook the negative ratings of the other companies.

 

I will concede the headlights on our 2013 Explorer were average at best, but the headlights on my last 3 Raptors have been great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably why ESP charges $125 extra for Light Care now.

Also looking at the Explorer graph it seems the reason it did poor was glare; not that the headlights were bad in illumination. Also does the MKX with the LED option have low beam headlights, there is nothing shown for that vehicle or were they that dim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do need better lighting rules. Europe is way ahead of the U.S.

I think it would be interesting to see FVSS illumination requirements side by side and see how the current lamps perform in comparison. We do have to remember that the manufacturer is only required to meet very low FVSS. Technically anything above that is more than is required. So like AKirby stated raise the requirements.

For some reason, auto manufacturers are blasted for exceeding the standards yet not placing in the top of the market.

Home builders can build $750k homes to the crap minimum and anything over is considered a waste. Damn our priorities are messed up.

10 year life cycle product that depreciates is more important than a 50+ year product that appreciates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The standards aren't very high but the bigger issue to me is that a lot of the better lighting options that are available in Europe are illegal in the states. The law that says you can only have 4 lights on at any given time on the front of the vehicle is silly in especially in today's world of LEDs. Red vs. Amber. Silly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the fact that amber turn signals are required in Europe (sorry Mustang fans). I think it's a cleaner look.

Don't forget you stand a 5% LESS chance of getting rear ended in a vehicle equipped with them. The manufactures can just save $3 a vehicle by not doing it. I have long wondered why IIHS hasn't required them to get any sort of a award.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cars that did the best also have the most expensive headlights, which in theory means they are the most expensive to replace. Wouldn't that be counter productive for the insurance company making you buy something expensive to replace?

 

The cars now are just written off in accidents, and the insurance companies are okay with that. They are far cheaper than the medial bills someone might have if they are seriously injured in an accident. A few broken bones, surgery, 2 nights in the hospital and physical therapy is going to be more than a totaled Forester. However if the person never gets into an accident in the first place -- all those costs are eliminated.

 

I agree people should pay attention, but they don't and these systems may stop their car from hitting my car when they are not paying attention.

 

The flaw with your logic is the rate of claims paid.

 

Yes, injury claims are far more expensive than vehicle damage, but they occur in a vanishingly small percentage of accidents. There may be a thousand property damage-exclusive accidents for every one injury claim, and if you figure even an average of $2,500 in property damage claims, that's $2.5M in property damage claims for every injury accident amounting to, what? on average? $25k?

 

Bearing in mind, also, that most people are only carrying mandatory minimums which cap insurance company payouts.

 

Yes, these headlights are more expensive, but the difference in cost is marginal when you're looking at the front end damage caused by a deer.

 

The IIHS is all about saving insurance companies money. It was never really about saving lives, that was just a happy side effect of lowered claims. And now, this is almost 100% about reducing property damage claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The flaw with your logic is the rate of claims paid.

 

Yes, injury claims are far more expensive than vehicle damage, but they occur in a vanishingly small percentage of accidents. There may be a thousand property damage-exclusive accidents for every one injury claim, and if you figure even an average of $2,500 in property damage claims, that's $2.5M in property damage claims for every injury accident amounting to, what? on average? $25k?

 

Bearing in mind, also, that most people are only carrying mandatory minimums which cap insurance company payouts.

 

Yes, these headlights are more expensive, but the difference in cost is marginal when you're looking at the front end damage caused by a deer.

 

The IIHS is all about saving insurance companies money. It was never really about saving lives, that was just a happy side effect of lowered claims. And now, this is almost 100% about reducing property damage claims.

I come from Michigan where the lawyers hound you after the accident and to some people it really is the jackpot when your in an accident here. State mandated unlimited medical benefits kill rates along with lost wages and care worker wages -- it also why we have the highest car insurance in the county.

 

I don't always agree with how IIHS has gone about to make the industry change or their reason for doing it. But on the other hand there is no denying they have made cars and roads much safer, they might have done it though public shame vs legislation but it still worked.

Edited by jasonj80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...