18 Explorer rated Poor in front crash test

[fordtech1]

This crash was survivable even in the Explorer. You would probably have hip injuries. This accident even 15 years ago you could be dead. They make is seem like the explorer performed like a China made pos that fully collapsed and the dummy had to be cut out.

[jpd80]

60MPH crash is survivable depending on what type of vehicle you are in and what you hit and this test as well as NHTSA proves that. This 20% test is into a non-deformable barrier that means the vehicle must absorb all of the impact. That is the equivalent of hitting another car head on at about 60MPH.

 

However at those speeds the vehicle you are in vs what you are it hitting will also have a very big roll in the accident.

Crash test speed is 40 mph not 60 mph.....

 

The point i am making is that even though improvements are welcome we should never think

that crashes at higher speeds are totally survivable, the quicker you can wash off speed,

the greater the chance of survival.

 

Mind you,

It seems like Ford concentrates on NHTSA crash ratings while considering IIHS a secondary importance...

Is this why they tend to drag their feet?

Edited June 14, 2018 by jpd80

[jasonj80]

Crash test speed is 40 mph not 60 mph.....

 

The point i am making is that even though improvements are welcome we should never think

that crashes at higher speeds are totally survivable, the quicker you can wash off speed,

the greater the chance of survival.

It is done at 40mph, but from a dynamic vehicle crash perspective into another vehicle it simulates a higher speed crash than 40mph. If you are hitting a large tree at 40mph it would be similar to this test, however if you are hitting a deformable crash barrier or another vehicle that also absorbs energy the crash would be less severe than is portrayed in this crash test.

 

Also you want to decrease speed slowly not fast. Its the stop in the accident that kills you at high speeds, Its better to Roll it 8 times (assuming you have your seatbelt on) than come to hard fast stop.

 

Edited June 14, 2018 by jasonj80

[tbone]

Its interesting the 2013 Explorer was a Top Safety Pick. The standard changed but the Explorer didnt. It is by no means a death trap though.

[Sevensecondsuv]

 

 

E-series

A classic case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

 

*The Transit is a compelling alternative that I want to like, but the lack of a removable dog house partition is very hard to overlook.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Sevensecondsuv

[Sevensecondsuv]

 

 

P2 --> D3 --> D4 going on for 20+ years (1998-2018+)

C1 -- > EUCD --> CD4 going on for 15+ years (2003-2018+)

Mazda GF --> CD2 went on for 15 years (1997-2012)

Mazda GG --> CD3 went on for 13 years (2002-2015)

 

But nothing beats...

 

Fox --> SN95 went on for 26 years (1978-2004)

VN58 --> VN127 going on for 43+ years (1975-2018+)

There was also Panther for 32 years (1979-2011). Although the rear suspension was revised significantly in 1998 and then the front part of the frame changed again in 2003 with a hydroformed main crossmember and totally different front suspension. The rear also went to a 4-link with watts linkage in 2003. Most people don't realize it because the tophats barely changed, but the 03+ cars handle substantially better than the earlier cars and really held their own against competing passenger sedans of the day.

 

So Panther 1 (1979 - 1997) -> Panther 1.5 (1998-2002) -> Panther 2 (2003 -2011)?

Edited June 14, 2018 by Sevensecondsuv

[probowler]

These safety ratings are a joke... the car was a top safety pick before but now it's magically "unsafe"? Whatever.

 

Can we shutdown the IIHS already?

Edited June 14, 2018 by probowler

[jpd80]

It is done at 40mph, but from a dynamic vehicle crash perspective into another vehicle it simulates a higher speed crash than 40mph.

No it doesn't approximate a higher speed crash, each vehicle has it's own momentum (mass x velocity) andcrumple zone

that reduces speed from 40 mph to zero. In the case of different sized vehicles, momentum in both directions is cancelled

out and the balance presented in vehicle rolling in one direction or other.

 

Also you want to decrease speed slowly not fast. Its the stop in the accident that kills you at high speeds,

Braking G force is minimal compared to crash deceleration, it's better to wash off speed from 60 mph to say 40 mph before impact

allowing crash G force to be reduced, changing the odds from a fatal crash to a survivable one and we all want that.

Edited June 14, 2018 by jpd80

[akirby]

It’s true that the other vehicle absorbs some of the energy as opposed to a barrier, but that other vehicle is also moving so you’re talking about a closing rate of 80-120 mph at vehicle speeds of 40 - 60 mph. Not sure the impact absorption overcomes the relative speed difference.

 

Also - changing the angle slightly will change the results.

 

If you’re going fast enough it won’t matter because you’re dead either way. If you’re going slower it won’t matter - no injuries.

If you hit a semi it won’t matter. If you change the angle the results are not predictable. If something like a guardrail enters the passenger compartment it won’t matter.

 

There are literally thousands of variables in a crash and these tests only represent a small fraction of those scenarios that occur in real life.

[rperez817]

Can we shutdown the IIHS already?

 

No sir, not anytime soon. Property and casualty insurance companies have a very powerful lobby in Washington, D.C. When Level 5 self driving cars become common, the insurance industry may lose influence, and IIHS may be shut down or given a new mission at that point.

[jpd80]

It’s true that the other vehicle absorbs some of the energy as opposed to a barrier, but that other vehicle is also moving so you’re talking about a closing rate of 80-120 mph at vehicle speeds of 40 - 60 mph. Not sure the impact absorption overcomes the relative speed difference.

Remember the actual speed of the vehicle goes from 40/60 mph to zero, the closing speed has no effect on that

as the resultant momentum both vehicles come to rest or roll either way.

 

Also - changing the angle slightly will change the results.

 

If you’re going fast enough it won’t matter because you’re dead either way. If you’re going slower it won’t matter - no injuries.

If you hit a semi it won’t matter. If you change the angle the results are not predictable. If something like a guardrail enters the passenger compartment it won’t matter.

 

There are literally thousands of variables in a crash and these tests only represent a small fraction of those scenarios that occur in real life.

 

I go back to previous data for Explorer deaths per million

2WD 27

AWD 3

 

If explorer was truly compromised on safey we would see much higher rates in both sets.

Those deaths are tragic and unfortunate but we have no details of crash data .

Edited June 14, 2018 by jpd80

[jasonj80]

No it doesn't approximate a higher speed crash, each vehicle has it's own momentum (mass x velocity) andcrumple zone

that reduces speed from 40 mph to zero. In the case of different sized vehicles, momentum in both directions is cancelled

out and the balance presented in vehicle rolling in one direction or other.

 

Braking G force is minimal compared to crash deceleration, it's better to wash off speed from 60 mph to say 40 mph before impact

allowing crash G force to be reduced, changing the odds from a fatal crash to a survivable one and we all want that.

The heavier vehicle is going to push more energy into the lighter vehicle at impact. The structure of the lighter vehicle must adsorb that impact at a disproportional rate before the vehicles direction is reversed. A Honda Civic going 70 mph going into a Explorer at 40 mph would put way more force on the Explorer to adsorb than what the Civic structure was absorbing. But then you get into where the accident is hitting on the structure, is the car braking hard so the accident will miss the strongest point of the structure. It is why Crash tests are really only relevant for vehicles within 500lbs.

Absolutely if you hit the brakes that is safer than the accident to reduce speed. All I was saying is hitting a solid object that isn't going to move at 60 MPH and coming to a stop is a much less survivable accident than hitting something and rolling over. With a fast stop your organs slam into you skeletal structure and basically liquefy inside.

 

I do think the Explorer is a safe vehicle, I also think IIHS tested these 2 vehicles because they knew they would have a poor showing and bring attention to them as they don't tend to get the total failure anymore as cars are a lot better in accidents. I'm not sure they have tested another vehicle in the passenger side test that didn't get an Acceptable or Good rating in the Drivers side small overlap test. But I think the IIHS does make manufactures improve things, what ever their motive is they have made cars more survivable, reduce injury and better as well has have decent headlights. In the end it saves all of us money. An insurance company (Or any company for that matter) is going to look and say I need to cover my claims cost and make XXX in profit. If I don't do that i need to raise rates to make sure that happens.

 

The new Explorer will ace this test, and I agree this shouldn't have happened as the new Explorer should be launching now and the old model would have never been subjected to this test.

[akirby]

And let's remember the result here - a leg or hip injury is possible. Not life and death. Maybe only bruises.

[Sevensecondsuv]

In the end it saves all of us money.

 

I'm not so sure about that. The majority of vehicles produced are never in an accident. The buyer is paying for the materials (up front cost and fuel economy penalty) and engineering to pass these crash tests. All that extra cost provides no benefit if the vehicle is never in an accident.

 

Also, the one thing to remember about accidents and insurance is that the lawyers are the ones making the $$$.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Sevensecondsuv

[rmc523]

I'm not so sure about that. The majority of vehicles produced are never in an accident. The buyer is paying for the materials (up front cost and fuel economy penalty) and engineering to pass these crash tests. All that extra cost provides no benefit if the vehicle is never in an accident.

 

Also, the one thing to remember about accidents and insurance is that the lawyers are the ones making the $$$.

 

That's an interesting thought....

 

If or when we do get to the world of autonomous pods that interact and communicate with each other, will they need all this safety equipment and crash structures?

[fuzzymoomoo]

 

That's an interesting thought....

 

If or when we do get to the world of autonomous pods that interact and communicate with each other, will they need all this safety equipment and crash structures?

No because they will be 100% reliable at all times and never ever ever ever ever ever fail or crash and it will be wonderful and you can always always trust it

[SoonerLS]

No because they will be 100% reliable at all times and never ever ever ever ever ever fail or crash and it will be wonderful and you can always always trust it

This message brought to you by the National Sarcasm Society. Remember our motto: Yeah, like we need your help.

[akirby]

If you say that conservatively it costs each automaker $100 per vehicle that's $1.7B every year and that cost gets passed on to the consumers. And I certainly don't recall my insurance premiums going down in the last 20 years.

[Sevensecondsuv]

And if we include the umpteen air bags and all other safety stuff that's been invented since about 1990, it's way more than $100/vehicle. Probably more on the order of $1000s.

 

Safety comes with a pricetag. Life is priceless but it's also full of risk. Everybody has a different idea of what safety is worth to them. It would be nice if consumers had more of a choice than having the insurance companies and lawyers deciding for them though.

[MKX1960]

The thing I hate about these tests are this: anybody can create a test that any vehicle will fail. If I give said manufactures the heads up and say in 2 years I will be doing this test. Those that update for this particular test will score nicely, those that don't will end up like the Explorer or Jeep. This test does not show the overall safety of the vehicle, just in this particular testing method that they deem important.

You've gotta wonder how many vehicles more than 5 years old could pass this test? Yet, people don't seem too concerned about driving them. I'd be more worried about a car with airbag issues than the possibility of getting into a short overlap collision.

[akirby]

I feel perfectly safe driving almost any vehicle built in the last 20 years. The odds of having an accident where a newer vehicle makes a difference in survivability or drastically reduces serious injuries are miniscule.

[silvrsvt]

I feel perfectly safe driving almost any vehicle built in the last 20 years. The odds of having an accident where a newer vehicle makes a difference in survivability or drastically reduces serious injuries are miniscule.

 

We've gotten to the point that any improvements are minuscule in an appreciable improvement in crashes.

[akirby]

 

We've gotten to the point that any improvements are minuscule in an appreciable improvement in crashes.

 

That won't stop the IIHS from adding new tests and implying that vehicles that can't pass it are unsafe.

[rperez817]

 

That won't stop the IIHS from adding new tests and implying that vehicles that can't pass it are unsafe.

 

IIHS' new tests help ensure the benchmark for automotive safety stays high. As Assimilator mentioned in post 41, the IIHS test results are helpful for new car shoppers. They can act as a tiebreaker for otherwise similar vehicles. Makes sense to choose the models with the best IIHS ratings, everything else being equal.

[MY93SHO]

 

IIHS' new tests help ensure the benchmark for automotive safety stays high. As Assimilator mentioned in post 41, the IIHS test results are helpful for new car shoppers. They can act as a tiebreaker for otherwise similar vehicles. Makes sense to choose the models with the best IIHS ratings, everything else being equal.

This post paid for by the IIHS.