Jump to content

18 Explorer rated Poor in front crash test


Recommended Posts

Show me real world data that says more people are injured or killed in Explorers or JGCs than other vehicles and maybe I'll pay attention.

 

IIHS data on driver death rates, deaths per million registered vehicle years. http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr5203.pdf

 

  • 2011-2014 Ford Explorer 4WD: 3
  • 2011-2014 Ford Explorer 2WD: 27
  • 2011-2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4WD: 16
  • 2011-2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee 2WD: 10
  • Average for all SUVs: 21
  • Average for all light vehicles: 30
  • Highest rate, Hyundai Accent: 104
  • Lowest rate, 11 models from Audi, BMW, Jeep, Lexus, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, and VW: 0

IIHS adjusted the rates for age and gender of driver but not race, income, occupation, etc.

 

Don't have data on passenger death rates by make and model.

Edited by rperez817
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

akirby mentioned details for Camry in post #15. Corolla's New MC platform has been around since 2005. In the U.S., the first Toyota model to use that platform was 2006 RAV4. Corolla started using New MC platform in 2008.

 

Both Camry and Corolla are now using TNGA. Camry for model year 2018. Corolla for model year 2019.

 

 

The architecture under the D3/D4 Explorer dates back to the 1998 Volvo P3 platform, which wasn't even developed by Ford. The Ford D3 platform differs slightly from the original configuration of the Volvo P2 architecture. To reduce production costs, Ford Motor Company adopted steel suspension arms (in place of aluminum) and similar material cost-saving measures.

In contrast to the Volvo P2 architecture, Ford adopted a common 112.9 wheelbase for each D3 variant (three inches longer than a Volvo S80, two inches shorter than a Ford Crown Victoria). In place of the inline-5 and inline-6 engines used by Volvo, Ford adopted its own Duratec V6 engines. As with the P2 platform, front-wheel drive is standard, with Haldex all-wheel drive (shared with the S80/XC90) fitted as an option. The D4 platform is a revision of D3 unibody platform produced since 2009. Developed to underpin crossover SUVs (including the Ford Flex, Lincoln MKT, and the 2011-present Ford Explorer), the variant is adaptable to multiple wheelbases; the suspension is also upgraded for off-road driving and towing.

Toyota got nothing on Ford when it comes to keeping a platform rolling, new platforms are extremely rare at either company but more so at Ford which makes this current phase of Ford pretty extraordinary.

Edited by Assimilator
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIHS data on driver death rates, deaths per million registered vehicle years. http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr5203.pdf

 

 

  • 2011-2014 Ford Explorer 4WD: 3
  • 2011-2014 Ford Explorer 2WD: 27
  • 2011-2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4WD: 16
  • 2011-2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee 2WD: 10
  • Average for all SUVs: 21
  • Average for all light vehicles: 30
  • Highest rate, Hyundai Accent: 104
  • Lowest rate, 11 models from Audi, BMW, Jeep, Lexus, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, and VW: 0
IIHS adjusted the rates for age and gender of driver but not race, income, occupation, etc.

 

Don't have data on passenger death rates by make and model.

Are these rates by volume of vehicles sold....since Explorer is a high volume vehicle which obviously would give it higher probability than a low volume Mazda, BMW, etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably says more about actual owners and exposure to risk than the vehicles being death traps..

the difference between the 2WD and AWD statistics is the stand out as all the EB V6s are AWD.

 

I was going to say the same thing- the delta between JGC RWD and AWD isn't as large.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traditionally Toyota has always had the archaic platforms and components, even the newly redesigned Corolla, was introduced with the antiquated 28 year old 4 speed transmission. Of course their blind loyalists will defend it by saying "if it's not broke why fix it?" which usually my answer is "because everyone elses fuel economy is much better with more speeds"... Now the new "Panther" of the industry happens to be the Chrysler 300, which happens to be stemmed from a '95 E-Class platform...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the primary determinant was the vehicle you wouldn’t see such drastic differences between the FWD and AWD versions. Or the sample sizes are too small.

 

There are far too many other variables involved for one test like this to be statistically meaningful.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traditionally Toyota has always had the archaic platforms and components, even the newly redesigned Corolla, was introduced with the antiquated 28 year old 4 speed transmission. Of course their blind loyalists will defend it by saying "if it's not broke why fix it?" which usually my answer is "because everyone elses fuel economy is much better with more speeds"... Now the new "Panther" of the industry happens to be the Chrysler 300, which happens to be stemmed from a '95 E-Class platform...

 

As Assimilator mentioned, Toyota has got nothing on Ford when it comes to using archaic platforms and components.

 

Chrysler 300 is not based on a '95 E-Class platform. This is a myth that seems to persist. Don't know why! LX platform is a clean slate design introduced in 2004. Daimler contributed suspension designs from the W220 S-Class for LX platform. Other than that and the fact Daimler owned Chrysler back then, Chrysler 300 is not related to any Mercedes-Benz models.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably says more about actual owners and exposure to risk than the vehicles being death traps..

the difference between the 2WD and AWD statistics is the stand out as all the EB V6s are AWD.

 

A vehicle largely bought by middle-income and upper-income, middle-aged, married people is going to have a very good safety record.

Edited by grbeck
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A vehicle largely bought by middle-income and upper-income, middle-aged, married people is going to have a very good safety record.

 

Yes sir. The IIHS driver death rates are adjusted for age. But not for the other factors you mentioned or for race and ethnicity. All of those things have an impact on the frequency and severity of crashes.

 

Here are the models with 0 driver deaths in model years 2011 to 2014 (Jeep Cherokee is 2014 only). They seem to be popular among upper income, middle aged, married people. Particularly white Anglo and Oriental people.

 

Audi A6 4WD
Audi Q7 4WD
BMW 535i/is 2WD
BMW 535xi 4WD
Jeep Cherokee 4WD
Lexus CT 200h
Lexus RX 350 2WD
Mazda CX-9 2WD SUV
Mercedes-Benz M-Class 4WD
Toyota Tacoma Double Cab long bed 4WD
Volkswagen Tiguan 2WD
Edited by rperez817
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

IIHS data on driver death rates, deaths per million registered vehicle years. http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr5203.pdf

 

  • 2011-2014 Ford Explorer 4WD: 3
  • 2011-2014 Ford Explorer 2WD: 27
  • 2011-2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4WD: 16
  • 2011-2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee 2WD: 10
  • Average for all SUVs: 21
  • Average for all light vehicles: 30
  • Highest rate, Hyundai Accent: 104
  • Lowest rate, 11 models from Audi, BMW, Jeep, Lexus, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, and VW: 0
IIHS adjusted the rates for age and gender of driver but not race, income, occupation, etc.

 

Don't have data on passenger death rates by make and model.

First of all, this is death rate, not injury or death/injury combined.

It's safe to say, this offset test that Explorer and Grand Cherokee both failed, had/will have zero impact on the death rate. Pass, Fail, Fixed, whatever, ZERO impact.

 

Back to the numbers. If we assume Explorer and GC have roughly 50-50 take rate on 4WD vs. 2WD, the avf. death rate would be 15 and 13 respectively, both below their class average.

 

These show you how useless some (most) of IIHS tests are, in terms of reducing fatality. They will (may) reduce repair costs and medical expenses, which will improve their industry bottom line. But they'll never come out and say it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The architecture under the D3/D4 Explorer dates back to the 1998 Volvo P3 platform, which wasn't even developed by Ford. The Ford D3 platform differs slightly from the original configuration of the Volvo P2 architecture. To reduce production costs, Ford Motor Company adopted steel suspension arms (in place of aluminum) and similar material cost-saving measures.

In contrast to the Volvo P2 architecture, Ford adopted a common 112.9 wheelbase for each D3 variant (three inches longer than a Volvo S80, two inches shorter than a Ford Crown Victoria). In place of the inline-5 and inline-6 engines used by Volvo, Ford adopted its own Duratec V6 engines. As with the P2 platform, front-wheel drive is standard, with Haldex all-wheel drive (shared with the S80/XC90) fitted as an option. The D4 platform is a revision of D3 unibody platform produced since 2009. Developed to underpin crossover SUVs (including the Ford Flex, Lincoln MKT, and the 2011-present Ford Explorer), the variant is adaptable to multiple wheelbases; the suspension is also upgraded for off-road driving and towing.

Toyota got nothing on Ford when it comes to keeping a platform rolling, new platforms are extremely rare at either company but more so at Ford which makes this current phase of Ford pretty extraordinary.

 

 

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+)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A vehicle largely bought by middle-income and upper-income, middle-aged, married people is going to have a very good safety record.

And as I was saying, the statistics have less to do with the safety of the vehicle and more about the dangers those drivers are exposed to,

if the vehicle was seriously deficient, you'd expect the AWD numbers to be just as high as the 2WD numbers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All things being relative, you would probably want to chose the vehicle that offers the best overall protection and balance that against pricing, amenities, and availability. It's just one thing to consider when shopping for a vehicle and how you weigh it against everything else is up to you. Personally it's a hard deal breaker for me, any car that flunks IIHS testing (especially as spectacularly as Explorer) is just not worth considering with so many outstanding choices. I think the 2020 Explorer will nail it if their CD4 cars can...except Edge. If not, Aviator probably will (MKX improved upon Edge).

Edited by Assimilator
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All things being relative, you would probably want to chose the vehicle that offers the best overall protection and balance that against pricing, amenities, and availability. It's just one thing to consider when shopping for a vehicle and how you weigh it against everything else is up to you. Personally it's a hard deal breaker for me, any car that flunks IIHS testing (especially as spectacularly as Explorer) is just not worth considering with so many outstanding choices. I think the 2020 Explorer will nail it if their CD4 cars can...except Edge. If not, Aviator probably will (MKX improved upon Edge).

 

 

Absolutely, except you can't really say whether the Explorer overall is more safe in the real world. All you can say is in this particular test it performed this way. There are literally thousands of other scenarios where the result is unknown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I think it's safe to assume that Explorer has the least comprehensive safety system given it's age and structural performance (and lack of safety amenities). Does that make it an unsafe vehicle, probably not. Would I rather have an Explorer that flunks the IIHS or a Fusion that aces it...I'm not so sure. Ford actually does not have an SUV that currently scores well at the IIHS (presumably new Expedition will) but Edge is really the only decent performer which means it's the only Ford vehicle I would buy besides the F-150.

 

They are gradually making changes to catch up to the market norms with a standard suite of safety features and all-new platforms and products so hopefully this will all be fixed over the next 2-3 years and Ford can stop embarrassing itself....although I suspect EcoSport and Ranger are going to be poor performers considering their age and origin.

Edited by Assimilator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I think it's safe to assume that Explorer has the least comprehensive safety system given it's age and structural performance (and lack of safety amenities). Does that make it an unsafe vehicle, probably not. Would I rather have an Explorer that flunks the IIHS or a Fusion that aces it...I'm not so sure. Ford actually does not have an SUV that currently scores well at the IIHS (presumably new Expedition will) but Edge is really the only decent performer which means it's the only Ford vehicle I would buy besides the F-150.

 

They are gradually making changes to catch up to the market norms with a standard suite of safety features and all-new platforms and products so hopefully this will all be fixed over the next 2-3 years and Ford can stop embarrassing itself....although I suspect EcoSport and Ranger are going to be poor performers considering their age and origin.

 

Didn't the Jeep Grand Cherokee also earn a "poor" rating for this particular test?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I think it's safe to assume that Explorer has the least comprehensive safety system given it's age and structural performance (and lack of safety amenities). Does that make it an unsafe vehicle, probably not. Would I rather have an Explorer that flunks the IIHS or a Fusion that aces it...I'm not so sure. Ford actually does not have an SUV that currently scores well at the IIHS (presumably new Expedition will) but Edge is really the only decent performer which means it's the only Ford vehicle I would buy besides the F-150.

 

They are gradually making changes to catch up to the market norms with a standard suite of safety features and all-new platforms and products so hopefully this will all be fixed over the next 2-3 years and Ford can stop embarrassing itself....although I suspect EcoSport and Ranger are going to be poor performers considering their age and origin.

 

 

That's like taking 5 random questions out of the SAT test and saying that the person who got 4 right is smarter than the person who got 3 right.

 

I feel just as safe in any Ford vehicle as I would in any other vehicle.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of that matters if you hit something at 60 mph...

 

or you have a short overlap head on with an 18 wheeler..

 

 

Why wouldn't it? A stronger safety cage is more likely to be life saving at higher speeds than a considerably weaker one. If the Explorer completely deforms at this speed while the others barely budge, who do you think will withstand the crash better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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...