Asian Automakers Dominate IIHS Safety Picks

[ANTAUS]

AutoBlog

Chrysler Pacifica was the only domestic who earned Top Pick...

[rperez817]

Thanks ANTAUS sir. Don't know why Autoblog considers Chrysler Pacifica a U.S. domestic car. It's made in Canada by a company based in U.K. and Netherlands.

I put the list of all IIHS Safety Picks in a Competing Products thread. 

 

[twintornados]

Quote

In case you were wondering, the IIHS made it tougher to be a Top Safety Pick+ by requiring a higher level of performance from its passenger-side small overlap front crash test. Before, only an "acceptable" rating was necessary, but now it requires a "good" to get full marks. In addition to that, "good"-rated headlights must at least be available for each model.

So, the vehicles tested are not somehow less safe, IIHS just moved their "bar" up a few notches...

[akirby]

6 hours ago, twintornados said:

So, the vehicles tested are not somehow less safe, IIHS just moved their "bar" up a few notches...

 

Like they always do.  This is my biggest complaint - something that was a “top safety pick” a few years ago is now a death trap.

[Assimilator]

It's just another metric to base a buying decision upon, it hardly means vehicles not ranking are death traps.  But if you agree with the criteria the IIHS has outlined...and all things being relative..then I think it's reasonable to say that vehicles that score on this list have an edge on features and designs important for safety.  Ford will respond if they feel their customers care, but Ford has never been idealistic about safety, they tend to to follow government mandates.  That's especially notable when we look at how persistently poorly Ford does in IIHS crash testing, even with full awareness of it.  But we also have to appreciate that when Ford has new safety amenities, they aren't experimental or unrefined which isn't always revealed by checklist testing.

Edited December 22, 2018 by Assimilator

[akirby]

But the IIHS sure goes out of its way to imply that vehicles that don’t meet their criteria are patently unsafe even if they don’t say it outright.

[rperez817]

56 minutes ago, akirby said:

But the IIHS sure goes out of its way to imply that vehicles that don’t meet their criteria are patently unsafe even if they don’t say it outright.

The IIHS awards recognize automakers and specific vehicles that "offer a superior level of safety". Models not rated Top Safety Pick or Top Safety Pick+ are not necessarily "patently unsafe". IIHS doesn't imply that at all. But relatively speaking, TSP and TSP+ rated vehicles are the safest in their classes.

The IIHS awards are very valuable for consumers as a comparison tool.

[akirby]

2013 Escape - Top Safety Pick!

2018 Escape (same vehicle) fails new crash test!  5 others score good!  (Actual headline)

[jasonj80]

You can complain that it’s a stupid test. You can complain that the metrics become harder and that’s unfair. The fact is safety is high on consumer shopping lists and if Ford chooses not to update and get good marks it will fail to gain those vehicle shoppers as customers. 

Its like complaining to the teacher you aced basic mathematics but failed calicus and that’s unfair because you did great before; never mind the parameters changed. You were told the parameters were changing years ago yet chose to do nothing to improve.

[rperez817]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

2013 Escape - Top Safety Pick!

2018 Escape (same vehicle) fails new crash test!  5 others score good!  (Actual headline)

Criteria for 2013 IIHS Top Safety Pick.

"To qualify for

2013 Top Safety Pick, a vehicle must earn good ratings in the moderate overlap front, side, roof strength and head restraint tests, regardless of its rating in the driver-side small overlap front test."

Criteria for 2018 IIHS Top Safety Pick.

" To qualify for 

2018 Top Safety Pick, a vehicle must earn good ratings in the driver-side small overlap front, moderate overlap front, side, roof strength and head restraint tests. It also must earn an advanced or superior rating for front crash prevention and an acceptable or good headlight rating."

 

[jpd80]

Interesting that the IIHS' main sorting tool this year was passenger side short overlap test and "good" rating on head lights.

I'd be very surprised if any of this adds up to significantly different outcomes in 99% of real world crashes.  It smacks of self importance as an authority ..kinda like Consumer Report and their gold standard test scores.

Edited December 23, 2018 by jpd80

[akirby]

4 hours ago, jasonj80 said:

You can complain that it’s a stupid test. You can complain that the metrics become harder and that’s unfair. The fact is safety is high on consumer shopping lists and if Ford chooses not to update and get good marks it will fail to gain those vehicle shoppers as customers. 

Its like complaining to the teacher you aced basic mathematics but failed calicus and that’s unfair because you did great before; never mind the parameters changed. You were told the parameters were changing years ago yet chose to do nothing to improve.

 

I’m not excusing Ford’s performance here except to say I don’t think it has much effect on sales.  But that not the right analogy.  Here is the better analogy.

 

You get an A in Algebra 1.   Every year they add more and more concepts until Algebra 1 is now just as hard as Algebra 2  and now they go back and change your A to a F.

 

My big problem isn’t with the tests although I think we’ve reached the point of diminishing returns where more angled crash tests don’t translate to real world safety.   

My problem is the way they advertise the test results and shame the mfrs for not keeping up with the newer tests by making them seem unsafe.  They do it to keep themselves relevant.  If they came out and said “almost every vehicle is safe” then they’re done.

 

To me one of the biggest changes for safety would be to make automatic headlamps mandatory.  Every time I go somewhere at dusk or in the rain I see multiple vehicles with no lights and you can barely see them.  You flash your lights at them and they ignore you.  THAT would be a safety improvement for everyone.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

Interesting that the IIHS' main sorting tool this year was passenger side short overlap test and "good" rating on head lights.

I'd be very surprised if any of this adds up to significantly different outcomes in 99% of real world crashes.  It smacks of self importance as an authority ..kinda like Consumer Report and their gold standard test scores.

 

And that’s my point - I don’t think headlamp performance (e.g.) translates to a statistically significant difference in real world accidents.

 

Think about it.   It has to be an object in the road or entering the road with no lights.  If you’re going slow enough you can stop safely regardless.  If you’re going really fast you won’t have time to stop or avoid it anyway.   There is a very small window where an extra 50 feet of visibility is the difference between an accident and no accident.   I have nothing against better lighting, just don’t act like it makes a huge difference in real world safety.

[akirby]

3 hours ago, rperez817 said:

Criteria for 2013 IIHS Top Safety Pick.

 

 

Criteria for 2018 IIHS Top Safety Pick.

 

 

 

 

Thanks Captain Obvious.

[sullynd]

12 minutes ago, akirby said:

To me one of the biggest changes for safety would be to make automatic headlamps mandatory.  Every time I go somewhere at dusk or in the rain I see multiple vehicles with no lights and you can barely see them.  You flash your lights at them and they ignore you.  THAT would be a safety improvement for everyone.

I think automatic headlights are part of the problem. I never have to turn my lights on. However, it’s not uncommon when I’ve brought my car in for service, or used valet, etc, for them to turn them off.  Since I’m not used to turning them on, sometimes it takes a while to notice.   When I see cars with the lights off, the vast majority of them are newer, and I wonder if that’s not what happened. 

The headlights in my Edge also suck. They’re marginally better than no lights at all   

[rperez817]

30 minutes ago, akirby said:

My problem is the way they advertise the test results and shame the mfrs for not keeping up with the newer tests by making them seem unsafe.

IIHS does not make cars "seem unsafe". Their testing methods and TSP and TSP + awards encourage automakers to speed up safety advances. It's up to automakers to actually do that.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

IIHS does not make cars "seem unsafe". 

 

Yes they do.   Just read this article about the 2018 Escape.

 

Incredibly Alarming!

 

http://asq.org/qualitynews/qnt/execute/displaySetup?newsID=24214

 

[Gurgeh]

9 hours ago, akirby said:

To me one of the biggest changes for safety would be to make automatic headlamps mandatory.  Every time I go somewhere at dusk or in the rain I see multiple vehicles with no lights and you can barely see them.  You flash your lights at them and they ignore you.  THAT would be a safety improvement for everyone.

I see that a lot here in Maryland too. Odd thing is, when I grew up in California if you saw a car at night without headlamps on you would quickly switch your own lights off and then back on. Everyone knew that was a signal that your lights aren't on. Here, there does not appear to be such a signal. Some seem to think it means there's a speed trap ahead, some that there's something faulty with your own lights, some that you're just an annoying jerk. 

[02MustangGT]

17 hours ago, akirby said:

 

Yes they do.   Just read this article about the 2018 Escape.

 

Incredibly Alarming!

 

http://asq.org/qualitynews/qnt/execute/displaySetup?newsID=24214

 

The statement you referenced doesn’t support your point of contention with IIHS testing and results.   Airbags not deploying?   Yes that is a concern.  Why does IIHS make vehicles seem unsafe?   They test for specific standards and it’s up to the manufacturers to build vehicles to meet these standards.  The consumer can decide whether the results are important.  You may not care that airbags didn’t deploy in the 2018 Escape testing, but some folks do.  

Edited December 23, 2018 by 02MustangGT

[rperez817]

2 hours ago, 02MustangGT said:

The statement you referenced doesn’t support your point of contention with IIHS testing and results.   Airbags not deploying?   Yes that is a concern.  Why does IIHS make vehicles seem unsafe?   They test for specific standards and it’s up to the manufacturers to build vehicles to meet these standards.  The consumer can decide whether the results are important.  You may not care that airbags didn’t deploy in the 2018 Escape testing, but some folks do.  

Well said 02MustangGT sir. The IIHS lady quoted in that Gannett article didn't say that 2018 Ford Escape is unsafe. She did provide details why that model scored POOR in the passenger side small overlap test. It is very clear that other vehicles in the class are safer, though. It's relative.

As you said, consumers can use the IIHS test results as they see fit. They provide a good basis for comparison. For example, a consumer shopping for a compact crossover knows that 2018 Chevrolet Equinox, GMC Terrain, Jeep Compass, BMW X1 and Mitsubishi Outlander are safer than 2018 Ford Escape and Mitsubishi Outlander Sport.

The quote from the Ford lady was kind of funny. "Safety continues to be one of the highest priorities in the design of our vehicles". Umm OK...

Edited December 24, 2018 by rperez817

[akirby]

I get it - you like what the IIHS is doing so you defend them.  I think they sensationalize their test results and come up with new tests just to keep themselves relevant and there is little correlation to actual real world injuries for some of their tests.  If you disagree that’s fine.

[02MustangGT]

15 minutes ago, akirby said:

I get it - you like what the IIHS is doing so you defend them.  I think they sensationalize their test results and come up with new tests just to keep themselves relevant and there is little correlation to actual real world injuries for some of their tests.  If you disagree that’s fine.

Not defending IIHS...you defend your “opinion” but IIHS is actually providing facts and results based on specific testing criteria.  Whether you believe safety is important or not, that’s up to you.  Because a Ford product (or multiple Ford products) may “fail” these tests, you have to defend Ford by providing an article that seems to fit your narrative.  But whatever, it’s the same old story with you and some other folks on this board.  The results of these IIHS tests matter to some consumers regardless of whether you choose to believe it.  And guess what?  IIHS results or any other review/publication do not influence my decision on vehicle purchases.  

[jpd80]

 IIHS has never exactly quantified just how many short overlap crashes actually occur  on the passenger side in the real world, they basically do the test to see if auto makers build vehicles with equal protection down both sides even if the really don't need it..

While neot dismissing IIHS out of hand, I think a balanced view to the results are needed, is there an issue with having less protecton down the passenger's side if the majority of crashes with higher impact occur on the driver's side...the only situations I can think of is vehicles crashing into power poles or trees...

Edited December 24, 2018 by jpd80

[02MustangGT]

Who cares how many short overlap passenger side crashes occur?   It happens.  They are comparing vehicles under the same test criteria.    The reality is, the testing is FACT based and allows the consumer to decide if it is an important factor in their purchasing decision.  

[akirby]

For the 27th time I’m not defending Ford or any other mfr.  I don’t care if Ford aces the tests or fails all of them.  I don’t like that they’re able to come up with new arbitrary tests and force mfrs to comply by playing on buyer’s fears.

 

Show me any real data that shows any correlation between the “small overlap” tests (driver and passenger) and real world crashes and injuries.  There are far too many variables in the real world.   Different angles, different speeds, different vehicle sizes and weights.