Crash Tests: Not all SUVs Built Alike
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,938
Crash Tests: Not all SUVs Built Alike
Crash Tests: Not all SUVs Built Alike
Offered for information/discussion purposes only; I’m not trying to “bash” a brand or promote any other – in other words, don’t shoot the messenger!
I’m never quite sure how relevant these tests are….I can’t say I would ever buy or not buy a vehicle just because of these ratings but I suspect some people do takes these into account when making a purchase.
Here is a brief synopsis of the story as well as links to the full story and to the Insurance Institute.
IIHS Link: http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr101107.html
CNN Link: http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/...ars/index.html
Offered for information/discussion purposes only; I’m not trying to “bash” a brand or promote any other – in other words, don’t shoot the messenger!
I’m never quite sure how relevant these tests are….I can’t say I would ever buy or not buy a vehicle just because of these ratings but I suspect some people do takes these into account when making a purchase.
Here is a brief synopsis of the story as well as links to the full story and to the Insurance Institute.
While all offer reasonable protection from front impacts, there are big differences in side impact protection among six truck-based SUVs, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
CNN reports that the worst-performing vehicle in the test was the Chevrolet Trailblazer, which earned an "Acceptable" rating for front impact protection, the second-highest of four possible ratings, and a "Marginal" rating for side impact protection, the second-worst rating possible. "The performance of some of these models in the side test was surprising," said Institute senior vice president David Zuby. "People often think they're safer in one of these vehicles, but many cars hold up better than some of these midsize SUVs in this test."
The best performing SUV was the Nissan Pathfinder when equipped with optional side airbags. It earned the top rating of "Good" for both front and side impact protection and a "Marginal" rating for whiplash protection. The Toyota 4Runner, likewise, earned "Good" ratings for front and side impact protection but got a "Poor" rating for whiplash protection.
CNN reports that the worst-performing vehicle in the test was the Chevrolet Trailblazer, which earned an "Acceptable" rating for front impact protection, the second-highest of four possible ratings, and a "Marginal" rating for side impact protection, the second-worst rating possible. "The performance of some of these models in the side test was surprising," said Institute senior vice president David Zuby. "People often think they're safer in one of these vehicles, but many cars hold up better than some of these midsize SUVs in this test."
The best performing SUV was the Nissan Pathfinder when equipped with optional side airbags. It earned the top rating of "Good" for both front and side impact protection and a "Marginal" rating for whiplash protection. The Toyota 4Runner, likewise, earned "Good" ratings for front and side impact protection but got a "Poor" rating for whiplash protection.
CNN Link: http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/...ars/index.html
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 215
From: ********.com
Robert Nashville posts a study in which a Nissan performs well???
Here is my "surprised face" -->
I'm still waiting for this "SUV" and "crossover" trend to follow through to its logical conclusion with the rebirth of the great American stationwagon.
Here is my "surprised face" -->
I'm still waiting for this "SUV" and "crossover" trend to follow through to its logical conclusion with the rebirth of the great American stationwagon.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 162
From: St. Louis, MO
I have never given and inkling of thought to saftey ratings when buying a vehicle, because all the cool cars are usually the most unsafest.
But a lot of people go by all these crash test star ratings, so yeah thats not a good thing if the soccer moms read that.
What gets me is how on one hand you have the thought of how introducing a car in the marketplace with anything less then a 5 star saftey rating is suicide, and on the other hand they're selling all these aveo, yaris, prius type cars that will get creamed if hit by a surburban.
Proof yet again the public is easily influenced and doesn't know what they want or how to form an independant thought.
But a lot of people go by all these crash test star ratings, so yeah thats not a good thing if the soccer moms read that.
What gets me is how on one hand you have the thought of how introducing a car in the marketplace with anything less then a 5 star saftey rating is suicide, and on the other hand they're selling all these aveo, yaris, prius type cars that will get creamed if hit by a surburban.
Proof yet again the public is easily influenced and doesn't know what they want or how to form an independant thought.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,463
From: SoCal
Ya know everytime I hear or read about crash test data it's always being posted by the carmaker who's vehicle scored a 5 star rating or a Good rating from the Insurance Inst.
I've come to realize that there are many factors in one vehicles performance in crash testing not to mention a few sources to qoute. So in this case Nissan could say their Pathfinder scored a good from the Ins. Inst. (What did they get from the NHTSB? does it matter?)
Toyota could also say their 4runner earned a Good rating on front and side protection and leave out the Poor rating it got on whiplash protection. Why quote negative press?
Seems to me these crash test ratings are a bit like magazines and getting a 10 best with C&D or the COY or TOY with Motor Trend just become advertising tools. Car companies can shop these things around until they get an acceptable rating from some inst.
Not to mention that when you test vehicles that are older, Trailblazer in 2007, when it started production in 2002 I'm sure back then it was designed and tested for crash testing at that time and probably earned a 5 star rating of some sort then.
I wouldn't see any manufacturer bring out a vehicle that didn't earn some good or 5 star rating from one of the testing bureaus in the main areas of testing.
I've come to realize that there are many factors in one vehicles performance in crash testing not to mention a few sources to qoute. So in this case Nissan could say their Pathfinder scored a good from the Ins. Inst. (What did they get from the NHTSB? does it matter?)
Toyota could also say their 4runner earned a Good rating on front and side protection and leave out the Poor rating it got on whiplash protection. Why quote negative press?
Seems to me these crash test ratings are a bit like magazines and getting a 10 best with C&D or the COY or TOY with Motor Trend just become advertising tools. Car companies can shop these things around until they get an acceptable rating from some inst.
Not to mention that when you test vehicles that are older, Trailblazer in 2007, when it started production in 2002 I'm sure back then it was designed and tested for crash testing at that time and probably earned a 5 star rating of some sort then.
I wouldn't see any manufacturer bring out a vehicle that didn't earn some good or 5 star rating from one of the testing bureaus in the main areas of testing.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,165
From: Sterling Heights, MI
^^ Good points. ^^
Not to excuse the TB's poor showing, the IIHS test is tougher than the Government's. As you mentioned, TB is probably one of the oldest SUVs they tested. Still, TB does come standard with side curtain airbags now, so that feature is probably just as good a marketing tool as actual IIHS test results are.
Not to excuse the TB's poor showing, the IIHS test is tougher than the Government's. As you mentioned, TB is probably one of the oldest SUVs they tested. Still, TB does come standard with side curtain airbags now, so that feature is probably just as good a marketing tool as actual IIHS test results are.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,030
From: Frankfort, KY U.S.A.
Yeah Trailblazer in its current form as been here since what 2002, I am sure a lot of standards have changed since then. And as soon as govt. regulations change to new standards, I bet the GM360s will end production. It would have been interesting to see how the Lambas would have done in the test since they are much newer.
Registered User
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,018
It will be interesting to see how the new GM SUV's rate.
Even back in 2002, the TB wasn't that great of a contender. Not when the 2002 Camaro (mostly designed in 1991/1992) was still receiving near-excellent marks from the NHTSA. Even worse (and sold through the 2004 model year) was the S10 Blazer which still is a death trap for side and frontal impacts. I'm hoping the new generation of GM SUV's pays a little more attention to safety...
Even back in 2002, the TB wasn't that great of a contender. Not when the 2002 Camaro (mostly designed in 1991/1992) was still receiving near-excellent marks from the NHTSA. Even worse (and sold through the 2004 model year) was the S10 Blazer which still is a death trap for side and frontal impacts. I'm hoping the new generation of GM SUV's pays a little more attention to safety...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
