2017 Escape IIHS Test improvement

[dfatz]

I'm nearly ready to get a 2017 Escape however the one thing that hold me back is the POOR rating on the IIHS Small Front Overlap test of the 2016 models. Since they say 25% of accidents are this type, it is a real concern for me. I'm *hoping* the 2017 has made some changes to improve the structure and/or airbag performance in this type of crash. Does anyone know if I should be optimistic on this?

[akirby]

I can almost guarantee it's safer than your Mariner. They change the test scale every few years - they wouldn't be relevant if every vehicle scored good. And I don't believe that 25% of accidents are small overlap.

[BORG]

Ford is typically an underachiever in the small overlap test with no Ford vehicle earning their Top Safety Pick + category. Ford is not engineering to meet IIHS testing and the Escape is definitely the one to avoid if crash worthiness is a concern.

 

Here is a complete listing of their TSP/TSP+ vehicles. None of Ford's newer vehicles like the Edge or Explorer qualify but there are plenty of CUV choices from GM, Nissan, Toyota, Subaru, and Honda that do.

 

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/TSP-List

Edited March 9, 2016 by BORG

[akirby]

Ford is not engineering to meet IIHS testing and the Escape is definitely the one to avoid if crash worthiness is a concern.

 

Apparently they're tired of chasing arbitrary test results with a bar that gets increased every time the automakers get near it

 

Show me real world fatality data that jives with Fords being less safe and I'll retract my statement.

[dfatz]

From the reading I've done on the subject, it seems when this test came out many of the SUV/CUVs did real poorly. In last couple years, manufacturers have made improvements to do much better. It seems obvious from the test (to me) that the head missing the airbags and leg injuries are of concern. So I'm quite sure Ford will improve this. If not in 2017, than probably 2018. I'm just hoping it is the 2017 as I like most everything else about it and I've been driving Escapes sister models since 2001.

[aneekr]

I'm nearly ready to get a 2017 Escape however the one thing that hold me back is the POOR rating on the IIHS Small Front Overlap test of the 2016 models. Since they say 25% of accidents are this type, it is a real concern for me. I'm *hoping* the 2017 has made some changes to improve the structure and/or airbag performance in this type of crash. Does anyone know if I should be optimistic on this?

 

Of course I could be wrong, but I'm not optimistic that Escape's performance in IIHS' Small Front Overlap test will demonstrate a significant enough improvement for the MY 2017 model to achieve TSP+. Ford's press release for 2017 Escape makes no mention of structural enhancements in this regard, though adaptive cruise control and forward collision warning with brake support are newly available on Escape for 2017.

 

I agree with BORG. With only one IIHS TSP or TSP+ winner (2016 F-150), Ford lags most other automakers in terms of crashworthiness and availability of forward collision mitigation systems throughout their vehicle lineups.

 

It would be prudent to hold off on getting a 2017 Escape until IIHS crash results for that model are released, and to consider alternatives in this class that achieved TSP+: Honda CR-V, Hyundai Tucson, Mazda CX-5, Mitsubishi Outlander, Subaru Forester, and Toyota RAV4.

[dfatz]

Thanks for good advice all. I'm not even looking for TSP+ or even Good. Just hoping it can graduate from Poor to Acceptable.

[BORG]

 

Of course I could be wrong, but I'm not optimistic that Escape's performance in IIHS' Small Front Overlap test will demonstrate a significant enough improvement for the MY 2017 model to achieve TSP+. Ford's press release for 2017 Escape makes no mention of structural enhancements in this regard, though adaptive cruise control and forward collision warning with brake support are newly available on Escape for 2017.

 

I agree with BORG. With only one IIHS TSP or TSP+ winner (2016 F-150), Ford lags most other automakers in terms of crashworthiness and availability of forward collision mitigation systems throughout their vehicle lineups.

 

It would be prudent to hold off on getting a 2017 Escape until IIHS crash results for that model are released, and to consider alternatives in this class that achieved TSP+: Honda CR-V, Hyundai Tucson, Mazda CX-5, Mitsubishi Outlander, Subaru Forester, and Toyota RAV4.

 

 

Not all F-150s qualify for TSP since the structural safety members are not available on all models which Ford does not declare to the customer. For this reason I think IIHS should have disqualified the F-150 from this ranking.

Edited March 10, 2016 by BORG

[fordtech1]

 

 

Not all F-150s qualify for TSP since the structural safety members are not available on all models which Ford does not declare to the customer. For this reason I think IIHS should have disqualified the F-150 from this ranking.

That was supposedly changed for 2016MY. At least that's what was put in Ford's response to the 2015 crash test results. IIHS hasn't retested 2016 regular/extended cabs yet.

[akirby]

Thanks for good advice all. I'm not even looking for TSP+ or even Good. Just hoping it can graduate from Poor to Acceptable.

 

Yet 5 years ago the same vehicle would have been rated Good and you would have gladly bought it and still be driving it feeling perfectly safe.

 

What happens if the vehicle that hits you is at a slightly different angle, or weighs more or less or is taller or shorter or the closing speed is slower or faster?

 

What are the odds that you'll have EXACTLY that same type of accident?

 

This is my issue with these new tests - far far too many variables to reproduce those results in the real world.

 

Show me real world results that corroborate with a poor rating and I'll get off my soapbox.

[aneekr]

This is my issue with these new tests - far far too many variables to reproduce those results in the real world.

 

Show me real world results that corroborate with a poor rating and I'll get off my soapbox.

 

This is a legitimate issue, and a challenging one to analyze. IIHS tabulates statistics on "the rate at which drivers of individual models are killed in crashes." Even though driver death rates are adjusted for age and gender, there are still confounding effects related to driver demographics. This makes it very difficult to isolate the role of a single crash test result, small overlap for example, to the likelihood of driver fatalities for specific models in the real world.

 

Here's an interesting example. For the most recent set of data, based on MY 2011 and equivalent models analyzed in calendar years 2009-12, the small SUV/CUV with the highest driver death rate was Jeep Patriot 2WD, with 57 driver deaths per million registered vehicle years. The model in this class with the second lowest rate, at 11 driver deaths per million registered vehicle years was... Jeep Patriot 4WD. (FWIW, Jeep Patriot got a rating of 'poor' in the IIHS small overlap test; 2WD vs. 4WD shouldn't make a difference here).

 

At the same time, IIHS is to be commended for ensuring crash test standards are adjusted periodically as technologies for improving crashworthiness and for active safety features like FCW advance. For consumers in the market for a MY 2016 or 2017 small SUV/CUV, there's no reason to consider a model that scores less than "acceptable" in any IIHS test. There are at least nine models in that segment that have earned 'good' ratings on all five IIHS tests.

Edited March 11, 2016 by aneekr

[jpd80]

Thanks for good advice all. I'm not even looking for TSP+ or even Good. Just hoping it can graduate from Poor to Acceptable.

Just about every other Ford vehicle that would possibly be in your zone gets an Acceptable (just short of good)

I don't know what is up with the escape/Kuga version of C1 as compared to Focus (A) and C-Max (A) that makes

it crash so poorly on short overlap.... there must be something that needs substantial rework...

 

Good search tool HERE

Edited March 11, 2016 by jpd80

[akirby]

 

This is a legitimate issue, and a challenging one to analyze. IIHS tabulates statistics on "the rate at which drivers of individual models are killed in crashes." Even though driver death rates are adjusted for age and gender, there are still confounding effects related to driver demographics. This makes it very difficult to isolate the role of a single crash test result, small overlap for example, to the likelihood of driver fatalities for specific models in the real world.

 

Here's an interesting example. For the most recent set of data, based on MY 2011 and equivalent models analyzed in calendar years 2009-12, the small SUV/CUV with the highest driver death rate was Jeep Patriot 2WD, with 57 driver deaths per million registered vehicle years. The model in this class with the second lowest rate, at 11 driver deaths per million registered vehicle years was... Jeep Patriot 4WD. (FWIW, Jeep Patriot got a rating of 'poor' in the IIHS small overlap test; 2WD vs. 4WD shouldn't make a difference here).

 

At the same time, IIHS is to be commended for ensuring crash test standards are adjusted periodically as technologies for improving crashworthiness and for active safety features like FCW advance. For consumers in the market for a MY 2016 or 2017 small SUV/CUV, there's no reason to consider a model that scores less than "acceptable" in any IIHS test. There are at least nine models in that segment that have earned 'good' ratings on all five IIHS tests.

 

I have no problem adding new tests or adjusting tests if there is a high probability it will correlate with real world results. Nobody can argue that offset crashes are fairly common and usually devastating. The problem comes in when you start creating degrees of offset or making tiny changes to other variables. When you can't draw a correlation to real world results (almost impossible to accurately measure the angle of offset in each crash) then it becomes arbitrary. So the other mfrs designed around the small offset scenario - that doesn't mean that they perform as well if you change the angle of the crash.

 

The other big issue is changing the definition of results. If something was 5 stars 10 years ago then it's just as safe today as it was back then, so don't change it from Good to Poor overnight. Leave it at 5 stars and make the new ones 6 stars, then 7, etc.

 

Just like CR, if they told the public that all cars are reliable nowadays and there isn't much difference between 5th place and 25th place or if they told everyone that virtually all cars today are safe then they are no longer relevant.

[92merc]

You also have to consider the timing of the new offset test. US didn't get the new Escape until late 2012 as a 2013. Europe got it a year sooner. Ford was well on their way to having the car made before the new offset test was out. So Ford never had a chance to update their structure. And I'm betting the change must be significant enough that they couldn't do it with the MCE. It'll have to wait until the next version.

 

At least with the F150, they had the room and could simply add a brace to pass the tests. Escape is a lot smaller and will require a bigger redesign.

[fordtech1]

I can't imagine it taking a whole lot because the C- Max gets an acceptable and it's basically the same car

[BORG]

Depending on the nature of the structural failure in the small overlap test, it's possible Ford could make very modest modifications to the front fender substructure to bring the score up above Poor, although it's likely the safety cage would have to be redesigned to bring it all the way up which won't happen until 2019 at the earliest. Based on Ford's unremarkable scores in their newest models, I don't believe Ford is interested in chasing IIHS for whatever reason so ultimately it's up to the consumer to decide. And since Escape production is maxed out, Ford is not incentivized to invest further if consumers are not responding. Ultimately I don't think Ford is making unsafe vehicles, but there is a pattern of underachieving in these tests relative to the competition that leaves me concerned about the company's safety priority, especially since they were among the top performers in the industry just 10 years ago. Ford is consistently inconsistent.

Edited March 11, 2016 by BORG

[akirby]

Depending on the nature of the structural failure in the small overlap test, it's possible Ford could make very modest modifications to the front fender substructure to bring the score up above Poor, although it's likely the safety cage would have to be redesigned to bring it all the way up which won't happen until 2019 at the earliest. Based on Ford's unremarkable scores in their newest models, I don't believe Ford is interested in chasing IIHS for whatever reason so ultimately it's up to the consumer to decide. And since Escape production is maxed out, Ford is not incentivized to invest further if consumers are not responding. Ultimately I don't think Ford is making unsafe vehicles, but there is a pattern of underachieving in these tests relative to the competition that leaves me concerned about the company's safety priority, especially since they were among the top performers in the industry just 10 years ago. Ford is consistently inconsistent.

 

Bingo. If it's not affecting sales then it's not a priority - fix it on the next redesign if it's not something that can be done quickly and easily.

 

Maybe the IIHS should give automakers more lead time before they start holding them accountable.

[MKII]

You also have to consider the timing of the new offset test. US didn't get the new Escape until late 2012 as a 2013. Europe got it a year sooner. Ford was well on their way to having the car made before the new offset test was out. So Ford never had a chance to update their structure. And I'm betting the change must be significant enough that they couldn't do it with the MCE. It'll have to wait until the next version.

 

At least with the F150, they had the room and could simply add a brace to pass the tests. Escape is a lot smaller and will require a bigger redesign.

 

Actually North American 2013 Escape production began April 2012, and Europe 2013 Kuga began late December 2012

[akirby]

I think he was confusing it with the Focus

[dfatz]

I found the actual IIHS quote so wanted to clarify what I stated in the original post:

" A 2009 IIHS study revealed that among cars with good ratings for frontal crash protection, small overlap collisions make up almost 25 percent of crashes resulting in serious or fatal injuries to front-seat occupants"

[mettech]

Point is:

 

Everyone has the same lead time of the changes..

 

Fords' products are not doing as well as other manufactures.

 

Others have made a choice to do better. Ford has not.

[transitman]

I found the actual IIHS quote so wanted to clarify what I stated in the original post:

" A 2009 IIHS study revealed that among cars with good ratings for frontal crash protection, small overlap collisions make up almost 25 percent of crashes resulting in serious or fatal injuries to front-seat occupants"

That's 1/4 of all front overlap crashes. Yes, 25% is a high percentage, but 75% of all overlap crashes do not result in serious injury and overlap crashes are a small percentage of all crashes. If you're that worried about the Escape in particular, purchase a vehicle that meets your criteria. Also, is a 2009 study still relevant today?

[akirby]

Not to mention the actual angle of a small overlap crash in the real world varies significantly as does the weight of the other vehicle and probably more importantly vehicle speeds. If you hit another car head on like that and you're both going 60 mph the test results aren't going to matter much.