Iconic Sports Cars Fail to Meet IIHS Crash Standards

[JasonM]

The Camaro's roof strength score is certainly puzzling.

 

It appears that GM's light-weighting program failed in an area that should be fairly straightforward to achieve by now. The roof strength test is not a new test.

 

Given the years and years of attention paid to rollovers it's surprising that GM engineers couldn't achieve a good score, especially on a brand new model.

 

 

As for the importance of roof strength on these types of cars, per the IIHS report "Strong roofs are especially important for sports cars, which have among the highest driver death rates in single-vehicle rollovers (see "Saving lives: Improved vehicle designs bring down death rates," Jan. 29, 2015)."

Edited May 25, 2016 by JasonM

[Biker16]

" I have a higher regard for GM's safety engineering than Ford's and they've demonstrated consistently superior expertise in this regard"

 

And yet, the all new platform Camaro still didn't do better than the Mustang.

 

 

The Camaro's roof strength score is certainly puzzling.

 

It appears that GM's light-weighting program failed in an area that should be fairly straightforward to achieve by now. The roof strength test is not a new test.

 

Given the years and years of attention paid to rollovers it's surprising that GM engineers couldn't achieve a good score, especially on a brand new model.

 

 

As for the importance of roof strength on these types of cars, per the IIHS report "Strong roofs are especially important for sports cars, which have among the highest driver death rates in single-vehicle rollovers (see "Saving lives: Improved vehicle designs bring down death rates," Jan. 29, 2015)."

 

just for clarification the Camaro, Receive an acceptable rating for it's roof, which means it exceeds the NTHSA standard fro roof strength.

 

More on the Roff Strength test.

 

 

In the test, the strength of the roof is determined by pushing a metal plate against one side of it at a slow but constant speed. The force applied relative to the vehicle's weight is known as the strength-to-weight ratio. This graph shows how the ratio varied as the test of this vehicle progressed. The peak strength-to-weight ratio recorded at any time before the roof is crushed 5 inches is the key measurement of roof strength.

A good rating requires a strength-to-weight ratio of at least 4. In other words, the roof must withstand a force of at least 4 times the vehicle's weight before the plate crushes the roof by 5 inches. For an acceptable rating, the minimum required strength-to-weight ratio is 3.25. For a marginal rating, it is 2.5. Anything lower than that is poor.

 

to me the perfromance in the offset test is more troubling because it is the most expensive to address.

 

Lets compare

 

[fordtech1]

Truthfully both vehicles need improvement in separate areas. The roof crush can pass nhsta test and receive a marginal with iihs. 2.5 times the vehicles weight is federal requirements IIRC.

Also, the mustang received 5 stars across the board on Safercar.gov. Neither of them are unsafe.

Edited May 25, 2016 by fordtech1

[silvrsvt]

The only thing the IIHS test do is find fault with increasingly minute issues with cars...like someone said before, when are they going to require a car's windshield to be armored enough to stop a metal dart pointed at the driver's head traveling at 60 mph? An accident that happens .000000000000000000000001 of the time.

 

And have a reason to drive up Insurance rates...so its a self serving enterprise, since 99% of cars sold meet the Government standards from NHSTA

[JasonM]

It's good to see that every Ford tested by IIHS has received the highest ratings in the core tests - front, side, roof, and head restraints/seats.

 

Also good to see that Ford is able to achieve the highest score on the small overlap test as new models are introduced designed to meet the newest test.

 

I would be greatly concerned if Ford went backwards on a test result like the GM did with the roof strength test results for the brand new Camaro.

 

I'm still bewildered on why GM engineers couldn't achieve a good result on a such a routine and basic test that hasn't changed in years and years.

[akirby]

The only thing the IIHS test do is find fault with increasingly minute issues with cars...like someone said before, when are they going to require a car's windshield to be armored enough to stop a metal dart pointed at the driver's head traveling at 60 mph? An accident that happens .000000000000000000000001 of the time.

 

This. There is a point at which additional tests for increasingly rare circumstances do not add any statistically significant value. Take the small offset - what happens if you change the angle a few degrees either direction? Or the closing speed? How many real world accidents are going to happen at EXACTLY that closing speed with exactly the same type of barrier at exactly that angle?

 

I'm not so much against the test as I am how the results are used. Instead of just a FYI this is how it performed - you make your own judgement about how important that is for you - they factor it into ratings with terms like acceptable and poor and it becomes a PR issue if nothing else. Classic carrot on a stick.

 

And I'm sure all of you complaining about the safety of a 2016 vehicle either own or have family or friends that own older vehicles that are much less safe than any 2016 model. I'm sure you don't think twice about someone driving those vehicles.

 

Frankly I feel perfectly safe in any modern vehicle regardless of test scores.

[BORG]

 

 

 

just for clarification the Camaro, Receive an acceptable rating for it's roof, which means it exceeds the NTHSA standard fro roof strength.

 

More on the Roff Strength test.

 

 

to me the perfromance in the offset test is more troubling because it is the most expensive to address.

 

Lets compare

 

 

The deformation of the safety cage is really severe on the Mustang, it's actually surprising it still achieved an acceptable score, but it just goes to show you that you can't base performance entirely on appearances.

 

And people dismissing the relative performance of vehicles as an insurance scam by IIHS and Ford is being victimized is just unreasonable.

Edited May 25, 2016 by BORG

[akirby]

 

The deformation of the safety cage is really severe on the Mustang, it's actually surprising it still achieved an acceptable score, but it just goes to show you that you can't base performance entirely on appearances.

 

Neither one looks bad to me. What am I missing?

[silvrsvt]

 

Neither one looks bad to me. What am I missing?

 

BORG's ability to make a mountain out of molehill?

[RichardJensen]

 

Neither one looks bad to me. What am I missing?

The A pillar on the Mustang is bent way back.

 

Of course, it's all about distribution of energy. The deformed A pillar and firewall could be a design consideration to divert impact energies away from the footwell and floorpan. Who knows? None of us are remotely qualified to interpret these results as chance, design, or failure.

[92merc]

 

Neither one looks bad to me. What am I missing?

Only thing I can see is chest to steering is closer on the Stang. Both of them have their knees to the dash.

[akirby]

The A pillar on the Mustang is bent way back.

 

Only thing I can see is chest to steering is closer on the Stang. Both of them have their knees to the dash.

 

Both protected by airbags. I don't see anything that would indicate a severe injury in either case, thus my question.

[aneekr]

I'm still bewildered on why GM engineers couldn't achieve a good result on a such a routine and basic test that hasn't changed in years and years.

 

Same here. Also somewhat bewildering is the lack of any automated forward collision mitigation system for MY 2016 Camaro. Not only is it a completely redesigned model, but GM has otherwise been a leader incorporating such technology in mass market cars.

Edited May 25, 2016 by aneekr

[BORG]

Crash avoidance tech will be standard equipment pretty soon, right now it's probably irrelevant since it's only optional on high trim levels at Ford or Lincoln. The system in the Mustang is still a passive warning system and doesn't brake for you. It also requires the optional Adaptive Cruise Control system for $1,195. For this reason I'm surprised any optional safety system is still considered by IIHS.

 

Activate the available adaptive cruise control and it functions just like normal cruise control—with one exception. When adaptive cruise control sensors detect traffic slowing immediately ahead of you, your vehicle also slows down, based on your preset distance.When its sensors detect traffic has cleared, your vehicle resumes the set speed. Forward collision warning with brake support will alert you if it senses a potential collision with the car in front of you. A “heads-up” display, which simulates brake lights, flashes on the windshield. If you don’t react in time, the brakes will precharge and increase brake-assist sensitivity to provide full responsiveness when you brake.

 

The MKX is the first Ford to get active braking but Escape and Fusion have brake assist now with their systems which still requires Adaptive Cruise Control for $1,195 only available on upper trims.

 

At some point I guess Ford will have to make adaptive cruise standard or they'll have to split them apart.

Edited May 25, 2016 by BORG

[fordtech1]

Crash avoidance tech will be standard equipment pretty soon, right now it's probably irrelevant since it's only optional on very high trim levels at Ford or Lincoln. I believe Ford's system is still just a warning system in the Mustang, it doesn't brake the car for you. The MKX is the first Ford to get active braking but I believe Escape and Fusion have brake assist now with their systems as well although I'm not clear on how these systems are packaged. The system use to require adaptive cruise control but it seems it's been separated out?

I was driving a $63k 2016 Tahoe and it had collision warning but no adaptive cruise. I thought that was weird. I even set the cruise and tried it. Also, it just vibrated the seat and flashed also. Btw the seat vibrating is not for me. It's distracting.

 

For some reason FOE has had city stop for a while, not sure why it's taken so long to get here.

 

Fords current system will charge the brakes. I think the current hardware is completely capable to stop the car, just not sure why it hasn't been added to NA yet.

Edited May 25, 2016 by fordtech1

[fuzzymoomoo]

Charge the brakes?

[fordtech1]

Charge the brakes?

Basically applies enough pressure to fill gap between rotors and pads. Makes reaction time faster.

 

"If you dont react and continue to get closer to the other vehicle, your car will pre-charge and increase brake assist sensitivity to provide full responsiveness when you brake, which may help you avoid an accident. Once your brakes have been pre-charged, even if you press them lightly, theyll automatically apply a harder force to stop you quickly."

Edited May 25, 2016 by fordtech1

[akirby]

I believe the 2017 Fusion will have active braking.

[fordtech1]

I believe the 2017 Fusion will have active braking.

Yes and escape I believe you are correct.

[jasonj80]

Yes and escape I believe you are correct.

Does the Escape have it? It's not listed in the order guide on that it's just adaptive cruise with collision warning. When you read the ford website build and price is listed as adaptive cruise with pre Collision assist, but when you read the fine print it's just adaptive cruise with collision warning I think it's a word play they mean the assist is the brakes are pre charged and audible alert. From the looks Ford is pulling a fast one and making think people that they are getting a system like what Subaru, Honda, Nissan and Toyota offer but it won't automatically apply the brakes. It's also $595 on the Escape but is $1190 on the Fusion.

[fordtech1]

Does the Escape have it? It's not listed in the order guide on that it's just adaptive cruise with collision warning. When you read the ford website build and price is listed as adaptive cruise with pre Collision assist, but when you read the fine print it's just adaptive cruise with collision warning I think it's a word play they mean the assist is the brakes are pre charged and audible alert. From the looks Ford is pulling a fast one and making think people that they are getting a system like what Subaru, Honda, Nissan and Toyota offer but it won't automatically apply the brakes. It's also $595 on the Escape but is $1190 on the Fusion.

I could be wrong. But I thought I remember reading that it was going to be on 17 escape. I'll have to look into it.

[probowler]

Do people really research safety ratings when buying a car?

[jasonj80]

Do people really research safety ratings when buying a car?

I know someone that bought a Forester over an Escape because of the crash test and ability to get automatic braking, that was the only reason, she actually liked the Escape better. She's 58 and always driven a Ford until last year. She was in an minor hit and run accident a few years ago and that made safety very important in her purchase.

 

I also know someone that just bought a new Civic over a Focus and while the safety features helped they just felt the Civic was a better car than the Focus. The fact the car will drive itself for a bit was a huge selling point which is an added bonus of the autonomous brake systems.

 

My next car will have stop and go cruise control, having driven a vehicle with it in traffic it takes the hassle out of it. Ford has said stop and go will be on 3 Ford cars in the next 2 years.

 

So yes safety and scores do impact which cars people will buy.

[Stephen White]

Here's my take on adaptive cruise control (ACC): it really depends on where you live, just like many other aspects of car driving. I live in a very high-traffic area, and my 2016 Honda Accord, which I just sold, had ACC on it. I hated it! The problem is that if you are on the highway and other cars either change lanes or merge into yours from an on-ramp, the system reacts by essentially slamming on the brakes in order to maintain a safe distance. The system was configurable depending on how close you were to the nearest car in front of you. but even at the closest allowable distance, it still couldn't keep up with the cars constantly darting in and out. I finally stopped using it altogether and switched to regular cruise control. YMMV, of course, but I wouldn't recommend it if you live in an area with lots of highway traffic, like I do.

[BORG]

I love adaptive cruise, I can't imagine getting a car without it now. It can certainly be smarter, and I know Honda has a system that can watch for merging traffic so it doesn't react so suddenly.