Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Tuesday July 23, 2019
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC General > News & Rumors > Non-Subaru News & Rumors

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads. 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-24-2016, 05:08 PM   #1
torquemada
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 128484
Join Date: Oct 2006
Chapter/Region: International
Location: Germany
Vehicle:
2006 EDM WRX STI
WRB

Default american muscle IIHS ratings


Quote:
Think "muscle car" performance, and images of speed and power are more likely to come to mind than crash tests and safety ratings. Because no one buys a sports car to drive in the slow lane, the best all-around occupant crash protection is crucial. IIHS recently put a trio of iconic sports coupes through their paces, and unlike more sedate sedans, none earns the scores needed to clinch a TOP SAFETY PICK award.

IIHS evaluated 2016 models of the Chevrolet Camaro, Dodge Challenger and Ford Mustang in the full battery of crashworthiness evaluations. The Mustang comes closest to earning TOP SAFETY PICK, while the Camaro falls short in one category and lacks an available front crash prevention system. The Challenger is most in need of improvement.

To qualify for TOP SAFETY PICK, vehicles must earn good ratings in the small overlap front, moderate overlap front, side, roof strength and head restraint evaluations and have a basic-rated front crash prevention system. To qualify for the Institute's highest award, TOP SAFETY PICK+, vehicles must earn good ratings in the five crashworthiness tests and an advanced or superior rating for front crash prevention.

IIHS doesn't typically crash-test sports cars as they make up a small share of the consumer market. IIHS engineers decided to evaluate these models with optional V-8 engines because they are big sellers in their class, and consumers often ask how they would perform in crash tests.

Insurance data point to high losses for sports cars. As a group, they have the highest losses among passenger vehicles for crash damage repairs under collision coverage, data from the Highway Loss Data Institute show. Collision coverage insures against physical damage to the at-fault policyholder's vehicle in a crash.

"Given that sports cars have high crash rates, it's especially important that they offer the best occupant protection possible in a crash," says Adrian Lund, IIHS president.

The Camaro, Challenger and Mustang earn good ratings for occupant protection in a moderate overlap front crash, as well as a side impact.

In the newest and toughest IIHS crashworthiness evaluation, the small overlap front test, the Camaro earns a good rating, the Mustang earns acceptable, and the Challenger is rated marginal.

"The Mustang is just one good rating away from earning TOP SAFETY PICK," Lund points out. "Its small overlap rating holds it back."

Added in 2012, the small overlap test replicates what happens when a vehicle runs off the road and hits a tree or pole or clips another vehicle that has crossed the center line. In the test, 25 percent of the total width of the vehicle strikes the 5-foot-tall rigid barrier on the driver side at 40 mph. It is an especially challenging test because it involves a vehicle's outer edges, which aren't well-protected by the crush-zone structures. Crash forces go directly into the front wheel, suspension system and firewall.

The Challenger wasn't up to the challenge of the small overlap test. Extensive intrusion into the lower occupant compartment limited the driver's survival space and resulted in a poor rating for structure and for leg/foot protection. Measures taken from the dummy indicate a high likelihood of serious lower leg injuries.

"During the crash, the Challenger's front wheel was forced rearward into the occupant compartment, and the footwell intrusion trapped the dummy's left foot and deformed its ankle," Lund explains. "Our technicians had to unbolt the dummy's foot from its leg in order to free it. Entrapment is pretty rare. That's only happened five other times in a small overlap test."

In contrast, survival space for the driver in the Camaro was well-maintained, and the risk of injuries to the dummy's legs and feet was low. The Camaro was redesigned for the 2016 model year.

"The Camaro's safety cage is built to resist intrusion in a small overlap crash, and that's good news for Camaro drivers," Lund says.

The Mustang's structural performance in the small overlap test fell short of the Camaro's but was an improvement over the Challenger. The roof buckled, and the driver's survival space was compromised by considerable intrusion of the door hinge pillar and instrument panel. Still, measures taken from the dummy indicated low risk of injuries to all body regions, including the legs and feet.

The Camaro and Mustang earn good ratings for head restraints and seats to protect against neck injuries in rear crashes. The Challenger's head restraints are rated acceptable.

The Mustang earns a good rating for roof strength, and the Camaro and Challenger earn acceptable. Stronger roofs crush less in rollovers, reducing the risk that people will be injured by contact with the roof itself and the risk that unbelted occupants will be ejected. 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).

Ford and Dodge offer optional forward collision warning systems on the Mustang and Challenger, and both coupes earn a basic rating for front crash prevention because their systems meet performance criteria set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/deskto...of-performance

torquemada is offline  
Old 05-24-2016, 05:21 PM   #2
A W
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 265433
Join Date: Nov 2010
Default

Not surprised. I didn't bother to repost the article here from Autoblog.com because I just don't care. I'm more interested in IIHS getting their hands on the new CX-9, GLC, QX30, XT5, Sorento, Acadia, X1, and the entire current Land Rover lineup. Unlike the NHTSA, IIHS actually has to buy their vehicles to test.

I don't see how any of the three vehicles in this article have anything to do with commonly purchased by the U.S. population that would even BOTHER to look at IIHS instead of just use NHTSA. Almost every single person that buys any of these three already puts safety behind entertainment/pleasure on a priority list before anything else. I'm kind of disappointed in IIHS for wasting time and money with these three models but I'm glad it's literally a fact now the brands didn't care to update them even though the small overlap test has been around in the USDM for quite some time now.

Now please, IIHS, just test the vehicles where the actual owners actually care for safety.
A W is offline  
Old 05-25-2016, 09:48 AM   #3
AVANTI R5
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 73805
Join Date: Nov 2004
Default US safety authority slams Ford Mustang

Quote:
US safety authority slams Ford Mustang


The Ford Mustang is really leaving a good impression on the Aussie buying public, but it’s leaving a bad impression on American crash-test dummies, says the USA’s equivalent to ANCAP.

Based on the results of a test programme for the Mustang, the Chevy Camaro and the Dodge Challenger, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has criticised the three muscle cars for crash protection that doesn’t measure up to their performance potential.

According to the test experts, the Mustang came closest to winning a ‘Top Safety Pick’ rating from IIHS, while the Camaro placed second and the Challenger, hamstrung by being the oldest design of the three, was the car most in need of improvement. The Camaro fell short in one category and lacks a front crash prevention system (AKA forward collision warning).

To achieve the Top Safety Pick rating from IIHS, a test vehicle must achieve ‘good’ scores across all five categories of crash testing. The Camaro fared well in all categories other than roof strength (‘Acceptable’ only), and the Mustang was deemed ‘good’ in all categories except the small frontal overlap test.

With the arrival of the new Alpha-plaform Camaro in the last 12 months, IIHS decided it was time to test it along with its two main competitors, one of which is the Mustang that’s currently selling up a storm in Australia.

“Given that sports cars have high crash rates, it’s especially important that they offer the best occupant protection possible in a crash,” says Adrian Lund, IIHS president.

“The Mustang is just one good rating away from earning TOP SAFETY PICK. Its small overlap rating holds it back.”

The small overlap test is relatively new to IIHS testing, and has been controversial since its introduction to the test protocol in 2012. Each car tested hits a rigid barrier at 40MPH (64km/h) along just 25 per cent of its width. The front wheel, suspension and firewall bear the brunt of the impact, and IIHS argues that this is closer to real-life experience. But by subjecting the vehicle’s frontal crash structure over a narrower section the car’s load paths cannot dissipate the energy as effectively. ANCAP hasn’t adopted this test for cars assessed for the Australian and New Zealand markets.

“During the crash, the Challenger’s front wheel was forced rearward into the occupant compartment, and the footwell intrusion trapped the dummy’s left foot and deformed its ankle,” Lund explained.

“Our technicians had to unbolt the dummy’s foot from its leg in order to free it. Entrapment is pretty rare. That’s only happened five other times in a small overlap test.

“The Camaro’s safety cage is built to resist intrusion in a small overlap crash, and that’s good news for Camaro drivers.”
Popopop
AVANTI R5 is offline  
Old 05-25-2016, 10:18 AM   #4
SCRAPPYDO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 873
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: www.testdrivemylife.com
Vehicle:
2018 Leg / Ridgeline
Datsun 71 240Z & 68 2000

Default

"I was going to buy that ZL1 Camaro, bro, but man, its roof is just not strong enough in case I roll it over..."











.... said exactly nobody ever in the history of the world...








saftey nazi
SCRAPPYDO is offline  
Old 05-25-2016, 04:00 PM   #5
Scooby921
Merci Buckets
Moderator
 
Member#: 88606
Join Date: Jun 2005
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Michigan
Vehicle:
2016 Cayman GTS
Dark Blue Metallic

Default



I started reading the article and expected to see poor scores for all vehicles. Actual results of the Mustang and Camaro show good scores in all but one category and that one is still acceptable. Not the end of the world and crazy lack of safety the article wants to suggest.
Scooby921 is offline  
Old 05-25-2016, 04:17 PM   #6
SubiSherk16
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 446959
Join Date: May 2016
Default

Good to see the mustang getting praise for crash worthiness. Now we're they testing it on walls or crowds of people?
SubiSherk16 is offline  
Old 05-26-2016, 01:53 PM   #7
Sid03SVT
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 183032
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: CT
Vehicle:
OLD Family Wagon

Default

somehow the dodge is the largest and heaviest of the bunch, but the least safe... congratulations FCA
Sid03SVT is offline  
Old 05-26-2016, 02:19 PM   #8
neg_matnik
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 132389
Join Date: Nov 2006
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: SF Bay Area
Vehicle:
2006 WRX Wagon SGM
2003 SV1000S, 2014 DL650

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sid03SVT View Post
somehow the dodge is the largest and heaviest of the bunch, but the least safe... congratulations FCA
Challenger still rides on a shortened LX chassis used for the Charger/Magnum/300; and, that older LX chassis wasn't crashing too well.
For model year 2011, FCA substantially improved that chassis and called it LD. So much so, that Charger/300 were top safety picks for a little while; at least, until the small overlap test was introduced.
But, Chally got left behind, never got the updated LD chassis.
In fact, IIHS only started to get Challengers from FCA in 2015; there's no data before that .
neg_matnik is offline  
Old 05-26-2016, 02:05 PM   #9
4S-TURBO
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 67807
Join Date: Aug 2004
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: your spreads like plague
Vehicle:
.... usonian
exemplar

Default

Isn't the challenger based on an old Mercedes chassis? Shorter overhang and larger rolling stock might impact the offset test, or the old Merc chassis just wasn't designed for this test in the first place. I wonder how old that chassis actually is?
4S-TURBO is offline  
Old 05-26-2016, 02:21 PM   #10
neg_matnik
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 132389
Join Date: Nov 2006
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: SF Bay Area
Vehicle:
2006 WRX Wagon SGM
2003 SV1000S, 2014 DL650

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4S-TURBO View Post
Isn't the challenger based on an old Mercedes chassis? Shorter overhang and larger rolling stock might impact the offset test, or the old Merc chassis just wasn't designed for this test in the first place. I wonder how old that chassis actually is?
See my post to Sid.
neg_matnik is offline  
Old 04-18-2019, 04:56 AM   #11
brainstorm212
*** Banned ***
 
Member#: 500520
Join Date: Apr 2019
Chapter/Region: E. Canada
Location: USA
Vehicle:
2019 Audi Q5
Red

Default

Do you want to say that Mustang is a bad car??? Yes, there are some difficulties with this car, but if you use a good car insurance, you will be happy to ride over the town. For example I can see great joy in my father's eyes, when he is driving his Mustang II, because he is sure in his car insurance company. He uses cheap traders insurance, because they repair his car in their own auto repair shop while something is broken in this stupid car. These guys even search spare parts for this old vehicle. But still I can see father's happiness
brainstorm212 is offline  
Old 04-18-2019, 07:09 AM   #12
Psiro
*** Banned ***
 
Member#: 500522
Join Date: Apr 2019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brainstorm212 View Post
Do you want to say that Mustang is a bad car??? Yes, there are some difficulties with this car, but if you use a good car insurance, you will be happy to ride over the town. For example I can see great joy in my father's eyes, when he is driving his Mustang II, because he is sure in his car insurance company. He uses cheap traders insurance, because they repair his car in their own auto repair shop while something is broken in this stupid car. These guys even search spare parts for this old vehicle. But still I can see father's happiness
Mustang breaks often
Psiro is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2019 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2017, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.