IIHS Crash Test: 2015 Average size Crossover & SUV
It is perhaps not surprising that the two oldest SUV here are also the least powerful, but these two are also some of the worst performances I've seen so far other than the test wheel-meets-leg Prius in general, this group did abominably, probably about as bad, or worse, that the group of subcompact.
The results of GM are interesting because the car has deviated away from the barrier, Volvo style In this case, I'm not really sure it uses the method of Volvo beam that connects the front bumper to the firewall A -pilier may crash rails are any angle or even things inside the engine compartment away firewall A pillar organized in very pleasant.
Looks like Honda really needs to bring this new driver OUT- these results they probably expected, but it doesn t take of the way it is brutal when your knee involuntarily meeting the parking brake.
Re IIHS Midsize Crossover Small Overlap Note 1 Normal.
One of the places I heard this is Reported on the radio and how he came across is the Honda Pilot and CX-9 crossovers are the most dangerous in crash tests which is a bit misleading, and still annoying even if it is not Honda car.
Re IIHS Midsize Crossover Small Overlap Note 1 Normal.
I am sure that the next driver will be good just kind of sucks for current owners since it is less efficient to date Honda and it should have the ACE structure as I remember when the roof strength test came out Honda has done very poorly as the only automakers that places paramount stress on safety is Volvo and MB prob still looking at the small overlap test class M told you about you need to know significantly different even RLX MDX that are new.
Re IIHS Midsize Crossover Small Overlap Score 1 Normal.
Can I say it's me again wonder the redesigned Kia Sorento is not the test isn t more new Sorento has sold over 100K copies the last four years and is a very important model and the all-new Forte succeeds is not it right that we expect so little Kia that nobody cares what was bugging the crap out of me.
Re IIHS Midsize Crossover Small Overlap Note 1 Normal.
Strong was mocked when he was tested, I think I may or may not have posted a topic on the test rides of the compact car, but we have talked about how civic education was apparently impenetrable to firewall Toyota has a lot of flack as well as many of their models tested were new.
The initial ACE concept was to ensure greater compatibility between SUVs and passenger cars in accidents, as part of the initiative that led to the 8th generation Civic to have one of the pillars in this way extended au beyond the driver's face and in their area of vision and makes the pillars so thick on the trucks, there was an emphasis on car underrun prevention and beefing up the structure of the accident on the lower half of the car two small ACE offset and require beefy a-pillars, but tend to put the compressive loads on a-pillars and puts loads bending it in both concepts were completely different philosophies, although Honda has now merged into one general best practices for the design of the chassis.
Re IIHS Midsize Crossover Small Overlap Note 1 Normal.
CarPhreakD wrote Initial ACE concept was to ensure greater compatibility between SUVs and passenger cars in accidents, as part of the initiative that led to the 8th generation Civic to have one of the pillars in this way extended beyond the driver's face and in their area of vision and made the pillars so thick on the trucks, there was an emphasis on car underrun prevention and beefing up the structure of the accident on the bottom half of the car two offset small and ACE require beefy a-pillars, but tend to put the compressive loads on a-pillars and flexion puts loads in it these two concepts were completely different philosophies, although Honda has now merged in one general best practices for the design of the chassis.
The thick A-pillar was something that was criticized on the Civic 8G by examiners and drivers to create a huge blind spot, and Honda seemed to respond to criticism by making a stronger pillars on later versions of the 8G Accord, Fit 2G and 2G driver.
Does the choice of using a closer A pillar to improve driver visibility harm the performance of the vehicle in the small test Overlap.
He seems to have done in the roof tests roof strength on the Civic 8G was good and it was a car out before the test on the IIHS roof, while most Honda vehicles released immediately after were generally evaluated Honda acceptable or marginal then had to make changes to the test on the roof at the height of these models.
Phil17 wrote the only automakers that places paramount stress on safety is Volvo and MB prob still looking at the small overlap test class M told you everything about you need to know significantly different even RLX MDX that are new.
Volvo yes, MB non The previous generation C-Class did poorly in the small overlap with airbag failed commitments Volvo did well and they did very well even on their first release.
CarPhreakD wrote Initial ACE concept was to ensure greater compatibility between SUVs and passenger cars in accidents, as part of the initiative that led to the 8th generation Civic to have one of the pillars in this way extended beyond the driver's face and in their area of vision and made the pillars so thick on the trucks, there was an emphasis on car underrun prevention and beefing up the structure of the accident on the bottom half of the car two offset small and ACE require beefy a-pillars, but tend to put the compressive loads on a-pillars and flexion puts loads in it these two concepts were completely different philosophies, although Honda has now merged in one general best practices for the design of the chassis.
The thick A-pillar was something that was criticized on the Civic 8G by examiners and drivers to create a huge blind spot, and Honda seemed to respond to criticism by making a stronger pillars on later versions of the 8G Accord, Fit 2G and 2G driver.
Does the choice of using a closer A pillar to improve driver visibility harm the performance of the vehicle in the small test Overlap.
He seems to have done in the Roof strength Roof trials Civic 8G was good and it was a car out before the test on the IIHS roof, while the majority of Honda vehicles released immediately after were generally evaluated Honda acceptable or marginal then had to make changes to the test on the roof at the height of these models.
No, because, fortunately, Honda took an American innovation to heart; They used a hot-stamping process that has dramatically strengthened the pillars, making them stronger and thinner He also unfortunately more difficult for firefighters to decide in an accident scene to extract people better upgrade scissors.
I think Honda 9th gen Civic was a first for the use of this particular manufacturing technique for the pilot at least, the results of abysmal crash test shows that a massive overhaul of the chassis is necessary for the next generation - which should also be a big win for consumers as it will probably mean a before more refined and more rigid structure.
The Temple of VTEC Honda and Acura enthusiasts Forums playing online Links Re IIHS Today, Honda, IIHS Small Overlap Crossover.