IIHS small overlap test on Explorer

[KayGee]

Respectfully, they're grandstanding. Read the logic of the comment. "There are clearly better choices out there especially if you are concerned about the safety of your family." Tone is key. If you buy one, you clearly don't care about your family, according to IIHS. Is that extreme? Absolutely. I like the concept of the test, I don't like the subtext. It's true that there are vehicles passing this test that can provide an additional safety advantage that the Explorer presently lacks. But struggling on this one specific test hardly makes it unworthy of consideration. It's a shortcoming that has to be evaluated against the merits of the car and your own risk appetite, balanced with the likelihood of suffering this one specific crash scenario.

Again, if you want real crash tests, go look at IAAI. Insurance auction site. Look for wrecked Explorers 2011-2018. You'll find that the VAST majority of them have intact passenger cabins. I appreciate lab testing, but I also like real world data of the crashes actually occurring.

Either way, this platform is going to die and go away. Ford knows they have to address this, and they are.

The Explorer was marginal on the driver side offset and poor on the passenger side offset - it didn't just struggle on one specific test. No one is saying the tests represent true real world results, but they roughly translate and give an idea of how things may go. Crashed vehicles don't tell you anything either about what happened to the occupants in the crash, I've seen more than a few vehicles that didn't look that bad, yet people died. I've also seen a few vehicles that looked horrific and everyone survived. The real key is what injuries the occupants sustained and whether they are truly worse in the real world in some vehicles moreso than others. For that, I am not currently aware of anyone tracking and reporting that data to the public.

IIHS tests aren't the end all, be all of anything. With the sales of the Explorer and Grand Cherokee, there are obviously hundreds of thousands of people that either don't care about safety or rank it lower than other things, based on the sales numbers for these two vehicles. Do all these people clearly not give a **** about their family? I don't think so. My guess is that they buy based on the same assumptions as everyone else - they expect cars today to be better than cars of the past and they don't expect to be in an accident, so they choose based on a multitude of other factors - vehicle looks/features/cost/etc... and safety is a passing thought because all vehicles have many of the same safety features, so they must be relatively safe.

The tone is the same as many other reviews, whether they be TVs, phones, motorcycles, whataver. I've read lots of reviews that say things like "if you value X or really care about Y then this is the product for you or this is not the product for you." At the end of the day we can all interpret things the way we want, but, again, I have yet to see the words "the Explorer is a death trap" or "do not buy the Explorer" in an article and attributed to IIHS.

The problem isn't going to die and go away. Many manufacturers only seem to do the bare minimum by designing to testing that they want to tout in their marketing. In a few years, I am sure IIHS will find that manufacturers are again designing to the tests at the time and may introduce a new test to simulate a new crash scenario and vehicles that weren't specifically designed for that, probably won't do well on the new test. Wash, rinse, repeat...

 

[blwnsmoke]

The Explorer was marginal on the driver side offset and poor on the passenger side offset - it didn't just struggle on one specific test. No one is saying the tests represent true real world results, but they roughly translate and give an idea of how things may go. Crashed vehicles don't tell you anything either about what happened to the occupants in the crash, I've seen more than a few vehicles that didn't look that bad, yet people died. I've also seen a few vehicles that looked horrific and everyone survived. The real key is what injuries the occupants sustained and whether they are truly worse in the real world in some vehicles moreso than others. For that, I am not currently aware of anyone tracking and reporting that data to the public.

IIHS tests aren't the end all, be all of anything. With the sales of the Explorer and Grand Cherokee, there are obviously hundreds of thousands of people that either don't care about safety or rank it lower than other things, based on the sales numbers for these two vehicles. Do all these people clearly not give a **** about their family? I don't think so. My guess is that they buy based on the same assumptions as everyone else - they expect cars today to be better than cars of the past and they don't expect to be in an accident, so they choose based on a multitude of other factors - vehicle looks/features/cost/etc... and safety is a passing thought because all vehicles have many of the same safety features, so they must be relatively safe.

The tone is the same as many other reviews, whether they be TVs, phones, motorcycles, whataver. I've read lots of reviews that say things like "if you value X or really care about Y then this is the product for you or this is not the product for you." At the end of the day we can all interpret things the way we want, but, again, I have yet to see the words "the Explorer is a death trap" or "do not buy the Explorer" in an article and attributed to IIHS.

The problem isn't going to die and go away. Many manufacturers only seem to do the bare minimum by designing to testing that they want to tout in their marketing. In a few years, I am sure IIHS will find that manufacturers are again designing to the tests at the time and may introduce a new test to simulate a new crash scenario and vehicles that weren't specifically designed for that, probably won't do well on the new test. Wash, rinse, repeat...

Hiw many times are you going to repeat that? If you read what I wrote correctly, I said they are basically saying that. I never said it is what they reported. Their tone and how they put in the comment about caring about your family (that was totally not needed) to me refers to that these are dangerous vehicles and not to put your family in them. So yes, to me it is exactly what they are saying.

How many injuries resulted in the passenger being hurt over the driver? How many resulted in a passenger overlap crash? They dont break it down in any way between passenger and driver.

Also, between 2011 and 2014, there were 1.2 million explorers sold. The 4x4 version resulted in 3 deaths per million. The 4x2 version was mid 20s (not sure why such a difference). Going with the 4x4, if only 3 people died out of a million vehicles, that is evidence the Explorer is extremely safe. Yet this joke of a test and joke of a report would let one believe AGAIN, to not buy it if you care about your family.

It is that statement about caring for your family and the safety that bothers me. It is ridiculous to say such a thing.

 

[thefranchise713]

Sorry, I was looking at the driver-side and passenger-side front small overlaps as one test, so I should have clarified a "type" of test instead.

For the record I too was bothered by how some of the mid-cycle engineering changes were deployed, with respect to the F150 and even the Escape that had one side bolstered but not the other. But in the latter case, one could also argue that the passenger side small offset would be far less likely to occur than the driver's side small offset.

 

[KayGee]

Hiw many times are you going to repeat that? If you read what I wrote correctly, I said they are basically saying that. I never said it is what they reported. Their tone and how they put in the comment about caring about your family (that was totally not needed) to me refers to that these are dangerous vehicles and not to put your family in them. So yes, to me it is exactly what they are saying.

How many injuries resulted in the passenger being hurt over the driver? How many resulted in a passenger overlap crash? They dont break it down in any way between passenger and driver.

Also, between 2011 and 2014, there were 1.2 million explorers sold. The 4x4 version resulted in 3 deaths per million. The 4x2 version was mid 20s (not sure why such a difference). Going with the 4x4, if only 3 people died out of a million vehicles, that is evidence the Explorer is extremely safe. Yet this joke of a test and joke of a report would let one believe AGAIN, to not buy it if you care about your family.

It is that statement about caring for your family and the safety that bothers me. It is ridiculous to say such a thing.

It's not really all that ridiculous if you separate emotion and facts.

IIHS tests and rates vehicles on their crash worthiness and likelihood of injury to occupants, not whether occupants are likely to, or going to, DIE. Again, I don't know of anyone compiling and reporting on injury data from vehicle accidents that would show whether real world injuries in Explorer accidents are higher or lower that other vehicles with better or worse crash test ratings.

Anyway, based on test results, the Explorer (and Grand Cherokee) would not be the safest vehicles out there because there are plenty of others that rate higher. It is a simple fact and it logically follows that if one is especially concerned about safety, there are better choices than these vehicles. If you don't believe the test results or find legitimate fault in their methodology, then by all means, call them out for that.

BTW, deaths per million isn't evidence of how safe a vehicle is. You have to consider injuries and severity of injuries for those that survive the crashes.

 

[blwnsmoke]

It's not really all that ridiculous if you separate emotion and facts.

IIHS tests and rates vehicles on their crash worthiness and likelihood of injury to occupants, not whether occupants are likely to, or going to, DIE. Again, I don't know of anyone compiling and reporting on injury data from vehicle accidents that would show whether real world injuries in Explorer accidents are higher or lower that other vehicles with better or worse crash test ratings.

Anyway, based on test results, the Explorer (and Grand Cherokee) would not be the safest vehicles out there because there are plenty of others that rate higher. It is a simple fact and it logically follows that if one is especially concerned about safety, there are better choices than these vehicles. If you don't believe the test results or find legitimate fault in their methodology, then by all means, call them out for that.

BTW, deaths per million isn't evidence of how safe a vehicle is. You have to consider injuries and severity of injuries for those that survive the crashes.

I'd rather survive then die so yes deaths per million are evidence that the vehicle is safe.

 

[KayGee]

Now you are just being silly. I think you know what I meant. Deaths per million for modern cars are all very low. They don't tell the entire picture of how safe a vehicle is - they are just one statistic of many. Just because people in a crash don't die, doesn't mean they may not have life changing, severe injuries - the severity of injuries rounds out the overall picture of how safe a vehicle truly is. Vehicles with poor or marginal ratings tend to result in more severe injuries to occupants. From that perspective, they tend to be 'less safe' overall. Once people are involved in serious crashes with severe injuries that takes months or years to recover from, they tend to change their tune...

 

[Munch520]

Before I ruffle feathers, I joined because we are/we’re about to get an ‘18 Explorer Sport. We love everything about it. Then we saw this test.

Currently driving a Genesis Sedan (it’s a 2015 under Hyundai nameplate back then, but it’s the same as the current Genesis G80). Here is its small overlap. HYUNDAI could figure this out in 2014.

I'm really glad the IIHS is doing these tests, as I think they will lead to safer cars.

That being said, the Explorer's marginal rating doesn't worry me for several reasons:

1.) It's marginal - not poor, but marginal. The injuries to the dummy didn't appear to be horrible. Yes, the legs were probably broken, but the dummy looks like s/he would have survived.

Due respect, as an emergency medical professional, I’ve seen injuries like what would be sustained here. They may not be life threatening but they would be, at the very least, life altering. Long bone breaks in the leg can be a big deal (each femur holds ~1.5L of blood in an adult) and unfortunately outside of an OR, you can’t stop that blood loss. Injuries to the outside of the hip can also be significant, as the descending aorta bifurcates at the hip to form the iliac arteries, these run through the pelvis and become the femoral arteries. Tons of vasculature in the hips and legs that can be perforated by broken bones.

There’s also concern here of partial ejection. That’s a BIG deal.

But best case we’re talking significant PT and long term pain.

Your wife probably sits passenger most of the time. Is all this an acceptable possibility for her?

^^^ you have got to be kidding me. The same IIHS gave the 2013 Explorer an "IIHS top pick award for safety" and now that they have this new test that came out with, now they are writing an article that is basically saying it is a death trap and to look elsewhere.... nothing has changed in the Explorer from from 2013 to now except cosmetics.

If that doesnt tell you that these independent tests are junk, I dont know what does. Anybody can come up with something new and anybody can design a test to make a vehicle fail.

Give me a break..

Ford is not going to redesign something for 1 more model year left before the new one next summer

The reason that praise was revoked was because the IIHS realized that automakers were gaming he system. They reinforced the drivers side for the test but did nothing for the passenger side. So now there’s tests for both and yeah, some automakers are being called out for cutting corners.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

It’s not some vast conspiracy.

 

[peterk9]

Welcome to the Forum Munch.
Thanks for the post.

Peter

 

[Munch520]

Welcome to the Forum Munch.
Thanks for the post.

Peter

Thank you sir!

 

[Odrapnew]

Could be worse.
You could be driving a 1959 Bel Air.

 

[thefranchise713]

Before I ruffle feathers, I joined because we are/we’re about to get an ‘18 Explorer Sport. We love everything about it. Then we saw this test.

Currently driving a Genesis Sedan (it’s a 2015 under Hyundai nameplate back then, but it’s the same as the current Genesis G80). Here is its small overlap. HYUNDAI could figure this out in 2014.




Due respect, as an emergency medical professional, I’ve seen injuries like what would be sustained here. They may not be life threatening but they would be, at the very least, life altering. Long bone breaks in the leg can be a big deal (each femur holds ~1.5L of blood in an adult) and unfortunately outside of an OR, you can’t stop that blood loss. Injuries to the outside of the hip can also be significant, as the descending aorta bifurcates at the hip to form the iliac arteries, these run through the pelvis and become the femoral arteries. Tons of vasculature in the hips and legs that can be perforated by broken bones.

There’s also concern here of partial ejection. That’s a BIG deal.

But best case we’re talking significant PT and long term pain.

Your wife probably sits passenger most of the time. Is all this an acceptable possibility for her?



The reason that praise was revoked was because the IIHS realized that automakers were gaming he system. They reinforced the drivers side for the test but did nothing for the passenger side. So now there’s tests for both and yeah, some automakers are being called out for cutting corners.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

It’s not some vast conspiracy. Oy...unwrap the tinfoil.

Lots of good points. But I think blwnsmoke's point was that the car was praised previously but now decried--not because anything in the car changed in a few years--but merely that they created a new test (small overlap generally, not specific to either side) that the car didn't succeed at. That's what's hurting IIHS's credibility in our eyes, along with the fact of the entirely unneeded and biased commentary about considering other vehicles "especially if you care about your family." That's like saying you should treat a gunshot wound, "especially if you care about your life." It's an unneeded statement that doesn't add any value. As for the test itself, I'm totally OK with it and look forward to the vehicles coming up to the standard soon.

Interesting commentary about the Genesis, because Ford did the same with--of all cars, the Taurus--which wasn't designed with this test in mind. Still scored an Acceptable.



BTW, on the stupid games--bolstering one side and not the other--that annoyed the crap out of me as well. They did that in the Escape especially. Not encouraging.

 

[Munch520]

Lots of good points. But I think blwnsmoke's point was that the car was praised previously but now decried--not because anything in the car changed in a few years--but merely that they created a new test (small overlap generally, not specific to either side) that the car didn't succeed at.

Small overlap was introduced in 2012 so this shouldn’t be news to Ford. My point was Ford obviously thought of this and addressed it on the driver’s side. At the time they didn’t invest in the same reinforcement on the passenger’s side. Why? We can assume because that side wasn’t tested. And they’re a big company, won’t change until they have to. So they were praised at that point, but only 50% of the front half was tested.

I believe the IIHS added this second small overlap test to put manufacturers on notice. Because the IIHS figured out that certain manufacturers were cutting corners with passenger side reinforcement.

Instead of investing in gimmicky inflatable seatbelts, methinks Ford could just add some reinforcement to the passenger side and call it a day.

 

[Munch520]

Just found this page, photos of dummy actually look like much more than just lower leg injuries
2018 Ford Explorer

The stills illustrate some specifics...

Driver's side, lower leg injury for sure - tib/fib and likely a ruptured achilles. Knee trauma too, and depending on the force of compression back to the hip, injury there as well.

Passenger's lower leg and hip injuries as discussed above, plus entrapment. Maybe enough compression for 'crush syndrome' at higher speeds...which is no bueno.

This is a c-spine injury in the making right here on the passenger side. Obviously possible skull trauma as well, if head hits the A pillar, dash, or imploding door.

 

[KayGee]

Everything's good. Nothing to see here. Let's keep it moving folks....

;-)

 

[Munch520]

Pisses me off, I was so ready to pull the trigger

 

[Odrapnew]

Pisses me off, I was so ready to pull the trigger

So, find a low mileage the 2013 Sport
Same ratings for small overlap as the 2018 and it received a 2013 IIHS top safety pick.

2013 Ford Explorer

 

[Munch520]

So, find a low mileage the 2013 Sport
Same ratings for small overlap as the 2018 and it received a 2013 IIHS top safety pick.

2013 Ford Explorer

Haha! Nah

 

[jhu8]

I'm confused. My 17s window sticker has 5 star rating for front passenger crash rating and and 4 star for driver. How does that happen and than now this poor rating? Or is that "front crash" a head on accident?

 

[thefranchise713]

Different crash testing methodologies. This car passes NHTSA's tests and IIHS's moderate overlap and side tests without any issues.

 

[Munch520]

I'm confused. My 17s window sticker has 5 star rating for front passenger crash rating and and 4 star for driver. How does that happen and than now this poor rating? Or is that "front crash" a head on accident?

I wouldn't get hung up on what a window sticker says, all the stars in the world don't matter compared to the clear evidence shown in the video.

Hopefully Ford addresses it in the next year or so!