View Full Version : CX-5 crash and safety test results

03-18-2012, 11:39 AM
Hi all - I've been looking for CX-5 crash test results from NHTSA (http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shoppers/5-Star+Safety+Ratings/2011-Newer+Vehicles), IIHS (http://www.iihs.org/ratings/) or similar and haven't seen them yet. I expect it will do well though interested to see the ratings. With it being a new model, it may be a while but wanted to see if others have found any crash test results or similar safety ratings.


03-18-2012, 12:12 PM
i too am waiting on the results, might help with insurance pricing as well i assume?

03-19-2012, 08:45 AM
Everything is pointing to 5 star crash test ratings. It's the first vehicle where Mazda flipped the design phase on its head. I know from information I read while in Japan that part of the philosophy of Skyactiv was to get all the teams under design and engineering to have direct links with one another so that they worked in unison and with much shorter lead times.

Previous Mazda cars split design of various parts, independent from engineering. Design considered to be primary caused engineering to shoehorn, and simultaneously (but conversely) primary engineering parts forced the design department to alter blueprints. Previous Mazda also utilised older parts from previous designs, and engineering parts shared with Volvo and Ford.

With the CX-5 this was all throw out.

Mazda said the process changes have had massive improvements on safety, because the design and engineering working in unison meant that both would get what they wanted, and sometimes lead times were reduced by hundreds of %. Teams were brought into similar locations, or at least were connected electronically to allow quick sharing of ideas and information.

One example of how teams coming closer worked better, was shown on the design of brackets between the bonnet (hood) and the engine bay on either side. The engineering department was able to extract new strength from their new forging methods (*) requiring less metal on their parts, the new strength enabled them to match the exterior design requirements, and they were able to use this to meet European targets for pedestrian safety by the bonnet, engine bay and bracket design combining to allow the space to absorb pedestrian energy occurring from a hit.

Mazda crash testing done so far is said to be exceeding the high bar they set in computer modeling. They've estimated that it will be getting 5 star EURO NCAP.
Mazda states the CX-5 has bettered the CX-7 in all areas of crash testing (particularly pedestrian).

Crash tests performed in Australia are done to the exact specifications as Europe. Our ANCAP is based on EURO NCAP with some additional parameters which make it harder to get 5 stars.

The CX-7 crash tests done in Australia were 5 star tests. On this basis the CX-5 should also get 5 star.

In comparison, new other new CUV's which battle against the CX-5 here - the Range Rover Evoque and the Mini Countryman - got 5 stars in Europe, but when retested here, were downgraded to 4 star results:

Range Rover and Mini miss top rating in latest round of local ANCAP crash testing.
Range Rover's new Evoque and BMW's Mini Countryman have both missed out on the maximum five-star safety rating in Australia.
The Countryman and Evoque were both tested by the European New Car Assessment Programme where they scored five stars, but the Australian program's (ANCAP) stricter regulations saw both downgraded to four stars.

(*) New forging method? See:

03-19-2012, 06:52 PM
Thanks inodes! This is very helpful and much appreciated!

03-20-2012, 07:37 AM
Thanks inodes! This is very helpful and much appreciated!

No worries. I'm sure we'll see the results delivered soon given it's reached so many markets, and crash results need to be published.

03-20-2012, 12:39 PM
check this article out :


03-20-2012, 01:01 PM
Go to the actual IIHS website instead of just this Mazda press release. CX-5 gets the best ratings in all the tests. And they have links to videos of actual crash tests.


03-20-2012, 01:59 PM
Yup, confirmed today I believe. Top Safety pick in the US. I have to call my insurance company since I received a quote a couple days ago.


- PR Newswire

03-20-2012, 07:08 PM
Excellent news! Thanks everyone for posting!

03-21-2012, 08:31 AM
See also:

http://www.trucktrend.com/features/news/2012/163_news120320_2013_mazda_cx_5_iihs_top_safety_pic k_award

03-29-2012, 08:34 AM
Compare the crash to this:

03-29-2012, 11:38 AM
Compare the crash to this:

it took japanese manufacturers 20 years to "catch up" (at least in concumers mind), 10 years for hyundai/kia... now, i wouldnt be surprised if in 5 years these chinese cars will start scoring best ratings. Just a side note....

03-29-2012, 12:46 PM
it took japanese manufacturers 20 years to "catch up" (at least in concumers mind), 10 years for hyundai/kia... now, i wouldnt be surprised if in 5 years these chinese cars will start scoring best ratings. Just a side note....

Living in Sydney gives me a lot of insight into the three cultures. Asia is on our doorstep, and it's Asia that's the reason our last recession was in 1987. The US's main trading partners are Canada and Mexico. Australia's largest are China and Japan.

So growing up in Sydney it's easy to comment.
Sydney is predominantly Chinese. High School and university were mainly Chinese, so for the past 20 years tofu has been as regular for me as beer. I married Japanese and I work in a Korean district of Sydney, and Mandarin is woven into our street in a similar way to Spanish in Los Angeles or Miami.

On a daily commute I will hear Japanese, Korean, Mandarin and Cantonese all freely spoken because they're part of who we are. 60% of the city speaks a language other than English at home - and most are Asian languages (or Arabic, Italian, Greek).

Given this, I can clearly state the three are NOT equivalent.

Japanese are by far the most precise and particular culture. Sometimes too much so. Koreans are similar, but just a bit more progressive. The Chinese on the other hand really think outside the box, but don't take into consideration the big picture or the long run.

Best example I can provide is the Shinkansen - otherwise known as the bullet train. The Japanese have had high speed trains for years. Actually - high speed trains that Americans and Australians would consider modern technology, Japan has had since the late 1950's. Seriously!
But when they do something, they do it right, they test it completely.

In April 2011, the Japanese opened a new Shinkansen track in Kyushu (my wife's island) covering a small section of track. For them it was the same technology they'd perfectly installed over 50+ years. They also introduced a train model (the N700) that had been used for the previous 4 years and was a known quantity. But despite this, they did 9 months of testing back and forth. Then gave the new section of track the tick of approval to run passengers.
It's this thoroughness that means the entire system is ontime 99% of the time. And that being late means a minute off. The average late time in 2008 for the whole section of track between Kyoto and Tokyo was 4 seconds.
They're seriously perfect!

The train is perfect because they set guidelines in it's use. The train has been tested to 440km/h (273mph) - but in their wisdom, they've decided the bulk of the track must be 300km/h (186mph), and the rest 270km/h (167mph). I've done the trip possibly 40 to 50 times - which strangely is more than most Japanese. Pulling out my GPS the driver is perfect 300.0km/h and then slows precisely on the exact GPS co-ordinate down to 270km/h - exactly as prescribed. It's the reason the system has been flawless since the 50's.

They the decide to export the Japanese built train to China a few years back, with strict instructions on how to operate and install - and certainly not to run it over 300km/h.

China broke the technology down. Built their own by reverse engineering. They could see that it was so good, they started to run it hard. They decided the Japanese were stupid. Why the 300km/h restriction? What was all that about.

A mate of mine travelled on it last year. He'd travelled to Japan about 7 or 8 times, so knew the Japanese system well. But noting the speeds of the Chinese version, he made the comment that the Chinese had beaten Japanese speeds - doing 350km/h - well in excess of the Japanese recommendations.
My comment to him.... The Chinese are going to crash the thing.

Then this happened:

This is a perfect example of why the Japanese are the Swiss of Asia. China will be able to catch, but their culture won't allow for the precise anal attention to detail the Japanese have.

The Japanese run the system with precision for over 50 years - zero fatalities.
The Chinese run the system and immediately have fatalities.

It reminds me of an article Car magazine in Europe said.
They spoke of BMW and Mercedes and how wonderfully engineered they were. How they would have all the bells and whistles, and be progressive with new features.
BUT they could never achieve the perfect, mm precision panel gaps that the Japanese had perfected with Lexus.

The Japanese built cars once upon a time with the thought they should built them high, build them cheap.... this infact when against their culture.
They invented many of the lean manufacturing methods used today by Germans and Americans. And are very innovative in manufacture.
The Chinese will build them high, build them cheap... and it's not against their culture at all.

In 10 years, Chinese cars will be everywhere.... but lets see if they're like the French cars of today, or closer to the Japanese.