CX-5 Small Offset Crash IIHS

How do you think the CX5 will perform on the new IIHS small offset crash?

Former crash-worthy cars are getting slammed in this test.

I wonder if the new High Tensile steel and crash paths will do the CX5 justice. Time will tell.

IMHO, better than average in this class of compact SUV's.

An indication of overall structural strength (being unibody) is the unusually high score of rollover roof test by IIHS, when compared to others.

IIHS blindsided auto manufacturers with this new standard which takes lots of additional engineering to pass. Apparently Honda got a heads up on this requirement 3 years ago when they began engineering work on the new Accord and that is why it is one of the few new cars to ace the test.

An explanation of what small-overlap is:

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/frontal_test_info.html

Yes, nice explanation with helpful pictures.

Note: IIHS does these and other tests independently (not required by the government). Many view their current testing (prior to the small overlap testing) as valuable information (myself included) and they more stringent than government required testing/standards.

paris1 said:

Apparently Honda got a heads up on this requirement 3 years ago when they began engineering work on the new Accord and that is why it is one of the few new cars to ace the test.

Click to expand...

What's the source of this claim? Because, if true, it would be a huge black eye to the reputation of the IIHS. There is no justification for selectively releasing non-public information to a favored manufacturer. More likely, the other car designs are not clean slate designs and/or their structural designs pre-dated the knowledge that small offset testing was adopted by the IIHS.

Thanks for the link but I don't think the evidence it offers leads me to conclude that Honda knew before Toyota or any other manufacturer. It appears they are making assumptions to conclude anything secret was going on. Here's the relevant language from the very short article:

Honda executives tell Autoline Daily that they worked closely with the IIHS and knew this small overlap test was coming. Since it takes at least 3 years to develop a new car, that suggests Honda knew this at least three years ago. The Institute claims it gives automakers fair warning about any changes in its test. But Toyota executives and engineers tell Autoline they really didnt know it was coming

I assume Toyota (just like Honda) DIDN'T know it was coming at some point in time. But we do not know the development timelines of each of the manufacturer's offerings to draw the conclusion that anything secret was going on. If it were, would Honda brag to the press about it? From the evidence presented I assume Honda has had a speedier development cycle or that Toyota designs were not "clean slate" down to the chassis engineering and, at some point decided they were too deep into it to start from scratch when the IIHS announced they had adopted small offset frontal crash testing.

To infer favoritism, I would want to see evidence that IIHS had adopted the new testing many months, maybe more than a year, in advance of announcing it publicly. But I have not seen any such evidence.

honda has made some great progress the last few years with regards to these crash tests. good for them. if i were in the market for a midsize sedan, the new accord would be on the top of my list.

volvo, as always, is one of the best, if not the best regarding safety.

although the subaru legacy received the highest top safety pick + honor, i am dissapointed it only received an "acceptable" rating for the small offset crash test. i guess i just have higher expectations from them.

very interested on how the mazda "skyactiv body & chassis" will do with these small offset tests.

toyota is just plain sad.

and i wish the iihs would hurry up and start testing SUVs.

paris1 said:

IIHS blindsided auto manufacturers with this new standard which takes lots of additional engineering to pass.

Click to expand...

as they should have. cars shouldnt be engineered ONLY to pass tests. they should be engineered to be safe in all manners of accidents.

only engineering safety according to predefined contrived tests and bragging about safety is deceptive and gives a false sense of safety and protection.

The results are finally in:
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=58

The CX-5 didn't do so well, only a marginal score. I was expecting an acceptable or better considering that the 6 got an acceptable rating.

A few thoughts that I have about this test:
1. The injury measures are low despite the marginal score
2. If you hit a soild wall at 40Mph use more than 20% of the front of the car.
3. I wonder how much of an impact the few extra pounds of the AWD system in the test car had on the result. (maybe enough to cost it the acceptable rating?)

piotrek91 - Thanks for the link. Interesting CX-5 and Honda CRV both had Marginal scores, really not that bad considering a non-standard test at this point in time. IMO, if the AWD system weight makes enough difference to swing a Acceptable score to Marginal score, I wouldn't place much importance on it, but not likely to be the case.

It would be neat if this spurred manufacturers to tweak the designs such that they are up to snuff. On a related note, I'd like to see driver's knee airbags standard in the class

The new Forester built on its cornerstone of stellar safety ratings, at least

Kudo's to the Forester for the top score. I'm kinda surprised by the Outlander Sport, especially given how old the chassis is.

However, I'm not surprised by the Nissan Rogue's performance, given that it is also based on an "old"/aging chassis. Having an old chassis is one of the reasons why I didn't consider the Rogue and this is proof that it's generally better/safer in the newly engineered cars.

Looking at the list, the cars at the top are some of the newest ones, where the bottom of the list have some of the older models. It's disappointing to see that the new Ford Escape didn't perform well, even though it's chassis is pretty new.

piotrek91 said:

The results are finally in:
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=58

The CX-5 didn't do so well, only a marginal score.

Click to expand...

Considering the best selling vehicle in the class (the Ford Escape) scored a poor in this tough test, I think Mazda's performance is refreshing. And getting the same results as the premium (and much heavier) BMW X1 shows that weight and $$ is not a panacea when it comes to safety.

Toyota was so worried their Rav4 would perform poorly that they asked not to be tested until they could re-engineer the structure. Sneaky.

The CX-5 bested the Buick Encore, Jeep Patriot, Hyundai Tuscan, Kia Sportage and Ford Escape - pretty good, especially considering it also has best in class economy.

While the small offset frontal crash test is brutal, I'm comforted by the ability of even the worst performing car in the class to hold together reasonably well compared to the manner in which you could expect bigger and heavier cars of yesteryear to become lethal in the same situation.

100% agree w/MikeM, all excellent points putting CX-5 overall high safety ratings in proper perspective versus competitors. Not to mention the active safety system improvements in recent years just add to total safety of these crossover SUVs, including CX-5.

ontherun718 said:

How do you think the CX5 will perform on the new IIHS small offset crash?

Former crash-worthy cars are getting slammed in this test.

Click to expand...

Studying the slow motion videos of the small offset frontal crash has been illuminating. I was trying to determine what was different from the way the Subaru Forester managed the energy of the impact compared to the rest of the compact SUV's that didn't fare as well. One difference stood out.

In most of the tests it was apparent that the right front wheel was instrumental in transferring the crash energy from the immovable barrier to the occupant safety cage (near the drivers left foot). The front wheel becomes pinched between the crash barrier and frame in that area. The front wheel transfers the force to the lower portion of the occupant safety cage.

However, the Subaru Forester was the only vehicle whose front wheel shattered like breaking glass. And the second place Outlander's front wheel sheared off the hub, leaving the outer rim and spokes harmlessly to the outside of the vehicles frame. All other vehicles had the front wheel pinched between the immovable barrier and frame.

Good
Subaru Forester: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThtOh6_AvfQ

Acceptable
Mitsubishi Outlander: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47QCBT4GeSw

Marginal
Mazda CX-5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CinKckGDdAg
VW Tiguan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWNTysC1amg&feature=youtu.be
BMW X1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ymu9Wgnj72E
Nissan Rogue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2qnmHNOuJA
Honda CR-V: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU8JqaTz4kA&feature=youtu.be
Jeep Wrangler: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpfnpE1NqL4


Poor
Ford Escape: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=Fcu-spM98mQ
Buick Encore: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuhzqzxdWLk
Jeep Patriot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyJV8Q58Vlc
Hyundai Tucson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6s0Oq2SPu48&feature=youtu.be
Kia Shortage: Video not available

Pay attention to the second segment of each video (slow motion side view).

What's pretty obvious is that the ratings correspond quite closely with whether the front wheel appeared to be able to transfer the crash impact to the occupant safety cage near the drivers left foot. If the front wheel shattered like glass or sheared off the hub, the damage to the occupant safety cage was minimal. But if the wheel stayed intact while it was driven into the area by the driver's left foot the damage was more substantial.

This would indicate a vehicle could get a higher safety rating on the small offset frontal crash test simply by supplying cheaper wheels that were more brittle and more likely to shatter when impacted. Of course this kind of wheel would be more dangerous in normal driving because it could shatter more easily from impacting a road hazard on the freeway and cause the driver to spin out and lose control with possibly fatal results.

It's too bad crash testing is necessarily destructive in nature and quite expensive because more tests would provide much more meaningful results.

The CX5 airbag was a bit late to the party as well...

I dunno how much the wheel would contribute. The Escape wheel is only hanging on by a bolt or so and it did pretty bad.
The Tuscon wheel almost folded under the car as well, but the curtain airbag didn't get the memo.

My guess is the safety cage is stronger in the footwell area for the top-rated SUVs, and future versions of the other vehicles will have this area strengthened. We saw this happen over the past years in order to achieve the "top-safety pick" rating for old testing.

A youtube IIHS showed how Volvo did it with their S60. They reinforced the top side beam as well as connected it to the front crash element better. The S60 almost deflects sideways when it hits the wall. The Subaru's cage is one strong mother. I'm guessing their cage is strong enough to crush the wheel.