Vehicles with good driver-side protection may leave passengers at risk
- Thread starter Kedis82ZE8
- Start date
Like 2016 Mazda CX-5?
They didn't mention the cx5 in the video. As far as I know the cx5 isn't the best, but isn't the worst. Which was mentioned and is the rav4.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Yes, this IIHS video didn't say anything about CX-5. But according to NHTSA frontal crash test which is listed on the window sticker, while driver side is rated 5 stars on 2016 CX-5, but passenger side is rated only 3 stars - the worst score among all compact CUVs! This 3-star passenger side rating is nose-dived from the 5-star rating on 2015 CX-5!They didn't mention the cx5 in the video. As far as I know the cx5 isn't the best, but isn't the worst. Which was mentioned and is the rav4.Like 2016 Mazda CX-5?
Well in the video posted by the OP, it was stated that the Rav-4 is the worst. So yeah. It is odd regardless the drop for the cx5. I cannot imagine anything changed with the structure and frame of the cx5. Seems very sketchy to me. I don't buy it.
The video appears is be authentic and on the iihs site. Not sure what is sketchy, other than it is obvious manufacturers' primary goal is crash test performance, not necessarily ultimate protection. Perhaps these passenger-side small overlap tests will yield further improvement?
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Every crash test uses different set of criteria and the outcome would be different. But NHTSA's crash ratings are printed on the window sticker. A well designed safe vehicle should perform well in any given crash test, not just in particular some. The fact of matter is NHTSA crash-tested a 2016 Mazda CX-5 and found the passenger suffered worse injury than others hence rated 3 stars which is the worst rating among compact CUVs. You can go to NHTSA website and see all the injury data from the crash test. It's not a phantom conspiracy and the ratings are clearly printed on the window sticker. Bury your head in the sand trying to deny any negatives toward CX-5 won't change anything. The fact still remains!
I'm talking about the claims about the drop from 5/5 score to 3/5 score on passenger side from the 15 to 16 year cx5 that yrwei mentioned. I'm not denying what yrwei is saying, it's just very odd. I'd actually like to hear from Mazda because I don't get why it would drop so much when nothing, to my knowledge, changed in the frame and structure.
Again, I wasn't questioning the OPs video. As the cx5 was not even mentioned in it. It was shown but not discussed on how it did. I'm questioning the drop in safety rating.
good lord man chill out. I'm not denying anything. I'm questioning it and wondering the reasoning behind it. No need to get an attitude about me questioning it and being curious.
Last edited:
Exactly. Which is likely why IIHS pointed out the asymmetry in the design. The cars were designed to address the driver's injuries sustained in small-overlap head-on collisions.
By demonstrating that, perhaps the other side will get improvements, especially if it becomes a test metric and contributes to the overall score.
I answered this question in a long post here:
http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/show...on-2016-CX-5&p=6449508&viewfull=1#post6449508
Basically, the IIHS small overlap test required Mazda to stiffen their crash structure. The NHTSA never tested a 2015 model. The 5-Star rating was from a 2014 model without the IIHS small overlap improvements.
Either way, the new (after 2010) ratings are so damn strict that unless your passenger happens to be the exact size/weight of the dummy the difference between a 5 Star rating and a 3 Star rating is negligible.
The mentioned the CX-5 on the IIHS website.
It got an acceptable rating and unlike the rav4 there was no visible variation in the crash structure between the passenger side and the driver side.
RAV4:
I really believe that the improvement was done only on the driver side not to save a few pennies, but instead (unlike Mazda) Toyota realized that stiffening the whole front end of the car to pass the small overlap test will make it too stiff to get a 5 Star rating on the NHTSA test.
Good crash test ratings depend on staying at the exact balance point between making the car too stiff (too high G's) or too soft (too much intrusion in tests like small overlap)
In a ground-up design it's possible to balance everything well, but when doing last-minute modifications like the RAV4, or CX-5 something has to give.
The CX-5 got too "stiff" for a 5 Star passenger rating and the RAV4 ended up being too "soft" on the passenger side for the small overlap test.
Personally, I'd rather take my changes with the higher G loads than get crushed.
Last edited:
agree!
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Totally agree!
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
I wouldn't agree with your explanation here. Firstly, I doubt NHTSA, a federal government organization, would not put a note or fine print about using the test data from 2014 CX-5 for 2015 CX-5 crash ratings. I believe they would put "Not Rated" instead, just like our window sticker stated when we purchased the 2016 CX-5. Secondly, in IIHS crash test, 2013 CX-5 got "Marginal" rating on (driver side) small overlap frontal crash test; but 2014, 2015, and 2016 CX-5's all got "Good" rating. On the other hand, in NHTSA frontal crash test, 2013 CX-5 got 5/4-star ratings for driver/passenger respectively; 2014, and 2015 CX-5's got 5/5 stars; but 2016 CX-5 got 5/3 stars. Apparently 2014 CX-5 had already received reinforced structure at the front left side so that the rating on IIHS driver side small overlap frontal crash test improved. The same patched 2014 CX-5 was also getting improved 5-star rating at passenger side in NHTSA frontal crash test, Only Mazda knows why 2016 CX-5 performed poorly in NHTSA frontal crash test.
Here is the definition of NHTSA star system:
5 Stars (meaning 10% or less chance of serious injury)
4 Stars (meaning 11-20% chance of serious injury)
3 Stars (meaning 21-35% chance of serious injury)
2 Stars (meaning 36-45% chance of serious injury)
1 Star (meaning 46% or greater chance of serious injury)
Exact size/weight of the dummy or not, a person would have at least 2.1 ~ 3.5 times more chance of suffering serious injury sitting in a 3-star rated front seat than 5-star rated front seat! I wouldn't call it "negligible"!
Besides, other vehicles use the same dummy but they can do better. Checking with NHTSA crash ratings for other 2016 compact CUVs, Honda CR-V has 5/5 stars for driver/passenger respectively; Volvo XC60: 5/5; Hyundai Tucson: 5/5; Kia Sorento: 5/5; Chevrolet Equinox: 5/4; Subaru Forester: 5/4; Toyota RAV4: 4/4; Ford Escape: 4/4; Jeep Renegade 4/4; Nissan Rogue: 4/3; Volkswagen Tiguan:4/3.
Simply put, 3-star rating in NHTSA crash test is among the worst!
Thank you Piotrek91.
Seems to me like this is the normal case of NHTSA raising the bar on car manufacturers without telling them much in advance, so they can't react quickly enough.
With your post, it seems that vehicles performing poorly on a new standard don't get their ratings drop immediately, so consumers get confused.
Take a look at the NHTSA page for the RAV4, which does not seem to indicate anything wrong and in fact looks better then the CX-5 page:
http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Sho...Newer+Vehicles/Vehicle-Detail?vehicleId=10114
Seems to me like this is the normal case of NHTSA raising the bar on car manufacturers without telling them much in advance, so they can't react quickly enough.
With your post, it seems that vehicles performing poorly on a new standard don't get their ratings drop immediately, so consumers get confused.
Take a look at the NHTSA page for the RAV4, which does not seem to indicate anything wrong and in fact looks better then the CX-5 page:
http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Sho...Newer+Vehicles/Vehicle-Detail?vehicleId=10114
The NHTSA never tested a patched CX-5 until the 2016 model year. Check out the links I posted in the other thread for the actual test results PDF's. The 2014 MY test was done on April 2nd 2013. Well before the patching took place.
These are the OLD star definitions. Many cars which got 5 stars under the old system got 2 stars under the new system.
I can't find a definition for the meaning of the front crash test stars, but the side crash stars are defined as:
5 Stars = Side crash injury risk for this vehicle is much less than average
4 Stars = Side crash injury risk for this vehicle is less than average to average
3 Stars = Side crash injury risk for this vehicle is average to greater than average
2 Stars = Side crash injury risk for this vehicle is greater than average
1 Star = Side crash injury risk for this vehicle is much greater than average
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
So you're saying Mazda was sending two different versions of 2014 CX-5 to NHTSA and IIHS for crash testing? Is it even illegally possible? If car manufactures can do this, then they can build-to-suit to get better crash ratings for different crash criteria?! Do you have a IIHS test date for 2014 CX-5?
Then again, Mazda added some reinforced structure at front driver side in its 2014 CX-5 only for IIHS's new driver side small overlap frontal crash test. OP's IIHS video also indicated this and that's why IIHS started new passenger side small overlap frontal crash test. How was that patched work on driver side affected that much on passenger side crash rating for CX-5 on NHTSA's full frontal crash test? And why other vehicles made the same patch work for better IIHS driver side small overlap frontal crash test rating didn't have ANY fallbacks on passenger rating in NHTSA's crash test? To me, there must be something else made by Mazda we simply just don't know.
If you think that the NHTSA star system information I quoted is out of date or for older pre-2011 HNTSA star system, the article is dated on 3/12/2016. Even if we use your definition for NHTSA's star system, I'd still say from "injury risk for this vehicle is much less than average" of a 5-star rating to "injury risk for this vehicle is average to greater than average" of a 3-star rating is a big drop off, not something we can say "negligible"!
No matter how you explained it, the fact remains. 2016 CX-5 does have 3-star passenger crash rating from NHTSA and 3-star is the worst frontal crash rating among all compact CUVs crash tested by NHTSA!
C
CX5_Pete
This is an interesting debate. So much info being thrown around here.
