NHTSA Safety Ratings on 2017 Mazda CX-5

No this's definitely not the case for Mazda CX-5 as NHTSA hasn't changed any testing method or assessment ratings in recent years. Besides, other competitors such as 2017 Honda CR-V and 2017 Toyota RAV4 haven't shown any ratings getting downgraded than last MYs.

Sometimes a brand new model may suffer some minor downgrades on safety ratings but the manufactures usually can quickly fix the flaws for next year based on NHTSA's crash results. For 2016 CX-5, the huge sudden downgrade from 5 to 3 stars on 2016 MY's passenger side frontal crash was a big surprise. The downgrades to 4 stars on front passenger side and combined rear seat from side crash for 2017 CX-5 this time is a big surprise to me too, as most "safer" vehicles have been getting all 5 stars in every category from NHTSA's side crash for years. Mazda should be well prepared getting the best crash ratings from NHTSA crash test as the testing procedures haven't been changed for many years!

Another safety rating from NHTSA for 2017 CX-5 surprises me a bit. With lower and wider design plus G-Vectoring Control, 2017 CX-5 still scored the same as 2016 CX-5 on Rollover Resistance percentage. And it has more tendency to roll over than a 2017 Honda CR-V! (uhm)

AFAIK not many changes have been made to the overall structure of the CX-5 sans a pillars moved back, roofline shape has changed along with height reduction. Surely these changes can't have that much of an impact (scratch)
 
Sounds to me like Mazda is unable to plan properly for the NHTSA tests, like other manufacturers, to get the best possible score.

Don't think Mazda will target one markets crash testing regime. Now if this CX-5 performs poorly across the board (say Euro NCAP and our ANCAP) then yes they might do some fixes.

But if it performs worse in one market only then probably not.
 
⋯ Re: G-Vectoring, I can't see how this would matter for this test, where a crash is already given. G-Vectoring would help you avoid a crash in the first place, will do practically nothing if a crash is taking place.
Rollover Resistance percentage is the measurement of tendency to roll over. If G-Vectoring Control (GVC) "significantly improves handling and stability on wet, snowy and unpaved roads", I can imagine it also helps to prevent the roll over.

The rollover resistance rating is based on an at-rest laboratory measurement known as the Static Stability Factor (SSF) that determines how top-heavy a vehicle is, and the results of a driving maneuver that tests whether a vehicle is vulnerable to tipping up on the road in a severe maneuver.
 
Rollover Resistance percentage is the measurement of tendency to roll over. If G-Vectoring Control (GVC) "significantly improves handling and stability on wet, snowy and unpaved roads", I can imagine it also helps to prevent the roll over.

The rollover percentage is simply based on center of gravity and track width, called the "static stability factor"
The AWD has more weight close to the ground, so it has a very slightly lower center of gravity.

They also do a dynamic test.. but pretty much every car passes the dynamic test with flying colors and gets a "no tip" on that portion.

Sounds to me like the NHTSA simply used the figures the calculated in 2012 for the 2013 model and applied them to the 2017.

The other (unlikely) option would be that much of the extra weight added is above the center of gravity, so despite the lower ride hight the center of gravity to track width is unchanged.

As far as the slight side crash test rating decrease.. maybe the lower ride high marginally changed the test dynamics and Mazda didn't compenstate for the small change?

I think ALafya is right. Mazda simply doesn't have the budget or time to dick around with perfecting the car to get 5 stars on every single crash test.
This does not make the car any less safe in the real world.
 
I think ALafya is right. Mazda simply doesn't have the budget or time to dick around with perfecting the car to get 5 stars on every single crash test.
This does not make the car any less safe in the real world.

Well said (thumb)
 
The rollover percentage is simply based on center of gravity and track width, called the "static stability factor"
The AWD has more weight close to the ground, so it has a very slightly lower center of gravity.

They also do a dynamic test.. but pretty much every car passes the dynamic test with flying colors and gets a "no tip" on that portion.

Sounds to me like the NHTSA simply used the figures the calculated in 2012 for the 2013 model and applied them to the 2017.

The other (unlikely) option would be that much of the extra weight added is above the center of gravity, so despite the lower ride hight the center of gravity to track width is unchanged.

As far as the slight side crash test rating decrease.. maybe the lower ride high marginally changed the test dynamics and Mazda didn't compenstate for the small change?

I think ALafya is right. Mazda simply doesn't have the budget or time to dick around with perfecting the car to get 5 stars on every single crash test.
This does not make the car any less safe in the real world.
Again, not just the SSF, "the rollover resistance test measures the risk of rollover in a single-vehicle, loss-of-control scenario":
The rollover resistance rating is based on an at-rest laboratory measurement known as the Static Stability Factor (SSF) that determines how top-heavy a vehicle is, and the results of a driving maneuver that tests whether a vehicle is vulnerable to tipping up on the road in a severe maneuver.

If Mazda can take care of driver side with 5 stars on side crash for 2017 CX-5, your explanation doesn't stand. Besides, almost every "safer" vehicle can get 5-stars in every category in side crash nowadays, this "slight" oversight caused 2017 CX-5 a 4-star overall safety rating instead of 5! 2015 CX-5 could do it with all 5-star ratings other than Rollover, why can't the 2017 CX-5?
 
Again, not just the SSF, "the rollover resistance test measures the risk of rollover in a single-vehicle, loss-of-control scenario":


If Mazda can take care of driver side with 5 stars on side crash for 2017 CX-5, your explanation doesn't stand. Besides, almost every "safer" vehicle can get 5-stars in every category in side crash nowadays, this "slight" oversight caused 2017 CX-5 a 4-star overall safety rating instead of 5! 2015 CX-5 could do it with all 5-star ratings other than Rollover, why can't the 2017 CX-5?

Yes, they should but probably could not. It is not that it's unsafe, but still, they should have tried better.
Regarding rollover, I think piotrek is right. The dynamic test is either pass, barely not lose control or lose control/crash. It can't possibly get to 1/10 of a percent accuracy in this way, and ~1% difference in this value is no difference at all. Also, for the values of the RAV4 to be exactly like the CX-5, based only on a dynamic test? Very unlikely.
Even in the dynamic test, I don't think G-Vectoring could possibly make much difference and in the statistical test, it would make zero difference.

Keep in mind that people buy CUVs for their ground clearance and elevated driving position. Exactly the cause for higher center of gravity and increased rollover risk. Keep in mind, that unlike Ford Broncos of the past, rollover is not assured death as a result of a crashed roof.

The CR-V is a good vehicle, but it has a smaller ground clearance, even compared with the lowered 2017 CX-5.
 
Last edited:
Yes, they should but probably could not. It is not that it's unsafe, but still, they should have tried better.
Regarding rollover, I think piotrek is right. The dynamic test is either pass, barely not lose control or lose control/crash. It can't possibly get to 1/10 of a percent accuracy in this way, and ~1% difference in this value is no difference at all.
Even in the dynamic test, I don't think G-Vectoring could possibly make much difference and in the statistical test, it would make zero difference.

Keep in mind that people buy CUVs for their ground clearance and elevated driving position. Exactly the cause for higher center of gravity and increased rollover risk. Keep in mind, that unlike Ford Broncos of the past, rollover is not assured death as a result of a crashed roof.

The CR-V is a good vehicle, but it has a smaller ground clearance, even compared with the lowered 2017 CX-5.
There're 3 categories in NHTSA's Overall Rollover ratings. For 2017 Mazda CX-5:

Rollover Star Rating 4 Stars
Dynamic Tip Result
NO TIP
Rollover Resistance
17.40%

The description on the 3rd Rollover rating, Rollover Resistance %, does state that "the results of a driving maneuver that tests whether a vehicle is vulnerable to tipping up on the road in a severe maneuver". This isn't the "Dynamic Tip" test for the 2nd category. This "Rollover Resistance" percentage indicates how likely the vehicle would roll over based on static SSF AND actual driving with severe maneuver. Mazda's GVC should help to prevent the rollover.
 
There're 3 categories in NHTSA's Overall Rollover ratings. For 2017 Mazda CX-5:



The description on the 3rd Rollover rating, Rollover Resistance %, does state that "the results of a driving maneuver that tests whether a vehicle is vulnerable to tipping up on the road in a severe maneuver". This isn't the "Dynamic Tip" test for the 2nd category. This "Rollover Resistance" percentage indicates how likely the vehicle would roll over based on static SSF AND actual driving with severe maneuver. Mazda's GVC should help to prevent the rollover.

and it will! Unless, of course, it is not even considered in the calculation, which happens to yield exactly the same result as the RAV4 and the 2016 CX-5, despite being different cars.
 
There're 3 categories in NHTSA's Overall Rollover ratings. For 2017 Mazda CX-5:



The description on the 3rd Rollover rating, Rollover Resistance %, does state that "the results of a driving maneuver that tests whether a vehicle is vulnerable to tipping up on the road in a severe maneuver". This isn't the "Dynamic Tip" test for the 2nd category. This "Rollover Resistance" percentage indicates how likely the vehicle would roll over based on static SSF AND actual driving with severe maneuver. Mazda's GVC should help to prevent the rollover.

You are correct. Thanks for the info!

After some more reading, it looks like the results of the dynamic test alter the SSF.
Looks like they look at pitch/yaw and roll inertia and even if the car does not tip they use that info to "correct" the SSF.

Still seems odd that somehow the 2017 ended up with numbers identical to the 2013..
 
Maybe Mazda is more concerned about the IIHS ratings than the NHTSA ratings? They seem to have consistent IIHS ratings. They even did a recall for the 2016 model, where they reprogrammed how or when the airbag deployed for a front overlap crash, which seems to be an IIHS specific crash type.
 
Maybe Mazda is more concerned about the IIHS ratings than the NHTSA ratings? They seem to have consistent IIHS ratings. They even did a recall for the 2016 model, where they reprogrammed how or when the airbag deployed for a front overlap crash, which seems to be an IIHS specific crash type.
If Mazda thinks that way, they'd make a big mistake! It's the NHTSA safety ratings, not the IIHS ratings, which are printed on every new car window sticker to show how safe the vehicle is. It also makes consumers easier to compare the safety among vehicles with an easy 5-star rating system.

Crash tests held by different organizations offer different scenarios of collisions. A true safer vehicle should score the best in all crash tests, not just one or two. 2017 Honda CR-V is a safer car because it scored the best in both NHTSA and IIHS safety ratings.
 
If Mazda thinks that way, they'd make a big mistake! It's the NHTSA safety ratings, not the IIHS ratings, which are printed on every new car window sticker to show how safe the vehicle is. It also makes consumers easier to compare the safety among vehicles with an easy 5-star rating system.

Crash tests held by different organizations offer different scenarios of collisions. A true safer vehicle should score the best in all crash tests, not just one or two. 2017 Honda CR-V is a safer car because it scored the best in both NHTSA and IIHS safety ratings.
I would agree, however I also never noticed the safety ratings on the sticker, or at least I didn't try to find them on there or knew to look on there. All I knew was, the CX-5 was an IIHS safety pick vehicle based on reviews I've read/watched online. So I was not an informed of a buyer as some others, but am just sharing my experience on this aspect. Generally, for me, if it is an IIHS safety pick vehicle, I would consider it good enough to own one. That doesn't excuse Mazda from trying to get 5 stars on all NHTSA crash tests, just sharing my thought process on buying a car.

If anything, we should be all over the Nisan Rogue forums. It is the top selling CUV for 2017 and it has worst crash test ratings than the 2017 CX-5.
 
If Mazda thinks that way, they'd make a big mistake! It's the NHTSA safety ratings, not the IIHS ratings, which are printed on every new car window sticker to show how safe the vehicle is. It also makes consumers easier to compare the safety among vehicles with an easy 5-star rating system.

Crash tests held by different organizations offer different scenarios of collisions. A true safer vehicle should score the best in all crash tests, not just one or two. 2017 Honda CR-V is a safer car because it scored the best in both NHTSA and IIHS safety ratings.

I don't believe Mazda is going to be too concerned with just one rating from a specific country. Now if it performs the same across Euro NCAP or ANCAP then they might do something about fixing it
 
I don't believe Mazda is going to be too concerned with just one rating from a specific country. Now if it performs the same across Euro NCAP or ANCAP then they might do something about fixing it

This is not an opinion, or a "feel", or a brand loyalty issue. It's you. Ending up dead vs not dead, maimed vs not maimed. It matters quite a bit, in my estimation, and I want the best I can get within reason. My 2015 gives me what the 2017 can't, and I find that unreasonable. Mazda should fix it regardless of sales drive. Unless they want even less customer loyalty.
 
I would agree, however I also never noticed the safety ratings on the sticker, or at least I didn't try to find them on there or knew to look on there. All I knew was, the CX-5 was an IIHS safety pick vehicle based on reviews I've read/watched online. So I was not an informed of a buyer as some others, but am just sharing my experience on this aspect. Generally, for me, if it is an IIHS safety pick vehicle, I would consider it good enough to own one. That doesn't excuse Mazda from trying to get 5 stars on all NHTSA crash tests, just sharing my thought process on buying a car.

If anything, we should be all over the Nisan Rogue forums. It is the top selling CUV for 2017 and it has worst crash test ratings than the 2017 CX-5.
NHTSA Safety Ratings are the US government official crash ratings and are mandated to be printed on the window sticker just like EPA Fuel Economy Ratings. Some people don't care much, but many do. I personally don't worried too much about the sudden downgrade to 3 stars for frontal crash on passenger side AFTER we bought our 2016 CX-5, as at the time the ratings were not available yet. But I do feel been cheated by Mazda as I looked at 2015 CX-5 NHTSA ratings and they're all perfect 5 stars except Rollover just like 2017 Honda CR-V. And the 2016 facelift shouldn't affect anything on chassis strength, hence should score the same as 2015 CX-5. But it turned out there's a big drop on front passenger, from the top 5 stars to the lowest 3 stars in the class! Someone somehow screwed up the test, which to me is unexcusible as those safety engineers in Mazda should be fully aware how the NHTSA crash test would do for years. They should be able to easily design a safe vehicle to pass the NHTSA crash test with flying colors if they really pay some attention to the test. The same for 2017 CX-5. It's unexcusible to let the front passenger and combined rear seat in side crash slipped to 4 stars, which resulted a 4-star Overall Safety Rating behind Honda CR-V and Toyota RAV4. If you notice, almost every vehicle is getting 5 stars in these two categories! Most new vehicles are getting the same or better ratings on NHTSA crash test. Going backwards at this modern era with all CAD tools is simply hard to imagine!

You know IIHS Top Safety Picks+ on CX-5 is because Mazda is really tried to advertise their CX-5 as a very safe car with IIHS ratings. They can't use NHTSA poorer ratings for advertisement, hence you won't hear it from Mazda. You have to admire Nissan who is doing excellent job selling their less-safe and less-performance Rogue, where it's actually out-selling Honda CR-V and Toyota RAV4 in the first quarter in this year!
 
This is not an opinion, or a "feel", or a brand loyalty issue. It's you. Ending up dead vs not dead, maimed vs not maimed. It matters quite a bit, in my estimation, and I want the best I can get within reason. My 2015 gives me what the 2017 can't, and I find that unreasonable. Mazda should fix it regardless of sales drive. Unless they want even less customer loyalty.

Again these are test results for USA only. Mazda won't just act on USA figures if the rest of the world's results are fine.

That is why it is best to wait for all results to come out before making a judgement call.
 
NHTSA Safety Ratings are the US government official crash ratings and are mandated to be printed on the window sticker just like EPA Fuel Economy Ratings. Some people don't care much, but many do. I personally don't worried too much about the sudden downgrade to 3 stars for frontal crash on passenger side AFTER we bought our 2016 CX-5, as at the time the ratings were not available yet. But I do feel been cheated by Mazda as I looked at 2015 CX-5 NHTSA ratings and they're all perfect 5 stars except Rollover just like 2017 Honda CR-V. And the 2016 facelift shouldn't affect anything on chassis strength, hence should score the same as 2015 CX-5. But it turned out there's a big drop on front passenger, from the top 5 stars to the lowest 3 stars in the class! Someone somehow screwed up the test, which to me is unexcusible as those safety engineers in Mazda should be fully aware how the NHTSA crash test would do for years. They should be able to easily design a safe vehicle to pass the NHTSA crash test with flying colors if they really pay some attention to the test. The same for 2017 CX-5. It's unexcusible to let the front passenger and combined rear seat in side crash slipped to 4 stars, which resulted a 4-star Overall Safety Rating behind Honda CR-V and Toyota RAV4. If you notice, almost every vehicle is getting 5 stars in these two categories! Most new vehicles are getting the same or better ratings on NHTSA crash test. Going backwards at this modern era with all CAD tools is simply hard to imagine!

You know IIHS Top Safety Picks+ on CX-5 is because Mazda is really tried to advertise their CX-5 as a very safe car with IIHS ratings. They can't use NHTSA poorer ratings for advertisement, hence you won't hear it from Mazda. You have to admire Nissan who is doing excellent job selling their less-safe and less-performance Rogue, where it's actually out-selling Honda CR-V and Toyota RAV4 in the first quarter in this year!

Nissan sells on price,imo, when it comes to rogue.
 
Again these are test results for USA only. Mazda won't just act on USA figures if the rest of the world's results are fine.

That is why it is best to wait for all results to come out before making a judgement call.

Why not ? Chrysler can react nearly immediately to a stupid "Moose avoidance test". Why can't Mazda react to a test that has its results mandated by the US government to be on a window stickr?
 
Back