The larger the vehicle, the more mass that needs to stop or change direction. It's not like these trucks (and yes, they are) are getting any lighter generation to generation. I can't imagine how much heavier they are going to get if the EV scam forces them to fully electrify.
@@svpracer98 Cars are getting too big nowadays anyways, single people driving round full size Suburbans without needing them because its terrifying to drive a small car on these roads lol
What scares me most is the very beginning: "We haven't tested this class of vehicles previously". The most popular segment of American vehicles was not tested for safety.
From what I could tell these were only body on frame large SUVs. The most popular segment is actually unibody compact CUVs like the RAV4, amd CRV. Such a large expensive body segment could never be our most popular. They did use to have high sales over a decade ago. But not now
@@baronvonjo1929 While the compact and midsize CUVs are the top sellers, the Tahoe and its relatives sell in DROVES, especially when you consider how much they cost these days. So I agree it's pretty crazy they've never tested these.
so, people buy these huge SUVs thinking they will be safer, ignoring the other users and pedestrians, and they end up being potentialy less safe than they would in a smaller SUV, and in the same time they are still a hazard for other users and especially pedestrians...great success
Well they're so big and heavy that they push the other vehicle out of the way and the damage is transmitted into the smaller vehicle. No one really cares about others just about themselves That's why they're so popular.
@@duramaxadventures5832 until they meet a smaller (not small, but smallER like, say, a Volvo SUV) but properly designed vehicle, and the roles get reversed. but i totally agree on the last part
The headlights that blind me the most are from large GM vehicles. They scatter bright white light everywhere and are incredibly dangerous to other drivers.
@duramaxadventures5832 Uh ill beg to differ with you on that. Design is a contributing factor but when I'm sitting in my sedan eye to eye with a suvs headlight or worse a lifted truck, that all goes out the door.
@@skylersutton241 it's because they HAVE to be that high because of the poor design. I've tried cranking them down to where they won't glare. 2 feet off the hood, so now they can see as much as a car from the 1980's but they are driving 40-50mph faster at night. So kinda an issue, I only buy cars with auto dining mirrors now. Solves the issue.
@@duramaxadventures5832 but the problem with the expedition is that it's a 2024... in 2018 there were at least other cars that were not passing the small overlap. Now the expedition is the only one.
Keep in mind it's like if the Expedition hit another Expedition in a small overlap case, in reality that expedition is likely hitting a CRV or Corolla and it will destroy those cars.
@@Slimecrazy234which is scary in its own right. Besides, at this point, it seems to be a vehicle size arms race. Most of america is just tired of this. If I want good fuel economy and vehicle handling I'm forced to buy foreign.
@@6Glitch it more. Drivers seat ends up on top of passenger seat. I live at one of the most notorious intersections. Green arrow off of freeway, people doing 65-70 through it. People ignore no turn on red, boom.
Highend luxury cars like Mercedes S Class, Audi A8, BMW 7 Series and Porsche solve this with adaptive/matrix lights. Just a cost limiting factor for other brands
@A52_E92 Bc US law makers are slow morons. The cars with this ability use the same headlights in the US and in Europe but in the US the feature is just disabled. I've seen people turning on the feature in the aftermarket. Alot of people just don't know their cars are capable of it. I've driven by many Audi Q8s at night and they are a very well managed beam, some car makers just don't take the time to really design a great headlight
the loophole was initially there to make work trucks cheaper, but no instead trucks have turned into upmarket products so they could maximize the margins on the less-regulated market 🙄
@@SoylentGamerits fucking annoying. They know who to sell it to (typical southern Americans). Im just happy there are areas that doesn’t allow such big vehicles.
@@Daweim0 “They probably had their reasons.” So naive to think that, the reason they haven’t was because of $$$. IIHS takes kickbacks and bribes. There’s no logical reason not to test SUV’s for over 25 years.
It's really baffling because by nature of their size, SUVs make the road less safe for other motorists and the rising hoodlines done for style are causing pedestrian fatalities.
Crazy how the loophole was supposed to make sure trucks stayed inexpensive for small businesses, but instead they've become overpriced barges for rich folks.
It's about time y'all tested these vehicles. These have been the most popular class of vehicles in the US for a long time now and i truly believe the roads are less safe because these vehicles have been allowed to slip through the cracks by IIHS. The pedestrian fatalities are especially alarming when you see that most of the deaths are from vehicles like the ones tested in this video. I hope y'all continue to test them in the future.
These aren't the most popular. The most popular are smaller suvs, like the Chevrolet Traverse, the Jeep Grand Cherokee, and the Ford Explorer on the slightly larger end and (the real most popular type: small suvs) like the Chevrolet Equinox, Jeep Cherokee, and Ford Escape.
I’m fully expecting Rolls Royces to flunk these tests too. The market just doesn’t care for it when you’re shopping in certain classes of cars, and they don’t matter enough statistically. They’ll only build it to meet regulations and no more.
IIHS isn’t regulatory. IIHS is exactly what it means. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. It’s a group of insurance companies who do “private” and “impartial” testing of vehicles to their standards to determine how safe vehicles are.. and influence automakers to make “safer” vehicles by rating them publicly-which drives consumer choices. The reason I put those words in quotes is because since the end goal of the insurance companies is to ~~save~~ make money… there’s likely a quid pro quo to get a good safety rating. Whilst something like frontal overlap test results can’t really be faked.. you can get extra points for technologically based safety features which may or may not make the car safer in reality. One thing that i definitely don’t think makes vehicles safer are the thicker door pillars and higher belt lines as a result of rollover performance tests. These reduce visibility, increase weight, and raise centre of gravity.. ironically making a crash and rollover more likely.
@@calvinnickel9995not so fast they are contracted by the Feds as Feds use their data. Now which specific fed agency, depends but safety reports usually will have an additional agency or person (unsigned or signed) attached.
Heck even the dodge durango did better and they never changed the safety design of the suv since 2011 which was 3 to 4 years before iihs started testing small overlap crash test, btw it did marginal which in todays standards it isn't good, but the passive safety features i will say chevy always had horrible passive safety features like fcw and acc as they do horrible a lot of the times.
Great point. To think Ford owned Volvo for 10 years, plundered them for patents and R&D knowledge.... and still can't make a fullsize vehicle as safe as it should be. Ford as a company baffles me in so many ways.
@@rapide12345 No, the 2014 Outlander doesn't deserve a good rating in my opinion. That example is a very poor example. The head slid off the airbag while the steering wheel moved to the right and the dummy kinetics should be acceptable. But it was rated Good for some goddamn reason. The dummy kinetics portion of the test criteria is rigged. Also it only gets acceptable for structure. You could have chosen the 2014 Subaru Forester. And also, Toyota Corolla looks better and is safer than Mitsubishi Lancer.
@@peachyclean93 exactly. I think a lot of people fail to realize that out of all of the big three, Chrysler was always known for its impeccable safety back then
When I was 16 my mom's 2000 Chrysler LHS saved our lives. Fishtailed in the rain, put the nose in the ditch, swung around violently and cracked a power pole with driver's door. We walked away with nothing other than airbag rash
@@skylersutton241 A lot of the people I've met who drive Suburbans, Wagoneers, Expeditions, so on and so forth, are empty nesters. They don't even haul anything outside of groceries. One thing in common: they're all subpar drivers. Bad drivers are attracted to larger vehicles.
What a shame for Ford. When they redesigned the Explorer it earned a good rating. Perhaps they didn’t think that the IIHS was going to text their large SUV, as they haven’t done so for many in the past. It is an unethical business decision to only engineer safety in cars to pass a crash test. I wonder if the passenger side is less reinforced during the small overlap.
They have officially tested passenger-side overlap since 2018. They also posted it, and it still got a marginal, with equally horrible structural collapse.
The Explorer went unibody. These are all still body-on-frame trucks, which always do poorly in crash tests. The frame rails are too inboard to stop the small overlap damage, and they’re less safe in frontal impact because the rails (designed for towing, not crashing) don’t absorb impacts like a unibody.
Ratings are based on vehicle weight for good reason. It's basic physics. A 5 star compact car does NOT equal a 5 star large SUV. Last time I did the math a 5 star civic equaled about a 2-3 star base F150. IIHS has done these tests, and has a few videos about them. I highly recommend looking them up. The star ratings are... less than useful if you are in a particularly small or large vehicle as you are then much more likely to hit a vehicle of a different weight.
@@derherr65A civic is miles safer than an F-150 in every aspect for the owner AND and other drivers around them as well as pedestrians. An F-150 is an inferior vehicle desired by people who don’t actually need it and most have no clue about blind spots, center of gravity, general stability, and box frames kill people.
@@Task-Failed-Sucessfully The IIHS videos disprove your feelings. They're readily available on youtube. "In a crash between a small lightweight car, and a heavier one, the smaller car is driven backwards. That means higher forces on the occupants of the smaller car, and lower forces on the occupants of the bigger ones." This means real world injuries, brain bleeds, aortic separations, etc. I've seen people make purchasing decisions in case they get hit by another car or suv, never in case they get hit by a pedestrian.
The American stigma of "bigger=safer" needs to stop. I'm tired of giant suvs blinding me, not knowing how to park, and getting away with worse emissions, saftey, and mileage while everything else that isn't a truck or suv struggles. The regulations around vehicle classifications need to change, and the exception for normal car regulations need to apply.
Typically bigger IS safer in a less controlled environment than this, such as an actual traffic collision, if a 3 ton plus SUV hits a Prius the people in the SUV are going to be safer, that’s just the laws of physics. Not that it justifies people with one child having a suburban or whatever.
@@badawesome They don't, Personally I commute in an F-150 that only gets used for it's intended purpose once in awhile. I don't personally give a fuck what anyone drives, between people like myself, soccer moms and their suburban's or old bald guys in Corvettes.
I always laughed at Professional Mommies(TM) who thought trucks were safer than cars. The safety standards for trucks has never been on-par with sedans.
p=mv^2 as in the momentum is equal to the vehicle's mass times it's velocity squared....so heavy vehicle versus light vehicle, same speed....light vehicle is punted...
@@TheJimbo301 Congrats, now, you´ve given a bigger battering ram for incompetent or negligent drivers, which seem to be more common each day. But hey, safety first always, right?
@TheJimbo301 That’s only true if all of the kinetic energy is transferred from the SUV to the car. This is rarely ever the case-as endless dashcam footage can tell. It’s often deflected in the form of first being partially stored in the tires and springs of both vehicles as the SUV/truck mounts the smaller car.. and then being added in the opposite direction as it rebounds… changing the direction of the momentum. This usually results in the SUV/truck rolling over or flipping several times carried by its own kinetic energy-much like a 300lbs bouncer getting his foot swept by a 150lbs black belt.
You can always buy heavy sedans to counter the weight difference. Benefit of better handling due to lower cg and higher dynamic stability at speed which pickups lack severely.
I contacted you guys years ago asking why you didn’t test this class of vehicles, you said their large size made them fare better in crashes, glad to see you went back on your word.
Doing better in tests does not necessarily relate to doing better in the real world. For example, the overlap test simulates crashing into a rigid, immovable object. In this possible but unlikely scenario, the vehicle's mass works against it. In the real world however, you are far more likely to hit deformable objects, often with much less mass (i.e. other vehicles). In those scenarios, the smaller vehicle will experience the crash more similar to hitting the immovable object, and will end up crumbling and absorbing more of the impact energy. Long story short, these large SUVs may not be the best if you are crashing into a concrete barrier or giant tree. In most real world situations, they will protect occupants better that a smaller car or SUV.
@@BalanBro2 doesn’t change all the rear seat safety, roof strength, headlights, latch anchors, AEB, and all of those tests.. these still need to be safe and should be tested
@parkergray5346 I agree that they still should be tested. My point is that the crash ratings are misleading and should not be be used to compare vehicles across classes. The data shows almost a 2 fold higher fatality rate for cars compared to SUVs of similar model years, even if the cars earned a higher crash test safety rating.
@@BalanBro2 Go to an affluent suburb and you'll see that these behemoths rule the road. It's not an edge case that two vehicles of this class crash into each other in this setting, in which case, good safety design becomes imperative. Sad state of affairs really, it's no longer safe to drive a normal sized car in the 'burbs.
@@d47000 You're spot on there. Unfortunately, driving small vehicles is downright treacherous with all the large trucks and SUVs on the road. I live in the suburbs myself, so since I couldn't beat them even with a highly safety rated car, I had to join them and get a full size truck.
That's great and all, but you're going to be more seriously hurt in a Yaris than large SUV, every time. Physics says so, insurance company says so, consumers say so, God Himself might as well say so.
Insane that not only has it taken this long for this class to be tested, but that despite being a class of basically 5 (missing Armada and Sequoia) you couldn’t manage to test them all.
i wish IIHS would allow donating used vehicles to test if it's a model that wasn't included. why only new vehicles, why should prior generations be discriminated against??
@@tsikinite Yeah, the suburban and tahoe style MASSIVE suvs are in a whole different class than the XC90 or equivalent crossover SUVS. SUVs like the XC90 or Tesla Model X are bother big and heavy vehicles, with the MX weighing in at a minimum of 5300 pounds without any occupants, but they're the safest vehicles.
@@porothepotato The only other ones I can think of are the Lincoln Navigator and Cadillac Escalade, but Lincoln is the same as ford and Cadillac is also gm.
It's not that old. Here's the problem though is new cars get stronger and stronger old cars become more and more deadly than the fatality rates skyrocket. And I'm not even talking old, old.... I'm talking anything before 2018.
These crash tests are not even really truly representational of what happens in actual crashes. They are not taking suspension "brake-dive" or instantaneous body roll center into consideration. Additionally, they are also not testing low-speed-rollover crashes, which seem to be increasing at an exponential rate nowadays, due to the ubiquity of topheavy vehicles now glutting the auto market. I've seen videos of low-speed-rollover crashes where one vehicle hit by another at 10 mph rolls over at the slightest little bump! This is undoubtedly due to overly hard suspension spring rates and high centers of gravity. Older vehicles hardly ever rolled over when hit at low speeds. But today, this phenomenon is apparently happening everywhere, and it is not being properly studied!
These tests can't ever take into account things like cargo or projectiles in the cabin. Or if anything is being towed. In short the real risks while driving are much higher than even these frightening crash tests would suggest
THIS. THIS is what happens when manufacturers are not tested. THIS is why I will never buy a car that hasn't been tested by the IIHS or met their exact standards. Unfuckingbelieveable that cars designed as early as 2003 fare better. Holy hell this is atrocious.
I totally agree. And US legacy auto mfrs always perform horribly. My dad just got a Cadillac Lyriq but there is no crash data available. I hope it safe.
@@parmesanforpresident4156 haha. I hope so since it’s a brand new platform. But then again, I haven’t seen any Gm platform performing well, so I’m not sure they know how to build a safe platform.
@kennygaming208 Well they have tested roof strength since 2009. Additionally, all new cars have ESC standard, so the risk of a rollover is less likely. Finally, it is odd to make a point that they don't cover the rollover risk enough, when they also don't often cover the safety disadvantage small cars have, or the disadvantage of sedans being overrided by trucks and suvs that are not built with the crash structure at the same height as a sedan, etc. They can't always cover all of it, as there are too many variables.
No one NEEDS to be driving a vehicle this big. The CAFE standard loophole that has incentivized automakers to pivot almost entirely to what are essentially light trucks needs to be CLOSED.
Love how these things that don't pass these tests, and haven't even been tested AT ALL until recently, costs less to insure than my small, slow, safe hatchback. Also love how you guys test headlights but still let every other car on the road blind me in my very low, but stock height, hatchback.
I'm glad someone is finally doing tests on these giant walls with engines lmao, I get blinded by the new Cadi suv lineup's headlights every time i go to work in the morning
@@akj2387 I am saying that if you were walking across a street and the Tahoe came across it would not stop- it did poorly on the pedestrian prevention test. Having a 6,000 pound brick hitting you would not be fun.
People assume these large SUVs are safer, especially when seeing how their truck counterparts performed. F150 has one of the best ratings of all trucks; no one would imagine how back the Expedition performed.
I occasionally drive an older Mazda MX-5 Miata around rural American roads. My Miata seems to fit within the wheelbase of some of these large vehicles. I feel like I'm darting into and out of their blind spots. So i give them the space they seem to need.
The ultimate issue is that IIHS assumed in the early days that SUV and light truck drivers would understand how hazardous their vehicles were, and would be much more cautious behind the wheel. As someone who lives in Iowa, I can assure you this is not the case.
So, just to be clear, IIHS knows that large SUVs are more likely to cause pedestrian “fatal injuries”; but they end the video suggesting that drivers “should consider them when shopping for a new vehicle”
And people still think they're safer because they're bigger, so they give their kids these huge SUVs as their first cars to keep them safe, meanwhile everyone is more at risk. THESE AREN'T TRUCKS STOP RATING THEM AS TRUCKS.
@@stedye The problem is they're not. So many people who drive these things are making less than $100k a year and are spending like a quarter of their income on car payments all for a stupid SUV they don't need.
To be fair they’re crashing it into an immovable object, most traffic accidents involve other vehicles of similar or lesser size and weight. If you clobber a Prius in an Expedition the people in the Expedition are far less likely to suffer serious injury.
They have a crash test facility, not fire containment facility. And no, I'm not trying to be a smartass about it. Their facility isn't designed to handle an EV fire, which would likely completely destroy the facility.
@@grayrabbit2211 IIHS has crash tested the 2024 Rivian R1T, 2023 Rivian R1S, 2022 Rivian R1S, 2022 Rivian R1T, 2022 Tesla Model Y, 2021 Tesla Model Y, 2019 Tesla Model 3, 2017 Tesla Model S, 2016 Tesla Model S, 2014 Nissan Leaf, 2011 Nissan Leaf, and 2017 BMW i3. They crash test EVs, and moreso, have not only tested Teslas but have also tested the Rivian electric truck. If their facility supposedly can't handle an EV fire, surely they wouldn't have done all these crash tests on EVs dating back to the early 2010s.
@@grayrabbit2211bro what are you on? They literally crash test every EV they could get their hands on over the last 10 years and there hasn’t been any issues regarding batteries catching fire during testing. The only incident where a fire occurred during testing was like 20 years ago in a gas powered vehicle for a dateline consumer alert and even then the fire was minor.
When are the crash safety tests going to examine the damages the vehicle causes? Getting hit by a Scion Xb hurts much less than getting hit by a Lincoln Navigator. That auto-braking crap is crap, generally the suv is just going faster than is controllable.
Quick explanation: This is not surprising because larger cars, especially flagship luxury models, tend not to be crash tested by the IIHS. They’re expensive and relatively low in production volume. Unless there is commercial pressure (such as this), there isn’t much other incentive to design for a particular crash test that isn’t government-mandated. They’re expensive, but for even better crash protection they would get even more so.
I still don't get the wide appeal of SUVs. I mean, if you have to tow heavy stuff from time to time because of your hobbies or your job, or needed the higher seating position because of back issues I can understand, but why should I buy a big vehicle that has worse fuel economy and worse handling than a wagon or compact car counterpart with the same specs.
It's amazing what behemoths the country of United States of America allows on their roads. It used to be that 4000 pounds was extremely heavy. I think some of these are now reaching over 7000 pounds. 7000 pounds of metal to transport one 175 pound person to the super market.
These oversized tanks don't make you safer and make everyone else on the road less safe, too. If you don't drive a small hatchback or sports car, you have no idea how scary they can be.
I knew these tests occurred regularly, but I did not know they were viewable by a live audience. Nothing replaces the safety of an attentive motor operator - seeing/hearing a crash in person always reinforced the respect I need to drive safely.
Shout out to iihs for saying what we all been struggling with in the south ....those big ass chevys with collapsed suns for headlights while their drivers can't see 4 foot in front of them
why is there never a mention about the 3rd row occupant safety score. IIHS there SUV are primarily a people carrier and please include this important category
Will stick to my Camry. I did with my 2000, I currently do with my 2017 and again with my 2024 Nightshade. #1 selling vehicle in America, top rated 5* as well & I understand why.
I like the attention to headlight ratings and problems. There seems to have been an improvement in proper lighting at night in newer vehicles versus that wave of hideously bright blue tinged lights that everyone thought they needed. Those pedestrian tests aren't just for kids either. If you've ever lived around a college, you know that they stupidly walk into the road just as blindly as a 5-year-old.
Keep making them bigger and heavier! But hey! They have reduced emissions while gaining 500-1000 lbs! Great job! Need more regulations and larger cars!
Well, the IIHS cant keep any cars off the road because they have no legal authority, if that's what yku're implying. But I agree, these vehicles are quite scary.
The biggest thing for me isn't the safety of these gargantuan cars... but for people like me who drive a sedan... who in turn get killed by these things. Don't even get me started on grocery hauling soccer mom half ton pickup trucks
The reason the ford and Chevy don’t do good is they are based off a truck frame that has a steel bumper with corner protection. A plastic cover has nothing to start the deceleration in hits to the corners and in front of the wheels.
Consumers do not dictate how these things are designed unfortunately. Want to know why visibility has gone to shit in almost all vehicles? Because they went less glass and more reliance on tech and less reliance on the driver. I have two lifted 90s Jeeps and a lifted 90s chevy, all three have phenomenal visibility compared to my wife's ford edge.
It's kinda scary to think that manufacturers will only update crash structures when they know they'll be tested. That Expedition overlap was terrible. But this approach is across the board. And people buy these things and think just because they're huge, they're safer. SMH