Large SUVs struggle in IIHS tests - IIHS News 

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 bud look at the xc90.

@@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

Only the govt owned ones. The big three that were on here no surprise. All p.o.s

Some EVs are heavier than these full sized SUVs yet don’t have any issues with these 10 year old tests.

24*

@@GXKid06 and 2023

Crashing into a barrier is the same as crashing into a mirror image of the vehicle. So in most actual crashes these behimoths will not perform so bad.

@@edrcozonoking Except in texas where everyone has a large SUV or truck.

It shouldn't be surprising thar American cars are low quality.

They are not the most worried cars for safety, they themselves post safety threats for other smaller or lower cars.

i mean at least nhtsa does mandatory tests

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.

Large SUV are even close to being the most popular segment of vehicles. Far too expensive for most Americans.

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.

@@duramaxadventures5832What if they hit a tree? Or a concrete pillar?

@@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

@@akj2387 then it's a single vehicle accident. No risk to others

Like a normal car would do just as much damage, that’s how ignorant you are

I know, they need to lower them. Jeeps are the worst

​@@tsikiniteIt's not about height it's about the headlight design IHS covers that in detail.

​@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.

Stop driving at night.

You should see the 4runner...... Or any tuck before 2018. Hell Silverado the cab came off the frame...

@@duramaxadventures5832but failing this test in 2024 is absolutely unacceptable.

@@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.

I’ve seen those happen before. Never turns out pretty for the victim.

It’s probably the same or less because the cars aren’t fixed to the ground like the barricade is in this test.

@@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.

Partial overlap is at 40 mph/64 km/hr..

And by the time the driver realizes it, it is too late to even slow down. Where the phrase "came out of nowhere" is often used.

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

@@Joshtk94matrix lights aren’t legal in the us.

@@A52_E92they have been since 2022

@@Joshtk94 Euro equivalents of the Civic/Corolla have matrix headlights in Europe.

@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.

IIHS probably had a reason. They aren't a government agency, they can do whatever they want

@@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.

@@SoylentGamer These aren't "work trucks" and they cost a fortune.

Less safe for _whom?_ SUVs represent the majority of vehicles on the road in 48 of 50 states.

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.

@@SoylentGamerespecially for the one thats into lifted trucks 🙄

It's a fine line between cost cutting and lawsuits... for their MOST profitable vehicles!

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.

@@calvinnickel9995wow. Thanks for that info

​@@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.

Even the 2014 Outlander did better than all of these large SUV's and also better than the new Grand Highlander.

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.

That’s because 20 years ago, Volvo was made to be the safest😉 anybody else remember their marketing?

@@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.

Chrysler used to be the leader in safety they came out with stuff that no other car company was give credit where credit's due

Anyone alive in the past 30 years would have no clue based on their performance/quality

​@@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

@@shallowgrey And a new pair of underwear needed.

I think you can add quotes to the U as well considering as most families have not even two kids on average in the US.

@@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.

@@d47000i got a miata in march and this comment section is reminding me to stay extra vigilant when driving spiritedly

@@d47000 exactly. the american way of thinking "big truck more safe" when you get all the downsides and none of the upsides of driving a car

@@faridb40 We pay less for insurance? So there's that? Almost like the insurance companies know something...

I know right

They have officially tested passenger-side overlap since 2018. They also posted it, and it still got a marginal, with equally horrible structural collapse.

What do you even expect from Ford? They've been unethical af for decades already.

It’s sad that the American legacy mfr always perform so horribly in crash tests.

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.

Mid Size is better😂

@@derherr650:52

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.

​@@nathanmcdonald610Safer for an suv, a death sentence for the unlucky individual in the actually practical vehicle

So you are a commie. Anything else you want?

@@nathanmcdonald610 People with one child should not have to justify what car they drive to you.

@@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.

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.

​@@calvinnickel9995Until you get tboned by a big ass ford expedition going 55. Ask me how I know

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.

Remember the Pinto and it's explosive rear-end feature?

It never had good structures to begin with 😂

Except passenger injury was less than Tahoe on that text regardless of appearances.

Well you can’t afford it anyway so…

@@intensifier1346 he can afford much better and safer vehicles. Nobody needs an 80k death trap.

@@intensifier1346the funny part is that you can either

@@user-zf9ts2jd1z haha

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.

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??

KIA Teluride?

@@kb_100 Unibody and not as large.

@@FantomLightning ya I figured

It's like they are so heavy that their own structure can barely handle their own weight.

​@@aaronbryan5095 big car = safe 🗿

@@squarewheel9113 it’s true for the xc90, but that car isn’t huge

@@tsikinite yeah and it's a Volvo

@@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.

And Nissan Armada

And Buick Enclave

@@simonstevenson6686 That’s a Midsize SUV, it shares the same platform with the Chevrolet Traverse, not the Tahoe

@@porothepotato Oh yeah you’re right. Whoops

@@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 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

Tell me you failed high school physics without telling me...

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.

​@@Wasabi9111 I do have faith in GM's Ultium platform to fare well honestly.

@@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 making stupid comments like yours commie. Why do you think you can tell 330 million people what they can drive?

The Tahoe did really well in the crash tests?

@@akj2387 if you are a pedestrian hit by it…

@@djplonghead5403 It literally got a good on the small overlap lmao. What ru on about?

@@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.

Only because their "doping" scandal was uncovered. They were cheating to get higher ratings knowing not all versions would be tested.

You must not be from the United States or Canada. These things are everywhere.

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.

They're small compared to the old excursions. You must not live in America.

A very wise point . Many individuals are paying $1000 - $1500 month payment for this type vehicle. Okay if they earn $10,000 a month or more .

@@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.

@nathanmcdonald619 unless it's a 1st gen expedition that shares the same flaw as it's f150 brother.

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.

They've said they will test it if it proves to be popular.

⁠​⁠@@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.

@@chewthegumFor all the hype, it is amazing how few, by automotive standards, there are on the road today.

It isnt just the US. These murder machines are being produced and sold all across the americas.

100% support here. Also consider how close the third row is the the rear of the vehicle on impact

They are not referring to a roll cage, but rather a designated space that should not be intruded upon.

Search 2000 Silverado. That's what an actual compromise looks like .

That's because they design tests to destroy the safety cage.

The drivers are drivers are the menace on the roadways.

@@badawesome True, but SUV's large ones and large trucks simply can't maneuver in normal traffic.

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.

@@Sam-qv8jq I just meant the handful of vehicles they destroyed by testing. The less of them available for use on the roads, the better.