Most-watched IIHS crash tests of 2023 

ye bruh

Yes! I had to rewatch that one. You can clearly see it on the passenger C pillar. Ouch!

I wonder if the hole cut out in the roof had any effect on that.

That’s great. Safety first ❤❤❤. Toyota #1

@@Benjamin06267485 What? No, that's not the point. The Camry could've done better. All of that glass flying on the rear occupants was wild...

is that a good thing or a bad thing? O_O

It's as if they got a good social team finally hahaha

TESLA makes the SAFEST vehicles in Production. PERIOD.

​@@markplott4820I disagree. A Tesla will burst into flames upon impact and harm everything remotely close to it. Besides, Tesla cars haven't exactly got a reputation for good crash protection. I wonder what you based your comment on?

@@IBANEZfil - TESLA according to ALL the NATIONAL safety testers GLOBALLY , inc IIHS+, NHTSA, Canada CAP , Euro NCAP, C-ncap , and Australia. TESLA also scored HIGHEST in Pedestrian SAFETY in active safety Features. TESLA has the LOWEST incidence of INJURY in a crash. TESLA not able to ROLL OVER in a crash. TESLA resubmitted the 2023 PLAID model S and set a NEW BENCHMARK in Safety. when TESLA tested the CYBERTRUCK , after the crash they were still able to OPEN all the Doors w/ ZERO cabin penetration.

@@markplott4820 Why aren't they running to show us all Cybertruck's small overlap test?

@@konceptsketcher the IIHS will need to buy one first. It sounds like CyberTrucks are losing 50% of their value as they leave the lots so they just need to buy a low mileage used one.

No, explain?

@@Loachie90 In the late 90s to mid 00s, NBC's "Dateline" crew would visit IIHS headquarters or VRC (Vehicle Research Center) and would record IIHS crash tests, like Pontiac Transport, or Honda Pilot and etc, they stop visiting to center in 2007 (i think)

Search "Dateline IIHS" and we are going to see what I mean

Wish they would bring that back to dateline. Loved that segment

@@mojavemadness5334 Me too, BTW I want Dateline to bring these segments back

My rating predictions for these vehicles: Good - Tesla Model X, Ford Expedition, Volvo XC90 Marginal - Rivian R1T Poor: Hummer EV, Chevy Tahoe, Jeep Wagoneer

Do you think they'll do the Cybertruck?

@@Surrenitie I would love a Cyber truck crash but they haven't done the Model X yet so idk how these get prioritized

@@matthewmooney4301 Good guesses, I could see the Ford expedition getting poor for rear passengers in moderate overlap testing, but I just don't know.

@@SuperMrgentleman It’s possible that it could get a poor rating as it is on the same platform as the F-150. However, it could get the highest rating as the rear seat design is similar to the Explorer.

That'll never happen

Why? Crash energy is supposed to be distributed through the vehicle instead of concentrating it up front allowing the front to crush to the point where the engine moves into the passenger compartment. If you make it so rigid that it doesn’t crush, then it’s a bigger force imposed on the passengers.

@@DrinkWhiskeyRaiseHellbecause nobody else’s back glass exploded.

It’s the only sedan in the video, glass on tailgates are isolated in a front impact

@@DrinkWhiskeyRaiseHell Shards of glass as projectiles are not an improvement over force.

@@phw2274 No, shards of safety glass are not going to harm you as much as a serious impact. What are you basing that on? Your own ill-informed opinion? Would you rather have at worst, some cuts and scrapes from glass, or broken bones, serious head trauma, ruptured organs or death from a massive impact? Please don't state your ill-considered thoughts as facts.

The c pillar buckled

Bad design

Laminated glass in the front is mostly because debris frequently strikes front windshields. If it failed catastrophically at highway speeds because of some debris that would be bad, and it would also provide no more protection against additional debris. The little glass shards look bad but they aren't going to seriously injure anyone.

The glass shattered because of how the energy is dissipated in a crash. Toyota, like all car brands, designs their cars to spread the crash forces over as much of the car as possible, therein reducing forces on the driver. While the rear glass shattering might be off-putting, it doesn't mean it's unsafe because of it. Also, the rear glass is tempered, so it breaks into small, almost pebble like pieces that are much safer and less likely to cut you than normal glass.

​@@parmesanforpresident4156 I hope your children will be safe if this suddenly happens.

​@@parmesanforpresident4156 No! The front glass stayed in place. The energy was dissipated at the front of the chassis at the crumple zone. That buckle at the right C pillar is not right.

​​@@judih.8754shattered glass isn't common but C pillar/Rear 1/4 sheet metal buckling is somewhat common

Not really. It's a weak unibody. @@parmesanforpresident4156

It definitely has charge on the battery

have any ev's caught fire during a crash test? @@jakewilliams7782

how are they going to crash them without a charged battery lol

They are not driven into the wall, they are towed by a rope in the slot in the floor, no one has answered my second question, have any caught on fire after a crash test, by the silence I guess some have!

Yes, unless it’s cold out

passenger window didnt even break.... crazy

probably due to low sales and commercial use. Like how they don't test expensive low sale luxury vehicles such as Range Rover or Porsche

they follow different (lenient) safety requirements

​@@gwotThat's weird...

@@jody024 how's that weird?

The glass shattered because of how the energy is dissipated in a crash. Toyota, like all car brands, designs their cars to spread the crash forces over as much of the car as possible, therein reducing forces on the driver. While the rear glass shattering might be off-putting, it doesn't mean it's unsafe because of it. Also, the rear glass is tempered, so it breaks into small, almost pebble like pieces that are much safer and less likely to cut you than normal glass.

Honda glass is also shattering in back.

womp womp

Wtf you are talking about?

@@randomnickify I think the general public likely thought they always cared about our children and backseat passengers. That response is assuming you're actually curious as to what I mean.

No, you just have an ignorant view on EVs. They are 60x less likely to catch on fire compared to traditional ICE cars. Taken from the article titled "Fire Incidents, Trends, and Risk Mitigation Framework of Electrical Vehicle Cars in Australia": "in the United States, EVs account for less than 0.03% of annual car fires, with an estimated 55 fires per year, compared to 284,130 fires in internal combustion engine vehicles. Additionally, studies have shown that battery electric vehicles (BEVs) have a lower fire rate in fatal collisions compared to gasoline vehicles, attributing this to the less combustible nature of lithium-ion batteries, the reduced complexity of EVs, and the location of the fuel source away from the front of the vehicle"

@@blewis42002nigga really dropped an entire paragraph 😭