IIHS Crash test results
03-14-2006, 04:01 PM
#1
IIHS Crash test results
I saw the results last week, then I just saw this bit of commentary on Consumer Reports online:
The Acura TSX and Infiniti G35 both earned a Good in the front-impact test, Acceptable on the side test and Poor on the rear-crash test. Consumer Reports recommends both these models, with a top-tier recommendation Rating, because they received Good and Acceptable scores on both the front- and side-impact tests. The rear-end-crash results from the IIHS is useful information; however, it does not factor in our Ratings. We look at both the frontal-offset and side-crash-tests results from the IIHS because they provide valuable safety information and are the most severe crash tests.
03-14-2006, 04:18 PM
#2
Pro
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Tempe, AZ
Age: 43
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rearend crashes may not be as severe but they do seem to be more frequent, at least at my workplace. Most of my coworkers that have been involved in accidents have been rear ended.
03-14-2006, 04:33 PM
#3
6MT or Death
Originally Posted by Zoopa
I saw the results last week, then I just saw this bit of commentary on Consumer Reports online:
The Acura TSX and Infiniti G35 both earned a Good in the front-impact test, Acceptable on the side test and Poor on the rear-crash test. Consumer Reports recommends both these models, with a top-tier recommendation Rating, because they received Good and Acceptable scores on both the front- and side-impact tests. The rear-end-crash results from the IIHS is useful information; however, it does not factor in our Ratings. We look at both the frontal-offset and side-crash-tests results from the IIHS because they provide valuable safety information and are the most severe crash tests.
03-14-2006, 05:00 PM
#4
Originally Posted by Yui
Rearend crashes may not be as severe but they do seem to be more frequent, at least at my workplace. Most of my coworkers that have been involved in accidents have been rear ended.
. Unless you got hit in hte back when someone was reversing.........
03-14-2006, 05:09 PM
#5
Pro
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Tempe, AZ
Age: 43
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I mean is, my TSX is more likely to get rear ended than for me to plow into someone's car. So, while Consumer Reports overlooks the poor rear crash test rating for the TSX, it is a bit of a concern for me.
03-14-2006, 06:18 PM
#6
Someone stole "My Garage"
Originally Posted by Yui
What I mean is, my TSX is more likely to get rear ended than for me to plow into someone's car. So, while Consumer Reports overlooks the poor rear crash test rating for the TSX, it is a bit of a concern for me.
edit:
Another way to think of it is this -- a "poor" rating in a rear-end collision is likely gonna get you a stiff neck for a few days. Conversely, a "poor" rating on a side impact collision will get you a broken arm, leg, collarbone, bruised or broken ribs, or even a fractured skull. A "poor" rating on a frontal-impact collision will likely get you a smashed skull, or dead.
03-14-2006, 07:01 PM
#7
Pro
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Tempe, AZ
Age: 43
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frankly, with all the testimonies of TSX's that have been involvd in crashes on this board, some of them quite severe, the car has definitely held up its end in protecting the passengers, so I don't disagree at all with your statements. However, doesn't a poor crash test rating negatively affect our insurance premiums?
Originally Posted by curls
The reason it shouldn't be of that much of a concern is because getting rear-ended in a car is RARELY fatal or even serious in nature. Sure, the car takes a whippin', but that's fine with me if my wife, my future kids, and myself, are OK.
edit:
Another way to think of it is this -- a "poor" rating in a rear-end collision is likely gonna get you a stiff neck for a few days. Conversely, a "poor" rating on a side impact collision will get you a broken arm, leg, collarbone, bruised or broken ribs, or even a fractured skull. A "poor" rating on a frontal-impact collision will likely get you a smashed skull, or dead.
edit:
Another way to think of it is this -- a "poor" rating in a rear-end collision is likely gonna get you a stiff neck for a few days. Conversely, a "poor" rating on a side impact collision will get you a broken arm, leg, collarbone, bruised or broken ribs, or even a fractured skull. A "poor" rating on a frontal-impact collision will likely get you a smashed skull, or dead.
Trending Topics
03-14-2006, 07:08 PM
#8
Honda has spent a lot money on their crash test facility. I think their first vehicles to have benefitted, from design to production are the RL, Civic, and Odyssey. So the next TSX should probably be improved.
For rear end collisions, active head restraints, like the Civic has, would probably help a lot.
For rear end collisions, active head restraints, like the Civic has, would probably help a lot.
03-15-2006, 11:38 AM
#9
Originally Posted by curls
The reason it shouldn't be of that much of a concern is because getting rear-ended in a car is RARELY fatal or even serious in nature. Sure, the car takes a whippin', but that's fine with me if my wife, my future kids, and myself, are OK.
edit:
Another way to think of it is this -- a "poor" rating in a rear-end collision is likely gonna get you a stiff neck for a few days. Conversely, a "poor" rating on a side impact collision will get you a broken arm, leg, collarbone, bruised or broken ribs, or even a fractured skull. A "poor" rating on a frontal-impact collision will likely get you a smashed skull, or dead.
edit:
Another way to think of it is this -- a "poor" rating in a rear-end collision is likely gonna get you a stiff neck for a few days. Conversely, a "poor" rating on a side impact collision will get you a broken arm, leg, collarbone, bruised or broken ribs, or even a fractured skull. A "poor" rating on a frontal-impact collision will likely get you a smashed skull, or dead.
There are some forums out there that show concern for CR credibility lately. This just shows again how they just over look a very credible test result then skew their finidings by introducing their own opinions and give a car a reccommended rating. Some people purchase items believing CR is the end all for the consumer. This is why in this case they should stick with proven facts/test results from a source that deals strictly with these issues, rather than some persons opinion at CR after " their testing" in a important matter like safety.
03-15-2006, 12:39 PM
#10
Just to provide complete information, I'm posting a link to the actual IIHS rear end results.
Keep in mind what is being tested (hint: it is not like the front, front offset, or side crashes):
Keep in mind what is being tested (hint: it is not like the front, front offset, or side crashes):
For each seat/head restraint, rear-end crash protection is an assessment of occupant protection against neck injury in rear impacts at low to moderate speeds. Although such injuries usually aren't serious, they occur frequently.
The overall ratings are based on a two-step evaluation. In the first step the geometry (distance behind and below the head of a seated average-size man) is rated good, acceptable, marginal, or poor. Seats with good or acceptable geometry then are subjected to a dynamic test simulating the forces in a stationary vehicle that's rear-ended by another vehicle of the same weight going 20 mph. Seat/head restraints with marginal or poor geometry aren't tested dynamically because they cannot protect taller people in rear-end crashes. These seats are rated poor overall.
In the dynamic tests measurements are recorded on a dummy (BioRID) representing an average-size man. BioRID is designed specifically for rear-end testing at low to moderate speeds. The dynamic ratings are derived from two seat design parameters (acceleration of the dummy's torso and time from impact initiation to head restraint contact with the dummy's head) plus tension and shear forces recorded on the dummy's neck. Overall ratings are based on both geometric measurements and dynamic results.
The overall ratings are based on a two-step evaluation. In the first step the geometry (distance behind and below the head of a seated average-size man) is rated good, acceptable, marginal, or poor. Seats with good or acceptable geometry then are subjected to a dynamic test simulating the forces in a stationary vehicle that's rear-ended by another vehicle of the same weight going 20 mph. Seat/head restraints with marginal or poor geometry aren't tested dynamically because they cannot protect taller people in rear-end crashes. These seats are rated poor overall.
In the dynamic tests measurements are recorded on a dummy (BioRID) representing an average-size man. BioRID is designed specifically for rear-end testing at low to moderate speeds. The dynamic ratings are derived from two seat design parameters (acceleration of the dummy's torso and time from impact initiation to head restraint contact with the dummy's head) plus tension and shear forces recorded on the dummy's neck. Overall ratings are based on both geometric measurements and dynamic results.
03-15-2006, 08:53 PM
#12
Advanced
Join Date: Jan 2006
Age: 42
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding is they do the rear crash test "outside" the car (just the seats). That means any energy that may be absorbed well (or poorly) by the design of the rear of the car does not show up in the test.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MrHeeltoe
1G TSX Tires, Wheels, & Suspension
20
02-23-2023 01:54 PM
MrHeeltoe
2G TSX Tires, Wheels & Suspension
3
09-29-2015 10:43 PM
MrHeeltoe
3G TL Tires, Wheels & Suspension
0
09-28-2015 05:43 PM
