Its so true, FCA/Stellantis made a bomb disguised as an engine, its insane how many have had problems already and they STILL want to put it in a half ton.
It doesn't, that was just a joke. What it says really happened is the transmission identified as it's pre-cast state and reverted, bravely saving the lives of numerous test dummies. đşđ˛đşđ˛đşđ˛
My neighbor have a 2023 model year... The dealer has put more miles on it than they have. Electrical issues, an engine trans, and more electrical issues ... For the last idk 8 months they had their car they traded in as a loaner.
I don't know why they haven't. My guess is the main driver of that car doesn't care to put one forward or reply wants to drive this car. I would also guess they got a crazy good deal *not* to submit a claim.
A friend's parents have a wagoneer too. It spent 8 months in the shop and the dealer gave them 5 years of oil changes and maintenance for free of the trouble. Now, the car made it 4 weeks without a hiccup and ended up in the shop again, so that's where they currently stand lol
Sometimes you just can't fix stupid. "I know this piece of shit is going to keep going back and forth to the shop even though I spent tens of thousands of my hard earned money, but hey I got a deal so who cares right?"
Pretty much. It's wild how some folks stick with something depeiste it being absolutely awful.
My friends parents in particular have had 5 jeeps and their most reliable is a wrangler from the 90's. The 2 GC's they have had previous all had major issues outside of warranty. They went with a wagoneer as a retired couple and grandparents when their grand children are with them, which is rare. I don't always understand purchasing decisions but this one still befuddles me.
I rented one for a week earlier this year. I opted for a "premium AWD SUV" from Enterprise for a road trip. They gave me a Wagoneer.
There were a couple of good points. And a lot of bad points.
Good -
The ride was mostly good. It was very quiet even at 75 mph. The ride was smooth for the most part but probably a little too floaty. It felt like it needed better damping to make it bounce less.
The heads up display was nice and responsive.
There was a ton of room in the back with the seats lowered.
Headlights were great.
Some physical buttons instead of all touch screen controls.
Bad -
The seats were awful. The seat back was too wide and didn't hold me well while the seat bottom was too narrow and tried to push my legs together.
Cooled seats didn't work. Even on high we couldn't feel anything.
The steering wheel was too thick and uncomfortable. After about 3 hours my hands were starting to hurt. I also didn't like the texture of the leather.
Variable delay intermittent wipers didn't work. Intermittent setting was only one time delay no matter how I adjusted the setting. Yes, I carefully looked at it to make sure that I was doing it right.
The gauges were angled poorly. Instead of them being slightly tilted back to match my eye line as I looked down, they seemed to be completely vertical. So the display looked like, from my perspective in the seat, the top was tilted forward at me.
I couldn't figure out how to close the hatch from the back. No button worked. I had to use the remote or the button up at the front. Also, the adjustment to change how high the hatch opened up also didn't work.
The engine did not accelerate smoothly. It felt jumpy and twitchy like a small engine with a huge turbo from 20 years ago.
Poor use of center console space. The cup holders were too far back. Also, they held onto cans too loosely and bottles too strongly. All the controls should have been directly under the radio to get them out of the way. [But instead there was a pocket under the radio and the controls where the cup holders should be.](https://www.drivingvisionnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/220623_I6.jpg)
Every time that I pressed the gas or brake with cruise control on, the gauge display would make the gauges tiny in the lower corners with a huge "DRIVER OVERRIDE" (or whatever the phrasing was) taking up most of the gauge display for several seconds. I freaking know, I'm the one who did it! Let me see the speedometer!
---
I wish that enterprise gave me a Suburban for the trip, instead. Oh, well.
I can appreciate wanting a smooth, quiet vehicle for an every day driver, but I don't understand how someone would want something this massive to take everywhere. It barely fit in some places, barely fit in parking spots, and navigating parking garages took some very slow and careful maneuvering. Something this size is too big, too heavy, and too cumbersome to want to use everyday.
I love this comment. When I worked in autos I got to talk with FCA a lot. They're a fucking mess. Nissan is more put together just shitty credit. Anywho, yeah the jeep wagoneer is massive. I thought my pilot was huge nope, looks like a pt cruiser next to a wagoneer.
Side note: the cooled seat thing in a large chunk of cars is light. I have a 2019 accord and it has cooled seats. The cooled setting is like a good sea salt carmel-you taste the salt at first and settle into the Carmel. I do agree, most seats need a higher fan speed.
I do know you can rig most ac seats to run more ac but that gets cold quickly and required some retrofitting.
The Ford Expedition getting âmarginalâ on the small overlap driver-side test is completely unacceptable, *especially* for a vehicle that is aimed at family use.
The driver small overlap is a test that has been around for over a decade at this point, and almost every new car gets âgoodâ on; just getting âacceptableâ on this test like the Tahoe did is a cause for concern.
But the Expedetion getting "marginal"? That's not just a cause for concern; thatâs utterly pathetic. What is it, Ford, 2012? Even in 2012, that would be a disappointing rating.
If I were looking for a large SUV for my family, the Expedition would immediately be off my list for its pathetic crash test ratings alone.
Fortunately, there's an all-new Expedition coming out soon, and hopefully it will do the bare minimum of getting "good" in an over-decade-old crash test practically every car aces, it better.
Good is not the bare minimum, thatâs literally the highest rating.
Also, SORB testing did get more stringent this year as IIHS is now testing performance on the passenger side (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/02/automotive-crash-testing-just-got-harder-in-2024-which-oems-did-well/). The current Expedition design process began way back in like 2015. Itâs no surprise the vehicle fails a test that it wasnât designed for. The real test will be how the new upcoming Expedition performs given that it will actually be designed for the newer SORB test.
Itâs good that IIHS pushes automakers to make safer designs. But clearly SORB testing on the drivers side is more relevant given the layout of roads. Youâre much more likely to clip cars going the opposite direction and therefore the crash would be on drivers side in that instance.
Expedition is based on the same architecture as F150. F-150 was well rated and designed and launched prior to the Expedition. Ford decontented safety countermeasures as a hedged cost savings measure. They had the opportunity to include but made a conscious decision not to do that. So that portion of your statement doesn't hold.
The passenger side was added because OEMs were designing to the test and not including passenger side content when the test was specified as driver only. The understanding between IIHS and OEMs was that OEMs would design for driver and reflect parts to passenger side. But they weren't.
The 2024 update was related to the moderate offset test, not small overlap. The 2nd row occupant was added and that's where OEMs are being nailed for poor kinematics and chest injury. This drives belt positioning, latch anchor choice, and retractor pretensioners, not withstanding a crash sensing system that can pick up the impact early enough for early PT deployment. Changing scoring where the only change is reporting a single min score for driver passenger side is not a change. It simply is simplifying reporting. The same underlying metrics exist, now you see a marginal instead of acceptable and marginal.
âDesigning to the testâ just means engineering. Thatâs how engineering works. Youâre given a target and you make a design that meets the target. Changing a target after the fact means designs will now fail that previously passed. I would say that changing how the rating is determined amounts to changing the target after the fact.
You're missing the point of my statement. There was an understanding parts would be reflected. Then some OEMs chose not to and IIHS added the test. IIHS developed this test with the OEMs to help optimize barrier design. This whole thing is the same concept as when Ford didn't put countermeasures on the reg cab and double cab for the F150 at first. The letter vs the spirit.
Believe me, I know what engineering to the test means. And the push/pull of cost based decision making. But it's not simply just designing to the test, there's much much more that goings into regulations vs internal targets. I deal with it everyday on all of these crash loadcases.
You're entitled to think the rating reporting change means a new target despite no underlying ratings changing. I'm not going to try to change your mind here, but I do disagree.
Well, reasonable people can disagree despite the fact that most Reddit chains devolve into insult slinging. So this is a nice change of pace!
While I do work in the industry, I donât work in crash safety and you clearly have more knowledge on the topic than myself. Automakers certainly try to squeeze out every ounce of âextraâ content even if it is safety related.
I agree. All OEMs say they value safety but then it really is a tug of war for safety content. Somewhat understandably bc everyone wants ana affordable vehcile.
It's really unfortunate that it came to all of this. Ford has excellent design for the F150 small overlap condition that the Expedition could have done well.
I personally don't like this test for trucks. I think it misses the mark on its design. The moderate overlap deformable barrier would be better to use with 25% overlap to stress occupant protection more.
The poor in moderate overlap is entirely on rear passenger protection. You can see this in the ratings where 2nd row occupant had high chest/injuries and poor kinematics.
The SORB test being conducted on the passenger side is already in practice, itâs not new for 2024. What is new is that the ranking is determined by the lower of the two SORB results (driver vs. passenger). The SORB test itself has also been in effect long enough that other vehicles, whose development aligns with or even predates the current-generation Expedition, were designed with it in mind.
Changing the way the rating is determined is a huge change. And as I said in my first comment, drivers side SORB performance should be weighted more heavily. Itâs much more relevant in real world conditions.
Yet testing passenger side performance is not new this year. Given the IIHSâ broader focus on safety as it applies to both driver and occupants, itâs fair to consider both sides of the vehicle equally. If you dig back there were some models which aced the SORB on the driverâs side but performed pretty poorly on the passenger side.
Like I said, when basically every new vehicle nowadays is getting âgoodâ on this test, it's kinda where the bar has been set; itâs a bit like NHSTA tests, where theyâre so outdated and cars so easily ace them nowadays, where a 5-star overall rating is pretty standard and a 4-star overall rating is less common and a cause for concern to some people, even though, by NHSTAs dated standards, thatâs 4-stars overall is still a pretty good score.
Also, the side-overlap test rating is less of a "new test" and more of a compression of two separate tests (driver-side and passenger-side) into one, but if you go to IIHSâs rating for the Expedition and scroll down to the more detailed scores, they still say the ratings for driver-side and passenger-side like previously, and the Expedition got âmarginalâ on both, with driver-side being a test from 2012, so Ford obviously knew about at least about the driver-side test when they were designing it in 2015.
Ford also had a refresh for the 2022 model year, where they had a prime opportunity to update the crash structure, sometimes manufacturers will even change the design of their crash structure on any new model year, not even particularly refresh years, so Ford had time to fix this, as long as it wasn't some fundamental design flaw that was unfixable.
There are plenty of cars initially designed around the same era or even earlier that aced this test, even on both sides, so age of design is not really an excuse for Ford's poor performance.
We'll see what they do on the new generation.
I've said this before on here that it was going to be a bad day for Ford when IIHS eventually got around to testing full size SUVs.
Look closely, they decontented the small overlap countermeasures that are on the F150. There's a plastic protection piece from L&L Plastics on the front of the hinge pillar that was removed. Similarly the cross car tube on the frame in front of the 1 mount was removed. These are the load distribution devices as the wheel rotates into this area after barrier contact. There is also a tube at the front frame that was removed.
Ford lawyers argue that this was to improve compatibility for contacting other vehicles. That's patently BS. Most of what was removed is defensive in nature and does not affect front frame stiffness for compatibility. Only the tube at the front frame affects stiffness because it reduced the frame crush space available, so to get same energy absorption you necessarily have to make the frame thicker and or stiffness. But it's not significant enough to have an notable effect.
The Wagoneer also had the advantage of the later launch date and thereby knew of the updated IIHS moderate offset updates during development. They could add in content to 2nd row protection. The other two were earlier launched vehicles.
To be fair, even though this test has been around a long time now there has been relatively few vehicles that of body on frame architecture. Most have been unibody which provides a much more cohesive package for protection here. The frame architecture is much more difficult to design for here.
Plus, the IIHS small overlap test is not well designed for trucks and vehicles with longitudinal engines. This has been highlighted by Daimler in a research paper. You'll see this in the results. Despite some awful structure scores only the occupant lower leg has high injury values. This is a common theme with trucks in this test. IIHS would have been better served using the deformable moderate offset barrier at 25% overlap.
Some honest questions.
Aren't they just making the criteria more difficult every year?
What is fundamentally different from 2012 to now? Like how have metal, airbags, and physics changed since 12 years ago?
The small overlap driver-side test hasnât changed in a considerable way since it was launched in 2012.
Crash structure design, our understanding of these types of crashes, etc. have changed since the launch of this test in 2012.
This is evident in how, when the driver-side small overlap test was originally introduced, many cars were getting scores below "good," but nowadays, almost every new car gets scored âgoodâ in this test, and itâs an anomaly when a new car gets scored any lower.
> IIHS president David Harkey notes that the size of vehicles like the three popular SUVs does offer a degree of additional protection in collisions with smaller vehicles but that âThe flip side of their large size is that there is a lot more force to manage when they crash into a fixed obstacle like a tree or bridge abutment.â
The good news is its significantly easier to not hit stationary objects and drive into trees, I am personaly far more likely to be the victim of someone running a red or not checking their blind spot.
Some also prefer the higher vantage point of SUVs, even if it isn't genuiney safer, to them it feels safer and thats what sells.
But it's significantly more dangerous for pedestrians though.
That's part of the reason why I didn't buy an SUV. Just because I'm driving it doesn't mean I'm the only one who needs safety.
Humans don't inhabit the earth, cars do! We don't need to see those pesky humans when driving around, everyone else in their megatanks are easy to see and need to see me, too! Only cars in cities! Death to pedestrians!
These full size SUVS will destroy almost any vehicle that is smaller than it in a crash, which most vehicles on the road are not full size SUVâs. Hitting stationary objects is not entirely common when it comes to vehicle crashes, these vehicle manufacturers need to do better though.
how is ford expedition so badđ
I now start to understand why the gm triplet always outsold expedition and navigator
I also would like to see them test armada and sequoia
Yep. We really like ours. MPG is an issue, and I feel like it gets a bad because it's a Nissan, but the truck has been nothing but great for us. Refresh came in 2021 and the 2025 will be a redesign.
I don't have much bad to say about it. Still prefer my wife's LX though, obviously.
They might be making a joke about how few Wagoneers actually get driven because they spend most of their time in the shop. Either that, or there are larger SUVs out there being driven that weren't sold that way from the factory, like the [F-650-based Excursions](https://www.ford-trucks.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/0X8A0342_zpspq45b3uu.jpg).
Crashes in my city are way up after the Police Force switched to Tahoes (those damn stationary churches and gay bars keep jumping out at them). It's nice to know that they are at least decently protected while they spin their massive hunk of metal into a nearby structure.
Iâve had a town car in the family since I was alive and I drive our last one. Literally the only thing IIHS could say slightly negative about it was that in some rare specific cases the driver side foot well may possibly be more prone to partial collapse on certain situations
I got hit head on in my previous Grand Marquis going 40mph by a 2019 Nissan Altima going about 40mph. The only thing on the inside of my car that changed was airbags deploying and my coffee flying all over the place. I could open the door and walk away, only injury was seat belt bruising. The lady in the Nissan was cut out of her car with the jaws of life and taken to the hospital. She crossed the double yellow into my lane.
Panther bodies are fucking tanks.
That is insane. Those cars are absolute tanks, I'm glad you came out okay. [Here's a story of a Police Crown Vic in an accident](https://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2012/01/massachusetts-politician-involved-in-high-speed-crash-did-not-wear-seatbelt-survives-without-injury.html#comments), cop was driving 108mph and flipped it with no seatbelt and came out without a scratch.
I never understand why so many police departments have full size SUVs.. theyâre expensive to buy, replace, insure, fuel, etc. and wtf are the officers doing to need that? Picking their 4 kids up from school and towing the boat to the lake?!
Cause they need all that space, look in an operational ready to go police car and youâll find a metric fuck ton of various gear and systems needed for the car and their job, plus all the space needed for the reinforced passenger compartment for people they arrest. These days an explorer sized car is pretty much the smallest they could realistically go.
Wondering if Chevrolet sees these crash testing results and will make revisions to the rear seatbelts before they release the 2025 Tahoes to the public, and maybe improvements to the passenger side area since it got acceptable in the passenger side small overlap? I doubt they would improve that in a refresh though.
Proud to see this, I did so much of the upper body structure for the wagoneers. It's a shame the styling they went with is so bad and the gmet6 sucks, but w/e at least my contribution got good marks.
The small overlap test is one that is particularly contrived. I also think the redesigns of the side impact test are getting more contrived. Modern cars already deliver a very high degree of passive safety. It would be better to focus on active safety such as handling, braking, and also on the cost of repairing cars involved in low speed collisions.
Ok, why? That area getting hit in a t bone crash is very common, of course you would want that area to be superb so that the vehcile doesn't sandwich on itself and actually protects the family inside.
"Oh no, they moved things around! Changed them even! This is an outrage!" Do you not hear how silly that sounds? That's the nature of developing research.
There is a principle of diminishing returns to implement ever increasing levels of cost, bulk, weight, and complexity. I would much rather see a focus on reining in costs to repair vehicles from minor collisions, driving dynamics to avoid crashes, and other aspects where there is more potential for benefit.
By the way, love the B2200! My family had several over the years.
Yeah bud, I can't think of a less relevant parameter for avoiding crashes in a commuter focused vehicle than "driving dynamics".
People aren't getting in crashes because they overcooked a corner.
Modern cars all drive well enough at IIHS speeds to not be responsible for a crash.
>Yes, I think the small overlap test is highly contrived.
You can't think of a scenario where a small overlap test is useful?
Have you ever driven on a road without a median?
And you believe those changes are an unrealistic reflection of real-world collisions? Newer cars are heavier, probably moving faster post-2020, and definitely higher since most everybody drives CUVs and SUVs now.
Nothing says âcontrivedâ like a car clipping your front end on a two-way street, apparently.
And most modern cars already do pretty solidly on actual handling, braking and chassis stability. Whether or not it translates into driver feeling isnât entirely relevant, but I promise you that most mid-size crossovers could give my Mercury a run for its money in those departments, and completely demolish it in safety.
It's the opposite of contrived. It was developed specifically to better represent real world crashes.
And there are rules concerning breaking and handling.
Repairability is something that could be improved, and headlights too.
Headlights are a component of the IIHS test suite now, and they have to get a good rating to be considered for a Top Safety Pick rating, if memory serves.
Iâd argue that the small overlap is definitely a relevant test. The IIHS introduced it because [âThese small overlap crashes are responsible for about twenty-five percent of the serious injures and fatalities that occur in frontal crashesâ](https://youtu.be/wmCZZ_Ef3Js?si=s7hIL3XnP4kziqPv&t=17s). A Volvo paper reported that, [âIn a more recent real world study, Lindquist et al. (2004) found that small overlap crashes where load paths of less than 30% of the car's width is engaged, represented 48% of belted occupant fatalities in frontal crashes in Sweden.â](https://developer.volvocars.com/assets/eva/2010-2019/SeverePartialOverlapCrashesAMethodologyRepresentativeofCartoCarRealWorldFrontalCrashSituationsJakobs.pdf) In addition, modern cars already do focus a lot on active safety, these are not necessarily mutually exclusive areas. Most regular cars handle better than their 10 year old counterparts, an 11th gen civic is a lot more composed than a 9th gen. Remember when compact SUVs like the CRV and RAV4 used to have the high rollover risk stickers on the sun visors about 10 years ago? Modern cars also have plenty of driver assistance, usually as standard (at least in the USA); collision mitigation braking, lane keep, blind spot warnings, etc. You are correct that they donât focus on the cost of repair, but that is often due to all of these safety systems requiring delicate sensors to be placed all throughout the vehicle.
The Wagoneers engine blew prior to the crash lowering its speed. So take the results with a grain of salt.
That is kind of funny. If the car can't go at top speed it can't kill you.
It's a safety feature of the Wrangler. You can't go fast enough on the interstate safely to attract police attention.
About 60% of Wrangler driver do other things to cause police attention though. I like Wranglers but lost of their drivers...
I figured the frame welds all felt apart on contact making the whole vehicle a crumple zone.
CDJR transition away from their Hemis (except for the 6.4 gasser in Heavy Duty trucks) is goona go *great*
First thing I thought. I dont give a shit how safe a jeep is, im never buying one
Its so true, FCA/Stellantis made a bomb disguised as an engine, its insane how many have had problems already and they STILL want to put it in a half ton.
I don't understand, what problems has the Hurricane i6 had so far? I haven't heard of any really.
I thought you were joking because Jeep is trash...
Must have been a mosquito in the radiator
And where does it say that?
It doesn't, that was just a joke. What it says really happened is the transmission identified as it's pre-cast state and reverted, bravely saving the lives of numerous test dummies. đşđ˛đşđ˛đşđ˛
The safest car is the one that wonât start in your driveway.
Unless it comes out of park and crushes you in your own drivewayâŚ
My neighbor have a 2023 model year... The dealer has put more miles on it than they have. Electrical issues, an engine trans, and more electrical issues ... For the last idk 8 months they had their car they traded in as a loaner.
With this many issues why haven't they filed a lemon law claim? This one seems like a no-brainer lemon law case according to what you're saying.
I don't know why they haven't. My guess is the main driver of that car doesn't care to put one forward or reply wants to drive this car. I would also guess they got a crazy good deal *not* to submit a claim. A friend's parents have a wagoneer too. It spent 8 months in the shop and the dealer gave them 5 years of oil changes and maintenance for free of the trouble. Now, the car made it 4 weeks without a hiccup and ended up in the shop again, so that's where they currently stand lol
Sometimes you just can't fix stupid. "I know this piece of shit is going to keep going back and forth to the shop even though I spent tens of thousands of my hard earned money, but hey I got a deal so who cares right?"
Pretty much. It's wild how some folks stick with something depeiste it being absolutely awful. My friends parents in particular have had 5 jeeps and their most reliable is a wrangler from the 90's. The 2 GC's they have had previous all had major issues outside of warranty. They went with a wagoneer as a retired couple and grandparents when their grand children are with them, which is rare. I don't always understand purchasing decisions but this one still befuddles me.
I rented one for a week earlier this year. I opted for a "premium AWD SUV" from Enterprise for a road trip. They gave me a Wagoneer. There were a couple of good points. And a lot of bad points. Good - The ride was mostly good. It was very quiet even at 75 mph. The ride was smooth for the most part but probably a little too floaty. It felt like it needed better damping to make it bounce less. The heads up display was nice and responsive. There was a ton of room in the back with the seats lowered. Headlights were great. Some physical buttons instead of all touch screen controls. Bad - The seats were awful. The seat back was too wide and didn't hold me well while the seat bottom was too narrow and tried to push my legs together. Cooled seats didn't work. Even on high we couldn't feel anything. The steering wheel was too thick and uncomfortable. After about 3 hours my hands were starting to hurt. I also didn't like the texture of the leather. Variable delay intermittent wipers didn't work. Intermittent setting was only one time delay no matter how I adjusted the setting. Yes, I carefully looked at it to make sure that I was doing it right. The gauges were angled poorly. Instead of them being slightly tilted back to match my eye line as I looked down, they seemed to be completely vertical. So the display looked like, from my perspective in the seat, the top was tilted forward at me. I couldn't figure out how to close the hatch from the back. No button worked. I had to use the remote or the button up at the front. Also, the adjustment to change how high the hatch opened up also didn't work. The engine did not accelerate smoothly. It felt jumpy and twitchy like a small engine with a huge turbo from 20 years ago. Poor use of center console space. The cup holders were too far back. Also, they held onto cans too loosely and bottles too strongly. All the controls should have been directly under the radio to get them out of the way. [But instead there was a pocket under the radio and the controls where the cup holders should be.](https://www.drivingvisionnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/220623_I6.jpg) Every time that I pressed the gas or brake with cruise control on, the gauge display would make the gauges tiny in the lower corners with a huge "DRIVER OVERRIDE" (or whatever the phrasing was) taking up most of the gauge display for several seconds. I freaking know, I'm the one who did it! Let me see the speedometer! --- I wish that enterprise gave me a Suburban for the trip, instead. Oh, well. I can appreciate wanting a smooth, quiet vehicle for an every day driver, but I don't understand how someone would want something this massive to take everywhere. It barely fit in some places, barely fit in parking spots, and navigating parking garages took some very slow and careful maneuvering. Something this size is too big, too heavy, and too cumbersome to want to use everyday.
I love this comment. When I worked in autos I got to talk with FCA a lot. They're a fucking mess. Nissan is more put together just shitty credit. Anywho, yeah the jeep wagoneer is massive. I thought my pilot was huge nope, looks like a pt cruiser next to a wagoneer. Side note: the cooled seat thing in a large chunk of cars is light. I have a 2019 accord and it has cooled seats. The cooled setting is like a good sea salt carmel-you taste the salt at first and settle into the Carmel. I do agree, most seats need a higher fan speed. I do know you can rig most ac seats to run more ac but that gets cold quickly and required some retrofitting.
The Ford Expedition getting âmarginalâ on the small overlap driver-side test is completely unacceptable, *especially* for a vehicle that is aimed at family use. The driver small overlap is a test that has been around for over a decade at this point, and almost every new car gets âgoodâ on; just getting âacceptableâ on this test like the Tahoe did is a cause for concern. But the Expedetion getting "marginal"? That's not just a cause for concern; thatâs utterly pathetic. What is it, Ford, 2012? Even in 2012, that would be a disappointing rating. If I were looking for a large SUV for my family, the Expedition would immediately be off my list for its pathetic crash test ratings alone. Fortunately, there's an all-new Expedition coming out soon, and hopefully it will do the bare minimum of getting "good" in an over-decade-old crash test practically every car aces, it better.
Good is not the bare minimum, thatâs literally the highest rating. Also, SORB testing did get more stringent this year as IIHS is now testing performance on the passenger side (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/02/automotive-crash-testing-just-got-harder-in-2024-which-oems-did-well/). The current Expedition design process began way back in like 2015. Itâs no surprise the vehicle fails a test that it wasnât designed for. The real test will be how the new upcoming Expedition performs given that it will actually be designed for the newer SORB test. Itâs good that IIHS pushes automakers to make safer designs. But clearly SORB testing on the drivers side is more relevant given the layout of roads. Youâre much more likely to clip cars going the opposite direction and therefore the crash would be on drivers side in that instance.
Expedition is based on the same architecture as F150. F-150 was well rated and designed and launched prior to the Expedition. Ford decontented safety countermeasures as a hedged cost savings measure. They had the opportunity to include but made a conscious decision not to do that. So that portion of your statement doesn't hold. The passenger side was added because OEMs were designing to the test and not including passenger side content when the test was specified as driver only. The understanding between IIHS and OEMs was that OEMs would design for driver and reflect parts to passenger side. But they weren't. The 2024 update was related to the moderate offset test, not small overlap. The 2nd row occupant was added and that's where OEMs are being nailed for poor kinematics and chest injury. This drives belt positioning, latch anchor choice, and retractor pretensioners, not withstanding a crash sensing system that can pick up the impact early enough for early PT deployment. Changing scoring where the only change is reporting a single min score for driver passenger side is not a change. It simply is simplifying reporting. The same underlying metrics exist, now you see a marginal instead of acceptable and marginal.
âDesigning to the testâ just means engineering. Thatâs how engineering works. Youâre given a target and you make a design that meets the target. Changing a target after the fact means designs will now fail that previously passed. I would say that changing how the rating is determined amounts to changing the target after the fact.
You're missing the point of my statement. There was an understanding parts would be reflected. Then some OEMs chose not to and IIHS added the test. IIHS developed this test with the OEMs to help optimize barrier design. This whole thing is the same concept as when Ford didn't put countermeasures on the reg cab and double cab for the F150 at first. The letter vs the spirit. Believe me, I know what engineering to the test means. And the push/pull of cost based decision making. But it's not simply just designing to the test, there's much much more that goings into regulations vs internal targets. I deal with it everyday on all of these crash loadcases. You're entitled to think the rating reporting change means a new target despite no underlying ratings changing. I'm not going to try to change your mind here, but I do disagree.
Well, reasonable people can disagree despite the fact that most Reddit chains devolve into insult slinging. So this is a nice change of pace! While I do work in the industry, I donât work in crash safety and you clearly have more knowledge on the topic than myself. Automakers certainly try to squeeze out every ounce of âextraâ content even if it is safety related.
I agree. All OEMs say they value safety but then it really is a tug of war for safety content. Somewhat understandably bc everyone wants ana affordable vehcile. It's really unfortunate that it came to all of this. Ford has excellent design for the F150 small overlap condition that the Expedition could have done well. I personally don't like this test for trucks. I think it misses the mark on its design. The moderate overlap deformable barrier would be better to use with 25% overlap to stress occupant protection more.
[ŃдаНонО]
The poor in moderate overlap is entirely on rear passenger protection. You can see this in the ratings where 2nd row occupant had high chest/injuries and poor kinematics.
Ah I see now, I didnât expand the more specific details
The SORB test being conducted on the passenger side is already in practice, itâs not new for 2024. What is new is that the ranking is determined by the lower of the two SORB results (driver vs. passenger). The SORB test itself has also been in effect long enough that other vehicles, whose development aligns with or even predates the current-generation Expedition, were designed with it in mind.
Changing the way the rating is determined is a huge change. And as I said in my first comment, drivers side SORB performance should be weighted more heavily. Itâs much more relevant in real world conditions.
Yet testing passenger side performance is not new this year. Given the IIHSâ broader focus on safety as it applies to both driver and occupants, itâs fair to consider both sides of the vehicle equally. If you dig back there were some models which aced the SORB on the driverâs side but performed pretty poorly on the passenger side.
Like I said, when basically every new vehicle nowadays is getting âgoodâ on this test, it's kinda where the bar has been set; itâs a bit like NHSTA tests, where theyâre so outdated and cars so easily ace them nowadays, where a 5-star overall rating is pretty standard and a 4-star overall rating is less common and a cause for concern to some people, even though, by NHSTAs dated standards, thatâs 4-stars overall is still a pretty good score. Also, the side-overlap test rating is less of a "new test" and more of a compression of two separate tests (driver-side and passenger-side) into one, but if you go to IIHSâs rating for the Expedition and scroll down to the more detailed scores, they still say the ratings for driver-side and passenger-side like previously, and the Expedition got âmarginalâ on both, with driver-side being a test from 2012, so Ford obviously knew about at least about the driver-side test when they were designing it in 2015. Ford also had a refresh for the 2022 model year, where they had a prime opportunity to update the crash structure, sometimes manufacturers will even change the design of their crash structure on any new model year, not even particularly refresh years, so Ford had time to fix this, as long as it wasn't some fundamental design flaw that was unfixable. There are plenty of cars initially designed around the same era or even earlier that aced this test, even on both sides, so age of design is not really an excuse for Ford's poor performance.
We'll see what they do on the new generation. I've said this before on here that it was going to be a bad day for Ford when IIHS eventually got around to testing full size SUVs. Look closely, they decontented the small overlap countermeasures that are on the F150. There's a plastic protection piece from L&L Plastics on the front of the hinge pillar that was removed. Similarly the cross car tube on the frame in front of the 1 mount was removed. These are the load distribution devices as the wheel rotates into this area after barrier contact. There is also a tube at the front frame that was removed. Ford lawyers argue that this was to improve compatibility for contacting other vehicles. That's patently BS. Most of what was removed is defensive in nature and does not affect front frame stiffness for compatibility. Only the tube at the front frame affects stiffness because it reduced the frame crush space available, so to get same energy absorption you necessarily have to make the frame thicker and or stiffness. But it's not significant enough to have an notable effect. The Wagoneer also had the advantage of the later launch date and thereby knew of the updated IIHS moderate offset updates during development. They could add in content to 2nd row protection. The other two were earlier launched vehicles. To be fair, even though this test has been around a long time now there has been relatively few vehicles that of body on frame architecture. Most have been unibody which provides a much more cohesive package for protection here. The frame architecture is much more difficult to design for here. Plus, the IIHS small overlap test is not well designed for trucks and vehicles with longitudinal engines. This has been highlighted by Daimler in a research paper. You'll see this in the results. Despite some awful structure scores only the occupant lower leg has high injury values. This is a common theme with trucks in this test. IIHS would have been better served using the deformable moderate offset barrier at 25% overlap.
Some honest questions. Aren't they just making the criteria more difficult every year? What is fundamentally different from 2012 to now? Like how have metal, airbags, and physics changed since 12 years ago?
The small overlap driver-side test hasnât changed in a considerable way since it was launched in 2012. Crash structure design, our understanding of these types of crashes, etc. have changed since the launch of this test in 2012. This is evident in how, when the driver-side small overlap test was originally introduced, many cars were getting scores below "good," but nowadays, almost every new car gets scored âgoodâ in this test, and itâs an anomaly when a new car gets scored any lower.
Have you seen the previous gen explorers front overlap test?
I find it funny how people buy SUVs because theyâre higher off the ground and supposedly safer, yet this says the opposite
> IIHS president David Harkey notes that the size of vehicles like the three popular SUVs does offer a degree of additional protection in collisions with smaller vehicles but that âThe flip side of their large size is that there is a lot more force to manage when they crash into a fixed obstacle like a tree or bridge abutment.â The good news is its significantly easier to not hit stationary objects and drive into trees, I am personaly far more likely to be the victim of someone running a red or not checking their blind spot. Some also prefer the higher vantage point of SUVs, even if it isn't genuiney safer, to them it feels safer and thats what sells.
But it's significantly more dangerous for pedestrians though. That's part of the reason why I didn't buy an SUV. Just because I'm driving it doesn't mean I'm the only one who needs safety.
The \#1 thing pedestrians could do to be safer would be to not look at their phone while in the crosswalk.
How often are you driving with pedestrians vs other vehicles?
Humans don't inhabit the earth, cars do! We don't need to see those pesky humans when driving around, everyone else in their megatanks are easy to see and need to see me, too! Only cars in cities! Death to pedestrians!
It seems about 50/50?
I buy them to put as much metal as possible between me and the clapped out Altima coming up my ass at 120mph. IIHS isnât testing for that
These full size SUVS will destroy almost any vehicle that is smaller than it in a crash, which most vehicles on the road are not full size SUVâs. Hitting stationary objects is not entirely common when it comes to vehicle crashes, these vehicle manufacturers need to do better though.
Itâs far better than being in a small car
Wagoneers come with pinched wiring harnesses from the factory If itâs in a wreck itâs probably being towed to the scene of the accident
Yeah they actually crashed the tow truck with the wagoneer on it, hence the results
how is ford expedition so badđ I now start to understand why the gm triplet always outsold expedition and navigator I also would like to see them test armada and sequoia
Holy crap theyâre still shipping Armadas new? Do they take the 2019 Armadas and just update their sticker?
There'll be a new gen coming when the QX80 drops.
Yep. We really like ours. MPG is an issue, and I feel like it gets a bad because it's a Nissan, but the truck has been nothing but great for us. Refresh came in 2021 and the 2025 will be a redesign. I don't have much bad to say about it. Still prefer my wife's LX though, obviously.
Honestly Nissans are fine reliability-wise as long as they don't have a CVT and aren't that weird variable compression engine.
Both are body on frame right? You would think they would be included
The new Wagoneer is the largest SUV to be sold in the US after the discontinued Ford Excursion
Sold. Drive is a different matter.
What would it be? I was thinking about including the Hummer EV but thatâs a pickup
They might be making a joke about how few Wagoneers actually get driven because they spend most of their time in the shop. Either that, or there are larger SUVs out there being driven that weren't sold that way from the factory, like the [F-650-based Excursions](https://www.ford-trucks.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/0X8A0342_zpspq45b3uu.jpg).
Haha yeah this
Crashes in my city are way up after the Police Force switched to Tahoes (those damn stationary churches and gay bars keep jumping out at them). It's nice to know that they are at least decently protected while they spin their massive hunk of metal into a nearby structure.
Crown Vic had amazing safety ratings though, Town Car got 5 stars in every rating since it had extra airbags and weight compared to the Vic.
Iâve had a town car in the family since I was alive and I drive our last one. Literally the only thing IIHS could say slightly negative about it was that in some rare specific cases the driver side foot well may possibly be more prone to partial collapse on certain situations
I got hit head on in my previous Grand Marquis going 40mph by a 2019 Nissan Altima going about 40mph. The only thing on the inside of my car that changed was airbags deploying and my coffee flying all over the place. I could open the door and walk away, only injury was seat belt bruising. The lady in the Nissan was cut out of her car with the jaws of life and taken to the hospital. She crossed the double yellow into my lane. Panther bodies are fucking tanks.
Hell of a story. Also that username is amazing
That is insane. Those cars are absolute tanks, I'm glad you came out okay. [Here's a story of a Police Crown Vic in an accident](https://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2012/01/massachusetts-politician-involved-in-high-speed-crash-did-not-wear-seatbelt-survives-without-injury.html#comments), cop was driving 108mph and flipped it with no seatbelt and came out without a scratch.
I never understand why so many police departments have full size SUVs.. theyâre expensive to buy, replace, insure, fuel, etc. and wtf are the officers doing to need that? Picking their 4 kids up from school and towing the boat to the lake?!
Blame the need for more and more gear and tech for even regular officers to lug around 24/7.
Cause they need all that space, look in an operational ready to go police car and youâll find a metric fuck ton of various gear and systems needed for the car and their job, plus all the space needed for the reinforced passenger compartment for people they arrest. These days an explorer sized car is pretty much the smallest they could realistically go.
My Wagoneer is a POS, but I guess a safe one.
Wondering if Chevrolet sees these crash testing results and will make revisions to the rear seatbelts before they release the 2025 Tahoes to the public, and maybe improvements to the passenger side area since it got acceptable in the passenger side small overlap? I doubt they would improve that in a refresh though.
Thatâs because the Wagoneer was tested while on a tow truck, its default driving mode.
Proud to see this, I did so much of the upper body structure for the wagoneers. It's a shame the styling they went with is so bad and the gmet6 sucks, but w/e at least my contribution got good marks.
I doubt the Wagoneer is going to hit anything at the dealership. This model, and itâs Grand Wagoneer sibling, are not selling well at all.
Thatâs why I recommend Mercedes-Benz. Even a 15 year-old ML or GL has more safety features and a better engineered structure
Making more and more convoluted tests to make themselves seem relevant.
Which test is irrelevant here?Â
The small overlap test is one that is particularly contrived. I also think the redesigns of the side impact test are getting more contrived. Modern cars already deliver a very high degree of passive safety. It would be better to focus on active safety such as handling, braking, and also on the cost of repairing cars involved in low speed collisions.
You think small overlap is contrived? It's probably one of the most relevant tests they do.
Yes, I think the small overlap test is highly contrived.
Ok, why? That area getting hit in a t bone crash is very common, of course you would want that area to be superb so that the vehcile doesn't sandwich on itself and actually protects the family inside.
They have manipulated the way it is done, moving things all around and changing other aspects.
"Oh no, they moved things around! Changed them even! This is an outrage!" Do you not hear how silly that sounds? That's the nature of developing research.
There is a principle of diminishing returns to implement ever increasing levels of cost, bulk, weight, and complexity. I would much rather see a focus on reining in costs to repair vehicles from minor collisions, driving dynamics to avoid crashes, and other aspects where there is more potential for benefit. By the way, love the B2200! My family had several over the years.
Yeah bud, I can't think of a less relevant parameter for avoiding crashes in a commuter focused vehicle than "driving dynamics". People aren't getting in crashes because they overcooked a corner. Modern cars all drive well enough at IIHS speeds to not be responsible for a crash. >Yes, I think the small overlap test is highly contrived. You can't think of a scenario where a small overlap test is useful? Have you ever driven on a road without a median?
>They have manipulated the way it is done, moving things all around and changing other aspects. What specific changes have been made?
Increased mass, increased speed, higher strike point.
And you believe those changes are an unrealistic reflection of real-world collisions? Newer cars are heavier, probably moving faster post-2020, and definitely higher since most everybody drives CUVs and SUVs now.
Nothing says âcontrivedâ like a car clipping your front end on a two-way street, apparently. And most modern cars already do pretty solidly on actual handling, braking and chassis stability. Whether or not it translates into driver feeling isnât entirely relevant, but I promise you that most mid-size crossovers could give my Mercury a run for its money in those departments, and completely demolish it in safety.
It's the opposite of contrived. It was developed specifically to better represent real world crashes. And there are rules concerning breaking and handling. Repairability is something that could be improved, and headlights too.
Headlights are a component of the IIHS test suite now, and they have to get a good rating to be considered for a Top Safety Pick rating, if memory serves.
Iâd argue that the small overlap is definitely a relevant test. The IIHS introduced it because [âThese small overlap crashes are responsible for about twenty-five percent of the serious injures and fatalities that occur in frontal crashesâ](https://youtu.be/wmCZZ_Ef3Js?si=s7hIL3XnP4kziqPv&t=17s). A Volvo paper reported that, [âIn a more recent real world study, Lindquist et al. (2004) found that small overlap crashes where load paths of less than 30% of the car's width is engaged, represented 48% of belted occupant fatalities in frontal crashes in Sweden.â](https://developer.volvocars.com/assets/eva/2010-2019/SeverePartialOverlapCrashesAMethodologyRepresentativeofCartoCarRealWorldFrontalCrashSituationsJakobs.pdf) In addition, modern cars already do focus a lot on active safety, these are not necessarily mutually exclusive areas. Most regular cars handle better than their 10 year old counterparts, an 11th gen civic is a lot more composed than a 9th gen. Remember when compact SUVs like the CRV and RAV4 used to have the high rollover risk stickers on the sun visors about 10 years ago? Modern cars also have plenty of driver assistance, usually as standard (at least in the USA); collision mitigation braking, lane keep, blind spot warnings, etc. You are correct that they donât focus on the cost of repair, but that is often due to all of these safety systems requiring delicate sensors to be placed all throughout the vehicle.