C-Max Gets "Acceptable" Rating In Crash Test

[ArizonaEnergi]

Good news, as many get worse rating.

 

DETROIT -- The four-door Mini Cooper Countryman was the only one of 12 cars to earn a top rating of "good" in new frontal crash tests.

 

The Nissan Leaf, Nissan Juke, Fiat 500L and Mazda5 wagon all fared worst in the tests performed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, an Arlington, Va.-based safety group that's funded by insurers.

 

The Chevrolet Volt, Ford C-Max, Mitsubishi Lancer, Scion FR-S and Subaru BRZ all got the second-highest rating of "acceptable." The Hyundai Veloster and Scion xB were a notch below that, with "marginal" ratings.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/autos/small-car-crash-tests-all-but-one-fare-poorly-1.1938632 Edited July 30, 2014 by ArizonaEnergi

[Adrian_L]

I know that an "average" or worse crash test rating would be an instant deal-breaker for my dad--he drives a Volvo. 

 

I have to confess that crash safety stuff is not high on the importance list for me.  I'm not sure if that's a good thing--but there it is.  For me, style, interior comfort, build quality and even dashboard quality/style are more important to me.  That's why I'm not driving a Toyota. lol.

[S70Pilot]

For the small overlap (tough) test, the Hybrid CMax has slight intrusion into the foot-well area and the A pillar is slightly deformed, still acceptable.  Now with the Energi model, (which they didn't test and stated that the test is Not Applicable to the Energi) , another 400lb added to the mass of the car may bend the A-pillar even more and may cause it from acceptable to poor. 

[kostby]

Good news, as many get worse rating.

 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/autos/small-car-crash-tests-all-but-one-fare-poorly-1.1938632

 

The very safest vehicle is the one driven by an alert, trained driver in a vehicle that empowers the driver to avoid the crash.

 

But golly, there are HUMANS involved, so that's MUCH too hard to do in real life. Instead we must assume that every car is nothing but an unguided missile that will ALWAYS crash 100% of the time. Make THE CARS SAFER, let drivers off the hook 100% of the time.

 

Did you notice that every few years, the IIHS changes the rules to make crash tests more severe? These new tests involve low-percentage crashes that are ever more unlikely, yet ever more severe tests of the vehicles. Each new standard moves the 'safe car' benchmark farther and farther away from the previous 'good' benchmark. So a car that IIHS might have deemed 'good' in 2006 quite likely performs at 'poor' or 'unacceptable' levels if given the current tests in use today.  Bottom line: "Consumers, you MUST buy a new car immediately. You're old car is a death-trap."

 

IIHS provides free attention-getting violent barrier-crash-test video clips to all major and minor media outlets and online.

Who can turn away free ice cream? Who would question it when the authority on auto crash data sends you video for free, with an 'IIHS expert' who will field a couple of softball questions via satellite during the local news broadcast? So News Directors and reporters on deadline continue to air this content because it fits their 'protect the consumer at all costs' mindset.

 

The IIHS continues to shape popular opinion in order to, uh, urge auto manufacturers that they need to add more and more expensive technology to provide less and less ADDITIONAL benefit to overall occupant safety. And each newer, and allegedly safer, vehicle costs more to purchase, to insure, and is ever more costly to repair in the event of even a minor crash.

 

Can added technology ever result in more injuries? 

http://www.wfmynews2.com/story/news/local/2014/06/11/toyota-airbag-shrapnel-takata-recall-second/10338307/

"Toyota is, in effect, re-recalling 766,300 cars and trucks in the U.S. for continued risk of shrapnel blasting out of the front passenger airbag."

Yeah. I own one of these affected vehicles. Repair parts are not available yet.

<RANT OFF>

Edited July 30, 2014 by kostby

[Adrian_L]

Shrapnel?   You can get a war wound driving to the mall?!

 

I hate to think what my old VW bus would have got in the ratings, but it was a damned fun vehicle.   I'd love to get a '55-'67 split-screen model and do an electric conversion on it.  One day...

 

It's very, very easy to forget you're piloting a two-ton missile and not take that seriously.   I saw a woman texting while on the highway doing about 65.  3 seconds on the phone.  1/2 second on the road.  Unreal!  I hate the idea of a nanny state, but anti-distracted driver technology is being developed by NHSTA, Apple and others because drivers insist on behaving like 6 year olds.

[Jus-A-CMax]

Sometimes you can do NOTHING to avoid an accident, as much as we want to say we can, and try to be alert..but if its YOUR TIME, you're toast. In that moment, Thank GOD you are in a CMax. As much as I complain about Jaguars, that car has saved my wife's life twice, an 04 and 07.

 

ps this forum has had its fair share of nasty bings and BANGS but I think those who got hit, every owner is still posting... :victory:

 

...now back to your IIHS channel ;)

Edited July 31, 2014 by Jus-A-CMax

[drdiesel1]

Award winners

The Volt, which has a basic-rated optional forward collision warning system, is the only car in this test group to earn a 2014 Top Safety Pick+ award. The C-Max Hybrid, Countryman, Mitsubishi Lancer, and the Scion FR-S and its twin the Subaru BRZ qualify for Top Safety Pick, the Institute's second-highest award.

These models miss the "plus" award because they don't have an available front crash prevention system.

 

 

To qualify for Top Safety Pick+, a vehicle must earn a good or acceptable rating for small overlap protection, a good rating in the Institute's other four tests, and a basic, advanced or superior rating for front crash prevention. To qualify for Top Safety Pick, a vehicle must earn a good or acceptable rating for small overlap protection and a good rating in the other four tests.

Edited July 31, 2014 by drdiesel1

[fbov]

The very safest vehicle is the one driven by an alert, trained driver in a vehicle that empowers the driver to avoid the crash.

Amen, Brother, Amen!

 

In your case, Jus, you were just in the wrong spot when someone failed the alertness test, as his vehicle was certainly empowered to avoid the crash... which means he's one who needs front crash protection, or better yet, an alert, trained chauffer!!

 

HAVe fun,

Frank

Edited July 31, 2014 by fbov

[kostby]

The long absence of positive C-MAX news and publicity originating from Ford seems to be ending!

 

On Friday, August 8th, 2014 Ford mentioned C-MAX as an 'IIHS Top Safety Pick' in a press release:

https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2014/08/08/2014-ford-c-max-hybrid-earns-top-safety-pick.html

 

Not much to brag about, given Volt's Pick+ status, but at least Ford seems confident enough to mention the C-MAX again.

[drdiesel1]

The long absence of positive C-MAX news and publicity originating from Ford seems to be ending!

 

On Friday, August 8th, 2014 Ford mentioned C-MAX as an 'IIHS Top Safety Pick' in a press release:

https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2014/08/08/2014-ford-c-max-hybrid-earns-top-safety-pick.html

 

Not much to brag about, given Volt's Pick+ status, but at least Ford seems confident enough to mention the C-MAX again.

It only misses the "plus" award because it dosen't have an available front crash prevention system.