Why New Cars Keep FAILING this Crash Test
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 05. 2024
- Loads of new cars are earning poor ratings in this side impact test, Fords, Toyotas and even Volvos.
But why? How, with car safety higher than it’s ever been - are modern cars failing this test?
Well, I’ve done some digging to find out what’s going on here.
👏 Thanks to @iihs-hldi for supplying the footage for this video ➡️ www.iihs.org/
Check out their article here: bit.ly/3l81Xek
🔴 Disclaimer: Use of the video from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or approval of Driver61 Limited, Driven Media or this production.
So, this all comes from some tests done by the IIHS, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety - they test loads of cars from the USA with the view to improve their overall safety and ultimately reduce road deaths.
They run so many interesting tests, things like crashes without seatbelts, overlap tests, what happens if you crash a new car into an old car and what happens if you crash into the underside of a lorry. The old car vs new car was particularly interesting, it was a 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu. The difference was incredible.
And it’s these hundreds of tests that have allowed them to collate all of this information and shine some light on the safety of the cars that we are all buying.
⭕ Why New Cars Keep Failing the Moose Test
• Why New Cars Keep FAIL...
⭕ Why Airless Tyres Kinda Suck
• Why Airless Tires Kind...
🔴 Would you like to be featured in a video with your car? Submit it here 👉 forms.gle/ZWMfzqCyDTBwJsqX8 🏁
Press enquiries: press@driver61.com
#IIHS #CrashTesting #DrivenMedia - Auta a dopravní prostředky
Aren't these crashes mental! Do remember to *subscribe* for more!
Didn't I hear Tesla Model S or 3 got great ratings as well? or am I misremembering things?
I absolutely love your channels, would be interested in more in depth safety tests, personally because there is something satisfying about watching cars get wrecked safely.
🤞 my 2010 Audi A4 is still safe only just clocked 100k km's last week 😁
@@markredacted8547 You are misremembering. The much larger number of separate plates on the sides of all Tesla models which were all spot welded led to many more points of failure. Teslas are now being made with fewer pieces and better construction but mostly to protect the batteries. Low side impacts to a Tesla are fine, mid to high impacts are poor.
@@bertram-raven Thank you for helping me out
4:24 wait youre telling me that SUVs arent just terrible and ugly they are also worse for others in crashes... can we just make a petition to ban SUVs? XD
Why do you have 2 separate channels?
Jeremy Clarkson has once compared SUVs to nuclear weapons. Once someone has it, everyone else need to have it as well to stay safe.
Bingo!
"Sometimes My Genius…It's Almost Frightening"- Jeremy Clarkson
I mean he isn’t wrong
god i hate to agree with jeremy clarkson, but hes right
@@L83467 what’s so terrible that you hate to agree with him? He’s the first to admit he’s an oaf. Few people can do that much and most people are just as foolish in one way or another but they deny/never admit it.
"I need a large SUV because everyone else is buying a large SUV and I need to protect myself!"
I need a large SUV (mine weighs 5K lbs) because it holds six people and is comfortable and will tow my trailer.
No because I need the space and offroad capabilities
Sounds like guns in the USA
@@elchucapablas thats what i was gonna say XD
@@freepalestine7123 said no one
Range Rovers are so safe because they spend a majority of their time in the shop.
Lmao
Laughs in Fiat.
There are two issues in the US that no car safety measures can solve; a lack of mandatory extensive driver safety training to obtain a license, and the crappy condition of our roads.
Wait till you see india....lol
@@akshayantony5223 having been to South Korea more times than I can count, I understand reckless driving by the masses, but that’s not what this country is. Instead, we are a nation of drivers with abilities behind the wheel that leaves a lot to be desired, especially lane discipline.
The car accidents per capita in the usa is absolutely outrageous compared to other developed nations.
Its appalling actually.
@@Nbomber It might be a skewed statistic as car ownership per capita is pretty high in the US. We would need to see it against areas with equivalent ownership per capita before we came to a meaningful conclusion IMO.
@@ryand.3858 you should look it up, i did calculate it per capita, per 100,000 people.
I cant remember the number i came to, it was either 9x or 24x more likely to end up in a car accident. It was a while ago, but the 24x seems more likely. I cant be bothered to walk anybody through it, its simple enough to go and look up.
Honestly, the statistic will shock you regardless. The margin is so high.
the ironic part is that cars getting more heavy due to security, creating the need for even more security.
And electric cars even heavier
Not really, the issue is more with to the height of the SUVs. And that's not made for more security reasons.
@@nevarran Then why do cars like the Golf also get heavier with every generation ? Does it have a hidden SUV installed in it ?
@@yolobeer990 Cars are getting heavier for multiple reasons. You add a fancy AC unit and that adds weight. You add a dual clutch automatic gearbox and that adds weight. You add bigger rims and that adds weight. And so on, and so on. And yes, part of the extra weight may be coming from improved crash safety. But as the video clearly shows, and you should've seen that if you watched the video, the issues during the side impact come mostly from the height of the incoming car. An incoming impact from a lower car, even if that car is heavy, would be mostly absorbed by the floor of the car being hit. While a car that stands higher hits above the floor of the impacted car, and all the force goes at the side pillars and the doors.
@@nevarran except that's the opposite of what the revised test actually does?
At 4:03, he shows what the old test with a higher vertical front fascia does, the impacted car leans away from the impact. It hits the floor even less but cars still passes this old test. This is explained later in the video where the higher section of the b pillar is strengthen but not the lower part of the doors. This is quickly follow at 4:06 onwards showing an SUV striking an SUV, where the lower fascia impacts a lower part of the car and damages the doors more than the b pillar and the impacted car leans towards the impacting car.
The new test is revised to mimic the findings of that suv testing where more of the weight and primary impacting surface is just above the floor but below that midline, thus why the new cars are failing as previously in old test, more of the upper B pillar is used but less is impacted now.
Mazda has consistently been one of the safest car manufacturers outside of luxury brands, yet no one seems to ever mention it.
I was damn happy to be a CX-5 driver when I saw this.
Agreed Mazda cx5 is a solid suv
Mazda with Toyota reliability 👍
same here
@@GF-mf7ml with zero Toyota bs
My CX5 is fantastic
For all the people claiming the chicken and the egg scenario, it's simply not true. As an engineer I can tell you there are ways to design a vehicle to be more safe without increasing its weight. Manufactures routinely take the easy route to save on costs and effort
Example: race cars
The problem is compounded by the fact that its not cars getting bigger, its that they got smaller in the first place. There was a small, quiet riot as cars chased economy and CAFE standards back in the 80s and 90s, with an NTSB study delineating the correlation between reducing vehicle weight and increasing accident injury and fatality. Smaller eco-cars developed a stigma as rolling death traps.
Like for like, with similar construction methods and safety features, there is simply no substitute for mass when converting energy and momentum or overcoming inertia.
@@Xechran The funny thing is, that if everyone drives modern compacts people are generally safer than if everyone drives modern SUVs. SUV-on-SUV crashes are more dangerous than compact-on-compact crashes. If you're the only one driving a road tank, then yes, you're definitely more safe. But if everyone does the same, you are less safe. Tragedy of the commons and all that.
Compacts of 70s and 80s were much more dangerous, as they didn't have any real thought put into safety. Things have changed since.
The problem with ever-larger cars to try address safety is that energy prices don't get lower every year. Thus the arms race of highways consumes more and more money for no eventual net benefit to anyone.
@@Alpostpone Actually, if you properly engineer an SUV you are safer in a SUV vrs SUV crash than smaller eco car collision. It may require some math though.
Momentum is p = mass * velocity.
Kinetic energy is 1/2 mass * velocity SQUARED.
And inertia is I = mass * radius SQUARED.
Note that the energy in the objects is tied to the velocity, not so much its mass. So a more massive vehicle doesn't have the direct linear increase in energy one might expect. It will, however, take more energy to affect the mass thereby preventing that energy from being translated, or translated as sharply (g-force) to its occupants.
And there ARE benefits to driving a larger vehicle outside of just being involved in a crash. Though many of the benefits involved have as much to do with the eco cars being purpose built around providing a piss poor experience to its occupants. Road handling (hard suspension + eco tires), noise, visibility etc.
@@Xechran Not quite right. Mass still has _linear_ effect on kinetic energy. *(1/2) multiplier is still a linear factor, in other words, exponential factor is still (^1). Car weighing twice as much has twice as much KE and so on. You'd have a point if mass was squared ( ^[1/2] ) in that equation.
Of course, velocity is squared ( ^2 ) so that has greater effect overall. Speed kills. But in traffic, smaller and larger cars generally move at same speeds.
On the other hand, square cube law states that impacts with larger objects are more violent (more energy being dissipated over given surface area). Additional mass works against safety structures, that need to be engineered disproportionately more sturdy.
Safety of larger vehicles is threefold:
1) More mass than the other vehicles gives larger vehicle more favorable deceleration
2) Greater ride height moves occupants outside worst crash zone and bypassing other vehicle's strongest parts gives more favorable deceleration
3) Large size gives psychological impression of safety
These factors only really work if others drive smaller vehicles. If everyone switches to super duty pickups, the net result is that there's just more mass coming at your driver's door.
Make no mistake, if you are the only one driving a larger vehicle you are objectively more safe. And if you are the only one driving smaller vehicle, you are objectively less safe.
Cars have gotten heavier in part because they're more sturdily built to protect given volume, in other words, doors are thicker than 20 years ago. That's the kind of mass increase that makes cars safer, not that they're just generally "bigger".
Of course there are factors to size unrelated to safety. For one, I need to move large amounts of stuff time to time, but for my lifestyle, it's smarter to just rent however much capacity I happen to need and not have a large vehicle sit on my driveway every day.
One interesting byproduct of these vehicles getting more safety equipment is that they're getting heavier, meaning those who drive old, outdated vehicles with minimal safety features are in more danger than before
Yeah but tbh i am enjoying my old shitbox way zoo much to care
Lol, #s***boxes for life
Love my sh*tbox
I miss my sh*tbox.
Such good visibility and it was very nimble even with zero shocks. Better to avoid accidents than survive them.
True. I'm still keeping my 20 year old silverado though, it's going to outlive any new car there is, going 300k miles strong on original drivetrain 😎
They really don't make them like they used to, a lot of planned obsolescence in cars nowadays.
VW Golf has always been ridiculously safe. My 2004 Golf saved my life! I got sideswiped by some bozo going around a curve on a mountain road and went into the barrier, which did not hold. The car rolled twice down an embankment into someone's back yard and came to rest on its roof. I undid my seatbelt and crawled out the window. Other than a few scrapes and cuts on my arm from shattered glass I was completely unharmed. The recovery guy who pulled the car out said "If you had been driving a Ford, you'd be dead." And seeing that zero makes me believe it.
Oh my! Glad you were okay!
I had the same experience on a Renault 5, except it only rolled over once. Sometimes it's just luck 😉
The Skoda Octavia, which is mechanically a Golf, just with better reliability, customer satisfaction and more cargo space at a lower price is the same. I know people who were T-Boned at the front of their Octavia at a junction and walked away uninjured, though both cars involved were written off, as well as another guy who was parked in a Toyota Landcruiser and rear ended by an Octavia, which not only folded the whole back of the Landcruiser up to the point of bending its rear axle, but also drove it forward a couple of meters onto a gate post before the collision stopped. Thankfully no serious injuries in this one too. The WRC edition of the Octavia was a complete tank too, though a little big to fit down rally stages as easily as the cars other manufacturers were using.
@@peglor Skoda doesnt have better reliability. Its exactly the same as VW.
@@peglor sólida doesn’t exist where I live. Golf does
F for the 59 Impala it devoted it's life for science
yeah. i guess its really good for reference but its really sad. it looked perfectly fine :(
Except for the massive cloud of rust post impact
@@bradlinnerooth7498 It was re-purposed by a coach builder for the sake of the test... hopefully
FOR THIENTH!!
59 Bel Air, is that type of crash so common that it justifies killing classic cars? How many classics gets destroyed in these tests every year? 😢
The "million registered miles" leaves a lot of variables. Generally people don't drive a Porsche as much as a Ford Fiesta. Also people who are buying more expensive vehicles tend to live in wealthier areas with safer roads vs a Fiesta which is as cheap as they come.
That's like saying "1000kg of steel weighs more than 1000kgs of feathers because feathers are lighter than steel". A million miles is a million miles, one is not being driven less than the other. Your second point makes sense.
Edit: your comment was worded differently than the video and I just got to that part lol. A million years is very different than a million miles so you make a valid point. Luxury cars are driven less than consumer cars. Registered miles makes way more sense than registered years, I'm not sure why they didn't do it that way in the first place.
@@IAmTheTwoForks it's because theres no required database that tracks miles of all vehicles and it's not feasible to get yearly reporting for everyone's miles. Whereas you can look up how many times a specific model of vehicle has been registered since a vehicle has to be registered every year if it's going to be driven in that year
Million registered miles evens out the difference in number of vehicles between a Porsche and a Ford.
Let's appreciate the fact that they put kg and km/h for the rest of the world
Pretty simple: end the stupid fad of SUVs and it'll be all good.
To an American, suv are good for everyday use. But to an European, suv for too big for the small roads you guys have.
@@JakobM-hz7jx About 40% of the cars I see on the road are SUVs or crossovers, I'm European
@@KepleroGT go in a city and you will see 90% of the cars to be normal and only a 9% of them are SUV
@@KepleroGT crossovers particularly have a purpose. Yes they sacrifice some aerodynamics so mpg by default, the height allows getting in and out more comfortable and the seating position is better for many.
A lot are based on small cars, like the current Puma being a tall Fiesta and the Mokka being essentially a Corsa they have a small footprint too.
@@zax3726 Your usage of the word "normal" is amusing at first, but then rather frustrating. Normal is an abstract concept, and a pretty much useless one alot of the time. Also, I dont know what the dialect is like where you live, but in Pennsylvania USA (and most of this continent), "car" is often infuriatingly used as a synonym for "vehicle", which is a habit that Im really hoping will just go away already. So, barring dialect barriers where you live, Id suggest you join me and others in our quest to get people to start using the umbrella term "vehicle" for cars, trucks (as in lorries, if "truck" is ambiguous in your dialect), SUVs, hatchbacks, etc. Your reference to a normal car is understandable, but illuminates a deficit in the common usage of our language. Maybe we can fix that.
SUV fashion mania is asinine.
Agreed. They've taken out a few body styles and now we're left with just crossovers, suvs, and pickup trucks.
@@argontheguardian0621 disagree, there's more options for people who can't afford or rather have similar or little more capabilities without the big price or maintenance cost of a suv... Oh you must be spoiled rich!
No that's all I see in traffic were I live.
What's wrong with wanting more space on your wheels?
@@jessyjess6145 most manufacturers have stopped making sedans altogether in the U.S.
Mazda is such an amazing brand. You get a lot of car for the price and they are so reliable as well as being reasonably priced to fix. The Mazda 6 is also especially good looking
A few months ago a driver ran a stopsign at 55 miles per hour and tboned my 14 accord. Her Dodge SUV crumpled like a tin can and hit me right between the wheels on the driver's side. My driver side windows were broken, my doors were smashed and my frame was bent but I was still able to drive me car 45 minutes back to my house where it was declared totalled by the other drivers insurance. I love Hondas
I think the reason the Ford fiesta has such a high death per million rate is because they are very popular for teens. like there are at least 10 ford fiestas in the parking lot of my school.
I was going to say the same thing. They get pretty decent crash ratings. I think a lot of the excess deaths come from the typical drivers of the cars and how often they wreck.
10 of them? Let me guess, they all have yellow fog-lights and blacked out emblems
If teens could afford a Mercedes A Class or an Audi A1 the Fiestas rating would better
same here, its because they are small, easy to park and most importantly affordable
Also driven a lot more.
0:42 Smashing the classics hurts my heart!
Truly 😞
It also was an inaccurate test. The classic had rusted frame and no drivetrain.
Which begs the question-where do they get those cars from?
@@SimbaTheGreat I bet most classic cars on the road are rusted, so it's accurate in a way. They just don't age well.
@@georgthesecond that’s simply not true. Most classics that are still roadworthy are restored and free of rust. That test was not accurate in anyway whatsoever.
the SUV fad is honestly one of the worst things to happen to the automotive industry
I loved when SUV's were trucks. I'd give my left nut for Ford to bring the Excursion back. I love a huge Expedition/Navigator, Suburban/Escalade, Sequoia, 4Runner, Land Cruiser, etc. Those are some awesome rigs, but these CUV's are just carbon copy's of each other with no benefit of their size. Why do I want to drive a overgrown Camry? The Camry was dull enough to drive to begin with, but hey, let's slap a bunch more metal on it and call it a Highlander. Will it go off road? No. Will it tow a substantial weight? No. Do you get more passenger volume? Not really. Does it make soccer mom's feel better about themselves? Fuck yeah.
@@OhPhuckYou exactly, SUVs aren't functional these days, like you said it's just a really fat normal car. Range rover does SUVs properly, they are good at offroading and towing. What isn't good is a city car twice the size with no reason to be that big. Even the space argument can be solved by simply buying a wagon instead. It's just stupid and needless, they consume 20% more energy than a medium sized car for no reason, not to mention making the roads unsafe
@@nade5557 They look better, are good for camping, far more comfortable for tall people, easier to get into, more aerodynamic then a truck, need I go on?
@@Cobras. most people don't buy them for the reasons that you list, and the reasons that you list aren't even good. You said they look better!? I hope that was a joke. They are more aerodynamic than a truck, but they are also less aerodynamic than a normal car. Your point was? They are more comfortable for tall people sure, but most people aren't so tall that they need a physically bigger car. Shaq drives a smart car ffs. Easier to get into is only a decent reason for the elderly or disabled people, and yet again most people driving them aren't elderly or disabled. Most people who buy them won't use them for camping either. In fact most SUVs won't even be driven offroad, let alone camped in. And even then, camping out of a wagon is perfectly fine.
@@nade5557 Your point about looks is completely stupid. Looks are subjective period. Suvs have more power, have more storage space. And I would never own a wagon because most of them are very old, and therefore very unsafe. The rest of your points are inaccurate because im arguing what suvs should be used for. Which is camping, or off roading. Also, nice job leaving points out. The smart car Shaq drives is lengthened to fit him, and it's still uncomfortable. I'm 5'6 and still don't like being in sedans
Would love to see more techy/engineering stuff on this channel if you're able. Love seeing how stuff like this works.
"The mighty Golf"
I expect Callum literally did a backflip doing that research.
Absolutely! The Golf *is* mighty
@@OVERDRIVE.studios not remotely biased there Callum ;)
This is sort of a chicken and egg situation. By chasing higher ratings cars are getting bigger, taller, and heavier which forces the tests to get harder which causes lower ratings and the cycle begins anew. The only real way out is regulating vehicle max weight/height/etc. into safer zones.
Im gonna only comment on the US cause it's the only place I can speak about with certainty, but in this country Im seeing a trend of increasing vehicle weight in pursuit of exactly the safety rating you refer to. This is a problem fueled by a human but selfish mindset. We all want to be as safe as possible while in a vehicle, which is perfectly admirable, but if it comes at the cost of hazard to all those around us in the event of a collision, clearly we're in a moral quandary. Superficially, regulating max weight and height and what have you may sound like it'll work, but it doesnt take much thinking to find problems with that solution.
You would have to define regulation categories for different classes of vehicle, one set of regulations for cars, another for SUVs, another for trucks (as in lorries, for those of you in the UK). To put a long thought into few words, I believe that understandable and human but nonetheless selfish motivation will inevitably lead to many/most people choosing trucks over cars for the upgrade in their own safety despite the cost penalty.
So, I believe the solution can only be found by negating that runaway vicious cycle via acting on more than one front.
The first and most important step we need to take is to find more and better means of avoiding crashes in the first place. In situations where no collision take place, trucks enjoy no advantage over cars. In fact, being lighter, cars will typically be BETTER at stopping or evading than trucks. We need to shift the priority off of improving how well vehicles weather crashes (not that that's a bad thing, just that it should be secondary) and onto how well they avoid them altogether.
Being that this problem is a self perpetuating feedback loop, another part of the solution will be that culture will have to unanimously shift towards selflessly choosing to start cutting mass, to choose cars over trucks, and to drive slower, and to stop driving drunk (whole 'nother issue there, which I have ideas on, but Im not going to open that can of worms right now). We have to stop the cycle at some point. We may be able to make headway on the solution even while the feedback is still looping, but the loop has to be cut before the problem can be truly solved.
The fact that fuel efficiency is going up, and we're inevitably going to shift to renewable energy, thereby lessening the monetary penalty on those who drive heavier vehicles may actually act to RESIST progress on this issue, crazily enough.
My last point, and probably the most important, is that in order to incentivize driving lighter vehicles (which we must do, human psychology dictates that simply discouraging a bad option isnt enough to make people switch to the best option, you have to also encourage the best one too) we MUST advance material science and improve the impact-survivability-to-weight ratio of vehicles such that there's no more need for greater mass in a vehicle. Im thinking aluminum, Im thinking carbon fiber, Im thinking carbon nanotubes, and better seat harnesses, and gels in the dashboard and doors, steering wheels that can go soft, more space between passengers and their doors, more areas a vehicle can fold to break break up the energy of a collision, you name it, it may very well be worth looking into.
If we can reverse the situation so that greater vehicle mass not only loses its advantage but actually become disadvantageous, then this problem will be fully unwound.
@@michaelcherokee8906 in the EU, EURONCAP's priority is exactly that. Avoiding crashes to begin with. It's weird that Americans are still stuck only thinking about when the crash happens, not avoiding it happening
@@fgsaramago is it that weird in a country that has decided that nothing can be done about children being gunned down in schools?
@@fgsaramago Very interesting... Hmmm... Well, Im aware that generally in Europe people drive smaller vehicles, that cars are the norm and trucks are often viewed as just excessive. Sounds like the EU is already making headway on solving the problem we're talking about.
@@michaelcherokee8906 Keep in mind that in order to fit down the roads in most of Europe, even a 'small' truck like a F150 would require high levels of precision driving. Almost all of the US was built specifically for cars, and the bits where cars didn't fit were mostly flattened in the name of 'progress' while the EU, especially the cities, was built so long before cars that the cars had to match the roads and not the other way around.
A safety test that is always passed is a safety test that has nothing left to teach us. A safety test that is often failed helps us see what changes we should make. Here's to ever more failed tests in the future!
I'd say the side impact collision is the most deadly type of vehicular collision. S
I am saying this having paramedic knowledge and experience. The heart is attached to the aorta with a ligament called the ligamentum arteriosum. With a lateral impact, the heart doesn't have the rib cage to prevent excessive motion and thus can cause an aortic tear. It doesn't take alot of velocity, either. If your aorta tears, well... I am happy they are taking this type of collision more seriously.
It's difficult to balance vehicle strength and flexibility.
I was in an accident where I hit a person who went through a red light in an intersection where the road going through went between 45 and 90 degree angle. The result was only the drivers door and the corner of my car hit. The drivers window broke before his head could make contact with the glass, saving him from suffering a potential concussion. I drove a 2015 Mazda3 while he drove a 1995 Volvo. I managed to slow down to 29mph by impact while turning left and braking. The drivers door caved and became wedged. The inside bulged a few inches. Fortunately for the driver he only needed to replace his door but because he ran the light he had to pay for my car's repairs. My insurance rates didn't go up either.
There were 2 issues with the situation.
1: Because the road he came from was intersecting at under 90 degrees he saw the green lights for the road I was on, ignoring the red lights for the road he was on.
2: It was night time. The sun had gone down already and it was dark. It was just after 9pm.
The intersection needs to change.
Yes, you’re very safe in a Range Rover as it will most likely be in the workshop being repaired……..yet again. 😂😂
This channel is so ridiculously cool! How have I not come across you before? Thanks for the great content!
IIHS in year 2000: Manufacturers have to increase the crumple zones to improve safety
Manufacturers: Ok
IIHS in year 2015: We think your cars are too heavy, so you all fail our new tests that we revisited with heavier cars
Manufacturers: hold up! Here's my 3 tonne electric car
I'm not a fan of EVs, but in certain situations EVs can do better because the extra rigidity from the battery
@@theforerunnerreclaimer and crumple zone head on collision cause of no engine block.
@@TheCaptainSplatter Yea
It'll be interesting to see results from being hit by an ev, they're so much heavier.
a tesla model x p100d weighs almost twice what a regular car weighs and also accelerates 2 or 3 times faster. The hummer EV will weigh a good 3 times more and do that acceleration.
@Aryan A it's like being rammed by a ramp, then. Instead of pancaking you, it flips you over like a pancake
@@LordGangrel hitting a ramp is better than hitting a wall. you have more time to decelerate.
3 90 red
@@JMNTN the hummer EV will murder
I'm really impressed by Mazda. They aren't a big manufacturer and have smaller budgets, but they constantly seem to do the right thing. They have amazing interiors, amazing reliable engines, and such safe cars. It's nice thing that more and more people are noticing Mazda since they secluded from Ford
Aren't their line of diesel engines notoriously bad?
Proud Mazda driver! I don’t have the SUV, I have the 3. When test driving cars one thing that stood out to me about the Mazda was that considering the price it had a very nice interior, and that it just seemed to feel like a sturdier car. There’s no other car I’d rather drive, especially once I watched the crash test for my car and others I’d looked at. Now my brother has a CX-5, and given how he drives it’s a good thing he has such a safe car 😂
I love my Mazda too. I always feel safe in it too. I have a 3 as well. 😊
Mercedes Benz automobiles have had safety cell technology since the 1960's when they pioneered crash testing before anyone else.
It's disgraceful that safety cell technology isn't mandatory for modern automobiles as this counters the weight and size demand for occupant protection in the event of a crash.
Mercedes benz was also the brain trust company which removed jump terminals from the engine bay of their vehicles, and then put the batteries under the back seat... meaning to jump start the car you have to yank out the back seat. (Early-mid 2000s and some 90's era sedans).
BRILLIANT design that was.
I run into one of those I shrug and tell the owner they'll have to get it towed to Mercedes for a jump, then I leave.
Or manufacturers who put the battery in the trunk and make both the hood and trunk releases electric... so some poor Porche Carrera owner with a flatlined battery can't access either end of the car to jump it (you can, with some very fine needle nose locking grip pliers apply current through the fuse box... good luck not frying the entire fuse block though).
@@amzarnacht6710 Funny enough, that was the chrysler-daimler era.
Before that, the batteries were in the right place.
"Bars in the doors to improve crash safety." - It seems this is rediscovered every twenty years. If you look back at cars from over twenty years ago, you will find the majority had seam-welding around the A, B, and C pillars and had crash bars in the doors. Then, as crash tests changed, manufacturers returned to spot-welding and removing the bars to lighten the cars so as to meet emission tests. In other words, government regulations forced a push for engine efficiency over safety. The same happened in the 70s and 90s. Ultimately, everything learned in the new crash tests is data already well understood. This is what happens as generations of new engineers, designers, and marketing people take over from those who are retiring - they are required to learn the well-known and understood all over again because they are incapable of accepting the blindingly obvious lessons learned by their elders. In many ways, car manufacture is allegorical to politics and political thought - incapable of learning from past failures.
So true... anyone over 55 is considered a dinosaur on how to build or repair anything. I just laugh and watch them make the same mistakes I made 30 years ago. The smart ones come back desperately asking for help in their latest bind. Then again there is some true innovation happening that shouldn't be dismissed.
Can you give me an example of a model you had in mind? I’d like to look into this more.
A lot of year past, so I'm not sure, but the first car in Europe to feature the reinforcing bars in the doors was the Volvo 440/480 in the 1985
@@jaadunajs6110 At the end of the 80's and beginning of the 90's the so called passive safety of the cars became a marketing topic. The first manufacturers to focus on it, were Volvo and Volkswagen. The others followed the trend. The Golf MK3 had bars in doors, and following that trend most of the european hatcbacks of the 90's had them after the Golf.
Government fuel efficiency regulations didn't FORCE the companies to make the cars less safe. Rather the companies chose to make the cars less safe to cut costs. They could have made cars more fuel efficient without sacrificing safety but chose not to follow that path.
Mazda looks stylish and have good driving dynamics. Good to see it's more safe.
I own Mazda and I love them but I am afraid Mazda will become Nissan of old, they make to many SUV models with small differences between them . Instead making few model to decrease cost and use this saving for rnd, they even forget their money making cx5 and cx9 instead making rubbish cx30, cx 60, cx80, cx8. I
7:54
The fact that the golf of all things
Is on there is really impressive to me.
Like, that's not a rare car and it's on the smaller end too.
Really interesting, I had no idea this was such a problem!
Ok... big SUVs make side impact more dangerous.. And the solution seems to buy even bigger SUVs as they are safer in case of side impact... Sounds a lot like a self fulfilling profecy, isn't it?
I always used to rent a Mazda CX-5 through ZipCar on my college campus 2 years ago and I loved that thing. Now this is reason to love it even more.
I always thought you could have an outward facing pop out airbag on the doors with sensors that activate. It would have to be pretty robust as not to activate with a person nearby but 6 inches of additional padding activated could do wonders…
I think you should put a link to the IIHS list into the description
Finally. A test that not all cars pass. I want to know what is the best. Not know every car passes a basic 1960s test.
Hail IHS for saving us from our deaths from dumb drivers
Rangerover would be best for safety for sure. You can't get into a car accident if your car lives at the Mechanic's 😉
Thank you for including metric units. You are the best!
I was thinking about the severity of the results of the new side impact testing, and just look at the Honda... It snapped the lower part of the body with the upper part like nothing. Maybe is time to learn something from some sports car manufacturers and finally adding an integral roll cage (and a FIA grade one if possible) on the car's designs, so they can actually endure the impacts from vehicles that's are being more heavier as the path to electrification is making our vehicles as twice as heavy than before?.
Safety cell technology has been built into Mercedes Benz automobiles since 1960's when they pioneered crash testing before anyone else.
It is disgraceful that safety cell technology isn't mandatory in modern vehicles.
Roll cages are more dangerous unless you also wear a helmet.
@@ryanrosser7916 look at the Smart Fortwo passenger cell. It incorporates a roll cage as part of the body. The silver part, is all roll cage.
@@SimbaTheGreat Even at 110km/h that thing didn't really cave in. You might die from the g-forces however.
@@RennieAsh it’s designed to dissipate the shock through the shell. A person can survive a collision in speeds of up to 72mph iirc in a smart car. There will be injuries but they’ll live. It is a Mercedes’ designed compact.
2:35 - "Crumpet zone", let's go! 🤣
Oh, I thought he said _strumpet zone,_ which is on the east side of downtown.
I think the dependence on technology is having a negative effect on the quality of drivers.
Agreed.
German Driving Schools for example are so goddamn strict; a single mistake is enough to make you fail… 1/2 fail at least.
@@ThePianist51 That sounds like a money grab.
@@rich7447 Eliminatory mistakes are a thing pretty much everywhere civilized. You can't get your license if you go through red lights.
@@Flashbang_Photo It sounds like the smallest mistake is enough to get you a failure in Germany.
How about improving roads and their infrastructure to avoid these kind of dangeroussituations all together?! Here in the Netherlands we have been doing so for years! A safer car= a heavier car a.k.a. you need an even safer car! This only causes car prices to climb and climb, while making them less fun to drive and less likely to avoid accidents. It is a complete fad the way these last few years people have been gobbling up these stupid, heavy, unsafe, unsightly SUV's.
Explain how repaving roads prevents driver errors.
@@aslanmitchell9891 No, he means building safer roads, remove and minimise areas where many accidents happen, for example red light controlled intersections. Build more separate roadways with barriers, narrower streets to lower speed, etc etc.
@@aslanmitchell9891 building safer pedestrian and cycling paths, reducing lanes in built up areas and physical measures to force cars to drive at reasonable speeds, in some countries they make the road curvy, plant trees next to the road and some speed humps. This helps prevent cars approaching intersections or traffic lights at +160kph, which in most cases results in running stops and red lights
Also they use brick roads for the streets
The Netherlands is 2/3 the size of West Virginia and entirely flat.
Go pontificate elsewhere.
Do the best and worst (crash test) video on super and hyper cars. That would be interesting to learn, considering how low in height many of those types of cars are.
they are far less likely to roll over than a SUV.
SUVs are the worst cars produced, heavy and huge, not needed for the majority, but they believe that they are safer.
The weight is also absurd, electric cars are also too heavy. What happened to the 1000kg cars?
A 1 tone car is thing of the past, at least for majority of people. You can buy Alfa 4C, Alpine 110, or Lotus Elise, but those cars will be less than 0.1 percent of all cars sold. I agree about SUVs, not sure why people think that they are cool, I suppose it has to do with that "small dick, large car" thing. A 2 tone car that does not handle well except maybe Stelvio and Macan, large and bulky for in town driving, totally illogical. I see the point in a somewhat higher driving position, but this could be achieved in many other ways. I do not understand why raised sedans like Audi Allroad and Alfa CrossWagon are not enough for what most people do with their SUVs, driving around town on a low profile sport tires.
Are you an American?
MX5 is 1 ton for the time being.
@@C.I... Sure, MX5 as well. But still, majority of cars are heavier, those are free special cars for the enthusiasts.
@@JakobM-hz7jx no
vw id3 have very impressive side impact test.
they have airbags between seats also so people dont smack together in side impacts.
hell yeah, CX-5 is such a good all around SUV, just proving it's worth again. Great video
Not even just the CX-5 the whole Mazda lineup is very safe. Except the Miata in the US since it’s so small.
@@im_justin_u9493 my miata saved me when a car cut accross and in front of me and hit it at 60mph..
@@gazzarafalemozzy4766 was it a SUV or truck
@@im_justin_u9493 it was a large sedan..couldnt brake as he came from between a car at speed no warning..
@@gazzarafalemozzy4766 good thing nothing happened to you. Hopefully you got another Miata
It would be preferable to find different ways of accident mitigation instead of incentivizing people to drive increaingly large cars.
Its all because of these massive SUV's and large pick-ups on the road. Nobody needs a huge pick-up as shopping car.
And most SUVs on the road aren't really SUVs at all, especially with their large rims on thin tires. Crossover & station wagons are what average people need if they want trunk space.
I’ve found the car which has the best crash test results. It gets an A plus on every single test they have thrown at it. Even a head on crash with an F450!
It’s called an M1 Abrams . Unfortunately the passengers in the other cars that hit it all died. The driver of the tank in the tests said he never even saw another vehicle at any point.
I prefer the M1117 armoured vehicle, much cheaper with great visibility so I don't have to worry about bringing my mates to drive while I give them directions every time I want to go get some groceries. It's nice not tearing up my driveway with treads, and oh, I'm getting an amazing 8mpg instead of 0.6 with that big noisy M1 turbine!
The Hendrickson 360 seems to be a nice daily for a place like texas
Not me googling "M1 Abrams", thinking it's a car
Surely this should be the other way around. New cars/suv /trucks should be tested on what damage they cause to a 10 year old Ford Fiesta and its occupants. If the the damage is too high, the car should have to automatically stop at red lights and all stop sign junctions. If this is not possible then extra training and testing of drivers should be mandatory as well as extra insurance cover.
Poor people and families should not have to upgrade to a new car every 2-5 years because some rich people have decided they are going to drive around in tank like vehicles. Massive, heavy oversized trucks, SUVs are ruining it.
I say this as a rich owner of a 5m+ (200 inches) long, 2000kg+ (5000lb) SUV. I should not be allowed to have this unfair crash outcome in my favour. Bigger vehicles are ruining towns and cities and roads as well as other people in an accident. The system is warped in favour of the rich. The rich will continue buying bigger and heavier vehicles so that they have better outcomes in a crash. When will it stop?
That's pretty much what i think, a safer car is not only the one that protect their passenger, but also the cars around them!
To me, go light or go home
Improvement is to ban SUV's. Then we're also free from looking at those freak monsters on the road
5:32 cool how the suspension supposedly raised the car on impact and lowers it after it stands still
But if I think about it that makes no sense because it raises the center of gravity and the car is easier to roll... does anyone have information?
Meanwhile I am still driving a Daihatsu Kei-car, weight of the car is so light and the doors are just slightly thicker than bare metal HAHAHAA
I once have seen a daihatsu in a crash. My friend got side hit by accord going +/- 60kmph, the car is so light and tires so small that it just let the accord push it. Driver had only one injury, bruise from hitting his knee on stearing wheel.
Well done Mazda!
Had a crash in a fiesta st ... well, it was my third accident as a passenger and i can definitely confirm that it's the worst car you can have an accident in.
The smaller daihatsu tocot be safer
Even with its thinner metal
Its better built
Sir, are a crash dummy ? If not you should consider it as a career at least that way you will be getting paid to be this unlucky
Suvs need to be taxed heavily, oh sorry dealerships are already doing that
I love seeing you grow as a creator and admire your work ethics. I wish I could be as productive and follow a passion just like you do
The big box of an SUV is weaker than a small box of a standard height car. A longer B pillar (in a tall car) is inherently weaker than one in a shorter car.
US has far more side impacts as you tend to have an intersection with lights on. UK uses roundabouts in higher speed areas and this removes the side impact crashes.
The heavier SUV also has a longer stopping distance.
Roundabouts are good idea as long as they are not 5 lanes wide......but stopping distance is a function of how robust your braking system is
@@anthonypazoz4323 I cannot recall seeing a roundabout in the UK that was more than 3 lanes.
Stopping distance is dependent on the weight of the car, as they get heavier, there is more energy to get rid of so they take longer to stop.
With a Range Rover you’ll definitely not be in a fatal crash. The vehicle would need to actually work for that to happen. Can’t die in a crash if you can’t move.
Someone manages to get their Range Rover working for a change, gets on the road and up to speed, brakes fail and it shoots through your garage door into your RR.
@@antecboy Or the engine just locks up, locking the rear wheels and causing you to fishtail into a Nissan Sentra.
This comment wins! 🤣
Well, Range Rovers do work for like 2 hours after you buy them. If you manage to get into a wreck within that time, consider yourself unlucky and dead.
These side impact crashes prove how dangerous it is to have a center console in your car, and sadly, almost all modern cars have them.
As shown in this video, when a side impact occurs and the driver or passenger door is wrecked to the point that it can't be opened by the occupant, it's going to be extremely difficult to exit the car when you are pinned on one side by the damaged door and on the other side by the center console.
In the event of a fire from spilled fuel you are trapped inside the car.
If there was no center console you could easily transfer your body across the seats and exit on the undamaged side of the car, as was previously possible when most cars had front bench seats and no center console.
This is a subject worthy of greater discussion.
That's very true. Those huge center consoles are an obstruction in an accident.
Can confirm being tboned in a 2019 mazda 3 i was very surprised how well my car held up. The crv that hit me was completely totaled and i walked away with just some shock and minor scratches. Lady in the crv had a broken thumb and foot.
"as speed on the road arent going down either" in ontario canada... we keep getting certain zones reduced from 100 to 80 to 60kph, 60 to 50. 50 to 40kph... sometime even 30 and 20 .
my tiny sports car is so toast if I get into a crash with all these trucks on the road now.
Get a full racing roll cage.
Turn it into a fast and furious Ramp car
0:42 i get that its good for reference but i am kind of offended that they totaled a perfectly fine looking 1959 impala :(
that car wouldn’t start
I've always been interested in how those old pillarless four-doors would do in these tests. (For those who aren't familiar, they are a four-door car where the B-pillar effectively doesn't exist. There's a stub that sticks up from the bottom of the car to hold the rear door, but nothing above that so the whole side is open glass. Cool, but probably very unsafe.)
Now you have to worry about the superstiff cybertruck or the 7100 lb rivian that may or may not decelerate enough.
You forgot the 9000 pound hummer from GM. Electric.
Seems to me a solution is to put the onus on suv manufacturers to make the front of their cars less damaging to whatever they hit which will keep the size and weight of these vehicles down.
A better solution would be to just ban the sale of SUVs. Solve the problem at its source rather than trying to chase ever changing symptoms.
@@GeorgeMonet Ban one thing something else will take its place. Bans don't work, but that doesn't stop authoritarian assholes from pushing for them.
Better yet, ban all non-SUVs.
@@GeorgeMonet Uh, no.
@@GeorgeMonet I'll just drive my GMC SIERRA 1500 DENALI pickup instead of my SUV then.
This is really interesting, but how do they prevent escalation? Suvs are getting heavier to the test is harder, so they make cars heavier to make the safer, which makes the teat harder, so the cars get heavier, so the test is harder, etc etc
Just forbid those big cars, very simple. Or just make them so expensive that only a very small number of people can buy them, then they are no big threat because of their rareness.
Glad I drive a Mazda CX 5.
I bought a suv because I was at a disadvantage coming out of parking spaces and intersections because there was always a suv next to me blocking my view.
This is perhaps the hardest part of the car (the B-pillar) to design.... It has to be strong enough to hopefully protect the occupants, while not being too big/too heavy either, and they have the least amount of space to work with. With the engine compartment or trunk, there is a lot of room for them to add "bulk" to give those structures a bit more rigidity or crumple zones (depending on the design) but the B-pillar can only be so big. Doors are also a challenge too because they have to be light enough and shallow enough as to not be excessively heavy (too heavy for the average person to pull on to close) or to large (too thick, but yet these are the parts of the car that must be able to withstand (as best as possible) the same level of impact as the other areas, its just the other areas have more room to accomodate other safety features or measures.
Mighty Golf ✔
With these crash tests in mind how are massively lifted trucks (beyond what's needed for off roading) legal for the road? If i hang an airfreshener from my rear view mirror while playing loud music a cop is likely to murder me but lifted trucks can literally drive around with their bumpers aimed directly at eye level and never get a single ticket?
Because half of the country would riot if they banned lifted trucks lmao
Another great argument for roundabouts.
@0:07 Even Volvos and you show XC40 which has 5 stars? Has there been update or what am I missing?
Also... It's time bigger/heavier cars have MANDATORY active safety features like braking assist. You cant have equal standards both for small cars and $50k+ tanks that weight 3-4x more.
The IIHS always ups their tests because car companies reach 5 stars. When that happens on mass they up the anti by changing the tests. The small overlap was the most recent then this. I think its great. Keeps em innovating keeping us safe.
Yeah, it's pointless trying to pick the safest car if they are all 5 star rated
surprised there wasn't even one mention of subaru because they are currently the leaders in safety and also the have a mechanism that holds the door in place during a crash which i was very interested in seeing how it would preform in the test.
7:36
Driver: Wow, I'm so happy my airbag opened!
Half a second later: 💀
Many owners of the Ford Fiesta gravitate towards oncoming Trees while accelerating ( or trying to accelerate )
It’s the same way that Mustangs gravitate towards large crowds.
It's gonna be an even bigger challenge in the upcoming years, when most cars will have full electric drivetrains that are heavy, a heavier barrier will be required. I'm very curious to see how manufacturers will cope with it.
What is interesting though is that it's a heavier weight down low, and with the "frunk" fad that means more crumple zones in the front! Likely will be even safer
@@Depl0rable10 there is no difference in crumble zones, the hood length are the same. The engine already has a planned space under the car to drop to when the frame buckles. The hummer ev weighs 9000lbs. if you crash a hummer ev to a tesla model 3 which weights 4000lbs everyone would die in the model 3.
Interesting to see the 59 Bel Aire get so torn up in the head on. I'd have thought it's full frame would have resisted crunching up even if at the expense of causing the driver to experience more g-force into the steering wheel and dash.
Stunning!!
That small Honda HRV you showed can weigh from between 2900-3000 pounds.
A suv that's about 1.5x it's size only weighs 900-1000 pounds more, for example, Infiniti QX70
"If you passed a test the first time, you've learned nothing."
Truer words were never spoken, I Failed my first driving test, but when i did the second time, I passed; the time i spent in between the two, i studied the points in which I failed to help improve my driving so that I could pass that next test, and I Believe i've become a much better driver than i was on that first test because of it.
My wife’s car is an Outback and my car is a Forester.
Our pickup is an older Ford Ranger super cab 4WD.
All 3 of our vehicles have front and side airbags
Thank you IIHS
Those deaths per mile ratios also show a lot of driver influence. The top dominated by Subarus and Hybrids evoke a certain kind of cautious driver. The crash tests themselves are better metrics.
Subarus tend to attract "car guys" who think driving reckless on a public heavy traffic highway is spiritual driving.
After teaching driver education, accident investigations and 57 years driving in all conditions I've seen the arrival of padded dashboards, disk brakes, seat belts, shoulder belts, high mounted rear brake lights, airbags, ABS brakes and on and on yet all these crash tests are focused on the vehicle and never on the everyday abysmal lack of driving skills or driver education. All the worlds traffic statistics never change (It gets worst because of more and more drivers on the road at any one time). Still we keep making better guard rails, better road signs, better and smarted traffic controls, we put better reflective tape or paint on everything and now we have a new one......road rage ! So, when will we raise the minimum requirement to have a driver's permit ? ..........for every weather and road condition ! If you show me a "good" driver (a rare occurrence) with a 1959 Morris Mini-Minor with no padded dashboard, disk brakes, seat belts, shoulder belts, high mounted rear brake lights, airbags or ABS brakes and I'll show you what safe really is !
These tests resolve nothing ! It's strictly for show and higher insurance rates !
This should be the top comment. Talk about the elephant in the room...
Agreed, the bar should really be raised to qualify for a permit. Especially since cars are heavy machinery at its' core.
I can't wait to see a video of the Cybertruck on this test.
Great video
My 2000 Volvo had a “side intrusion system,” which was a steel beam through the door and noticeable tabs in the doorframe
Only Volvo has stated that no one is going to die in their cars.
All other car manufacturers who say that their cars are safe do not dare say so.
Volvo has balls.
To get out of a crashed car and still survive. That's worth all the money in the world.
@@tomeng9520 100% agreed
@@tomeng9520 Yes, and that's why I personally love Volvo. It's worth noting though that Volvo has established a speed limit of 180 km/h in all their production cars so that's also why they were able to state such affirmation - if you crash above this speed you are no longer guaranteed under this
Volvo is now Chinese and it shows on test like these where Mazda win over Volvo
yeah...
So.. they increase the weight of the rig...
Then "the magic solution" is to add extra braces (weight) to counter that.
This is and endless feedback-loop, where the cars will only get heavier and fatter,..
It's only a reaction to the suv popularity. When smaller cars come back in the future these braces won't work as well because of different factors ( like height of the impact ) and other parts will be strengthened instead.
so you say if Apple will make a car eventually, it will be done from a single block of Aluminium? ;)
Coen80 - fiber composites wants to know your location.
5:32: The moment Americans call CX-5 a small SUV.
I like the cragers they put on the crash wagon 🤣