Surprise: Really Big SUVs Are Not As Safe As You Think!
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 06. 2024
- ( www.alltfl.com/) Check out our new spot to find ALL our content, from news to videos and our podcasts! New 2024 Chevy Tahoe, Ford Expedition, and Jeep Wagoneers are crash tested by the IIHS and the results are mixed.
( / tflcar ) Visit our Patreon page to support the TFL team!
Watch more videos from TFL Studios:
The Fast Lane Truck ( / tfltruck )
The Fast Lane Car ( / tflcar )
TFLoffroad ( / tfloffroad )
TFLbike ( / tflbike )
TFLnow ( / tflnow )
TFLclassics ( / tflclassics )
TFLtalk ( / tfltalk )
TFL Podcasts:
TFL Talkin' Cars Podcast ( redcircle.com/shows/tfltalk-c... )
TFL Talkin' Trucks Podcast ( redcircle.com/shows/tfl-talki... )
#chevy #ford #jeep - Auta a dopravní prostředky
I'm a Ford guy, but the Expedition was horrendous in the crash test. Ford should be ashamed of themselves. I guess they don't put crash bars in front and back of the front wheels like they do in the F150.
Yeah, that was downright scary. That driver is dead. No question.
@@robertannable9584 It didn't even get a poor rating, so I doubt any deaths.
Although it looked worse, it got a better rating than the Tahoe based on the damage to the test dummy. That said the current Expedition is based on the almost 10 year old T3 platform that wasn't designed with the newer frontal offset test in mind. That should be a huge consideration for buyers considering models that are at the end of their lifecycle. Almost all of them perform very poorly with the more stringent testing.
Don't get in an accident and you won't have anything to worry about
I got into a car accident with my f150 and it didn't hold up
Looked like the expedition
Ford needs to do better
I've always watched the IIHS Videos because safety is important and any vehicle you buy, this should be a recommendation to watch.
The Ford result reminded me of the initial F-150 result on the non-crew cab, which was a disaster, and then Ford added the wheel crash bars from the crew cab once the deficiency was publicized. So several years later they're every bit as negligent with the Expedition. Not cool.
Ford has never made safe SUVs. They’ve been problematic since they began in the 90s. Remember ford explorer?
@@angelgjr1999 My mom just got rid of her 2017 Escape. It got a poor in the passenger side crash test. I am happy she moved on to a much safer Acura RDX.
And that is not considering how easily trucks and SUV's roll over. I have seen countless videos of cars tapping a truck and it rolls faster than my dog when i walk by his treats.
Expedition is Aluminum causing a pillar to tear off
Crazy that they did not score as well as their supposedly related full-size truck counterparts. Seems like these manufacturers knew that IIHS wasn't scoring the SUV version so they skipped some crash bars added to the F150 and so on. Curious how the Sequoia would do since the Tundra got such high crash ratings.
We brought back the original "News, views, and realhworld blank-blank reviews!" I missed it!
In regards to headlights, they actually separate performance from glare, the Tahoe had really bad glare, which can blind on coming traffic
I wish they would allow the matrix lighting that some German cars have in the EU.
Automakers are nickel and diming with headlights now. They throw in led headlights that don’t level. Initially any car that came with the xenon/HID lights included auto leveling!
@@ibentTube I paid for matrix headlights but can't use them in the United States. My dealer won't allow the software change to switch the option on. Sad.
@@kennixox262 You can probably find an independent euro shop that would enable it, some scanning tools also allow you to enabled features.
@@kennixox262 we're so fixated on CAFE standards that we flat out ignore the important safety shit like auto-leveling headlights. Then again, consider how many clapped out F150s and Silverados are on the road with aftermarket LED headlights that blind oncoming traffic--no one's doing shit about that.
So the Wagoneer is actually good for something! Who knew?
Besides blowing a headgasket?
Fix it again Tony
Thank you Roman and Andre
That expedition! yikes
Crashing into a stationary barrier replicates the vehicle crashing into itself. These tests simulate what would happen if a Tahoe hit a Tahoe or an Expedition hits an Expedition. Since most vehicles on the road weigh less than these do, they will perform better from an energy-absorption standpoint, but are always more likely to roll over (which is VERY dangerous).
Um no, crashing into a Stationary object is not the same as crashing into itself. A hard stationary object has no give and is a lot worse then crashing into any other another vehicle that will crumple on impact
The moderate test uses honeycomb to simulate another vehicle impact. The small overlap test uses no honeycomb and simulates hitting an immovable object lite a tree or telephone pole
Year ago, we got t-boned by careless Tahoe driver. Our full-size car was write off, but it saved my wife from broken bones. Both of our innards got shaken up and our backs are still sore from sudden unexpected hit.
Wonder how a EV 3 row would do in these violent IIHS tests, like the Lucid Gravity, Rivian R1S, Hyundai EV9, ET AL....
Great content. Thank you
I wonder if the previous generation of expedition (2017 and earlier) was more safe since it was essentially still an F-150, but shorter. I saw one that took a head on collision once and the passenger compartment was completely intact. It seems the expedition made a huge departure from the F-150 in 2018 with the current generation.
Q7 feels super safe to be honest. Braking system is very good, even with 7000lbs towing. Headlights auto turn off high beams and matrix laser to not blind
They're definitely not safe for people outside of them. 😆
I never owned an SUV and never will.
SUV owners really don't care about the people outside.....just read the comments.
most people don't need an SUV, they're empty 99% of the time just going to work anyway
No vehicle no matter how big or safe can stop people from looking on their phones driving stupid. Like slamming on thier brakes for a yellow light. Or driving 5mph below the speed limit in the passing lane. Or snapchatting while driving.
Doesnt everyone snapchat and drive 🤣😂
Cop gave me ticket for going thru yellow
Or swerving/braking for a crossing animal. Trying to be kind or save the vehicle is one thing. But when people do it without paying mind to other vehicles on the road they are a real hazard as well.
You must be from California when a yellow means speed up
@@diesel6916 your 100% correct
Although in the class below I would love to see how a Defender would do in the IIHS tests. It did amazing in the Euro ncap collision test but I don't think that they do the very challenging partial offset collision test the same way as the IIHS do.
Hope you're getting a big settlement from that piece of shit.
Not a surprise.
We have a subaru ascent, iihs top safety pick+, highest rating there is.
Bigger isn’t always better.🎯Where was the frame of those body on frame vehicles❓🤷🏻 9:08
These small overlap tests seem designed to miss the frame (on purpose) - representing a worst-case scenario
Cheers guys
The catch with the premise of this video is that the IIHS crash tests simulate crashing into a vehicle of a similar size, so the crash results of those biggest SUVs apply only to accidents where the other vehicle is of a similar size/weight. On the flip side to that, the occupants of those big SUVs would probably fare better in a real world accident against a smaller vehicle, even if that vehicle has a better IIHS crash rating.
Exactly right...if you think you're far safer in your corolla against a Tahoe ...think again. Ive witnessed Tbone crashes between a corolla sized car being Tboned by an SUV... and it wasn't pretty.
No, the same dimension barriers, and side impact truck are the same for all vehicles tested. So there is no variable. Just the test vehical. You sound like a car salesman talking shit!
@@kennethprocak5176
Actually you're wrong. The variable IS the weight. Hitting a stationary wall so the car stops at the wall is the same as hitting another vehicle of equal weight going the same speed. The wall is imparting that energy back into the car just like another vehicle of similar size would. Thus a smaller car hitting a wall would be the same as it hitting another small car.
The bigger car in these tests absorbs more energy than the small car does so it's really not a fair comparison.
The big car also is designed to be softer and the small car is designed to be stiffer so that they're a little more equal in a crash and the big car doesn't crush the small car.
Not totally correct. The moderate tests use a deformable barrier and represent crashing onto a vehicle of similar mass. In those cases, the IIHS says "Given equivalent frontal ratings, the heavier of two vehicles usually offers better protection in real-world crashes." That said these scored so poorly and so far below even compacts like the Corolla or Mazda3 that it may not matter, those may still be safer in a collision with the Tahoe. Keep also in mind the Tahoe failed entirely due to rear occupancy safety. More damage made it back there, away from the point of impact, than to the front passengers.
The small overlap use no honeycomb and represent hitting a heavy stationary hard object: wall, tree, telephone pole, stationary dump truck, Bills' mom, etc. Those tests are directly comparable to the test results, as in the comparable real world crash your own vehicle's mass is what determines the severity
On the flip, a midsized EV crossover like the Nissan Ariya is 5,100 lbs. That’s right in the middle of curb weights of the large sized Ford or Tahoe in this crash test.
This is honestly why im scared to drive my s2000 sometimes. I would be a fine mist if a Tahoe runs a light and t-bones me. With how tall they have gotten and how low my car is, the first thing to make contact with their bumper will probably be my head...
I can rest easy though knowing they will probably walk away from it.
The massive sizes of SUVs and trucks now have created an arms race to make the tallest/heaviest car. A neighbor of mine lifted their 2003 Excursion and put 35" tires on it because they said they sit too low in traffic now 💀
@@theglowcloud2215 An arms race is a great way to put it. the designer of the newer gen Tahoe said he wanted it to be "monolithic" and "like a freight train"... Just for fake machismo, "safety" and so the auto makers can skirt cafe standards.
There should be a safety test/parameter for how much damage you're vehicle causes in an accident. And how much it is allowed to do.
I can't imagine how much damage something heavy like a cyber truck would do to someone in a 90s/00s Corolla...
I was t-boned in an S2000 on the driver side by a commercial van and the car handled it ok. It wasn't even totaled. Definitely not a modern Tahoe by any means but it wasn't a small van either. I couldn't open my door but I was able to roll down the window and crawl out.
That said I hope you have many thousands of accident free miles in your S2000!
It would make me mad if they walked away NGL. If you run a red light, no remorse for you.
This is really interesting. I'd like to see the Japanese full-size vehicles tested to see how they do.
I work in a trauma center, and I'd definitely prefer to be in a larger vehicle than a smaller one most of the time from what I see in MVA's, but I guess if you're hitting a stationary object it all goes out the window.
Most accidents I see are vehicle to vehicle, or vehicle to motorcycle, and the smaller automobiles seem to always fare worse than larger ones do as far as injuries sustained.
Some of what we see is absolutely heart-wrenching.
german companies are the best for highway head on's, the rest are to greedy and only wanna look good in IIHS
It's scary to watch stuff like this. For many years, the IIHS didn't even qualify vehicles with frontal lapse testing. I have been tracking these specific tests for years, as they seem most common. My wife and our 4 kids ride around Vegas in a 2" lifted Suburban on 34's & heavy-duty springs, and I feel like they are pretty safe in there compared to the alternatives. It's also our TT tow rig, and it handles the 6,000 Lb. trailer, our family, and our gear easily.
Lets all remember the crumple zones are also designed by the engineers of the car. Sometimes they crumple bad but till the design crumple is tested they dont know how it really performs. Old big suvs ive seen drive away from an accident, but not likely today. The crumple zones can save more lives but don’t do any good if the crumple is in the cab where the people are.
Against a concrete wall, the bigger the vehicle, the bigger the impact. It's not rocket science. But if you're in a small vehicle, even though it might do better against the wall because of a lower impact. Against a larger suv that is also moving by money is on the large suv.
Small overlap test is the most difficult to pass well
Yea TWENTY YEARS AGO
@@Mabeylater293 It’s only been being done about half that long
Just put me in a Volvo XC90 can call it a day, lol.
Lots of work to do from many of these manufacturers - and the IIHS recognizes that crashes between these SUV's and hard barriers, not simply other cars, trip them up when it shouldn't.
Volvo was the first to market the steel cage architecture, but all manufacturers actully use the exact same technology.
Big trucks and SUVs are dangerous. High rollover probability. Crash barriers will flip them easily.
@@robertannable9584no they don't. If that were true all cars would have the same rating. Go roll a tahoe...it'll pancake. A Volvo? Excellent chance of walking away
The best crash result is the crash that never happens. At the end of the day more attentive, competent, reactive, and considerate drivers are the best way to keep everyone safe and avoid accidents in the first place. - Miata owner
P.s. Also, these tests are done only at 40 mph, not "speeding" like several people seem to think. And the Tahoe failed for rear passenger occupancy. Your family is less safe than the drivers
To point out, it may simulate hitting head on into another vehicle but it should be mentioned it would be a car of equal size and weight. They would do very well against another vehicle.
I guess it all depends. The smallest cars still have some of the highest deaths.
Once saw a Corolla rear end a Yukon and the Yukon maybe needed a new bumper while the Corolla was definitely totaled.
I drive a Honda Fit. I bet I'm safer in my parents 4Runner than I am in the Fit in most cases.
I bought a 98 Sentra...the guy I biught it from out the breaks on himself...well he did um wro g and they failed...I rear ended a SUV....it just got a little cracked bumper....my front was smashed in. It still drive after. I made no claim because I knew they woukd total it. I drove it to the pull a part....grabbed a bunch of parts off a donor car (in way vetter condition than mine) I out a lot of them on in the parking lot...including new lights, hood, front pieces....then i took it to a shop to put a new radiator and to have the frame pukled back straight. I did not bother to replace the condensor as I never use A/C anyways...thay car has been reliable ever since...good 5 speed manual car.
you would be "safer" in an Accord or Camry, it's the size of the vehicle plus speed, the Fit would be useless
It's a big shame that 6 digit vehicles do bad in crash tests, except for the Wagoneer, surprisingly
Base price for a Wagoneer starts at about $63k. The test applies to the Wagoneer and Grand Wagoneer. The base Tahoe and Expedition are about the same entry price with the Wagoneer being a little more.
Not surprised. Engineers got sloppy, only relying on bigger is better.
@@jamesaandf Base price is very rarely the OotD price
The “updated” test has not changed in any way other than more stringent test for rear occupants. Has nothing to do with impact ability of the front structure.
Thanks for the video. I guess I’ll be buying a Wagoneer.
Excursion looked about as safe as a Previa
Ferd has a history of poor crash testing. Just check out the Ovid F-150
What about full sized trucks?
90% of SUVs never tow anything or go off road. Most people would be far happier with a minivan that is safer, faster, cheaper, more efficient and has more room. They're just not cool.
We can distill this further. Most people only need a sedan or a station wagon if public transport isn’t feasible.
The funny thing is: market research has shown minivans are most poorly received by women, not men. This seems utterly counterintuitive. I've known women who say they want SUVs because of the high seating position, they feel safer, whatever. Marketing has obviously worked, because SUVs now are mostly clones of one another and they can't do many things better than a minivan.
18 years with minivans, never going back to them. Yes, more efficient and roomy, no to durability and ability to do just about anything we ask of it. No towing, fording deep water, off-roading, etc. My GMC does it all in comfort and we drag race it too.
They'd all be better off with sedans. Most people commute alone, why have such a large heavy vehicle that uses more fuel "just in case" a time comes where you'll need to seat more than 5 adults
@mistamaog many families....including ours, have a van and a smaller vehicle for commuting. That said, one of us still has to drive the van to work. Most families need to 2 vehicles as both parents have to work. Where is the logic in saying we don't needled a van? 2 kids, 2 dogs, and need room for hockey bags, and other bags for road trips. The Sienna is a GREAT family vehicle. On the hwy I avg 8.4 Litres per 100km's. Pretty dang good for a 4400lbs vehicle
Like throwing a box of legos across a room. Nope no thanks.
What I’m seeing is there’s a good possibility that on the red wagonner and the white Tahoe the driver door would still be opened there for saving valuable seconds on extractions on a crash like this
Ever run a Jeep wrangler with a steel bumper, offset, into something at 30+mph? Yep. I sure have. Other vehicle was totaled and I had to replace a bumper and fender. It’s not the vehicle size, it’s the amount of pure structural metal between you and anything else.
The 4-day pillar is the worst I've seen in a long time I think you have to go all the way back to like a 90s Hyundai to get that bad
Physics of mass happens.
I checked (euro ncap) my hilux against several modern sedans/station wagons for pedestrian safety and the hilux was better.
The height of the hood doesn't seem to matter.
For visibility in city, yes but for crashing, no.
it's not the height, but the size and frame of the car plus speed, it measures the impact
People who can afford to buy these big suv usually with no financial issues. Unless you are nuts.😊 and it usually used for cargo. Most Americans are empty nesters.
I see mostly families with kids....but I live in Georgia and Alabama
Honestly, I'm not surprised. Because eventually more mass is just too much energy to dissipate.
Any energy the car can't take gets transferred to the occupants.
Andrey’s Garage eh?
Every year insurance companies post their results and I get a chuckle out of manufacturers citing government crash ratings in response. Like we don’t know government is for sale.
They should try a head on with another vehicle because the wall they hit doesn’t have crumple zone like another vehicle has so to me it’s not as accurate
It is to test your own crumplezone, wether against a wall or another vehicle doesn't matter.
We don't care about the crumple zone on a jersey barrier or tree trunk.
Also for 100k the grand wagoner better have a perfect or nearly perfect crash test.
The test applies to the Wagoneer as well, which starts at about $63k
Quite surprising? NOT AT ALL !!!
Yeah, if you hit a concrete wall, nothing is all that safe.
😂😂😂 you need a tank
@@jtomtlUntil your aorta tears when the tank stops, you stop, and your heart keeps going.
Unsafe at any speed. lol
@@Ken_Koonz the concrete wall will likely break apart though
You must be the failed “engineer” that designed these. Nothing but excuses.
F=MxA
In this case, acceleration is the same as deceleration, so still just A.
To decrease F, M and/or A must or must decrease, or better still, both.
The larger vehicles are heavier, but they’re not so much bigger that deceleration (time from initial impact at the front to complete stop and the distance traveled in that time) changes significantly. So with higher mass and similar deceleration, the force will be higher and the damage to the vehicle will be greater. If the vehicle is strengthened, it will be more rigid and decelerate faster, and lead to higher forces and there’s only so much the human body can withstand.
Bottom line-vehicles need to get lighter.
We all want the giant SUV because when you plow into another car you walk away unharmed while the other guy has to get pried out with the Jaws of Life.
I dunno, seeing that Expedition hit makes me think there are a lot of smaller, lighter but safer vehicles to interact with something like that.
The headlights being so poor or over bright in all vehicles is not the manufacturers fault. It’s the old outdated regulations of the United States. In Europe the headlights have active matrix and have been superior for many years. Blame the regulations in U.S. for garbage headlights. So unfortunate.
Glad I have a subaru.
Bronco Sport was top pick in cross overs
The Tahoe/Yukon got a Poor rating in the moderate overlap crash test, and an acceptable rating in the small overlap crash test. Kinda seems backwards, eh?
Moderate overlap in this case is about how rear passenger gets protected by seatbelts and airbags. If the pelvis slides too much, there is a risk of pelvic and abdominal injury. The original moderate overlap is about driver and the passenger.
Moderate overlap also uses honeycomb and represents hitting another vehicle. The small overlap is with no honeycomb and represents hitting a hard immovable object (tree, telephone pole, parked dump truck, etc)
The wonderful thing about mandated government tests is their disconnect from the real world. In the real world very few people drive at speed into solid objects. Most collisions are between vehicles, not between vehicles and rock-solid barriers. And so when a big heavy vehicle crashes at speed head-on into a rock-solid object its mass works against it, magnifying the force of the impact. But when a big heavy vehicle crashes into a smaller lighter vehicle then the mass works for it, causing a disproportionate amount of energy to be absorbed by the smaller vehicle and thus making things easier for the big heavy vehicle. In short, if you drive at speed into a brick wall in a Suburban it's a bad day out for you, but if you drive at speed into a Mazda Miata you'll emerge OK but the Miata driver will be much less fortunate.
I’d really LOVE to know how much IIHS gets paid in hush money from companies such as Chrysler (Stellantis) to keep quiet about just how bad their crash tests actually are and to be handed “top safety pick”… that Jeep (just like a challenger or charger) was completely destroyed from front to back… I don’t consider that an unscathed or in tact passenger compartment-but when referring to the GM large trucks, the passenger compartment remained in tact. Ford, I can’t say I’m surprised and I can remember back even into the 90s as a kid, I was questioning the very same with Ford specifically. Because of my dad, I’ve always leaned toward GM trucks but I do have a good love for the Ford trucks now as well. This is not the first time I’ve seen such a failure though with the late Ford trucks and I’m certain it won’t be the last. I’d be VERY curious to see the Ram trucks in this lineup… while I loathe Chrysler/Stellantis, I have been curious if I should consider having Ram in the search as I look for a new truck.
You obviously don’t understand crash test results. That the front of the vehicle is destroyed is not important. What’s important is the passenger space being protected.
Further, the IIHS doesn’t get “bought”. They use this info to determine insurance rates/claims, so truth is important.
Jeep ecoDiesel is very safe. It’s always in the shop, so you never have an opportunity for a traffic accident.
This isn’t a surprise. We have crashes on our highway all the time and it’s hardly the family in SUVs that survive, but the family in the Prius is generally okay.
I see more families die in SUV’s and trucks than I do in sedans, mini vans, and hatchbacks. We just had a SUV crash into a brand new Honda accord going 70 mph and the people in the Honda accord survived. But one adult and 2 kids died in the Tahoe that T-boned the Honda. They rolled that SUV on impact.
I think it funny jeep is the newest one to the full size market but is the safest
That's typically how it goes, older models had easier tests to pass and were engineered like soda cans.
One of the reasons it COULD be the safest vehicle on the road........it would spend most of its life in the SHOP! Not much chance of a collision there!! lol
We brought the original "news, views, and real-world blank-blank reviews!"
Please advocate for dim headlights for city use.
They’re a million times safer when running into smaller vehicles - which is a million times more likely than running into an immovable wall.
Some of your numbers seem inaccurate.
And when hauling around the obese T2 diabetic people and their toxic diabetes inducing food.
Running into a wall is very likely in a tire blowout, or while drunk
What’s the chance or how often do you see a vehicle hitting concrete wall or barriers on freeway!? They should test it with another vehicle.
Well, which vehicle? An Accord? A Denali? A Yaris? The tests are done with a fixed object because it is a control.
This best simulates two vehicles running into each other head on. A lot of two lane undivided roads in America
Most road fatalities are caused by hitting stationary objects like trees, poles, barriers, etc
It’s not just hitting a concrete barrier, it could be running off road and hitting a tree which is the same as a concrete barrier. That is what that test is designed to simulate.
1) the test is conducted at 40mph. Not freeway speeds. This would do so much worse at 65mph.
2) people hit trees and telephone poles all the time
Before IIHS revamped their website, my 2009 GMC Yukon XL 4x4 had ZERO fatalities since about 2020. The next generation K2 in that model also had ZERO fatalities according to the IIHS from 2015 onwards.
My volvo would never!
Andrey has ptsd after watching that opening crash test
Sure against an immobile object like a wall, but I’d sure as shit rather be in a Tahoe than a Corolla in a pileup.
What about roll over, breaking distance? The only time the large suv is safer is when you hit or get hit by a smaller car.
Exactly
@@skellington2000 Not many, but they hit a lot of pedestrians in the cities and does not end well.
@@skellington2000 The test is done at 40mph. That's regular road speeds, not just highways. Trees and telephone poles get hit all the time
So glad our 2013 Ford Expedition is still going strong.
Nothing is holding back people from speeding....
These tests are done at 40mph. Speeding isn't the issue
@markcoopers1930 IRL? Just the other day I saw a 2 brand new vehicles in a "accident" both safety technology....
In crash tests, vehicles generally do so against their own weight so they are proportional to each car.If this SUV crashes into lighter cars, it is clear that they are safer than these cars.
Only for the moderate impact test. The small overlap is specifically designed to represent hitting an immovable object like a tree trunk or telephone pole. At that point results are directly comparable.
@@markcoopers1930 The weight will also be proportional to the impact even if it is with a pole
This isn't surprising. Bigger NEVER meant safer. It's all about engineering.
I feel the new Expedition will increase safety as it seems to be a major update
I always prefer full size suv since me and my family is safe. The Escalade esv is my favorite and the Nissan Armada.
Escalade=blinding people at night with defective lights.
The crash test specifically failed due to rear occupancy. The front passengers were safest, more damage occured away from the point of impact. Your family is less safe.
Good news, the Sienna scored exceptionally well by comparison tho
@@markcoopers1930 I’m the only one in the vehicle 99% of the time
The poor ratings for these cars based on headlights prove that manufacturers need to lower the LED headlight color temperature to 4300k and equip adaptive headlight technology.
Physics
All these newer vehicles are hot garbage because they're making them out of plastic. Unlike before in the 2000's where they were made solid.
Interestingly, I compared the average deaths per 100 thousand people in America and Europe, and the US has double the death rates, and Europeans drive faster, mostly in small cars on mostly narrower roads..
Their driving tests also aren't a joke.
@@markcoopers1930 Yes, driver competency goes a LONG WAY toward lowering crashes!
Well you have to consider the U.S. has double the car owner ship than many European countries.
@@brianmola711 Many people think of North America as obsessed with cars, but North America is in third place. Europe, in second place, has 28% of the world's vehicles while North America only has 24%.
Vehicles should automatically not receive top safety pick if they do not factor pedestrian safety into the equation. So all of these giant vehicles would fail.
We’ve known since the 90s that giant SUVs were shit and they’re only popular because people wanna sit up tall and high and feel the illusion of safety because they have no conception of how physics works with rollovers. That and because of the exemptions from fuel efficiency standards. Now the SUVs and trucks are so tall that you can’t see over the hood to spot small children and their blinding headlights are high and shine right into everyone’s eyes. This escalation of vehicle size is just horrible and dumb.
if you think you're far safer in your corolla against a Tahoe ...think again. Ive witnessed Tbone crashes between a corolla sized car being Tboned by an SUV... and it wasn't pretty.
We need to be going to smaller vehicles, It would be safer for all involved.
We've seen a drastic decrease in safety on every aspect of our roads pedestrian deaths to accidents. safe to say larger vehicles are a contributing factor. When a sedan hits someone their legs are damaged. When a Tahoe hit someone it breaks their back or hips and slams into the ground, where is the sedan look likely put them on top of the hood. Bad line of sights, high rollover likelihood but yeah SUVs are safe
Nope. I need to haul things. I need a big vehicle.
@@matt45540 Larger vehicles have worse sight lines directly around the vehicle as well, causing more accidents in the first place
Replace that concrete wall with a ford fiesta
Or a KIA Rio....
Crash test results are only applicable for comparison between vehicles of the same class. Crashing into a fixed barrier is equivalent to crashing into the same size vehicle.
No another vehicle of the same size will deflect and crumple absorbing some of the impact. A solid barrier will not meaningfully all of the crash energy is absorbed by the one vehicle
Only for the moderate overlap, which uses a honeycomb. The partial overlap test uses a hard barrier and is designed by the IIHS to represent hitting a telephone pole, wall, tree, or some other hard immovable barrier at 40 mph. In that case, the tests are directly comparable
Ford girl: Remember ppl the ford is made out of aluminum…. At least the body potion of the frame.
This looks horrible…. 😳😳😳😳That dummy’s neck wiped around ford should really look into fixing this
2000-2006 Tahoe/ yukon, suburban safest model you can buy…….
Stop, you are giving advice which is improper and inaccurate. Almost without exception, the newer the generation of the model, the safer it is.
ATROCIOUS GARBAGE INFO, KNOCK IT OFF!!
Besides that, the vehicles can't maneuver on the roads. Get behind one of those trying to make a U-turn on a wide suburban Las Vegas street and they struggle while the green arrows turns yellow. Slow, bulky, dangerous for other drivers and fuel inefficient. Most people don't need that nonsense. Wish more companies would sell quality wagons.
You're talking about the drivers not the trucks. Trucks are more fuel efficient, think about it. Wagons ain't any more safe than cars, my truck has had ZERO fatalities since 2009 according to IIHS. Everyone I know of who has been in an accident in one walked away, and their passengers. Less gas mileage is the price we pay for safety and the ability to do just about anything we want with out trucks.
@@swathdiver489 The drivers of these things are mostly in debt on a depreicating asset, buy them to impress people with money they don't have tc. Also, obese people who can't fit into a regular car. I believe in freedom to buy these moronic trucks and I drive a 12cyl Rolls Royce, that naturally was paid for three days before delivery and can afford the upkeep, taxes, insurance and depreciation. It's about $50K to own and operate.
people don't want wagons and minivans anymore, they think it's outdated and only want big SUVs
I am not considering the Expedition ever again until I am confident they improved this miserable performance. Nothing is more important than my family's safety.
My Tahoe versus a civic in a overlap accident with each other, I'd rather be in my Tahoe. Running into other vehicles, is what usually happens. Not running into stationary walls.
Nailed it, you will always survive against sedans
Sedans seem to be a deathtrap no matter how good the rating is.
If you were both driving a Civic it would be safer for everyone
@@matt45540 Not really. You’re safer in two SUVs. There is more crush distance for energy absorption.
@@user-tb7rn1il3q
No a lot more weight and energy to absorb.
The Expedition is 2017 design. The prior gm twins were pretty bad. The new Expedition comes out next yr.
Our Expedition doesn’t commute. It hauls people and gear. Tows occasionally does snow zone trips and gets road trip duty. It replaced two cars a Subaru Outback and a first generation Sequoia. It gets 2mph less than our subaru did on the same trips. When we bought it there were no other modern full sized options. And the other options had far worse crash ratings
Well there isn't a whole lot of concrete walls are driving around! I'd say take it with a grain of salt!
Surprise, this is no surprise. If anyone is surprised as you think, then your target audience is not as smart as I hope they are.
Ford fanboys be like “but my ecoboost is faster” lol 🤡😂
F=MA… very simple…
Good ole American thinking, bigger is better! Gotta haul around 2 kids, get a extended Suburban! Merica.
Pretty much, called freedom baby.
Emasculated men baby raaahhh 🦅
Get a '69 Ford "Country Squire"!