You do not have permission to view the full content of this post.
Log in or register now.
Photo by You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
1. HONDA CR-V
The Honda CR-V scored “good” in all areas, and a “superior” in the front crash prevention test, according to the IIHS. The optional collision mitigation brake system reduced impact speed by 21 mph in the 25 mph test, and completely avoided a collision in the 12 mph test. The child seat LATCH system was given a “marginal” rating. This score was given due to the lower anchors being too deep in the seat, the anchor being too hard to find in location 2, and other hardware being confused for the anchor. The roof withstood 5.08 times its own weight before crushing 5 inches, earning it a “good” rating. In the small overlap front test, the Honda CR-V scored “good” in all areas except injury measurements for the lower leg/foot. Injury measurements on the dummy indicated that an injury to the lower left leg would be possible in a crash, while risk of injury to other body regions was low.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Photo by You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
2. MAZDA CX-5
The Mazda CX-5 scored “good” in all areas, and “advanced” in the front crash prevention test, according to the IIHS. The optional smart city brake support system avoided a collision at 12 mph, but failed to reduce impact speed in the 25 mph test. The child seat LATCH system scored a rating of “acceptable” due to other hardware being easily confused for the anchors. The roof withstood 5.47 times the vehicle’s weight before crushing 5 inches, earning it a “good” rating. In the small overlap front test, the Mazda CX-5 scored “good” in all areas except structure and safety cage, where it scored “acceptable”. Driver space was reasonably well maintained, with a maximum intrusion of 8 cm at the upper hinge pillar and instrument panel. Measurements taken from the dummy indicated a low risk of any significant injury in a crash of this severity.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Photo by You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
3. MITSUBISHI OUTLANDER
The Mitsubishi Outlander scored “good” in all areas, and “advanced” in the front crash prevention test, according to IIHS. The forward collision mitigation system allowed the Mitsubishi Outlander to avoid a collision at 12 mph, but failed to reduce impact speed in the 25 mph test. The roof withstood 4.95 times the vehicle’s weight before crushing 5 inches, earning it a “good” rating. In the small overlap front test, the Mitsubishi Outlander earned a “good” rating in all fields, with the exception of the structure and safety cage. The lower rating is due to the the lower interior having an intrusion of 16 cm at the lower hinge pillar, and 12 cm at the instrument panel. Measurements taken from the dummy indicate a low risk of any significant injuries in a crash of this severity.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Photo by You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
4. SUBARU FORESTER
The Subaru Forester scored “good” in all areas, and “superior” in the front crash prevention test, according to the IIHS. The optional eyesight system allowed the Subaru Forester avoid a collision at both 12 mph and 25 mph. The child seat LATCH system scored a “marginal” rating. This is due to the lower anchors being too deep in the seat, and it being difficult to maneuver around the anchors. The roof was able to withstand 4.95 times the vehicle’s weight before crushing 5 inches, earning it a “good” rating. In the small overlap front test, the Subaru Forester earned a “good” rating across the board. According to measurements taken from the dummy, the risk of any significant injury in a crash of this severity is low.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Photo by You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
5. NISSAN MURANO
The Nissan Murano scored a “good” rating in all areas, and “superior” in the front crash prevention test, according to IIHS. With the optional forward emergency braking and forward collision warning, the Nissan Murano avoided a collision at 12 mph and reduced impact speed by 11 mph at 25 mph. The child seat LATCH system earned a rating of “acceptable” due to the lower anchor being too deep in the seats. The roof withstood 4.54 times the weight of the vehicle before crushing 5 inches, earning it a “good” rating. In the small overlap front test, the Nissan Murano earned “good” ratings across the board. Risk of significant injury is low in a crash of this severity. Driver space was well maintained, with maximum intrusion of the lower interior of 13 cm at the lower hinge pillar.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Photo by You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
6. TOYOTA HIGHLANDER
The Toyota Highlander scored “good” in most fields with the exception of small overlap front, where it scored an “acceptable” rating. In the front crash prevention test, the Toyota Highlander scored “advanced” with the pre-collision system installed. In the 12 mph test, impact speed was reduced by 7 mph and in the 25 mph test, impact speed was reduced by 6 mph. The child seat LATCH system scored “marginal” due to the anchors being too deep in the seat and the hardware being difficult to maneuver. The roof was able to withstand 5.4 times the vehicle’s weight before crushing 5 inches, earning the Toyota Highlander a “good” rating. In the small overlap front test, the Highlander scored “good” in most fields, and “acceptable” in dummy restraints and structure/safety cage. The dummy’s head barely contacted the airbag before sliding off the left side, leaving the head vulnerable to contact with the forward structure.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Photo by You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
7. AUDI Q5
The Audi Q5 scored “good” in all areas, and “advanced” in the front crash prevention test, according to the IIHS. The optional Audi pre sense front system reduced impact speed by 11 mph in the 12 mph test, but failed to reduce impact speed in the 25 mph test. The roof was able to handle 4.41 times the vehicle’s weight before crushing 5 inches, earning the Audi Q5 a “good” rating. In the small overlap front test, the Audi Q5 earned “good” in all but the structure and safety cage field, where it earned an “acceptable” rating. This was due to the upper interior intrusion measuring 8-9 cm at the instrument panel, and the steering column being pushed back 6 cm toward the driver dummy.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Photo by You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
8. LEXUS NX
The Lexus NX scored “good” in all areas, and “advanced” in the front crash prevention test, according to the IIHS. The optional pre-collision system was able to avoid a collision at 12 mph, and reduced impact speed by 9 mph in the 25 mph test. The child seat LATCH system scored a “marginal” rating. This was due to the anchor being hard to find, too deep in the seat, and difficult to maneuver around. The roof strength earned a “good” rating, with the roof being able to withstand 5.13 times the weight of the vehicle before crushing 5 inches. In the small overlap front test, the Lexus NX scored “good” in all categories. Dummy measurements indicated a low risk of significant injury in a crash of this severity.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Photo by You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
9. VOLVO XC60
The Volvo XC60 scored “good” in all areas, and “superior” in the front crash prevention test, according to the IIHS. With the optional collision warning with full auto brake and pedestrian detection system installed, the Volvo XC60 avoided a collision at 12 mph, and reduced impact speed by 13 mph in the 25 mph test. The child seat LATCH system was given a “marginal” score due to the anchors being too deep in the seat and other hardware being easily confused for an anchor. The roof strength was given a “good” rating, as the roof was able to withstand 5.23 times the weight of the vehicle before crushing 5 inches. In the small overlap front test, the Volvo XC60 scored “good” across the board. Driver space had a very low intrusion of 6 cm of both the lower and upper interior, and the dummy’s movement was well controlled. Measurements taken from the dummy indicated a low risk of any significant injuries in a crash of this severity.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Photo by You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
10. MERCEDES M CLASS
The Mercedes M Class earned a “good” rating in all areas, and “superior” in the front crash prevention test, according to the IIHS. The optional pre-safe brake and standard collision prevention assist reduced impact speed by 11 mph in the 12 mph test, and reduced impact speed by 14 mph in the 25 mph test. The roof was able to withstand an impressive 6.68 times the weight of the vehicle before crushing 5 inches, earning the Mercedes M Class a “good” rating. In the small overlap front test, the M Class earned “good” marks in most areas, but got a rating of “acceptable” in structure and safety cage and lower leg injury. Dummy measurements indicated that injury to the lower leg was possible in a crash of this severity. The structure maintained driver space reasonably well, but did have intrusion of the lower interior of 18 cm, which could result in driver injury.
Photo by You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
1. HONDA CR-V
The Honda CR-V scored “good” in all areas, and a “superior” in the front crash prevention test, according to the IIHS. The optional collision mitigation brake system reduced impact speed by 21 mph in the 25 mph test, and completely avoided a collision in the 12 mph test. The child seat LATCH system was given a “marginal” rating. This score was given due to the lower anchors being too deep in the seat, the anchor being too hard to find in location 2, and other hardware being confused for the anchor. The roof withstood 5.08 times its own weight before crushing 5 inches, earning it a “good” rating. In the small overlap front test, the Honda CR-V scored “good” in all areas except injury measurements for the lower leg/foot. Injury measurements on the dummy indicated that an injury to the lower left leg would be possible in a crash, while risk of injury to other body regions was low.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Photo by You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
2. MAZDA CX-5
The Mazda CX-5 scored “good” in all areas, and “advanced” in the front crash prevention test, according to the IIHS. The optional smart city brake support system avoided a collision at 12 mph, but failed to reduce impact speed in the 25 mph test. The child seat LATCH system scored a rating of “acceptable” due to other hardware being easily confused for the anchors. The roof withstood 5.47 times the vehicle’s weight before crushing 5 inches, earning it a “good” rating. In the small overlap front test, the Mazda CX-5 scored “good” in all areas except structure and safety cage, where it scored “acceptable”. Driver space was reasonably well maintained, with a maximum intrusion of 8 cm at the upper hinge pillar and instrument panel. Measurements taken from the dummy indicated a low risk of any significant injury in a crash of this severity.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Photo by You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
3. MITSUBISHI OUTLANDER
The Mitsubishi Outlander scored “good” in all areas, and “advanced” in the front crash prevention test, according to IIHS. The forward collision mitigation system allowed the Mitsubishi Outlander to avoid a collision at 12 mph, but failed to reduce impact speed in the 25 mph test. The roof withstood 4.95 times the vehicle’s weight before crushing 5 inches, earning it a “good” rating. In the small overlap front test, the Mitsubishi Outlander earned a “good” rating in all fields, with the exception of the structure and safety cage. The lower rating is due to the the lower interior having an intrusion of 16 cm at the lower hinge pillar, and 12 cm at the instrument panel. Measurements taken from the dummy indicate a low risk of any significant injuries in a crash of this severity.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Photo by You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
4. SUBARU FORESTER
The Subaru Forester scored “good” in all areas, and “superior” in the front crash prevention test, according to the IIHS. The optional eyesight system allowed the Subaru Forester avoid a collision at both 12 mph and 25 mph. The child seat LATCH system scored a “marginal” rating. This is due to the lower anchors being too deep in the seat, and it being difficult to maneuver around the anchors. The roof was able to withstand 4.95 times the vehicle’s weight before crushing 5 inches, earning it a “good” rating. In the small overlap front test, the Subaru Forester earned a “good” rating across the board. According to measurements taken from the dummy, the risk of any significant injury in a crash of this severity is low.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Photo by You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
5. NISSAN MURANO
The Nissan Murano scored a “good” rating in all areas, and “superior” in the front crash prevention test, according to IIHS. With the optional forward emergency braking and forward collision warning, the Nissan Murano avoided a collision at 12 mph and reduced impact speed by 11 mph at 25 mph. The child seat LATCH system earned a rating of “acceptable” due to the lower anchor being too deep in the seats. The roof withstood 4.54 times the weight of the vehicle before crushing 5 inches, earning it a “good” rating. In the small overlap front test, the Nissan Murano earned “good” ratings across the board. Risk of significant injury is low in a crash of this severity. Driver space was well maintained, with maximum intrusion of the lower interior of 13 cm at the lower hinge pillar.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Photo by You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
6. TOYOTA HIGHLANDER
The Toyota Highlander scored “good” in most fields with the exception of small overlap front, where it scored an “acceptable” rating. In the front crash prevention test, the Toyota Highlander scored “advanced” with the pre-collision system installed. In the 12 mph test, impact speed was reduced by 7 mph and in the 25 mph test, impact speed was reduced by 6 mph. The child seat LATCH system scored “marginal” due to the anchors being too deep in the seat and the hardware being difficult to maneuver. The roof was able to withstand 5.4 times the vehicle’s weight before crushing 5 inches, earning the Toyota Highlander a “good” rating. In the small overlap front test, the Highlander scored “good” in most fields, and “acceptable” in dummy restraints and structure/safety cage. The dummy’s head barely contacted the airbag before sliding off the left side, leaving the head vulnerable to contact with the forward structure.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Photo by You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
7. AUDI Q5
The Audi Q5 scored “good” in all areas, and “advanced” in the front crash prevention test, according to the IIHS. The optional Audi pre sense front system reduced impact speed by 11 mph in the 12 mph test, but failed to reduce impact speed in the 25 mph test. The roof was able to handle 4.41 times the vehicle’s weight before crushing 5 inches, earning the Audi Q5 a “good” rating. In the small overlap front test, the Audi Q5 earned “good” in all but the structure and safety cage field, where it earned an “acceptable” rating. This was due to the upper interior intrusion measuring 8-9 cm at the instrument panel, and the steering column being pushed back 6 cm toward the driver dummy.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Photo by You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
8. LEXUS NX
The Lexus NX scored “good” in all areas, and “advanced” in the front crash prevention test, according to the IIHS. The optional pre-collision system was able to avoid a collision at 12 mph, and reduced impact speed by 9 mph in the 25 mph test. The child seat LATCH system scored a “marginal” rating. This was due to the anchor being hard to find, too deep in the seat, and difficult to maneuver around. The roof strength earned a “good” rating, with the roof being able to withstand 5.13 times the weight of the vehicle before crushing 5 inches. In the small overlap front test, the Lexus NX scored “good” in all categories. Dummy measurements indicated a low risk of significant injury in a crash of this severity.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Photo by You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
9. VOLVO XC60
The Volvo XC60 scored “good” in all areas, and “superior” in the front crash prevention test, according to the IIHS. With the optional collision warning with full auto brake and pedestrian detection system installed, the Volvo XC60 avoided a collision at 12 mph, and reduced impact speed by 13 mph in the 25 mph test. The child seat LATCH system was given a “marginal” score due to the anchors being too deep in the seat and other hardware being easily confused for an anchor. The roof strength was given a “good” rating, as the roof was able to withstand 5.23 times the weight of the vehicle before crushing 5 inches. In the small overlap front test, the Volvo XC60 scored “good” across the board. Driver space had a very low intrusion of 6 cm of both the lower and upper interior, and the dummy’s movement was well controlled. Measurements taken from the dummy indicated a low risk of any significant injuries in a crash of this severity.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Photo by You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
10. MERCEDES M CLASS
The Mercedes M Class earned a “good” rating in all areas, and “superior” in the front crash prevention test, according to the IIHS. The optional pre-safe brake and standard collision prevention assist reduced impact speed by 11 mph in the 12 mph test, and reduced impact speed by 14 mph in the 25 mph test. The roof was able to withstand an impressive 6.68 times the weight of the vehicle before crushing 5 inches, earning the Mercedes M Class a “good” rating. In the small overlap front test, the M Class earned “good” marks in most areas, but got a rating of “acceptable” in structure and safety cage and lower leg injury. Dummy measurements indicated that injury to the lower leg was possible in a crash of this severity. The structure maintained driver space reasonably well, but did have intrusion of the lower interior of 18 cm, which could result in driver injury.