Some SUVs Tougher Than Others

(AP)  Some sport utility vehicles don't provide the protection in a side crash that one might expect from such large vehicles, according to tests released Thursday by the insurance industry.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety gave marginal scores in side-impact tests of 2008 versions of the Chevrolet TrailBlazer, Jeep Grand Cherokee and two SUVs built by Nissan Motor Co. - the Pathfinder and Xterra without optional side air bags.

In similar side testing, the Toyota 4Runner and Pathfinder and Xterra models equipped with side air bags received top marks of good in the side testing. The Ford Explorer and Mercury Mountaineer received the second-highest rating of acceptable.

"The performance of some of these models in the side test was surprising," said David Zuby, the institute's senior vice president. "SUVS should have an advantage in side crashes because the driver and passengers ride higher up than in cars."

"People often think they're safer in one of these vehicles, but many cars hold up better than some of these midsize SUVs in this test," he said.

In the institute's side test, vehicles are struck with a barrier moving at 31 mph to reflect the force of a pickup or sport utility vehicle hitting the vehicle.

The TrailBlazer and Grand Cherokee, built by General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, respectively, lack air bags that protect the chests and abdomens of front-seat occupants. The combination of weak side structures and the lack of chest protection led to high forces on the driver dummies' chests and abdomens, Zuby said.

Company officials noted the TrailBlazer, Grand Cherokee and the Nissan SUVs received top scores in the government's side crash tests.

In frontal testing, all of the SUVs received the top score of good except the TrailBlazer, which improved to receive the second-highest rating of acceptable. Previous versions of the SUV had been rated marginal.

Ratings for the TrailBlazer also apply to the GMC Envoy, Isuzu Ascender and Saab 9-7X.

In rear crash testing, only the Grand Cherokee received the top rating of good. The Nissan Pathfinder was rated marginal while the remaining SUVs received the lowest score of poor.

GM spokesman Alan Adler said the TrailBlazer "meets or exceeds all federal motor vehicle safety standards and was the first midsize SUV to offer rollover-capable head curtain air bags." The air bags are standard on the 2008 TrailBlazer.

Chrysler spokesman Max Gates said the Grand Cherokee has performed well in internal and external testing and "no single test can determine a vehicle's overall safety performance."

Nissan said in a statement that "while air bag systems, including side-curtain air bags which are either standard or optional on many of our vehicles, have been shown to mitigate the risk of injury, Nissan believes that seat belts and vehicle structure help provide the primary protection in crashes."
By Ken Thomas

[yo_marc]

I think there are a few misleading areas of the article or test.

They simulate a SUV on SUV crash. Do they do the same for cars? (car on car?) What are the stats of a SUV taking a car impact? A car taking a SUV impact? I think you know what I''m getting at. If a car is put to the same exact test as these SUV''s, how does it rate? I believe the SUV will rate better than the car in all tests except the one mentioned in the article.

The cars that did well in the side impact tests - did they have side airbags?

[toshi43]

Well, I guess you can''t justify ownership of a Stupid Useless Vehicle because they''re ''safer'' anymore. Face it, people - you buy them because you have no p@nis.

I remember the stupid driver of a Ford Explorer spinning her rear wheels in an icy parking lot a few years ago. She didn''t realize she actually had to push the 4WD button on the dashboard.

[photogeezer]

I hate SUV''s. Now, I''ve said it. Here in Northern California, they are even more prevalent than in the Washington, DC suburbs. In one of the world''s most temperate climates, folks feel they need 4WD capabilty they will never, ever need. They impede everyone''s vision. The height of their bumpers is a menace to others if we are so unlucky as to be in a car and nailed by one of these monsters running a light. Now it turns out that safety isn''t even a real reason for putting the family in one. They seem to be, for the most part, no safer. Looks to me like a bunch of software designers and accountants trying to look outdoorsy. Should these things be legislated off the roads? No. Higher gas prices will take care of them.

[nathan8804-2009]

They want you to buy air bags thats why! They don''t care about the cheap a__ that wants to save a dollar.

[rikedoid]

"Why do people keep buying the stuff that fails?"

I think that''s the question the failure guys will ask. People don''t educate themselves or put it into perspective.

It''s only the difference between walking away from a crash vs being in a wheelchair... or losing your kids.

[newsreader2]

Why can Japanese engineers get it right and we can''t?