Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan Safety & Crast Test Ratings
114 messages, Last post on Mar 19, 2007 at 4:46 AM
You are in the Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
|
Those that claim that the test isn't demonstrative of the real world - it's true that there are other accicent types. But at least the test is done the same way for every vehicle so it provides an excellent way to measure results - it's consistant and repeatable. So it is a valid test. BTW, a 40 mph offset crash is very demonstrative of the real world.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: robr2 (Mar 09, 2006 10:51 am) the meteor hitting car could be a consistent test too. the paper airplane hitiing car could be a consistent test too. do collisions like the one in the test happen? how often? what are the odds? it is good to have crash tests, but don't read too much into certain tests. how about this? ford could have put less grippy tires on the car. it would slide more when hit, instead of standing it's ground. probably would have done better in THAT test.
|
|
|
Replying to: explorerx4 (Mar 09, 2006 4:30 pm) Same with crash tests - do they represent everything possible? No, but they are repetitive and quantifiable. As long as they are performed honestly (and nobody is alleging otherwise), their results are taken as a measure of cars' safety. Perfect? No. Helpful? You bet. As I said before - go through Ford's materials in the past. Five stars from NHTSA for Taurus - trupeted everywhere they could. Fusion sucked at IIHS - suddenly it is a meteor test, not real scenario, etc. Fans, who cannot stand that anything negative could be even whispered, flood the forums with angry comments "how dare they even publish the damn thing - I know better", "I love the car and so should you", "Who cares about the tests - I will just avoid accidents altogether". While everybody is entitled to believe whatever they want, it is simply childish to refuse acknowledge reality, i.e. there is an industry-accepted measure of safety, while not perfect or complete, still highly relevant, and Fusion simply failed it. Stop complaining about the test and fix the car! |
|
|
Replying to: explorerx4 (Mar 09, 2006 4:30 pm) Meteors and airplanes hitting cars would be valid tests as well if they were done the same way every time in a controlled environment.
|
|
|
Replying to: robr2 (Mar 10, 2006 7:35 am) I agree. But repeatable doesn't mean running the same test once for each vehicle. It means that if you ran the same test on the same vehicle you'd get the same results each time. Since the IIHS only does 1 frontal offset crash test per vehicle it's pretty hard to determine that it's a repeatable test or if there is a lot of test to test variation. I'm not saying it's a bad test - it's not. But why not do 2 or 3 repeat tests on cars that fail the first one? Wouldn't that give you a much more statistically accurate result and eliminate the possibility of a one-time random occurence? The other problem is that you'll have mfrs building cars specifically to pass the IIHS test which might mean it's safer for an offset frontal crash at 40 mph but it could be much less safe at all other types of crashes. Why not at least give the mfr the option of having the test done with side airbags BEFORE releasing the test results? Because they're agenda is to force all safety equipment to be standard so the consumer doesn't have a choice. If you were doing a performance test between a pontiac GTO and Mustang would you pick the V6 mustang to go against the V8 GTO? Of course not, you'd get the optional V8 for the Mustang. So if you're doing a safety test, why not test with all available safety equipment?
|
|
|
Replying to: akirby (Mar 10, 2006 12:20 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: akirby (Mar 10, 2006 12:20 pm) That's why IIHS constantly updates the tests and adds new ways of measuring safety. Side impact tests are not that old, several years ago it was not even on the radar screen of non-luxury buyer. It was put there when we all agreed that frontal impact safety had essentially been solved i.e. there was a know-how and it was a matter of choice or abilities of particular manufacturer to implement it in models. We can see it in results - most current midsize models have a good and virtally all have at least acceptable rating for frontal impact from IIHS and four stars are given in NHTSA. Side and rear impact came in focus. Early results showed who was the true leader and who lagged behind. Those who lag will find dozens of explanations, which would not change the fact that they are, well, behind. |
|
|
Replying to: backy (Mar 10, 2006 12:48 pm) I still think the IIHS has an agenda to force these to be standard and it appears to be working - Ford will make them standard on the Fusion for 2007.
|
|
|
Replying to: akirby (Mar 10, 2006 1:06 pm) "And even so, at least WAIT until the mfr submits the second car and both tests are completed so they can report that it failed without the air bags but passed with them. The problem is they release the first results to huge headlines and all kinds of bad PR." Ford had the option of providing a side curtain equipped Fusion. They CHOSE not to initially, then reneged. Evidence? PONTIAC. IIHS tested the G6, without OPTIONAL side curtians, GM CHOSE to submit a version with, and voila! the vehicle is stamped with an ACCEPTABLE rating for Press Release. Why should the IIHS wait to release the ratings, when Ford originally CHOSE NOT to retest the Ford? Any "Bad PR" is Fords fault on this one. Why do you insist on construing the tests to conform to your opinion? ~alpha
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Sedans Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan Safety & Crast Test Ratings
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Ford Fusion
2010 Mercury Milan
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
