The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

A crash test revealed: large recreational vehicles do not protect your children enough - voila! vehicle


American crash test for 13 large crossovers and jeeps, which cost NIS 300,000 or more in Israel: half of them failed the child protection test

Jeep Wrangler crash test and 12 other crossovers and Jeeps (IIHS)

When Israelis pay NIS 300,000 or more for a crossover or a large SUV, they expect their dimensions to also ensure the safety of the passengers, especially the children in the back seat.

However, a series of crash tests performed by the Institute for Road Safety of the US insurance companies reveals that there is not always a connection between dimensions and price and safety.

After about two months ago it published a series of tests for Jeeps and family crossovers, this time the institute tested 13 larger vehicles, most of which are sold in Israel, through regular and parallel imports , or are slated to arrive here in the coming year. The test focused on protecting rear-seat passengers in a frontal collision, the most common crash. "All of these vehicles provide excellent protection for the driver," said IIHS President David Harkey, "but only a handful extend that level of safety to the rear seat ".

Out of 13 examinees, only four - Ford Explorer, Ford Mustang Mach-E, Subaru Evolutis and Tesla Model Y - received the maximum score of "good".

Three others, the Chevrolet Traverse, the Toyota Highlander and the Volkswagen Atlas, earned a "borderline" rating.

While six others, Hyundai Palisade, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Jeep Wrangler 4 doors, Honda Pilot, Mazda CX-9 and Nissan Murano, received the grade "poor".

And this is how it looks in the Tesla Model Y, which received a "good" rating (photo: IIHS)

The tests were conducted after the IIHS updated their frontal crash test last year.

Studies conducted by the institute revealed that in vehicles from the 2007 model year onwards, the risk of fatal injury is 46% higher for belted passengers in the back seat than in the front.

This is not because the back seat has become less safe, but because restraint technologies have only improved in the front seat.

The new test incorporates a doll simulating a small woman or a 12-year-old girl, located in the second row behind the driver.

To earn a good rating, the measurements of the loads and blows the doll will take must not indicate an excessive risk of injury to the head, neck, chest, abdomen or hip.

Video footage and grease paint affixed to the mannequin's head must confirm that the seat belts prevented the head from hitting the interior of the vehicle, coming too close to the back of the front seat or sliding forward under the lap belt, causing abdominal injuries.

A pressure sensor that monitors the position of the shoulder belt on the upper body of the dummy is used to estimate the risk of chest injuries.

The cabin structure must maintain adequate survival space for the driver, and measurements taken from the driver's dummy will not show an excessive risk of injury.

In the vehicles that received the "poor" grade, there was a high risk of head or neck injuries to the rear passenger in the Grand Cherokee, the Palisade in the Pilot, the Murano and the CX-9, and a significant risk of head or neck injuries in the Wrangler.

The Wrangler also lacks a rear side curtain airbag.

The lap belt moved from the ideal position on the pelvis to the abdomen during the test.

Rear seat belt tension was high in the CX-9, Grand Cherokee, Palisade and Pilot.

This contributed to high chest injury values ​​in the Grand Cherokee, where the dummy's head in the back ended up between the window and the airbag after the initial impact, increasing the risk of injury from the hard surfaces of the vehicle's interior or objects outside the vehicle.

All 13 performed well in protecting the driver, although the Atlas had a significant risk of injury to the driver's right leg.

In the Traverse, the driver dummy's head hit the steering wheel hard through the airbag.

Lastly, Wrangler, the driver's side airbag did not deploy.

More in Walla!

Virtual reality therapy: a treatment for coping with anxiety

in collaboration with zap doctors

The test dummies after the test for the Wrangler.

The girl's belt in the back moved, exposing her to internal injuries (Photo: IIHS)

The four well-rated vehicles provide solid protection for rear passengers.

The seat belt remained properly positioned on the pelvis, the side airbag operated properly, and there was no excessive force on the dummy's chest.

However, a slight risk of head or neck injuries was noted for the Ivoltis and Explorer.

In both and the Y model, the head of the rear seat crash dummy moved closer to the front seat backrest, increasing the risk of head injuries.

Of the examinees who received the "borderline" score, the measurements indicated a similar risk of minor head or neck injuries for the rear passenger in the Atlas and Highlander, and a more significant risk of such injuries in the Traverse.

Seat belt tension was high in the Atlas and Traverse, increasing the risk of chest injuries.

In the Atlas, the rear dummy head came close to touching the back of the front seat.

In the Highlander, the rear dummy seat belt moved from the ideal position on the pelvis to the abdomen, which increased the risk of abdominal injuries.

The crash test, all competing vehicles in the before photo (photo: IIHS)

The score in the test:

Ford Explorer:


Ford Mustang E:


Subaru Evolytis:


Tesla Model Y:


Chevy Traverse:


Toyota Highlander:


Volkswagen Atlas:


Honda Pilot:


Hyundai Placid:


Jeep Grand Cherokee:


Jeep Wrangler:


Mazda CX-9:


Nissan Murano:


  • vehicle

  • safety


  • crash test

  • jeep

  • Ford

  • Tesla

  • Honda

  • Volkswagen

  • Chevrolet

Source: walla

All tech articles on 2023-03-15

You may like

News/Politics 2023-01-12T04:55:56.491Z

Trends 24h


© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.