CX-9 small overlap crash test - OUCH!!!!@%$!!!

[beavis2000]

Fast forward to 56 seconds to see the carnage:

This is a tough test that few cars fare well on, but this is pretty bad.....

 

[Rawyzf]

Fast forward to 56 seconds to see the carnage:

This is a tough test that few cars fare well on, but this is pretty bad.....

Ouch.

 

[ceric]

In general, I don't think this "small overlap" test is objective.
I have seen many of the tests. Lots of vehicles bounced off the barrier. It is like "win by luck".
The ones that don't have to absorb the full kinetic energy.
Granted, the A-pillar has to be strong, and the footwell, too.

 

[beavis2000]

In general, I don't think this "small overlap" test is objective.
I have seen many of the tests. Lots of vehicles bounced off the barrier. It is like "win by luck".
The ones that don't have to absorb the full kinetic energy.
Granted, the A-pillar has to be strong, and the footwell, too.

I agree, the cars that glance off the pole may be cheating the test. But there are a few that take the full impact and perform flawlessly, like the Forester:

 

[Davicho]

I keep watching the videos and I somehow feel that this is an unfair test. Now I do agree that A-pillar frames need to be reinforced for those that fared poorly such as our CX-9s. However, that being said, from all the SUVs they tested on that video, the GMs were the smallest and most likely the lighter in weight as well. Meaning that the momentum energy does not compared to the other 6 SUVs. Those GMs should have been compared to the likes of the CX-5, CR-V, Rav-4, Forester, et.al. They compared 7-8 passenger three row mid-sized SUVs (minus the Jeep) to the two GM compact 5 passenger SUV. I haven't searched for it but I wonder how GMs Acadia and Traverse did on this test? Now those two would have been fair compare in my mind. I also feel that exterior design and weight played a big role on the GMs fairing that well. Notice how the Equinox simply shears off and gets pushed away from the barrier actually hitting the pillar dead on like the others did. Anyway just food for thought.

 

[ceric]

In short, it is hard for heavy vehicle to do well in this test.
Highlander is 200-300lbs lighter than CX9 or Pilot.

CX9 needs to get on a diet for next FMC by at least 400lbs.

 

[beavis2000]

I keep watching the videos and I somehow feel that this is an unfair test. Now I do agree that A-pillar frames need to be reinforced for those that fared poorly such as our CX-9s. However, that being said, from all the SUVs they tested on that video, the GMs were the smallest and most likely the lighter in weight as well. Meaning that the momentum energy does not compared to the other 6 SUVs. Those GMs should have been compared to the likes of the CX-5, CR-V, Rav-4, Forester, et.al. They compared 7-8 passenger three row mid-sized SUVs (minus the Jeep) to the two GM compact 5 passenger SUV. I haven't searched for it but I wonder how GMs Acadia and Traverse did on this test? Now those two would have been fair compare in my mind. I also feel that exterior design and weight played a big role on the GMs fairing that well. Notice how the Equinox simply shears off and gets pushed away from the barrier actually hitting the pillar dead on like the others did. Anyway just food for thought.

The test is only not fair in the sense that heavier cars are safer in multiple vehicle accidents and the test does not account for that. When crashing into a fixed object only the size and strength of the car matters, not the weight. However, when one car hits another the weight is very important. The Chevy/GMC weighs 350 lbs less than the CX-9 and 750lbs more than the Forester, so putting it in the midsize category is not a stretch.

Also, the force from the accident is proportional to the mass of the vehicle (F = 1/2mv^2), so the A pillar in a 4500lb midsize SUV only needs to be about 33% stronger than a 3300lb small SUV. If this same crash were conducted at 60mph instead of 40mph the force would be 225% greater.

There are several vehicles as heavy as the CX-9 that do well on this test without glancing off the pillar and there are many small cars that do poorly. Also larger vehicles generally have higher profit margins so there is more money available for safety improvements (like A pillar reinforcement). Rememer back in '93 Ford's engineers recommended that the roof of the Explorer be reinforced to prevent it from collapsing in a rollover? I believe ford decided not to because the high strength steel cost $20 per vehicle.

Mercedes M-Class, 6% heavier than the CX-9:

Honda Odyssey, same weight as CX-9:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lz2lAbAM-mc

MDX, 5% lighter than CX-9:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaHlmNaNZ6Q

Some small cars that perform poorly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCbnMp_ZJKY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqg7mPt9HqE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM3HAShC9ls

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCbnMp_ZJKY

 

[beavis2000]

Another thing: this whole small overlap hullabaloo gives me deja vu. Back in the late 90's the IIHS came out with the moderate overlap test that is to this day much more demanding than the goverment test. Cars of the day performed poorly; manufacturers said the tests were not representative of real world conditions and that their cars were safe. Nowdays most cars perform well on on the moderate overlap test and per mile death rates have dropped dramatically.

Also, I'm not trying to run Mazda into the ground. When the 2013 CX-5 performed poorly on the small overlap test, they didn't complain or make excuses, they just reinforced the the car and now the 2014 model gets the top rating of "good." In contrast, the handa CR-V got a marginal rating in may 2013 and here we are almost a year later without a fix. That's one of the reasons I replaced my old CR-V with a CX5

I imagine the GM vehicles perform well because they've hurt themselves badly in past with poor performing vehicles and ludicrous statments defending their performance, like on this 90's dateline segment:

 

[ceric]

beavis.
I think all the vehicles you cited are all newer models than CX9 dated back to 2007.
Small overlap test came out way after 2007.
CX9 has low sale volume. MAZDA won't spend resource trying to improve it since it is to be replaced in 2-3 years.
CX5 is a different story.

As a side note: if you watch the Odyssey video again, the structure almost bent between 2nd and 3rd row.
5mph faster, and it would have.

For now, drive carefully. (sleep)

 

[Davicho]

beavis.
I think all the vehicles you cited are all newer models than CX9 dated back to 2007.
Small overlap test came out way after 2007.
CX9 has low sale volume. MAZDA won't spend resource trying to improve it since it is to be replaced in 2-3 years.
CX5 is a different story.

As a side note: if you watch the Odyssey video again, the structure almost bent between 2nd and 3rd row.
5mph faster, and it would have.

For now, drive carefully. (sleep)

Good point Ceric! The CX-9 although with new looks is still mostly all 2007 structure with minimal changes. Looks like Honda needs to invest in reinforcing the entire floor board or at least side bottom frames instead of adding a silly little Hoover to vacuum crap off the flimsy floor. LOL!