Watch This Absolutely Brutal Crash Test Of A Mazda CX-9

[enzo1]

Watch This Absolutely Brutal Crash Test Of A Mazda CX-9

When the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety released the results of their Small Overlap Front crash test for Mid-Size SUVs today, we focused mainly on the good news. GM did well, others not so much. The Mazda CX-9, for example, was rated "poor." And it wasn't even the worst one out there....

[jyl]

Ooof. The driver's airbag needs to have wide coverage.

That is, I think, essentially the accident that our friend Shaun84 had at 60 mph (?) into a tree in his Mercedes. The Panzervagen protected him better, I think, than that Mazda would have done.

[Z-man]

Looks like the offset crash test missed the frame of the car that is part of the integrated crumple zone. If the car were shifted over by a foot, I suspect the results would have been much different.

So - does that imply that the frame of the car needs to be extended further to the outsides of the car? Not sure.

Interesting video, nonetheless...

-Z

[enzo1]

Originally Posted by Z-man

Looks like the offset crash test missed the frame of the car that is part of the integrated crumple zone. If the car were shifted over by a foot, I suspect the results would have been much different.

So - does that imply that the frame of the car needs to be extended further to the outsides of the car? Not sure.

Interesting video, nonetheless...

-Z

Frontal crash tests

[zipinitaly]

Hmmm...I wonder what changed w/the CX-9's? I have an '07 and it is rated 5 stars. Nevermind...I see that test was instituted in 2012. Shivers....

[enzo1]

[Arizona_928]

[rfloz]

I don't think I want to know how an air-cooled 911 would do in that test.

[Rusty Heap]

Some of us didn't have airbags. in our head on wrecks. Old drivers suck dustydonkeyballs sometimes.............sigh.


My 1982 911SC........mint........full suspension and engine mods, I got to enjoy for a few short breathtaking months.

vs

Very Rare and Exotic Baby Blue Ford SHO station wagon driven by classic elder 70 year old lady, her pulling out going the wrong way down a one way road.

her air bags went off, she floored the gas in shock, and pushed up 40 foot backwards..........oh yeah, 1982 SC's don't have airbags. oh rats......yeah pushed 40 foot backwards...........it was amazing the amount of energy the 911SC absorbed. It died for wife/I to live. I kissed it on the windshield just as I left to limp into the ambulance, to take care of the wife on the stretcher.


sigh. On the night of my 17th wedding anniversary,

PS, Ambulance Rides aren't any fun on your 17th wedding anniversary.

[greglepore]

I have the same Benz as Shaun, and I wouldn't want to hit something that offset with only the steering wheel airbag. Its not the magnitude of the hit, its the extreme off center nature of it-as indicated upthread it misses much of the sacrificial structure. Nasty impact.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Am I the only one that's not really that concerned about this? These are lab tests designed to be repeatable and consistent, and they do their best to simulate a multitude of different accidents. Automakers do poorly on a new test, incorporate design changes intended to improve their test results, and everyone is happy. But there's no way that the huge number of variables in a REAL accident can be prepared for. What about the "45 degree C-pillar Suburban impact test"? I guess I feel good that modern cars are pretty safe, drive defensively, and don't sweat the fact that $h!t can, and does, happen. No matter how many stars your car received in the crash tests.....

[BReif61]

Matt, I agree wholeheartedly with you. That CX-9 was a top safety pick recently. It did not suddenly become unsafe overnight; testers just designed an overmatch test.

Make something idiotproof, and they'll just build a better idiot.

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

Am I the only one that's not really that concerned about this? These are lab tests designed to be repeatable and consistent, and they do their best to simulate a multitude of different accidents. Automakers do poorly on a new test, incorporate design changes intended to improve their test results, and everyone is happy. But there's no way that the huge number of variables in a REAL accident can be prepared for. What about the "45 degree C-pillar Suburban impact test"? I guess I feel good that modern cars are pretty safe, drive defensively, and don't sweat the fact that $h!t can, and does, happen. No matter how many stars your car received in the crash tests.....

Level of concern should be compared to your other risk factors.

Are you a BASE jumper?

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by RWebb

Level of concern should be compared to your other risk factors.

Are you a BASE jumper?

I'm a pretty boring guy Webb, no skydiving or BASE jumping here. But I also believe that sometimes $h!t happens. If a semi crosses the center line at 70 MPH on a two lane highway, all the safety stars in the world won't save you. If it's your time it's your time. I'm all for buying safe cars, but if I owned a used Mazda CX9 I wouldn't hesitate to put my family in it tomorrow. If you get into an accident, the odds are that it won't be identical to one of the IIHS tests because there are simply too many variables.

I suppose I'm trying to say that life is too short to worry about stupid stuff like small overlap crash tests. The odds are far better that I keel over from a heart attack anyway.

[Rick V]

The IIHS facility is just north of me. A couple of weeks ago we sent them four 2015 Subaru WRX's to kill. It was a little sad to do the delivery prep on a couple of cool little cars that were going off to die.

[berettafan]

Originally Posted by rfloz

I don't think I want to know how an air-cooled 911 would do in that test.

I ran this test myself though at a much slower speed. caught the passenger side headlight bucket and then battery box. shoved the battery box kind of back and in.

worked out well for me as I didn't have to cope with sudden deceleration in a 40 yr old car.

per the celette jig my car didn't care for the results.

my plug welds on the new front pan did speak well of me though.

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

I'm a pretty boring guy Webb, no skydiving or BASE jumping here. But I also believe that sometimes $h!t happens. If a semi crosses the center line at 70 MPH on a two lane highway, all the safety stars in the world won't save you. If it's your time it's your time. I'm all for buying safe cars, but if I owned a used Mazda CX9 I wouldn't hesitate to put my family in it tomorrow. If you get into an accident, the odds are that it won't be identical to one of the IIHS tests because there are simply too many variables.

I suppose I'm trying to say that life is too short to worry about stupid stuff like small overlap crash tests. The odds are far better that I keel over from a heart attack anyway.

the amount of risk people will pay to mitigate is an interesting topic in cognitive psych., behavioral economics and even for those droids in biology

it also changes over time - e.g. compare the 1850s with today

and it differs among individuals - notice what you said about yourself above, then ask whether you'd buy one for your daughter

I personally would not worry about one, but others will go for the most safe car they can find

[Brando]

Many years ago I did this same test in a 1983 944. Versus a telephone pole. The telephone pole lost, car took all the impact. No crumpling into the passenger compartment. However, the transmission impaled my spare tire. It was at about 55-65 mph.

I have no question over the safety and sturdiness of Porsches.