I guess the approaches could be: First, they will "dispute" the test method. Then, they will say there were errors in conducting a method. Third, coming up with a different test result from somewhere.
Just picked up my MDX yesterday and am glad to learn MDX has the highest score on the front crash test and the new 5-mile bumper test. (said to be the BEST test result ever on the mid size SUV.) For many of us, we ordered the car even before the tests were conducted. And the result were very re-assuring. If nothing else, it holds the car's value.
I usually do not defend Jeeps, but I for one feel these track tests are a waste of time as the 'pros' spin the wheels of the cars/trucks far beyond normal driving conditions (well, aparently this one pushed too far). And hello? the others use balance beams or whatever they are called to stabalize the vehicle once it starts to roll over! Why destroy it?
After driving my 'DX for 6 months and daily commuting now, going 80-100mph frequently, I don't need any more reviews to prove that my 'DX is IT!!! (although it serves as a reminder that I should probably stop testing the fate's limits, oh, truck I have no worries about...)
Now, I still have yet to experience the snow driving... and more worrysome - breaking and cornering on GY's. That is one test driving I would like to see from AW's, but hey, their test truck in CA (as in California, not Canada), what do they of snow!!!
Ouch. That's not good at all. This means that Explorer's, Liberty's, and other new vehicles' IIHS offset frontal crash test results should become available end/December or thereabouts. The bumper test results release precede the offset test results, as was the case when the MDX's IIHS tests.
It'll be interesting to see how the Explorer fares. The IIHS had mentioned that the Explorer was supposed to be part of the SUV tests that the MDX was a part of, but it wasn't in the results. Which means there probably was a problem and Ford elected to try again, probably with a modified design.
Am I the only one that finds the IIHS 5mph rear-into-flat-barrier bumper to be rediculously artificial. Really, when was the last time that you backed squarely into a solid brick wall. I realize that there are only a limited number of ways that you can construct a bumper test but this one seems to have been created to intentionally inflate vehicle damage for the sake of a captivating news video! While I am no fan of SUVs that mount the spare on the outside, they do present an alternative solution to the "where do you put it" dilema and fit the needs of many people. This test seems to unfairly single out those SUVs with that design. The Liberty's other test results; front-into-flat-barrier, rear-into-pole etc, show $ damage in-line with the other tested SUVs. Shouldn't the IIHS do a rear-into-front-bumper-of-another-car test?? Isn't that how most rear-end accidents happen?
The article mentions the problem was found during the IIHS offset frontal crash test (you'd hope Chrysler could find this during their own testing). As previously discussed, IIHS performs both the crash and bumper tests at the same time, announcing the bumper test results one month and the crash test results the next. Manufacturers can ask the IIHS to hold off posting the result while they make "adjustments."
My friend who has a Mitsubishi with that spare tire arrangement might argue with you. About 2 years ago she was backing out of a parking space at about 5 mph and hit such an object - at a slight angle in fact, not square on. Four weeks later she got the vehicle back and her insurance company had a $4,300 bill for the resultant damage. It's too bad that SUVs (light trucks) are not required to meet the same bumper standards as cars.
Am I the only one that finds the IIHS 5mph rear-into-flat-barrier bumper to be rediculously artificial.