Filed under: Sedans/Saloons, Safety, Crossovers/CUVs, Acura, Ford, Mercury
Ford, Honda score high on safety test
The crash-happy folks over at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) have just released the results of their newest round of testing, and Acura and Ford have come out on top. Both the Acura MDX and the Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable earned the highest possible scores.The MDX was rated as "Good" in front-, side- and rear-collisions, and the same goes for the Taurus and its rebadged sibling. All three vehicles garnered the "Top Safety Pick" award, which was aided by the fact that the Taurus and Sable have optional stability control.
Although there was no mention of the IIHS's new seat/head restraint results for the FoMoCo twins, the MDX had improved its score in that department after Honda engineers tinkered with the setup for the 2007 model year.
[Source: Detroit News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Avinash machado 8:33AM (5/14/2007)
Well I doubt this will persaude import lovers to check out a Ford.
Reply
yin 8:52AM (5/14/2007)
Who crossshop b/w MDX and Ford Taurus?!
Reply
The Other Bob 9:07AM (5/14/2007)
Does crash testing by an insurance group really have our best interests at heart?
Costs after a crash are more important to an insurance group, not safety for the occupants. Safe cars don't necessarily translate to cheaper repairs. Repairs are often MORE expensive on a car that better absorbs the energies of a crash. Plus, it is often cheaper for an insurance company if you DIE in a crash versus when you are badly hurt and require long-term care.
I am not saying the above two cars are dangerous or anything, I just don't know if this is a trustworthy source of crash data.
Reply
Shawn 9:11AM (5/14/2007)
Car repair cost is tiny compared to medical and injury claims. This happens to be one area where their interest is similiar as ours.
Reply
Phil L. 9:24AM (5/14/2007)
The Other Bob does raise an interesting point:
Is is the best use of resources to have two separate organizations crash test cars (using different procedures and specifications) and publishing different sets of results?
Does it really make sense to have both NHTSA and IIHS in the crash test business?
There are those who don't trust the government for various reasons - and those who also don't trust what is basically an industry trade association. Well, we've ended up doing it both ways.
If we didn't do it this way, how should we do it?
Reply
John P. 10:29AM (5/14/2007)
Yep, I agree with Bob, The Insurance companies main interest is maximizing their own profits. If they can get us to all buy the safest cars/least expensive to fix, without lowering our insurance premiums they make more money, pure and simple.
I hated that when I was a teenager, insurance companies basically dictated that I couldn't purchase some of the cars I wanted unless I forked over outrageous premiums. (Alfa GTV6 back then) because they lumped me in with all the unsafe drivers out there, guilty until proven innocent in other words.
If insurance companies could pull it off, they'd have us all wearing neck braces, helmets, and shoulder pads in our cars. It just means more profit for them in the guise of looking out for us, making us feel more "safe".
Reply
Julius 10:35AM (5/14/2007)
I frankly trust the insurance institutes ratings above those provided by the government. Their test is more stringent and looks at a more realistic crash scenario than their counterparts at the NHTSA.
I'm with Shawn here, the main cost of accidents is the safety of the occupants. A trip to the emergency room is going to run in the 5 figures, and severe accidents requiring surgery, physical therapy, etc. COULD reach into the 6 figures, PER PERSON. Your car has a fixed value, and if its not repairable, they can buy you 3 new cars for less than it costs to open up your chest and stop your heart from bleeding into your chest.
Reply
rv 3:53PM (5/14/2007)
re#1 - this wasn't a "Cross-shopping test" read the text, it explains that the MDX and Taurus/Sable have earned the highest possible scores. That is all - take it for what it's worth...
Reply