Filed under: Safety, Crossovers/CUVs, Buick, Chevrolet, GMC, Saturn
Lambdas get IIHS Top Pick rating
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety took some GMC Acadias and smashed them up to see how the big crossovers hold up against immovable objects, and unlike recent tests conducted for the Chevy Equinox and Pontiac Torrent, the news is positive. An AWD Acadia SLE acted as a stand-in for all of the Lambda models - Buick Enclave, Chevrolet Traverse, Saturn Outlook, and all Acadia trims included. It didn't matter whether the IIHS attacked the front, side, or rear – the CUV earned a "good" rating in all directions. With the standard fitment of Stabilitrak, the IIHS also bestowed a Top Safety Pick crown on GM's big haulers. The Lambas now have both a five-star rating from the NHTSA and a Top Safety Pick designator about which to brag.
[Source: Inside Line]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Avinash machado 8:05AM (8/27/2008)
Wonder how the Ford Flex will do.
Reply
Hamud 10:32AM (8/27/2008)
5 stars all around:
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/08/05/ford-flex-earns-five-stars-all-around-for-crash-safety/
Hamud 10:35AM (8/27/2008)
5 stars all around:
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/08/05/ford-flex-earns-five-stars-all-around-for-crash-safety/
Ken Stamper 8:13AM (8/27/2008)
I'll remember this next time I crash into a brick wall.
Seriously, aren't the European tests that crash cars into objects at offset angles and use moving targets and targets with give more realistic? I know our standards are tough, but IMHO they aren't really a useful predictor of how a car will do in an accident that might actually happen. How many accidents occur when hitting a stationary object with no give head on?
Reply
mr.ed 10:56AM (8/27/2008)
The front test you see above is an offset test, meant to simulate a lane crossover situation. It's basically a duplicate of the Euro test.
Alex 8:26AM (8/27/2008)
The crash you see in the above pic is a 40% offset into a honeycomb structure.
Markus 9:15AM (8/27/2008)
You have two different organizations running tests in the US, and therefore two different crash test standards, USNCAP and IIHS. USNCAP is the one where the front-impact is against a non-deformable 100% overlap barrier. IIHS front crash is 40% overlap with a deformable barrier similar to EuroNCAP.
But EuroNCAP includes some additional tests like the side-pole skidding impact and the pedestrian safety rating as well as having two sizes of child restraints in the car for all crashes.
This site gives a pretty decent overview, although the chart is metric and the annotations are in German:
http://www.carhs.de/de/training/safetywissen/ncap_tests.php
Markus
sold2early 8:45AM (8/27/2008)
Of course these vehicles are safe; they never leave the dealer's lots.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Reply
adabbott 8:54AM (8/27/2008)
See, humor needs to have an element of truth to it to be funny. But your comment is not really funny, because these vehicles do sell rather well, and are leaving dealer lots.
AZMike 9:45AM (8/27/2008)
guess you never check Automotive News for daily sales, and for days-in-inventory, huh?
guess you didn't check the overtime schedule for the Delta Township plant that produces them, huh?
a little hint: the Lambda CUVs are very good sellers, high fuel prices or not. when Enclaves bound for China begin production in a few weeks, this will be a three-shift, 24/7 factory.
...and the one building the Flex?
AZMike
The Luigiian 10:23AM (8/27/2008)
Guys, lighten up. The guy was trying to tell a joke. It wasn't a great joke, but it was just a joke.
Considering how poorly SUVs are selling in general right now, I think it's pretty much forgiveable for not knowing the Lambdas (and a few other bright spot SUVs) are doing well.
Bob 11:22AM (8/27/2008)
This person must be from the west or east coast where anything American is immediately thought of as junk or unsuccessful. Stay in your Prius or Corolla and stop commenting on these issues.
akboss 2:07PM (8/27/2008)
I thought it was hilarious, actually. Why does everybody have a pickle up their butt like they own majority shares ? I want to know the kind of person who checks into the Delta Township plant schedule before they post a comment on a car blog...
Dude 6:09PM (8/27/2008)
I thought that was funny. It was a joke. All of the GM employees got a little riled up. Whatever.
P Mok 6:14PM (8/27/2008)
I thought it was funny. Note to all GM employees and dealers: it was just a joke.
Benfolio 9:13AM (8/27/2008)
Well, duh, IIHS.
As big as these things are and much as these things weigh of COURSE they're going to fair well in a crash test.
Reply
JDL 9:39AM (8/27/2008)
Right. Mass means good crash test results. We ALL know that.
Case in point: Chevy TrailBlazer (IIHS scores)
Frontal offset test results
2005-08 models - Acceptable
2002-04 models - Marginal
Side impact test results
2008 models with standard side airbags - Marginal
2005-07 models with optional side airbags - Marginal
That thinking of big = safe is just plain dumb.
dkw 10:29AM (8/27/2008)
@JDL: "that thinking of big=safe is just plain dumb" ..... wait a minute, not so fast.
In crash tests such as this one, the vehicle is impacting something that is of the same weight as itself, so small and light vehicles are hitting other small and light vehicles, and large heavy vehicles hit large heavy vehicles.
To score good marks, a small light vehicle only has to be capable of withstanding an impact from another small light vehicle, where a large heavy vehicle will do well against another large heavy vehicle, and everything that weights less then it does.
Big and heavy IN THE REAL WORLD means that a large heavy vehicle will fair better in the majority of collisions with other vehicles, simply because the vehicle is bigger and heavier.
Check out the loss injury statistics if you'd like to see more real world injury data: http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/composite_intro.html
Now I understand lighter more nimble vehicles can arguably handle better, and avoid collisions, but I'm simply referring to what happens during an accident itself.
Can't argue with the laws of Physics.
JDL 11:02AM (8/27/2008)
Thanks. I am well aware of the physics involved with larger vehicles striking smaller ones, energy transfer, and the way the crash tests are designed to have a vehicle crash into same/similar, and well versed in vehicle safety. Safety doesn't mean just crash tests.
My comment is based on a statement that big means they are going to crash well. That is NOT the case, as exhibited by the TrailBlazer. Big in an of itself doesn't mean safe.
Big also can/does lead to a high number of single-vehicle rollover accidents. While driver error plays a large part, the large/top-heavy vehicle plays a part as well (as does lack of ESC in many/some cases).
So energry transfer in a head-on or side-impact? Yes, bigger wins. Bigger also needs longer distances to stop and also suffers from the above-mentioned rollover.
dkw 1:24PM (8/27/2008)
@JDL.... I agree 100% with you, the statement that by simply by being big means that a vehicle is going to crash well is very misguided.
However, study after study does show that bigger vehicles, on avgerage, ARE safer. Since this is based upon real world data, it includes all factors, such as roll over, driver skill, braking distances, vehicle mass and the occupant protection provided. The link I posted gives real world injury claims based upon each vehicle, and separated by size class. (the lower the number being better)
For the SUV category:
Small: avg. 99
Midsize: avg. 93
Large: avg. 76
V. Large: avg. 59
For 4-door cars:
Small: avg. 162
Midsize: avg. 129
Large: avg. 89
V. Large: avg. 73
I think we are on the same page here, but I find this insurance injury data study very interesting, and while we agree that simply because a vehicle is large does not mean it will perform well in a crash test, it is interesting to see how the real world data clearly demonstrates that larger vehicles are safer on the road.