• Aug 27th 2008 at 7:58AM
  • 21
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]

I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.

    • 1 Second Ago
      • 7 Years Ago
      Of course these vehicles are safe; they never leave the dealer's lots.

      Sorry, couldn't resist.
        • 7 Years Ago
        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...
        • 7 Years Ago
        I thought it was funny. Note to all GM employees and dealers: it was just a joke.
        • 7 Years Ago
        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.
        • 7 Years Ago
        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?

      • 7 Years Ago
      My mom just totalled her Enclave. Her accident was nearly identical to the one pictured above, if not a little worse. She walked away with just minor bruising and will be getting an 09 Enclave as a replacement.
      • 7 Years Ago

      Wonder how the Ford Flex will do.
      • 7 Years Ago
      physics > you
      • 7 Years Ago
      Blasphemey! Everyone knows that European cars are the only thing allowed to get good ratings. GM must have paid off IIHS, that is the only possibility.

      On a side note, damn that must be a fun job!
      • 7 Years Ago
      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.
        • 7 Years Ago
        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.
        • 7 Years Ago
        @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.
        • 7 Years Ago
        @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.
        • 7 Years Ago
        very true. And I thing we agree on the main point.

        But an age overlay would clear up some questions/issues.

        For example, in the composite of insurance losses for best and worst vehicles, a lot of the worst ones are cars inexperienced/young drivers drive (WRX, Eclipse, Lancer, tC, etc). Most young drivers can't afford to get into larger SUVs (yet; luckily gas prices will delay/prevent young drivers from purchasing non-ESC large SUVs on the used-vehicle market), so they are forced into cheaper cars (which are also smaller) and their lack of judgement probably skews the data a bit.

        It's the blanket statements that bother me.
        Large is safe. No.
        Small is deadly. No.
        Speed kills. No.

        I guess stupid driving kills/is unsafe is a good blanket statement....
        • 7 Years Ago
        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.
      • 7 Years Ago
      I really don't like how the A pillar is starting to buck.
    • Load More Comments