Road & Travel Magazine

 
   
RTM WWW
                Bookmark and Share  



Automotive Channel

Auto Advice & Tips
Auto Products
Auto Buyer's Guides
Car Care Maintenance
Earth Aware Awards
Insurance & Accidents

Car of Year Awards
Legends & Leaders
New Car Reviews
Planet Driven
Road Humor
Road Trips
Safety & Security
Teens & Tots
Tire Buying Tips
Used Car Buying
Vehicle Model Guide
What Women Want

Travel Channel
Adventure Travel
Advice & Tips
Airline Rules
Bed & Breakfasts
Cruises & Tours
Destination Reviews
Earth Tones
Family Travel Tips
Health Trip
Hotels & Resorts
Luxury Travel
Pet Travel
Safety & Security
Spa Reviews
Train Vacations
Travel Products
Travel Directory
What Women Want

Follow Us
Facebook | Pinterest

Ford Fusion Dissapoints in Side Impact


Ford Fusion Dissapoints in Crash Testing

Crashworthiness evaluations for seven new or redesigned midsize car models reflect performance in the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's front, side, and rear impact tests. The models include three moderately priced cars — Ford Fusion, Hyundai Sonata and Pontiac G6. The other four models are luxury/near luxury cars — Acura TSX, BMW 3 series, Infiniti G35 and Lexus IS.

The best overall performers are the BMW 3 series and Lexus IS, which earned the silver 'Top Safety Pick' designation for good performance in the Institute's front and side crash tests plus acceptable ratings for seat/head restraint designs in rear tests. The Ford Fusion, tested without optional side airbags, earned the lowest overall ratings. It's the only car in this group that didn't earn a good rating in the frontal test. It earned a poor rating in the side test and a marginal rating for rear crash protection.

"Nearly every car now earns good ratings in our frontal test," said Institute president Adrian Lund. "The Fusion is acceptable, which isn't a bad result, but it's not competitive with other cars in its class. Based on this car's side and rear evaluations along with its acceptable frontal rating, the Fusion is the lowest rated moderately priced midsize car we've evaluated."

New Fusion isn't up to par with midsize competitors: The Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan is among only two current midsize car designs (the other is the Dodge Stratus/Chrysler Sebring) that don't earn the highest rating of good in the Institute's frontal offset test.

"The Fusion is a disappointment because it's a brand new design," Lund said. "Ford has done a good job with some other recent models, but the Fusion is at the back of the pack among midsize cars for overall safety performance." In Fusions manufactured after January, Ford added a structure below the accelerator pedal designed to reduce injury risk to the right leg and foot in frontal offset crashes.

"This fix didn't work in our test," Lund said. "Forces recorded on the dummy's right leg were high, and a metal pin broke in the dummy's ankle. Ford is doing more research to find a solution and has indicated it will ask the Institute to retest the Fusion for frontal crash performance later this year."

The Fusion earned the lowest rating of poor in the side impact test. Without side airbags, injury measures recorded on the driver dummy indicated that serious head injuries would be possible in a real-world crash of similar severity. Measures from other parts of the dummy indicated that rib fractures or internal organ injuries and a fractured pelvis also would be likely.

"The side structure of the Fusion held up reasonably well in the crash test, and this car's structural rating of acceptable is better than some other midsize models we've tested," Lund points out. Protection in the rear seat was reasonably good. The head of the dummy in the rear seat struck the pillar behind the rear door, while this area is required by federal standard to provide some protection for an occupant's head. Fusion is rated poor overall because of high forces recorded on the driver dummy's head, pelvis, and torso.

The Fusion's side airbags aren't standard equipment, and the Institute's policy is to test vehicles without optional airbags. Manufacturers who want a second test with side airbags have to reimburse the Institute for the cost of the vehicle. Initially, Ford didn't request a second test with optional side airbags.

"Usually when an automaker doesn't ask for the optional test, we presume it means the side airbags wouldn't help much to improve the car's rating," Lund said. "But now Ford has requested a second test, so the Fusion with side airbags may earn a better rating than poor. We'll conduct the test and report the result."

How vehicles are evaluated: The Institute's frontal crashworthiness evaluations are based on results of frontal offset crash tests at 40 mph. Each vehicle's overall evaluation is based on measurements of intrusion into the occupant compartment, injury measures from a Hybrid III dummy in the driver seat, and analysis of slow-motion film to assess how well the restraint system controlled dummy movement during the test.

Each vehicle's overall side evaluation is based on performance in a crash test in which the side of the vehicle is struck by a barrier moving at 31 mph and representing the front end of a pickup or SUV. Ratings reflect injury measures recorded on two instrumented SID-IIs dummies, assessment of head protection countermeasures, and the vehicle's structural performance during the impact. Injury measures obtained from the two dummies, one in the driver seat and the other in the rear seat behind the driver, are used to determine the likelihood that the driver and/or passenger in a real-world crash would have sustained serious injury to various body regions. The movements and contacts of the dummies' heads during the crash also are evaluated. Structural performance is based on measurements indicating the amount of B-pillar intrusion into the occupant compartment.

Rear crash protection is rated according to a two-step procedure. Starting points for the ratings are measurements of head restraint geometry - the height of a restraint and its horizontal distance behind the back of the head of an average-size man. Seats with good or acceptable restraint geometry are tested dynamically using a dummy that measures forces on the neck. This test simulates a collision in which a stationary vehicle is struck in the rear at 20 mph. Seats without good or acceptable geometry are rated poor overall because they cannot be positioned to protect many people.

(Source: Insurance Institute of Highway Safety)

Copyright ©2018 - 2020 | ROAD & TRAVEL Magazine | All rights reserved.