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)
|