GM Inside News Forum banner

Camaro, Challenger, Mustang, IIHS Crash Tests

5K views 31 replies 21 participants last post by  Ed753 
#1 ·
IIHS Muscle/Pony Car Crash Tests



 
#3 · (Edited)
Re: IIHS Muscle/Pony Car Crash Tests

I'm not following the roof strength one, is that like to protect you if a elephant sits on your car???
All started with the whole Firestone fiasco.

It's a weird one for sure. You have to have so many pounds on the roof so it can prove that it can sustain the integrity of the cabin in a roll over.

Feel like we are missing some clips in there too. The Challenger did awful in the small overlap but that is to be expected. Mustang and Camaro seemed to do very well. Still fun watching these.
 
#7 ·






http://blog.caranddriver.com/mustang-camaro-challenger-fall-short-in-iihs-crash-tests/


After publicly shaming several domestic full-size pickups for subpar crash-test results, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has now turned its attention to another group of America’s sweethearts: muscle cars. V-8 versions of the Chevrolet Camaro, Dodge Challenger, and Ford Mustang have now undergone the full battery of IIHS crash testing, and all three fell short of the Top Safety Pick rating. Although the IIHS doesn’t typically test sports cars, it decided to do so because of information from the Highway Loss Data Institute that points to high crash rates for these three cars.

The Challenger fared worst of the three, no surprise considering it’s significantly older than the Ford and the Chevy. Although it earned Good ratings in the moderate-overlap front and side crash tests, the Dodge only scored Acceptable in the roof strength and head restraint/seat metrics and Marginal in the difficult small-overlap front crash test. That result rendered it ineligible for the Top Safety Pick award, which requires Good ratings in all crash tests and a forward-collision warning system rated at least Basic (which the Challenger did earn)The Mustang, which was redesigned for 2015, and the Camaro, which is all new this year, did better. The Ford only missed one TSP requirement, earning an Acceptable rating in the small-overlap test. The Camaro earned a Good rating in that rigorous test but was only rated Acceptable for roof strength and does not offer a forward-collision warning system.
These three models are among the few sporty cars IIHS has tested. The Nissan 370Z, Hyundai Genesis Coupe, Audi TT, and Infiniti Q60 have all avoided the group’s scrutiny so far. But there are sporty cars that do well in IIHS testing, including the Volkswagen GTI, the BMW 2-series, and the Lexus RC, all of which earned the 2016 Top Safety Pick + rating.
 
#11 ·
What about the Corvette? They've done pretty good in the moderate-overlap front crash test in the past!:D

 
#17 ·
  • Like
Reactions: Ed753
#13 ·
In these images, the A pillar of the Camaro seems to have stayed more in tact than the other 2.
 
#19 ·
"Strong roofs are especially important for sports cars, which have among the highest driver death rates in single-vehicle rollovers (see "Saving lives: Improved vehicle designs bring down death rates," Jan. 29, 2015)."
Would this not be at least partly related to the low roof height of this type of car? I'd have to guess that a taller car has more room for crush before heads are impacted, no?
 
#22 ·
Yes, but the idea is that such vehicles are generally NOT driven at the same speeds, with the same conditions. While the sportier cars are designed to have better handling, braking, etc, the average buyer of such a vehicle pushes the capabilities way more than a minivan driver is.
 
#23 · (Edited)
Important not to over generalize about the Roof tests.

( Have not looked for Sunroofs etc. )

They are directly pinned to a given Test Vehicle's Test Weight.

For this Test, the Weights were reported as -

( Included MPG to help identify likely PTs )

Camaro 3691 ( 1SS ) 17/ 28 MPG 13,641 Peak Roof Force 3.7 Roof strength factor

Challenger 4,149 ( RT ) 16 / 25 15,240 3.67

Mustang ( GT ) 3,738 lbs 16 /25 MPG 16,384 4.43

Anything above a 3.25 is considered " Acceptable ", and anything above a 4.0 is considered " Good ".

So lighter Camaros and Challengers likely could get above a 4.0 and heavier Mustangs might drop below.

Specifically, assuming same same .... a Camaro with a Test Weight ( remember Test weight is 'different' than Curb Weight or Dry Weight or Shipping Weight. ) - of 3410.25 lbs. would make a 4.0 and thereby a Good.

3079.23 lbs. would mean a match to this Mustang's 4.43 factor.

Going the other way with it, a Mustang with a Test Weight of 4120 lbs would rate a 3.97 or 3.98 and be assigned Acceptable.

4096 lbs. would give a 4.00 exactly, again assuming all else is the same.

A Mustang with a 4,428,11 lbs. Test Weight would match the Test Camaro's listed strength factor of 3.7.

--

Notice also how much heavier the Test Challenger is - which is of course very often a big Plus of one kind or another in terms of Real World results.

--

Btw, anybody catch that initial slide off the front of the Mustang in the Small Overlap Front Impact Test ?

If as intended..... that's clever.....in a good way.
 
#25 · (Edited)
Why is it that sometimes beyond questionable if and buts are ok for everything Ford is doing and yet just Camaro and Challenger cannot have a few realistic ones presented - for something as minor as IIHS Roof Strength Testing ?????

Some day.... well, one can hope anyway........ Ford will be so strong all the Negative Nancies will be out of work.

--

BTW, from top to bottom, what is the full range of possible Curb Weights ( have to start somewhere ) for all three of them ?

Really ?????


Thought so....


So...... therefore good to know you cannot extrapolate the Roof Strength result differences across all builds..... right ?

And a 2.0 T Camaro built the right way very probably rates ahead of sigh ....never mind.

--

Hey speaking of weak, you got all the previous Gen Mustang IIHS / NHTSA results ?

No ??

Really ???

And neither of them do either ?????

Thought so

--

Well anyway, we do not want to make fun of the those recently converted no matter how imperfectly..... and besides.....

Better way late than never although you'd think by now maybe a 'Good' Small Front Overlap in some kind of a Ford or Lincoln Car or SUV or CUV might be possible..... I mean seriously look @ Mazda, and Volvo over the last five years ... I digress.

Heck of a way to save money doncha' think ???

Kinda' symbolic in terms of what is really going on is it not ???

You know, the stuff you cannot see.....


--


Whew...... well good for somebody I suppose...... I mean seriously, anytime you can dodge damn near a Decade's worth of 16" NGF ... that's a win....yes ?
 
#27 · (Edited)
Hmmmm.... interesting in so many ways.

You seem ah a little light, Ed.

According to Ford's own Internet Mustang Specification 'page' info -


Estimated Base Curb Weight (lbs.)
Fastback


V6 Manual 3526
V6 Automatic 3530
EcoBoost® Manual 3532
EcoBoost® Automatic 3524
GT Manual 3705
GT Automatic 3729 IIHS Test Weight = 3,738
Shelby GT350® 3760
Shelby GT350® with tech package 3798
Shelby GT350® with track package 3791
Shelby® GT350R 3655
Shelby® GT350R with electronics package 3703
 
#31 ·
This test came out after the cars were fully developed. This is just the insurance companies way to figure out why they are justified increasing insurance rates on these cars.....

I do like the new option so many cars have today of automatic brake avoidance....

Watch gm ford and dodge install those systems sooner rather than later...to keep insurance companties at bay...

 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top