The 2021 Chevy Equinox was recently re-evaluated by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety for its side impact crashworthiness.
The IIHS gave the 2021 Chevy Equinox a rating of ‘Marginal’ in the side impact crashworthiness evaluation test, which is considered to be a substandard performance, with the vehicle missing out on the middling rating of ‘Average’ and the best-possible rating of ‘Good’. The IIHS said the dummy’s head contacted the C-pillar hard, through the side curtain airbag,” in the test, the IIHS said, and it thus found the head protection to be “inadequate.”
It’s worth noting the 2018 model year Chevy Equinox was previously evaluated by the IIHS for its side impact crashworthiness and received a rating of ‘Good’. The IIHS recently revised the test for SUVs, however, implementing a heavier moving deformable barrier (MDB) with a lower impact profile to reflect today’s vehicles, which are on average heavier and have a slightly lower front end profile. The new barrier also crumples more like a modern SUV, the safety watchdog says, and travels at a slightly higher speed.
Due to the revised testing procedure for side impact evaluations, the IIHS went ahead and re-tested multiple 2021 model year small SUVs – not just the 2021 Chevy Equinox. Only one of these SUVs received a rating of ‘Good’ in this newly revised test: the Mazda CX-5. A total of nine vehicles received an ‘Average’ rating, with eight vehicles joining the Equinox in receiving a ‘Marginal’ rating. The poorest-performing vehicle was the Honda HR-V, which received the worst-possible rating of ‘Poor’. In this test, the barrier tore through the Honda HR-V’s b-pillar, allowing it to protrude deep into the vehicle’s cabin.
The video of the 2021 Chevy Equinox side-impact test, along with a separate video highlighting the IIHS findings after the newly revised side impact test was implemented, is embedded below.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more Chevy Equinox news, Chevy news, GM production news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
Comments
Marginal test results for a marginal (at best) crossover…
To be clear, the IIHS revised its side impact test. Under the old test, the Equinox received the best rating possible. IIHS is constantly increasing the difficulty of tests (within the realm of realistic parameters) to push manufacturers to improve safety. It is necessary to revise the tests because 5,000 pound EVs are going to be on the road soon and they will reshape how impacts result in injuries.
Maybe companies should actually engineer their vehicles to be safe instead of just engineering them to pass the current IIHS tests.
They want to, but as the IIHS video above notes, crash parameters change as cars change. With SUVs the point of impact is higher and risks pushing the B-pillar through the cabin – something that didn’t happen as often in their previous tests. Companies like the IIHS prove these risks with data. This allows auto companies to make safety changes based on verifiable, repeatable tests.
I would say no they don’t want to. Case and point, the small overlap front crash requirement. The mandate was to make cars safe for this kind of crash. The engineers figured out how to do so, but when it came time to manufacture the product with the improved engineering what did the companies do?
The companies knowing the testers were only crashing the driver’s side, the companies ONLY implemented the improvements on the driver’s side and did nothing for the passenger side. To me, this is BS and was not the intention of the mandate. The intention of the mandate was to make the vehicle safer for this type of crash. But the companies only manufactured the product to pass the test, touting safety, knowing full well, and hiding from the public, that the passenger side was unsafe.
So again, maybe the companies should manufacture their products to be safe instead of manufacturing them to pass a test.
“Maybe companies should actually engineer their vehicles to be safe”.
Maybe (if), (all), companie$ (were not busy $pending ten$ of million$ chasing the 54MPG CAFE reg. they) ̶s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ (could actually) engineer their vehicle$ to be safe(r).
You cannot expect a current platform to get high mark$ on new, more $trict $tandard$ no more then you can expect them to achieve higher MPG.
Shut your mouth!!!!!!!
It would be nice if companies engineered vehicles to pass the IIHS test. Instead, they engineer them to pass the Federal safety tests which are less stringent than the IIHS tests. The IIHS is working to try and make vehicles safer than what the government requires.
The Equinox gets 5 stars from NHTSA for side impact. That is all GM cares about. They might review IIHS data, but the NHTSA test ratings are the ones that matter to them to meet Federal safety minimums.
One word: CAFE. You can build a car like a tank, but your fuel economy will suffer.
In fact, the EU/UNECE/EuroNCAP has specifically stated they will not adopt IIHS small-overlap frontal crash tests because US car models all got heavier, and that would ruin EU global warming goals.
So cars that are sold in the US are safer than Europe because many cars have frontal structure added specifically to do well on IIHS ratings and we don’t have a carbon tax like the EU does.
Glad IHS is around to test and rate vehicles. Makers and NHTSA have not delivered on safety until IHS ratings were available to the public. I support improved testing as vehicles on the road change. The influence of much heavier EVs will be interesting to see.