IIHS Gives Chevy Equinox Poor Rating In Updated Moderate Overlap Front Test: Video16
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) recently updated its moderate overlap front crash test to include a new focus on rear occupant safety. The results of the test included a “Poor” overall rating for the 2021 through 2023 Chevy Equinox.
The Chevy Equinox was one of 15 crossovers tested in the updated IIHS moderate overlap front evaluation. Nine of the crossovers tested received a “Poor” overall rating, while three received a “Marginal” overall rating, one received an “Acceptable” overall rating, and two received a “Good” overall rating.
The original moderate overlap front test was launched in 1995. In the evaluation, the vehicle tested would be propelled at 40 mph to impact a barrier with a deformable face made from aluminum honeycomb. Forty percent of the total width of the vehicle would strike the barrier on the driver’s side, simulating a frontal offset crash between two vehicles of roughly the same weight, each traveling a little under 40 mph. Inside the cabin, a Hybrid III dummy was placed in the driver’s seat to represent an average-size man.
According to the IIHS, a study of real-world crashes indicates that in many cases, back-seat passengers were injured more severely than passengers up front. While automakers have added airbags and advanced seat belt systems in the front of vehicles, similar systems have not been added in the rear. The result is that for vehicles from the 2007 model year and up, the risk of a fatal injury for rear-seated passengers is 46 percent higher than it is for front-seated passengers.
To address this, the IIHS moderate overlap front test now includes a second Hybrid III dummy representing a small woman or 12-year-old child in the second row behind the driver.
In the updated test, the Chevy Equinox received “Good” ratings for the vehicle structure and safety cage, driver head and neck injury, driver chest injury, driver knee and thigh injury, and driver restraint and kinematics evaluations, and an “Acceptable” rating for the driver leg and foot injury evaluation. The Equinox also received “Good” ratings for the rear passenger thigh injury and rear passenger restraints and kinematics evaluations, but “Poor” ratings in rear passenger chest injury and head and neck injury evaluations.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more Chevy Equinox news, Chevy news, GM safety news, GM business news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
- Sweepstakes Of The Month: Win a 2023 Corvette Z06 Convertible. Details here.
I’m not against these tests and making the vehicles better, but I feel these tests are too often used in the wrong way for customers who don’t really understand it.
The all new Equinox will be out shortly. Now if that one doesn’t get better ratings, then that’s another story. But this one is on it’s last leg and basically the same vehicle from around 2008. The fact that this old model did as well as it did is great.
Granted this is a new evaluation for which it wasn’t designed, but the Equinox was all new for the 2018 model year — not 2008.
The all new Equinox EV will be out shortly. An updated ICE Equinox is coming, but it isn’t likely to be all new.
ML: The 2018 Equinox was a re-fresh only and not all new. For all intent and purposes, it dates back to the 2008 model year and one could maybe argue that it goes back even further.
No, it was All New, they even went down in size. 2022 was a refresh, 2018 was the all new third generation.
So maybe we just need to agree on what’s a re-fresh and what’s all new. Here’s from an article I just looked up:
“COMPARISON: 2018 CHEVROLET EQUINOX VS 2017 CHEVROLET EQUINOX
BLOG MAR 24TH, 2017
One of the best ways to appreciate an updated vehicle model is to put it side by side with the old model. And here it is. The all-new 2018 Chevrolet Equinox against the old 2017 Chevrolet Equinox.”
Maybe you don’t consider “an updated vehicle” a re-fresh, but I do. Unless I’m missing something, the 2017 and 2018 ride on the same structure. If I’m wrong, then show it and I’ll admit I was wrong.
Here’s an example of what I look at as being an “all new” vehicle. 1. 1976 Cadillac DeVille/Fleetwood vs. 1977 models. 2. 1978 Eldo vs. 1979. 3. 1979 Seville vs. 1980. Bringing it more modern, 2020 Buick Encore vs. Encore GX.
The 2018 Equinox & Terrain had all-new body structures compared with the 2017 models. I found the following description of the changes from a quick search:
“The 2018 Chevrolet Equinox SUV has dropped nearly 400 pounds (181 kg)—approximately 10% of its mass—compared to its predecessor. Combined with this weight loss, the all-new body was designed and optimized for top safety ratings.
The 2018 Equinox’s body structure design was optimized with a mixed-material strategy for strength and low weight. More than 80% of the Equinox’s body structure is composed of high-grade steel materials, with high-strength steel comprising nearly 20%.”
I tried to post the link, but apparently this isn’t allowed?
Curious how compeditors names were withheld. Especially the direct (arch rival) competitor that aced the test. Well, actually that answers my curiosity.
I hate the way this these guys post (not) to source articles. Put links at the bottom of the article to the source material or learn how to site your sources properly. Journalism 101
I’m sure most vehicles do bad for the rear passenger. all they have is a seat belt. But i’m sure the larger the person the better it works. Other than putting in seat belts with air bags on them I don’t see how you can so much more. Maybe air bag in back of driver seat would help.
The car held up well and crubled correctly, so really accidental avoidance items would do the best probably to help.
You should look at the actual data. While there’s at least one car with rear-seat airbags (Mercedes S class), none of the cars tested here had them, yet the Volvo XC40 was good all over, and the Ford Escape was fine except in one measure. The RAV4 was also good, except for poor rear seat kinematics giving it an overall average.
It’s an issue of the rear seat and seatbelt design, in at least one case poor side curtain airbag design, and also the fact that most cars don’t have active rear seatbelts (pretensioners).
Ford has started offering inflatable rear passenger shoulder belts on some models to reduce the force associated with tensioned belts for back seat passengers. Also, roof mounted curtain airbags have been around for years. It’s not like the automakers haven’t thought about rear passengers.
The IIHS is working in phases. Driver safety, headlights, airbags, different accident types, now rear seat passengers. It’s easier to encourage change in small steps than to try and get the industry to change all at once.
The NHTSA will never stop inventing ways to destroy $ millions of vehicles ! Its not the vehicle its the driver ! Put the money into making safer drivers !
scott J: Although I would never advocate them stopping the research and development of making vehicles more safe, I will give you a huge thumbs up on what you say!
I’ve said for years that the safest car is only as safe as the person driving it. You can take a very safe and respectful driver in a vehicle that’s not the safest and they will be better off than the moron driving their very safe vehicle in a reckless way. This country truly needs to do better on it’s driver training and require continued testing/training for those who wish to keep a DL.
My advice is don’t crash.
All vehicle not safe drive defense!!