mobile-menu-icon
GM Authority

Chevy Equinox Gets ‘Poor’ Rating In Updated IIHS Front Crash Prevention Test: Video

An updated front crash test conducted on 10 “small SUV” or crossover models by  the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety or IIHS reveals the Chevy Equinox to have a “poor” rating when dealing with collisions involving  motorcycles and higher speeds, a new video reveals.

The IIHS put the Chevy Equinox and nine other crossover models through new tests involving a simulated motorcyclist and a semi truck, which resulted in a “good” rating for only one of the vehicles tested.

Rear three quarters view of the Chevy Equinox.

The video states that the IIHS has been testing vehicles with some form of “vehicle-to-vehicle front crash prevention test” for over a decade, with pedestrian tests added more recently. Now, IIHS active safety vice president David Aylor says, the Institute is “raising the bar” with its new crash “targets” and increased speeds to see just how effective front crash prevention technology in current vehicles is.

Current safety tech “prevents as many as half of all front-to-rear crashes” according to IIHS president David Harkey. However, the revised test is meant to ferret out weaknesses the systems might have in avoiding “the most dangerous front-to-rear crashes that are still happening.”

The Chevy Bow Tie on a Chevy Equinox.

The Chevy Equinox was among the four crossovers that received a “poor” rating for failing to perform “consistently” in the test situations. The Chevy Equinox is seen in the video impacting a simulated motorcycle and rider, sending the cycle flying. The other three “small SUVs” that were rated as “poor” were the Mazda CX-5, Mitsubishi Outlander, and Volkswagen Taos.

The overall winner – the only crossover to receive a “good” rating” – was the Subaru Forester. The other vehicles were split between “acceptable” and “marginal” ratings. Previously, all crossovers received top marks when forward collision avoidance was tested at 12 mph and 25 mph, but with the new 31, 37, and 43 mph tests and different “targets,” the weaknesses of many systems were revealed.

You can view the original 2 minute and 19 second video here:

The Chevy Equinox performed moderately with the car and truck targets, but frequent struck the motorcycle target and, if it detected it at all, usually barely slowed.

Subscribe to GM Authority for more Chevy Equinox news, Chevy news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.

[nggallery id=1181]

 

Subscribe to GM Authority

For around-the-clock GM news coverage

We'll send you one email per day with the latest GM news. It's totally free.

Comments

  1. Glad to see the bar raised, although I’m not too concerned by the current rating. I was recently leaving a mall parking lot in a 2024 GMC Terrain when two women dashed out between parked cars less than 10 feet away. The warning system detected them and immediately displayed an alert, although actual braking was 100% driver input. I consider that a success. The system worked, and everyone made it out safely.

    Reply
    1. I agree with Richard that it is the driver’s responsibility to react and stop the vehicle. The avoidance systems are just helpers but if they cannot do all the work, the manufacturer is not responsible, just the driver. I will never trust the avoidance systems 100%. And it can get worse if the systems brake on any false signal.

      Reply
    2. I have a 2024 Subaru Forester with the eyesight system, this is the second Subaru I have owned with this system. The improvement from the 2017 eyesight to the 2024 is significant as far as false alerts and interventions, only intervening when necessary leaving it up to the driver to drive the car. I don’t like systems that take too much away from the driver like Tesla’s and Mercedes-Benz’s systems.

      Reply
  2. They are constantly raising the bar, which is a good thing but older models obviously won’t fare well in the newer tests. The obvious answer is to design vehicles to greatly surpass the current standards. And then there’s more incentive to raise absurd prices further, so it’s a no-win situation.

    Reply
    1. I wouldn’t bring up the price factor when the article’s subject was about protecting people’s lives.

      Reply
      1. I would. Because the cold, harsh reality is I’m more concerned about how the Equinox protects me. There’ll never be a time where technology is fully able to replace humans, yet there’ll also never be a time where humans can react as well as technology. So we should all have figured out by now, perfection is impossible. Bad things will happen.

        That leaves me with the only conclusion left. Worry about myself. Of course I’m going to do everything I can to avoid hurting someone else, but does the Equinox do well against other vehicles, which is a bigger danger to me than motorcycles?

        Yes, it does. So I’m not worried about this.

        Reply
  3. When is the IIHS going to start ranking drivers from poor to worst ?

    Reply

Leave a comment

Cancel