Tiguan vs Sportage roll over test...

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: rcy
Originally Posted By: Pesca
Euh, there is something strange here: If you look at the photo group at AutoBlog, what is the car which is in the last row, to the right (Silver one)? Isn't it the Tiguan?

If this is a Tiguan, it is way more crashed that the blue one they photographed individually.

That doesn't change their results, they rated as good the following CUVs: the Volkswagen Tiguan, Subaru Forester, Honda Element and Jeep Patriot.

Mine is rated as acceptable.

I just find it quite fishy they didn't use this car to illustrate their wordings: Bad journalism looking for some big headlines?


Good eye. I, too, think that in the picture of al1 12 vehicles, the top right is indeed a Tiguan. Maybe the IIHS should be taken with a grain of salt.


Indeed, something is fishy here, the silver Tiguan in the far right corner looks just as crushed in as other cars in that picture (except Kia, as that one is bad), also the high res pic did not work for me, Autoblog only had the low res photo working.

It is highly unlikely that all the cars took similar damage and only Tiguan had a little dent.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: rcy
Right, but when that driver t-bones you at that intersection, and your vehicle rolls over, isn't good to know that your head won't be crushed by the roof.

These vehicles are inherently rollover-prone, the design feature that makes them rollover-prone has no real practical benefit, they don't cost a lot, and a good chunk of the money goes toward comfort and amenities. There is something odd to me about buying that kind of car and then complaining about rollover safety.

 

[rcy]

Who's complaining about rollover safety. My response was to the post that stated roof crush requirements lead to vehicles being

1) Heavier
2) More expensive
3) Less fuel efficient

Roof crush requirements will apply to cars as well as SUV, CUV etc.

I think we all get that you don't drive an SUV, which are more prone to roll over than a car.

Trust me, I've seen more than a fair share of cars on their roofs after being hit by another vehicle.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: rcy
Roof crush requirements will apply to cars as well as SUV, CUV etc.

Yes, but meeting those requirements is a very different ballgame for cars vs. SUVs. Cars weigh a lot less than taller vehicles (all else equal), so their roofs will not need as much reinforcement to keep from caving in.

Moreover, reinforcing the roof in an SUV raises the already high center of gravity, increasing the risk of a rollover in the first place. This is not nearly as much of a problem in a car.

 

[L_Sludger]

Perhaps my point relates back to the idea of back in the day.. when kids were allowed to be kids and could go out and play, whereas now they have to wear all kinds of safety and protective gear as a bare minimum while their parents fuss and fret about them ad nauseam.... Focusing on a static crash test rating doesn't do anything for me.
I personally drive a V8 Lexus sedan. I consider it to be safe. My problem with the trend is that it's keeping the hottest, most fuel-efficient cars out of the country. Cars like the european diesel Focus, or turbodiesel Civic, which get mileage figures in excess of the Prius, are kept off our shores because of feel-good standards that they don't pass. So we're stuck with our self-imposed limits.


It's like locking ourselves up in prison for our own good. It's a dangerous world out there.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: L_Sludger
My problem with the trend is that it's keeping the hottest, most fuel-efficient cars out of the country. Cars like the european diesel Focus, or turbodiesel Civic, which get mileage figures in excess of the Prius, are kept off our shores because of feel-good standards that they don't pass. So we're stuck with our self-imposed limits.


It's like locking ourselves up in prison for our own good. It's a dangerous world out there.

Well put.

 

[rcy]

Originally Posted By: L_Sludger
My problem with the trend is that it's keeping the hottest, most fuel-efficient cars out of the country. Cars like the european diesel Focus, or turbodiesel Civic, which get mileage figures in excess of the Prius, are kept off our shores because of feel-good standards that they don't pass. So we're stuck with our self-imposed limits.


It's like locking ourselves up in prison for our own good. It's a dangerous world out there.


That's a good point.

However, I wonder if those vehicles aren't making it over to North America simply because they're diesels? That would make more sense, given the traditional fear of the diesel in the U.S., and to a lesser extent, the dislike of hatchback/station wagon shape in the states.

When gas was 1.50 a litre (don't know what that was in the States - $4 a gallon?) every manufacturer had some sort of plan to bring a diesel to North America. Now that the price of gas had dropped, almost all of them have shelved those plans.

 

[cousincletus]

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Don't you guys know VWs are horrible cars?


Yes.

 

[Jonny Z]

Who cares about the merit of the tests, let's figure out why there were two Tiguans the first place.

Lets start the speculations.

 

[L_Sludger]

Originally Posted By: rcy
Originally Posted By: Pesca
Euh, there is something strange here: If you look at the photo group at AutoBlog, what is the car which is in the last row, to the right (Silver one)? Isn't it the Tiguan?

If this is a Tiguan, it is way more crashed that the blue one they photographed individually.

That doesn't change their results, they rated as good the following CUVs: the Volkswagen Tiguan, Subaru Forester, Honda Element and Jeep Patriot.

Mine is rated as acceptable.

I just find it quite fishy they didn't use this car to illustrate their wordings: Bad journalism looking for some big headlines?


Good eye. I, too, think that in the picture of al1 12 vehicles, the top right is indeed a Tiguan. Maybe the IIHS should be taken with a grain of salt.

Something is not right.

 

[Pesca]

Originally Posted By: 97prizm

The roll over crash tests are all good but... I'm no engineer but it seems to me that using a loaded weight at a 45degree angle
doesn't truly mimic a roll over. There was talk a while back to get the government to put the cars on a "spit" if you will and roll them over to accurately simulate the rollover motion.


They can also use the Top Gear method: Use an aircraft at full throttle and throw a car about 100 feet behind the blast.

They made nice rolls with a Ford Mondeo and a Citroen 2CV.

 

[d00df00d]

Who needs mimicry when you can do the real thing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqNITUm3WA8