Apparently, the new version of the Jeep Wrangler is the only vehicle ever to cosistently flip over in IIHS small-overlap frontal crash testing.
Not rollover in rollover testing. In frontal crash testing.
https://jalopnik.com/if-you-can-read-this-your-new-jeep-wrangler-has-flippe-1843322027
Insert Jeep rollover jokes here.
That's going to make those removable doors much more exciting.
Looking at the 2015 vs the 2019, a weaker wheel will solve the problem. That looks like the only difference between the two.
Most of the local JL owners (women 25-30) and men (30-40), who are with me at the starbucks drive through line, don't care about IIHS.
Toyman01 (Forum Supporter) said:Looking at the 2015 vs the 2019, a weaker wheel will solve the problem. That looks like the only difference between the two.
Considering the number of people who run larger diameter and stronger aftermarket wheels on their Jeeps, indicates this could be a real problem for those owners.
That does not look good. But it did not flip over. It flipped on it's side. When I hear flip over I am thinking a 180 degree spin from wheels to roof.
But that is just me. And this is in no defense of Fiat for having the vehicle fall on it's side twice in crash testing.
Scott
mr2s2000elise said:Most of the local JL owners (women 25-30) and men (30-40), who are with me at the starbucks drive through line, don't care about IIHS.
But the lawyers will.
Scott
FCA has a history of bad crash tests, probably due to keeping models around for a long, long time. Doesn't the Challenger have some safety issues too?
But yeah, Jeep owners are not going to care.
In reply to Stefan (Forum Supporter) :
At that point the vehicle has been modified and it's the owners problem.
Another interesting thought. Frequently the worse the crash looks the better it is for the occupants. A lot of small overlap crashes are pretty sudden stops. I wonder if the fact that this crash is dissipating energy over a longer period of time makes for a better outcome for the passengers. Assuming they stay buckled in that is.
The article did say that passenger protection was okay but that the increased possibility of ejection and the inability to have top curtain airbags introduced a higher level of risk than would normally be seen in that type of crash.
Out of curiosity, what other currently available new cars have a "marginal" crash rating?
Although I agree that this will make no difference to the people shopping for Jeeps, I wonder what it does to insurance rates?
In reply to ultraclyde (Forum Supporter) :
jeeps are already in their own class insurance wise I believe.
I used to work at a lighting supplier that does a lot of FCA work, (Jeeps included and high % too) we always would bring up things like CR score or NCAAP and other safety things that lighting provides a benefit to - for the most part they didnt care because people just buy the E36 M3 out of them because they like them. Why change something when people pay money for little advancement of innovation or technology? great money maker for them
In reply to ultraclyde (Forum Supporter) :
These are the top 10 apparently.
Steering goes full left and the car trips over the right front tire. If the wheel broke or the tire debeaded, it would probably stay upright.
and it rolled, not flipped, onto its side.
Really I'm not surprised. Tall, Narrow, and relatively short.
I mean I'm not going to rush out and sell my JL because of this. It may prevent some Midwestern mom from buying it as their kid's graduation present but for me.....Who cares. It's still the best tool in the toolbox for the job at hand. I was protected just fine when I had an offset crash in a rental JL a year ago.
Dave M (Forum Supporter) said:FCA has a history of bad crash tests, probably due to keeping models around for a long, long time. Doesn't the Challenger have some safety issues too?
But yeah, Jeep owners are not going to care.
Clarkson: What we have here is an 1980's BMW hanging upside down 8 feet from the ground. And what we gonna to do is drop it.
James: You donna wanna be in that if fell from the crane upside down.
Clarkson: If you were Richard Hammond you'd be alright.
James: But nobody else. That's toast. The steering wheel is now touching the ceiling.
Clarkson: So, let's see what happens when we drop an 1980's Saab 900 from the same height.
James: God, I really wouldn't have believed that!
Clarkson: I would not have believed that in a million years!
James: Look at that! And I think you would probably be able to get out as well.
Clarkson: That's stunning!
James: I have heard that Saab made the pillars so strong, that when they were rallying they didn't actually have to fit a roll-cage.
Clarkson: Is that true?
James: Yeah. I mean you had to fit cause of the regulations, but it wasn't actually necessary.
Clarkson: You know I was talking on another day to a friend of mine who is... a senior designer with another Swedish car company. And he said nobody could ever work out why Saab cost so much money until they crashed it.
James: Saab was always pathological about safety. Before putting a car on sale, they make sure it can survive just about anything! Even, a head-on collision with... a moose! This attention to details costed a few problems when they were conceiving the 9000. Because to save coasts it was designed in tandem with the Lancia Thema.
James: The idea was that behind the two different badges and underneath the two different bodies, the cars would actually be the same. And it seems like they were up until the point that they were crash-tested. Lancia's engineers described the results as 'Perfect!', Saab's engineers described them - and I'm quoting directly here - 'not good at all'. And from that moment on, the joint-venture completely fell apart.
James: Saab ended up with much bigger wheels than the Lancia, and it's also made of a thicker steel. And they had a completely different rear axle! But sticking to principles like that is expensive. And Saab was loosing money - hand over fist - on every car it made.
I wonder if the solid axle front suspension wasn't the biggest contributor there? As the driver side wheel gets pushed back and down it only drags the passenger side wheel further under and more to the center.
They could pop some fuse like ball joints in there and probably pass, then the aftermarket would just upgrade them back to stock and take them off the liability hook.
In reply to AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) :
2015
2019.
Like I said above, the only difference I see is the broken wheel.
oldopelguy (Forum Supporter) said:I wonder if the solid axle front suspension wasn't the biggest contributor there? As the driver side wheel gets pushed back and down it only drags the passenger side wheel further under and more to the center.
They could pop some fuse like ball joints in there and probably pass, then the aftermarket would just upgrade them back to stock and take them off the liability hook.
If any of the Dodge truck engineers are involved, they already come with fuse like ball joints. I swear those trucks come from the factory with the recall notice in the glovebox and have for 15 years.
What's interesting is that 1) this didn't just happen on a single test and 2) it didn't happen on the previous generation. So it's not a fundamental thing like solid axles or a high CG.
It's a Jeep thing. (Sorry)
It's a Jeep thing, you wouldn't understand.
EDIT: Oops, Jordan beat me too it already.
In reply to Toyman01 (Forum Supporter) :
That's really interesting, and watching them back to back you see the 2019 climbs up over the surviving LF, which contributes to it tripping over the RF. Break that LF wheel and the 2019 stays on all fours.
AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to Toyman01 (Forum Supporter) :
That's really interesting, and watching them back to back you see the 2019 climbs up over the surviving LF, which contributes to it tripping over the RF. Break that LF wheel and the 2019 stays on all threes.
FTFY
You'll need to log in to post.
