1engineer
Moderator
But...but...but they still get 5 stars and have good small offset ratings lol. We agree small cars need better safety. The end.
2016 Honda Pilot
- Thread starter NoDak
- Start date
But...but...but they still get 5 stars and have good small offset ratings lol. We agree small cars need better safety. The end.
Thai
Elite Member
Technically speaking, this discussion should have ended back on page 3 with my last post on that page regarding the IMPORTANCE, SEVERITY of injury/death, and SIGNIFICANT FREQUENCY of small offset crashes. I hope that you can agree with me that SMALL off-set crashes are neither stupid nor marginal. A healthier frontal structure (aka big picture) derived from better protection of small offset crashes is always welcome in my book...and it should be welcome in everyone's book.
Now, if someone argued otherwise, then here is a question...would that person buy a Nissan Quest or a Honda Odyssey? I know which one i would buy, regardless of what features each has.
Of course the cynical in me would ask...IF someone had cut corners by not passing the SMALL offset (e.g. Nissan Quest for example), then where else did they cut corners in safety when designing it? What if the Quest suffered a rear end collision and my kids are in the 3rd row...did Nissan design adequate protection there? Or if the crash had been 45 degrees frontal, then did Nissan designers protect me there? The devil is in the details, right? Did Nissan take the time to adequate assess safety with the Quest...esp because minivans usually carry lots of treasure within it!
Protection for me and my family from unknown overrides pretty much anything else...not just for cars, but in life as well.
Last edited:
T4R2014
Elite Member
/thread.
Thai
Elite Member
My MDX is driven by soccer moms too...so is my minivan...and my Subaru..........ahhh crap!:faint:
Lester Lugnut
New member
Anyone here experience the issue of vibration caused by VCM(or so claimed) in some 2010-2015 Honda Pilot models?
NoDak
Senior Member
Let's start with that V6, which makes the Pilot the latest vehicle to be fitted with Honda's Earth Dreams technology. Regardless of whether it's mated to the standard six-speed automatic or the optional nine-speed gearbox, the 3.5-liter mill produces 280 horsepower and 260 pound-feet of torque. That's 30 more hp and 7 more lb-ft than the current model. While Honda isn't quite ready to release fuel economy figures, we have high hopes for the V6/9AT combo.
The other big announcement coming today regards Honda's new Intelligent Traction Management system. The technology functions a lot like Land Rover's Terrain Response, Jeep's Selec-Terrain and Ford's Terrain Management System, providing owners with a number of condition-specific presets for the throttle response, shift mapping and stability control to maximize performance on the selected terrain.
What makes the Honda system different, though, is that it's not limited to all-wheel-drive models. That said, the front-drive model is neutered to a degree, with its ITM only offering a Snow mode, compared to the all-wheel-drive Pilot's Mud, Sand and Snow settings. Still, considering the big Honda's role as a family hauler, a dedicated setting for driving in the snow will likely be welcomed by family types, especially in northern climates.
Speaking of that AWD model, it uses a new system, called i-VTM4 (short for Intelligent Variable Torque Management for all Four Wheels). If you dig past the marketing speak, though, you'll find this system has a lot in common with the Acura Super Handling All-Wheel Drive system, in that it transfers torque not only between the front and rear axles, but laterally between the rear wheels. We reached out to Honda to see what, if any, differences there are to the system, but they didn't get back to by press time.
original article : 2016 Honda Pilot to pack 280 hp, new Intelligent Traction Management system
The other big announcement coming today regards Honda's new Intelligent Traction Management system. The technology functions a lot like Land Rover's Terrain Response, Jeep's Selec-Terrain and Ford's Terrain Management System, providing owners with a number of condition-specific presets for the throttle response, shift mapping and stability control to maximize performance on the selected terrain.
What makes the Honda system different, though, is that it's not limited to all-wheel-drive models. That said, the front-drive model is neutered to a degree, with its ITM only offering a Snow mode, compared to the all-wheel-drive Pilot's Mud, Sand and Snow settings. Still, considering the big Honda's role as a family hauler, a dedicated setting for driving in the snow will likely be welcomed by family types, especially in northern climates.
Speaking of that AWD model, it uses a new system, called i-VTM4 (short for Intelligent Variable Torque Management for all Four Wheels). If you dig past the marketing speak, though, you'll find this system has a lot in common with the Acura Super Handling All-Wheel Drive system, in that it transfers torque not only between the front and rear axles, but laterally between the rear wheels. We reached out to Honda to see what, if any, differences there are to the system, but they didn't get back to by press time.
original article : 2016 Honda Pilot to pack 280 hp, new Intelligent Traction Management system
Kennyr44
New member
We rented a New Pathfinder on a trip and it was a total minivan. Felt horrible. We just wanted a normal rental car and they were out and stuck us in the Pathfinder/minivan.
4Marathon
New member
Here is one more review of new Honda Pilot 2016 Honda Pilot release date, price, specs
Kennyr44
New member
Drove my sisters and hate the skinny arm rest that folds down like in a minivan. Hurts my arm. Like everything else.
Knight-Errant
New member
I think the small overlap test is silly when it comes to heavier trucks. If a heavy truck hit a stationary object (concrete test wall) you're going to have massive damage. It would be extremely difficult to reinforce a truck to have the same passing result that a lighter uni-body vehicle has due to all the mass.
If a truck hits a lighter unibody car (aka, the real world) that car is going to act as a crumple zone for the truck. Pretty much every study show that you're safer off in a truck. In truck vs car collisions the occupants of the truck are usually ok, while the car occupants are more likely to die.
If my 4runner his any one of those "5-star" frontal crash economy or midsize cars, I'm probably walking away fine and it is anybody's guess as to the occupants of the car.
Just do a google news search for "4runner crash dead" and tons of articles will come up...in almost all of them the 4runner driver was ok or ok-ish and it was the folks in the car that didn't make it. The articles are sobering, however they clearly demonstrate that he with the most mass lives.
If a truck hits a lighter unibody car (aka, the real world) that car is going to act as a crumple zone for the truck. Pretty much every study show that you're safer off in a truck. In truck vs car collisions the occupants of the truck are usually ok, while the car occupants are more likely to die.
If my 4runner his any one of those "5-star" frontal crash economy or midsize cars, I'm probably walking away fine and it is anybody's guess as to the occupants of the car.
Just do a google news search for "4runner crash dead" and tons of articles will come up...in almost all of them the 4runner driver was ok or ok-ish and it was the folks in the car that didn't make it. The articles are sobering, however they clearly demonstrate that he with the most mass lives.
Last edited:
Thai
Elite Member
Mass matters. You are correct.
BUT, are you sure that you will always crash into an econobox? What if you crash into a F150? Telephone pole? Concrete barrier?
Go to Texas and see how many trucks and SUVs on the road vs. Geo Metro!
(This was one reason why i got out of my Prius and got something bigger, MDX.)
We can also go into rollover risks and roof strength when 4runner does hit a lower vehicle. Roof strength before 2013 was not good. Current 4runner barely gets a GOOD rating.
You're making excuses for Toyota. There is no reason that Toyota could not improve small-offset crash testing...esp when they did improve the roof strength for the refresh.
Knight-Errant
New member
Not making excuses for Toyota...I said I think it is a silly test for all trucks and in general. All it does is provides a false sense of security since there are multiple factors in every crash.
Like I said, the offset barrier test doesn't represent a real car crash where both cars will crumple.
It is done at 40mph which is a relatively low speed. That is basically two cars approaching each other at 20 mph; not exactly a white knuckle speed. Take two cars approaching at that 40mph and you're looking at a relative 80mph. At 65mph you're looking at a relative 130mph. The difference in engineering a 40mph crash and a relative 130 mph crash is huge. Can anybody say a Honda accord will offer definitive survivability at 70mph in a small overlap crash with another accord at 70mph? No, there are too many factors to consider, including the health and age of the driver.
Cars aren't meant to protect you in all circumstances. If you hit a telephone pole head on 60mph that's tough luck no mater what vehicle you're in. Anytime I encounter concrete barriers I'm going 65-70mph, that is way more than the 40 mph in the test. The concrete barriers also have an upward slope to them, not tall flat edge like in the test, and the slope is there to make the potential crash safer. If you hit one you'll either driver over it and stop on top or flip to the side. Again, that is vastly different than the test than the cars are subjected to.
Smaller cars do better in roll over tests because they are lighter...and they reason why they do better is because they've beefed up the pillars due to newer government regulations...and now you have small and midsize cars that have huge blind spots and are very difficult to see out of, and so you're now more likely to be in an accident. The car is safer in a roll over, but you're also more likely to be in a general crash due to lack of visibility...but you're more likely to survive the crash...unless of course you're on the receiving end of that crash and you're a pedestrian, bicyclist, or motorcyclist that wasn't seen because of the blind-spots.
The point is that modifications to car structure don't exist in a vacuum. Can toyota engineer a 4runner that does great in very controlled and highly orchestrated small overlap test. Yes, sure. Will it be safer in the real world? Perhaps, perhaps not if you're a person who is constantly texting or who drinks and drives, or doesn't get enough sleep each night. How much cost will that add to the final price of the 4runner? (it is not exactly a high volume car). And by pricing it higher now the volume will go down further which means the price will have to go up more or it gets discontinued or removed from the market.
Can they strengthen the roof? Yes. But you're going to be able to see out of it even less with thicker pillars. And if you can't see out, you're more likely to be in an accident or hit a pedestrian. The consumer will be even less likely to buy it when he or she goes for a test drive if seeing out is a pain.
The small overlap test is just a test; it is merely one metric for measuring the performance of a car under a very particular set of circumstances. As the buyer of a vehicle you have to determine how much the rating a car receives from the test actually means to you. You may personally place a high value on the test, that's perfectly ok. I personally don't think it is worth very much, especially when it comes to trucks, and that is ok too.
Last edited:
Thai
Elite Member
Unfortunately, most (if not all) of what you wrote is wrong. Please read IIHS rationale for using 40mph.
Remember, in most instances, when a car crashes into something, it is usually BRAKING at the time of impact. So, even though you may be traveling 60 mph, but by the time that you crash into an object, you are going much slower unless you are distracted or blind.
Of course, there are other factors in a crash! But, i want ONE of the factors to be minimized or eliminated! By your logic, lets not wear seatbelt too! Because it itself can cause injury to internal organs! Or lets disable ABS in all cars in northern climates.
When did anyone say that cars are meant to protect you in every circumstances? You are missing the point.
Cars have less rollover risk because of the LOWER CENTER OF GRAVITY, not because of their lightweight!!!!! SUVs and trucks have higher center of gravity and thus are more rollover prone.
As for thick pillars, you do realize that most cars use HIGH-TENSILE steel, right? Visibility in my MDX is no worst than in your 4runner...i would bet the opposite!
You NEED to read the POST #45 (on page 3) and on. Your "explanations" do not make sense in a vacuum or in real life.
You really do need to read up on these things dude.
Knight-Errant
New member
FARS Encyclopedia:
From the FATALITY ANALYSIS REPORTING SYSTEM....
In 2013 there were 272 fatalities in the Light Truck: Utility Station Wagon category (what the 4runner would classify as) for a total of .6 percent of all fatalities.
.6% were ATV related
.6% encompassed all bus fatalities.
13% were standard pickups.
28.6 % of fatalities were 4 door sedans.
39.7% for all passenger car varieties combined.
And these stats don't account for basic things like...were you wearing a seat belt...and I would imagine alot of those pickup guys in older trucks don't wear seat-belts, and they don't account for things like the age of the car (and therefore the number of safety features).
Again, by in large, you're probably going to fare better than most in the grand scheme of things if you're driving a truck based vehicle.
Edited to specify "Light Truck" category which most crossovers don't qualify as.
From the FATALITY ANALYSIS REPORTING SYSTEM....
In 2013 there were 272 fatalities in the Light Truck: Utility Station Wagon category (what the 4runner would classify as) for a total of .6 percent of all fatalities.
.6% were ATV related
.6% encompassed all bus fatalities.
13% were standard pickups.
28.6 % of fatalities were 4 door sedans.
39.7% for all passenger car varieties combined.
And these stats don't account for basic things like...were you wearing a seat belt...and I would imagine alot of those pickup guys in older trucks don't wear seat-belts, and they don't account for things like the age of the car (and therefore the number of safety features).
Again, by in large, you're probably going to fare better than most in the grand scheme of things if you're driving a truck based vehicle.
Edited to specify "Light Truck" category which most crossovers don't qualify as.
Last edited:
Thai
Elite Member
[/B][/B]
Just reposting.
Just reposting.
Thai
Elite Member
You just don't get it. So, by your logic, any BOF SUV can go without crush zones or even seatbelt??!!
What if 2013 SUVs were mostly unibodies? How many unibodies vs. BOF in 2013 sold and driven?
No one is arguing mass-based physics. You are missing the point here.
Knight-Errant
New member
What I was trying to explain was that when a newer car does rollover it does better (meaning, better than a truck due to the mass since the the roof has less to support) because they are lighter and they not have thicker pillars and supports....sorry I used the wrong terminology. Of course suvs are more likely to roll over...but I adjust and driver slower than I do in a car.
But seriously man, relax and don't take it personally or make it personal. I'm not saying we shouldn't have safety features in cars, and I've never said that. Airbags, seat belts, crumple zones, and ABS are all important. In fact in my last post I said, the raw fatality statistics don't allow us to delve into whether or not a person was wearing a seat-belt; meaning that if you can remove those it would probably skew the statistic even more in favor pickup trucks.
It is challenging to engineer crumple zones that will pass the small overlap test into a heavy BOF vehicle since all the mass is in the frame; and given the fatality stats it is reasonable to to question whether they are needed and whether the time and effort should go into engineering them into a BOF vehicle. If the frame doesn't contact the wall, it will continue to move forward and act as a sheering force on the body. The requirements for the test are easier to pass on smaller cars than they are on trucks.
I did read the IIHS literature on the small overlap test and you're incorrect...I believe you're referring to the Moderate overlap frontal test where they crash into a honeycomb structure to simulate two cars with crumple zones (where the 4runner gets a good rating because it is contacting the frame). In my opinion the rigid wall of the small overlap test isn't realistic, and isn't a concern to me. My point all along has been that it is highly unlikely that I'm going to perfectly clip a solid unmovable structure like tree or telephone pole at 40mph, and in a real world crash (with another car or another truck) both vehicles will crumple, they'll rotate, and none of that happens in this controlled test with a rigid wall.
Small overlap frontal test
To help drive further improvements in frontal crash protection, the Institute in 2012 introduced a small overlap frontal crash test. The test is designed to replicate what happens when the front corner of a vehicle collides with another vehicle or an object like a tree or utility pole. This crash test is a challenge for some safety belt and airbag designs because occupants move both forward and toward the side of the vehicle.
In the small overlap frontal test, a vehicle travels at 40 mph toward a 5-foot-tall rigid barrier. A Hybrid III dummy representing an average-size man is positioned in the driver seat. Twenty-five percent of the total width of the vehicle strikes the barrier on the driver side.
End of the day though, even with all those features; cars with the most mass are going to be the most survivable. I would be less likely to buy a car if it didn't ace the small overlap test, today it is expected. But I don't for a second think that the car is safer because it passed a government test. Driver responsibility and being alert are going to keep you safer in the long run, more so than putting your faith in the fact your car has a 5 star rating that came from the government. I mean the Chevy cobalt got a "good" rating and how many people got killed because GM just didn't care enough to fix a faulty ignition switch? You never know what it is that will get you in the end.
Last edited:
Thai
Elite Member
Yeah, you miss the point. Not sure what else to say.
