Another Jeep Wrangler crash test.

[ClaytonW]

From an Aussie perspective the JL’s 1 star is a real disappointment, especially when you consider toyota’s 79 series landcruiser, which has a body on steel ladder frame with solid axels front & rear has a 5 star rating? I love the JL Rubicon, but jeep really missed the mark here…
http://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/toyota/landcruiser-cab-chassis/604bff

Unfortunately, you cannot compare a vehicle tested in 2016 with vehicles tested today. The testing is completely different (from 2018). If Land Cruiser would be tested today, it could be much worse. See here : https://www.ancap.com.au/ancap_evolution
BTW, it does not mean that Land Cruiser 70 series is not the best 4x4 in the World. Unfortunately, it is not sold here in the USA so I have JL Rubicon

Sponsored

 

[ClaytonW]

It looks that most people do not understand ANCAP testing process (very similar to Euro NCAP). I will try to explain why JL has just one star and how it could be improved.

ANCAP safety rating is explained here in detail: https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings-explained
I will try to summarize it in brief. I am not an expert and I can be wrong. Please correct me if you find any errors.


ANCAP rating has 4 categories.
1. Adult Occupant Protection
2. Child Occupant Protection
3. Vulnerable Road User Protection
4. Safety Assist

The overall star rating of a vehicle is limited by its lowest performing area of assessment. That means, if a car has, for example, 5 stars for three categories and 2 stars for one category, its total rating is 2 stars only.

The ANCAP testing was substantially changed in 2018 so you cannot compare its results to previously tested vehicles. But you can compare JL for example to Suzuki Jimny which is very similar and got 3 stars.

Category 1 - Adult Occupant Protection
This is a category which most resembles classic crash tests as we knew them in previous years. JL received 50% in this category. It is barely enough for 2 stars rating. There are two problems. The first problem is an autonomous emergency braking (AEB) missing. That is 4 points down. JL can have it but it's not a standard. Adding this feature would mean 61% and 3 stars in the category.
The main problem is the Oblique pole test. This tests actually tests head airbags. And JL does not have them. It's not probably doable because of the hard-top/soft-top roofs. I am not sure if Jeep can figure out how to place head airbags to JL cage. With head airbags and autonomous braking (AEB), the total would be 82% - enough even for 5 stars (or at least 4 stars if Jeep would not get maximum 8 points for the Oblique pole test)!


Category 2 - Child Occupant Protection
Jeep has 80%, enough for 5 stars rating. No problems here.

Category 3 - Vulnerable Road User Protection
This category rates pedestrian and cyclist's safety. JL has 49% here , enough for 3 stars. Jeep cannot probably change pedestrian head impacts test results. It's an SUV made for off-roading with a high clearance and 13.42 points (out of 24) is not so bad.
But 12 points can be added for autonomous breaking (AEB) which can see pedestrians and cyclists. Jeep does not have it even as an option. Its AEB is an old system which can see just other cars. With addition of a new system as a standard equipment, JL could easily get over 70% - enough for 5 stars.

Category 4 - Safety assist
And this is the reason for the one star only rating. With AEB, blind spot monitoring and adaptive cruise control, which now can be purchased as packages, JL could easily get over 50% which would mean 3 stars rating in this category.
And, of course, that would also mean 3 stars total safety rating. It's a Jeep, 4x4 vehicle and 3 stars would be enough, problem solved. For a better rating, Jeep would have to add some lane assists features and resolve the problem with the Oblique pole test and head airbags (see Category 1).

Conclusion
I think that for 2020, Jeep will probably add Safety group and Advanced Safety group as a standard equipment. That should be enough for 3 stars ANCAP and Euro NCAP ratings. Everybody will be happy. If you have purchased these packages with your Jeep, you may have a 3 stars vehicle and maybe, you can sleep better

BTW, I don't like JL's frontal test results - passive safety. They look really bad. I know that improving this is not significant to total results, but this should be improved. It also illustrates how bad is the testing method, which depends excessively on electronic assist systems and almost ignores a passive safety of the car.

 

[Sean L]

See, I've always felt this way that mass had more to do with surviving a multi-vehicle collision than anything else.

I always say I'd take a '70's Cadillac over a new econo-box if the two vehicles had to collide (assuming the Caddy had 3 point seat belts)

But then I'm always assured that I'm wrong and the occupants of the brand new tiny car with airbags and crumple zones will fare better. I just don't believe it, so I guess I'm just destined to be wrong (shrug)

Newer vehicles do fare better than older ones in crashes as you can see here in a head on vehicle-on-vehicle test.

 

[Shots]

.... The absurdity of smashing something against a well has and always will be ridiculous. ...

It does seem odd, and most people don't really get the point. The test is intended ti simulate a collision with a vehicle of equal mass at equal speed. I know someone says that if you crash your JL into another JL head-on at 50 mph it's like crashing into a wall at 100. It's not, it's like crashing into a wall at 50 mph. I know that probably just blew a few people's minds and/or they're calling BS The part of the equation that people forget, is that the other JL is also absorbing impact. Half of it, just like your half. So both vehicles are brought to an immediate stop from 50, just like hitting a wall at 50. There are mathematical and physical tests to validate this.
Anyway, it's a lot easier, cheaper, repeatable to smash a vehicle into a barrier rather than another vehicle. Additionally, the barrier eliminates variables that a second vehicle would bring into question. The data is accurate, however absurd it may seem.

CRASH a Mazda CX-5 against a Wrangler and I guarantee the Wrangler occupants will be safer. Not a brick wall. Higher chassis to lower chassis. Simple physics.

I only used the CX-5 as an example based on it's rating as one of the safest 2019 SUV (per a google search for safest suv). I have no preference to it, and I'm not implying it's any safer than vehicle A, B or C. I'm not sure how it would fair against a Wrangler, because I haven't seen that crash yet. One thing I've learned from years of experience is that theoretical crashes can be very different than the real thing. Some times a vehicle expected to win, doesn't. Sometimes the principle direction of force has just as much to do with survival as the mass, height, speed, etc.

Newer vehicles do fare better than older ones in crashes as you can see here in a head on vehicle-on-vehicle test.

Great video. I know the common opinion is that big, heavy old cars are safer. And yes the mass does come into play in a collision, but it's been shown time and time again that newer cars are safer. That video illustrates it very well, and is supported by real world numbers. Fatalities have been on the decline for decades now. There are minor surges from time to time, but the trend has been downward as vehicles have become safer.
As the graph below shows, the total number of fatalities has declined (blue line). Taking into consideration the increased population, and subsequent increase in people driving the improved safety is more evident when you look at fatalities by population (black line). In both case you can see the continued improvement as vehicles have become safer.

 

[D60]

I thought the Aussie standard was head-on into a crazed, suicidal Roo??

No???

 

[Shots]

Funny that Australia would be so picky about safety ratings, giving poor scores to a vehicle that doesn't have standard autonomous features when everything in the country will kill you. Even the unsafest vehicle in the country is probably the safest place you could be.

 

[jbozz]

What? You don't drive your Jeep 70mph into a concrete wall?

 

[jbozz]

And this is all we need to know about those European crash tests

 

[GGolds]

I wonder what grade my Harley received?

Probably the same as mine did when I slid on sand and hit a tree. Not very good!

Sponsored