European Crash Test Results

[MtCamper]

It's true, the JL isn't the safest vehicle on the road. I purchased mine because it's fun to drive, tows easily behind my fifth wheel, plays great in both the desert and the woods and has pretty good street manners. Safety ratings are only part of the equation. If crash tests are you #1 criteria, go to another vehicle. BTW, I also own a fun to drive Corvair. Guess that makes me a dead man walking.

Sponsored

 

[Sorbs]

These are Trolls, forum needs a section called Assclown asylum, send all the trolls and whiners and their threads over to one section so they can bash jeeps, complain about quality and lousey dealer service, Consumer Reports, how every other make, model is better than Jeep, while the other 99% of us can discuss other topics relavent to their new Wrangler.

Agreed! The “consumers report” crowd need their own area to post.

Fun fact - the windshield folds down and tops and doors are removable. It ain’t a fricken minivan.

 

[wordslayer]

Wow, didn't expect any of this. I had no idea people could be so defensive. I thought the question was very legitimate.

As for some of the other snarky comments that came my way:

No, I do not want a minivan. Thanks for the ignorance based false dichotomy references.

I am not a troll. I own a jeep grand cherokee now.

unsafe at any speed was a ralph nader reference. Seemed like an innocent enough topic starter, but in hindsight, I had no idea the sensitivity here was that high.

And no, I don't base my decisions "just on youtube." My being here seeking more information should have been an obvious reference that I wasn't doing that. If you read my original post I actually stated, "unless I learn something different from this post."

And for those that said I didn't search, I did do a google search before I got here and didn't see much at all about it there, so I came here and only saw some threads on heel toe and steering, which didn't *appear* to be related to what my topic was regarding.

thank you, Plankeye. I haven't read thoroughly through the link you provided yet, but after glancing through it, it looks like the kind of information I was looking for.

 

[Guy N Cognito]

If safety against ramming a concrete wall at 40 mph is your biggest concern, then you should probably move on...

 

[mwilk012]

Wow, didn't expect any of this. I had no idea people could be so defensive. I thought the question was very legitimate.

As for some of the other snarky comments that came my way:

No, I do not want a minivan. Thanks for the ignorance based false dichotomy references.

I am not a troll. I own a jeep grand cherokee now.

unsafe at any speed was a ralph nader reference. Seemed like an innocent enough topic starter, but in hindsight, I had no idea the sensitivity here was that high.

And no, I don't base my decisions "just on youtube." My being here seeking more information should have been an obvious reference that I wasn't doing that. If you read my original post I actually stated, "unless I learn something different from this post."

And for those that said I didn't search, I did do a google search before I got here and didn't see much at all about it there, so I came here and only saw some threads on heel toe and steering, which didn't *appear* to be related to what my topic was regarding.

thank you, Plankeye. I haven't read thoroughly through the link you provided yet, but after glancing through it, it looks like the kind of information I was looking for.

The issue is that this is such a repeat topic, if you had been the first person to ask it would have been less hostile. Constantly having to defend the wrangler against european government standards is pointless, as the low safety ratings are not because of impact performance. People never read past the "1/5" in the report to see that it is because of the opinion of some communist twit overseas.

 

[Todkavonic]

Wow, didn't expect any of this. I had no idea people could be so defensive. I thought the question was very legitimate.

As for some of the other snarky comments that came my way:

No, I do not want a minivan. Thanks for the ignorance based false dichotomy references.

I am not a troll. I own a jeep grand cherokee now.

unsafe at any speed was a ralph nader reference. Seemed like an innocent enough topic starter, but in hindsight, I had no idea the sensitivity here was that high.

And no, I don't base my decisions "just on youtube." My being here seeking more information should have been an obvious reference that I wasn't doing that. If you read my original post I actually stated, "unless I learn something different from this post."

And for those that said I didn't search, I did do a google search before I got here and didn't see much at all about it there, so I came here and only saw some threads on heel toe and steering, which didn't *appear* to be related to what my topic was regarding.

thank you, Plankeye. I haven't read thoroughly through the link you provided yet, but after glancing through it, it looks like the kind of information I was looking for.

Yeah that Nader reference really triggered someone. Amusing stuff.

It was kind of a hog-pile on you, for my part, I apologize. It's not typical. I suspect there's a little bit of a nerve there. Did you find Poseidon's thread?

 

[Shots]

If safety against ramming a concrete wall at 40 mph is your biggest concern, then you should probably move on...

Or don't drive into a concrete wall. Not like they jump out in front of you.

To answer the OP though. I tend to look at NHTSA ratings, in addition to real world results. No, there aren't any frontal crash test ratings from NHTSA available for the JL Wranlger yet, but we can make some comparisons. The JL has a 3 star rating on roll over, which is the same as the JK. Makes sense, since they aren't super different. As such I would assume the JL will end up with a 3 star minimum for frontal crash since that's how the JK scored. Keep in mind that is an assumption so I could be wrong.
With that in mind, your Grand Cherokee is rated very well (I had a '14 Overland), with a 5 star rating from NHTSA. This rating makes sense, considering the WK2 is a bigger vehicle than the JL. There's more room for crushing components to absorb energy, and the larger cabin gives occupants more room to move without hitting anything. In a vehicle vs vehicle collision you're also bringing more mass into the equation than the Wrangler. To simplify the physics in crashes, it comes down to Newton's 2nd law of motion which states Force is equal to the mass times the acceleration (F=MA). Therefor if we crash a 5,000 lbs WK2 into 5,000 lbs F150 at the matching speeds, they'll bring the same amount of force into the impact. The Grand Cherokee should fair decently in such a collision. However you take those same speeds and crash a 4,000 lbs JL into that 5,000 lbs F150 and the JL will sustain more damage. It's not bringing as much mass into the impact and therefor has less force to apply. While that may be good in some situations (such as the concrete wall test, more on that in a minute), it's going to let the heavier pick-up do more damage to the JL than it would the WK2, (or redirect it more acutely in an angular impact). In these cases, it makes sense the larger/heavier Grand Cherokee is safer in a collision than the Wrangler.

To further this topic, there's been reference to European standards. This testing involves a concrete barrier. While this is an effective test and it does show a direct comparison between vehicles, it doesn't factor in anything other than that vehicle. For example the tiny little Smart scores well on such tests because it's bringing in very little mass, and subsequently much less force (remember F=MA) into the collision. If you smash the 2,000 lbs Smart into a wall at 40 mph, it's going to have 1/2 the force of a 4,000 lbs Wrangler hitting that same wall at the same 40 mph. So, gee it sounds like the Smart is a safer car than the Wrangler, which is exactly what the European tests would suggest. The problem is, what happens when you're not hitting walls? What if you crash into that 5,000 lbs F150, which is a more likely scenario. The JL is only 1,000 lbs lighter than the pickup, whereas the Smart is 3,000 lbs lighter. Heck that's 1.5 times the Smarts own weight. So what happens in that crash? The Smart is decimated, and thrown way off it's original path. I think we would all rather hit that F150 in a Wrangler than a Smart car.... I know I would.

So the point in all that, is to simply note that you need to look at the tests subjectively. Is the Wrangler the safest vehicle on the road? No, but it's not a death trap either. Is it as safe as your Grand Cherokee? No, probably not. If it gives you any piece of mind, I'm an expert in this field and I drive my family around in one. Wear your seatbelt, don't drive recklessly fast, and you should be fine.

 

[mwilk012]

Or don't drive into a concrete wall. Not like they jump out in front of you.

The majority of fatal accidents are single vehicle run off the road, so maybe that's why the concrete wall test is used as the standard.

 

[Shots]

The barrier is designed to simulate an offset head-on collision. These do tend to be among the most violent collisions, so it's worth testing. Using a barrier is cheaper/easier to replicate than smashing two cars together so it makes sense to use it. Likewise it is also an accurate way to have comparable results between vehicles since the only variable is the test car. I don't disagree with their methodology, and the tests are certainly valuable. Unfortunately these tests can only tell you how the test car will fair against a solid object or a vehicle equal to it's own weight at a matched speed.
As for fatal crashes. Probably 75% of the fatal crashes that I'm call out to involve multiple vehicles (I'll check my records and see what the percentage actually is). I will concede that if it's a single vehicle into a fixed object, and the driver is the deceased (therefore no prosecution), they're probably not calling me. Based on my experience single vehicle fatalities usually involve an overturn, though there are times when it's vehicle versus a tree, house or some other fixed object. While the barrier test does give us data for such crashes, it is intended to simulate another car. I like that you're thinking, and it is good theory though.

 

[mwilk012]

The barrier is designed to simulate an offset head-on collision. These do tend to be among the most violent collisions, so it's worth testing. Using a barrier is cheaper/easier to replicate than smashing two cars together so it makes sense to use it. Likewise it is also an accurate way to have comparable results between vehicles since the only variable is the test car. I don't disagree with their methodology, and the tests are certainly valuable. Unfortunately these tests can only tell you how the test car will fair against a solid object or a vehicle equal to it's own weight at a matched speed.
As for fatal crashes. Probably 75% of the fatal crashes that I'm call out to involve multiple vehicles (I'll check my records and see what the percentage actually is). I will concede that if it's a single vehicle into a fixed object, and the driver is the deceased (therefore no prosecution), they're probably not calling me. Based on my experience single vehicle fatalities usually involve an overturn, though there are times when it's vehicle versus a tree, house or some other fixed object. While the barrier test does give us data for such crashes, it is intended to simulate another car. I like that you're thinking, and it is good theory though.

The numbers are published, the majority of fatal crashes are single vehicle in the US. In some states as many as 75% of fatalities are single vehicle.

https://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview/2016

 

[Shots]

Just following up after checking my records for 2018. There were more single vehicle fatalities than I expected (35% instead of my estimate 25%).

65% of the crashes involved 2 or more vehicles. 30% were single vehicle with fatalities to pedestrians or the vehicle overturned. Only 5% of them involved a single vehicle versus a fixed object.

As mentioned, I'm not usually called out if there is no prosecution so I'm sure there are more than the 65% single vehicle fatalities that I respond to. That said, even though they may be single vehicle it's more likely to be an overturn or something else than smashing into a wall.

 

[K enny]

The videos that came along with the European ratings did not look that bad for the JL to me.

 

[Shots]

No it's not bad. Sure, when you compare it to some other vehicles it may seem that way, but they aren't bad at all.

 

[phantomog73]

Chugging gas like a 1970 Buick with a safety score to match?

The drama's getting pretty deep in here...

Actually guzzles no more than my 2014 Silverado did that had to deactivate to 4 cylinders to recieve same mpg's. My wife's mini van with about same weight and same power/torque in v6 also gets same 18/20/23 so judging on weight class of vehicle it fairs about the same. So I am not complaining.

 

[Young04]

Wow, didn't expect any of this. I had no idea people could be so defensive. I thought the question was very legitimate.

As for some of the other snarky comments that came my way:

No, I do not want a minivan. Thanks for the ignorance based false dichotomy references.

I am not a troll. I own a jeep grand cherokee now.

unsafe at any speed was a ralph nader reference. Seemed like an innocent enough topic starter, but in hindsight, I had no idea the sensitivity here was that high.

And no, I don't base my decisions "just on youtube." My being here seeking more information should have been an obvious reference that I wasn't doing that. If you read my original post I actually stated, "unless I learn something different from this post."

And for those that said I didn't search, I did do a google search before I got here and didn't see much at all about it there, so I came here and only saw some threads on heel toe and steering, which didn't *appear* to be related to what my topic was regarding.

thank you, Plankeye. I haven't read thoroughly through the link you provided yet, but after glancing through it, it looks like the kind of information I was looking for.

Yeah...people can be defensive. Jeep folks included. Though not the worst among car nuts. For whatever reason, people have piled onto you on this one.

To answer your question - I would look more deeply into why the results of some crash tests were poor. Some of it is because the Wrangler tested had no automated safety tech.

Real world...do I feel safe in mine? Reasonably so. Would I feel safer in a Mercedes GLS or Audi Q7? Sure. Do I think the Wrangler doors may not hold up as well as in some other vehicles in a side impact collision? Probably but that's common sense. But it's not nearly as unsafe as that lowly Euro test result would suggest (which is in line with cheap Indian-built cars).

Sponsored