misleading because it says 2013 top safety pick.....

 

Maybe this will be a new test going forward? Like the can claim it on 2013 but not the '14 models.

I hit a pole in a car once doing about 35. It's not something I ever want to do again. Luckly I hit it almost dead center. Still totaled the car though.

 

The Syrian foreign minister told news people they didn't use gas on civilians. They invited group to take THEIR tour as proof of their innocence. This crash report gives us EXPERT testimony that once again Patriots suck. I am older and believe that both stories are smoke and mirror lies.

 

Croat, can you explain how you determined that the Patriot was 10th.?

It appears that the vehicles grouped according to the right column are listed in alphabetical order. So, the 5 vehicles with the red "P" seem to be equal, not ranked 7, 8,9, 10, and 11.

Does the article say somewhere else that the vehicles are ranked in order 1 to 17? Is there more data that shows the Buick Encore had a score higher than the Patriot?

 

Hey Croat buy ya a Mitsubishi or Subaru and start a Political Forum on one of their Websites if they have a Political Forum. Political Trolling......!!!!!!!!!

 

Wait...what's that sound I hear? It's the sound of all of our insurance policies going up.

 

Very odd, explain how the Mitsubishi Outlander Sport got second. But the Mitsubishi Outlander came in second last. Is it not he same car?

 

I'd punch myself directly in the scrotum before I ever considered purchasing a Forester.

 

 

Friends wife has a forester ... I wouldn't wish that upon anyone.

 

If asked, my wife would probably agree with your statement. She's been married to one for over 30 years!

 

Cute

 

Just for the Patriot, they used a 2012 model.
Why not use 2013 or 2014 like they did with other cars?
Did the other vehicles have changes in 2013/2014 and the Patriot didnt'?

 

So, a front-on collision with a small (25%) overlap is rated as "poor", but the same collision with a moderate overlap (what moderate equates to isn't specified, but you'd have to guess at around 50%) is rated as "good". In that case, if a crash is inevitable, the safest thing to do is to steer towards whatever it is you are going to hit.

 

umm I'm not going to do that... but you can if you want !

 

I think people are making WAY too much out of vehicles( and the Patriot )not passing this test. The fact is it is a NEW test and these vehicles never had to pass it before. The Patriot is pretty much unchanged other than some cosmetics since it's introduction in 2007. I wouldn't expect it to pass a test that was 1st announced in August of 2012. At the least I wouldn't hold it against it if it didn't.

We need to give the car mfg's a chance to work on vehicles to pass this test if this is indeed the new standard for judging safety. I just don't get people being upset if any vehicle doesn't pass it. Going forward if this is the standard to meet and the new cars don't meet it THEN get upset. IMO 2015 is when you start expecting cars to meet it.

Expecting the Patriot to pass a test developed in mid 2012 when the vehicle was designed in 2006 is like a teacher giving you your final exam on the 1st day of class and expecting you to get an A. Just unrealistic.

I for one feel very safe in my Patriot.

 

It looks like the Patriot would have done much better if the side curtain airbags deployed.

They should just have the side curtain reprogrammed to deploy when the front airbag deploys.

 

I'm so sick of negative thread titles for the jeep patriot. The jeep patriot does NOT rank poorly in front crash tests. This is a negative generalization that comes from a certain weird little test that was just invented a few months ago of a very particular crash angle. Are we all trying to prevent chrysler from selling and making future patriots? naysayers feed off this crap from this forum.

 

Jdog is right. They tested a certain angle which by passed all the standard safety items. It's total BS. They even called the Patriot a top safety pick.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

 

I imagine a lot of vehicle classes will fail this NEW test, since the vehicles were built BEFORE the test, the manufacturers did not design them for the NEW test!

This just in, all vehicles fail the new IIHS drive off a 200ft cliff test. IIHS also expects many vehicles to fail their upcoming new roadside bomb and Godzilla stomp tests. The gov't responded to IIHS saying the roadside bomb test was totally unrealistic, but demanded car manufacturers to prepare for regulations requiring roofs that can withstand 16,000 tons of irradiated lizard weight.

This is from the other IIHS thread, just thought I'd share

 

Here we go again...the IIHS is lauded as The Voice Of God when it comes to vehicle safety. Well, they're not. And you guys have figured out some of it.

The offset crash test is new, for one. Heavy offset crashes are fairly rare in real life compared to the other numerous kinds of crashes out there. The fact is, all of those "Five Star Safety Rated" vehicles that pass these tests with flying colors are engineered to pass the test. So when they all start to achieve good scores...the IIHS moves the target again so they stay relevant. While I will concede they have contributed to some advances in vehicle safety, they (and the head of it) are very press-happy. The more press they get, the happier they are. Remember when they crashed the '59 Impala? That was simply to get more air time.

I work in the industry that funds this 'institute'. I once sat through a meeting where (I think it was) Dr. Lund espoused that driver training had no positive impact on safety. His view was that drivers will always be morons, so the car has to do the job for them. As a person who teaches advanced and teen driving, a racer, and someone who has avoided accidents because of my own training, I found his comments idiotic and insulting.

Crash tests should be viewed with the same weight and skepticism as a CarFax report. It's a tool for your toolbox, but should not be accepted verbatim as Holy Scripture.