Most surprising IIHS test results of 2024

[@calvinwalker4654]

The last one could be a Volkswagen commercial. “At Volkswagen we’re plowing through the competition!”

[@evdanielsson7]

yikes. the Taos was my biggest surprise the way it plowed through that “car”

[@jblyon2]

It's actually worse than where Hyundai/Kia was 5-7 years ago, but those vehicles actually appeared to attempt some form of braking before slamming into the object... The Taos just plowed right into it full speed ahead.

[@martinobartino210]

I wonder what the reason is. Hopefully just a software or calibration issue ​@@jblyon2

[@juanirving276]

It is very weird because I owned a 19 R and the front and rear collision warning system worked really well, even saved the car a few times. I'm not too familiar on the Taos but I'm wondering if they have the sensors that aren't under the badge like in the R

[@garyroberts6668]

Makes sense that after all those years of the IIHS not even testing the largest SUV’s at all, they completely flop because the manufacturers probably didn’t see this coming. Can’t wait to see how the Super Duty does when/if the IIHS decides to start testing heavy-duty pickups.

[@StraightUpRainbows]

Big SUVs had a really disappointing year.

[@ОлександрІвасик-и5о]

Ці великі позшляховики якось недуже безпечні фольги як буто зроблені я розумію повині бути зони зминання ну ненастільки це неприпустиму для повнорозмірниз позашляховиків і взагалі вонилайно шевроле тахоє був нас сімї він розхіт 18 25 літрів непороворткий упралятидудевашко припаркувати неможливо часті поломки з по двигуну і підвісті дороге обслуговуння машина жере гроші як иільки може єдиний плюс просторий і сидіння удобні плюси закінчилися краще універсал шкода октавія універсали чудова машина поміняли

[@chezzyperson3339]

Especially the Grand Highlander

[@-YELDAH]

Big SUVs are disappointing

[@MistSoalar]

it seems volvo and mazda did well in IIHS, but I agree overall. That Expedition small overlap was like wtf.

[@StraightUpRainbows]

@@MistSoalar Volvo and Mazda almost always do good. Yeah, that Expedition one was YIKES.

[@bradfordjhart]

I wish they would test those so-called self-driving cars that they have in San Francisco and Austin, Texas now. I don't think those have ever had an independent evaluation about what their capabilities really are

[@Innerbrave]

I bet that will come, I think we're about 5 years out from that, NHSTSA seems slow as molasses but they need to catch up to China and do it quickly. We'll see I guess.

[@filepz629]

❤️‍🔥IIHS❤️‍🔥

[@RobbieFitzgerald]

How often are accidents in the small overlap category?

[@martinr8278]

Nicely done Hyundai and Volkswagen, making the roads are much safer😏😂😂😂😂

[@chiiiiweeeee]

you should also learn how to avoid an accident safely without relying on these electronic systems to save you

[@youling1997]

Not surprised. just the limitation of radar

[@yunuscanemre]

What ? Most SUVs pass the front crash avoidance with ease.

[@Wh4tShouldIPutHere]

o wow

[@carlaobrasilia]

importante

[@krisl3228]

It would be nice if you can explain what was the surprise. Was an acceptable rating a surprisingly good result or bad? Edited: to make my comment more of a neutral tone

[@iihs-hldi]

These were all surprising in a bad way. Vehicles have been acing our small overlap test for years. The Tahoe and Expedition's results were largely due to structural intrusion into the occupant space. The Prologue came up short due to airbag coverage (the Acura ZDX had a similar issue but we chose to highlight the Prologue here). The Tucson and Taos were standouts in their test groups for lackluster performance in crash avoidance tests. We've linked some additional videos with more info as well! Thanks for watching!

[@matthewbowen5841]

I think these are all surprisingly poor results.

[@ryanpham3308]

I don't know if I would call the Tucson's crash prevention results surprising.

[@jblyon2]

Hyundai/Kia performed incredibly poorly on forward collision prevention a number of years back, so the rear results aren't exactly surprising. I doubt they'd even look at the actual effectiveness until an org like IIHS or some govt testing illustrates how ineffective the systems are.