Comments on: IIHS Top Safety Picks- Why is BMW missing?

By: Albert Jeong

Albert Jeong — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 20:40:00 +0000

As of 2011/11/9, still none of BMWs conducted roof test other than 5 and 3 series. The new 5 got Good but, the 3 series only got average… Can you guess what their standard on the older BMW’s on their own testing facility was? I am pretty sure that BMW wasn’t sure of getting a Good on the roof tests on the older BMWs. That is why they didn’t ask IIHS for the tests. Mercedes and Audi still have 4 top safety picks. What a shame BMW. http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=458

By: X5 SoB

X5 SoB — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:51:36 +0000

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is funded by the Insurance industry, and as such, is biased. They are always performing tests that cars will consistently fail, since most cars are engineered to comply with Federal standards, not the IIHS. They do this in order to justify insurance companies charging higher rates, so doing something like not testing BMWs is not suprising. Bunch of assholes, IMO. :(

By: Max

Max — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:12:45 +0000

Do you guys don`t understand that this press release is paid by “someone”?
Lets make an experiment – frontal crash Kia Soul vs. 3 series.
Anyone has idea who will survive?!!

By: hboyd328

hboyd328 — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:58:49 +0000

Its just nice to know that at least when driving a BMW, you have a greater chance of being able to outmaneuver a potential accident… A lot better than having an accident, IMO. :)

By: Doug

Doug — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:05:56 +0000

It’s just the top roof panel though, and it’s not stressing the panel in the way that CF would give benefits. Maybe the extra tensile strength cold help distribute the load, unless the roof is mounted via bolts and the stress is not evenly distributed.

I’ve heard that CF has superior crush characteristics than steel, when a part is constructed with that in mind. It probably crushes at the point of impact, retaining the structural integrity of the part, rather than bending/crumpling the steel member into a different shape which has different structural characteristics.

By: Doug

Doug — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:46:29 +0000

That’s true, if it’s not fast enough to roll the car in more likely scenarios, then there’s not enough energy to damage the car when it’s turned over.

By: The Lee

The Lee — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:52:33 +0000

Pillar strength is roof strength. There’s no real structural integrity to the flat panel on the roof itself. It’s all i the support of the roof. Otherwise the test would simply tell you how badly the roof will dent in a hail storm.

All of the areas that are effected by these tests are the same areas that are still metal in even the CF-roofed BMWs.

By: Bryce

Bryce — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:08:31 +0000

I guess I should have watched the videos before posting. Still, I wonder how the carbon fibre-roof affects the strength of the vehicle’s roof. Also, after watching these videos I’m pretty sure I’d feel safer driving a Bimmer than some of the other cars that made the list.

Another reason to never own a Kia.

By: Bryce

Bryce — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:00:28 +0000

I wonder how the carbon-fibre roof of the M3 responds to the pressure test. The metal roofs are allowed to sink 5 inches with 4 times the vehicle’s weight, but I would think that carbon fibre wouldn’t sink at all until there’s enough pressure to break it. I suppose the pillars would still sink the same as any other vehicle, but then they’re testing pillar strength and not roof strength.

By: Miles Ransom

Miles Ransom — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:08:02 +0000

go vw and bmw!

By: Jordan

Jordan — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:52:24 +0000

yes it did prove the X6 is very hard to roll and therefore should naturally handle well. however, most accidents never end up like that (rolling onto its side at a slow speed and sliding a short distance). i don’t think what i asked for is unrealistic. the front offset crash and side impact tests virtually write the vehicle off. all i was trying to point out is that this “test” barely proved anything, other than the fact the X6 is hard to roll. i have never seen a vehicle with as little damage as that X6 had in ANY rollover crash and even the ones that don’t roll over, most are damaged far more than this X6.

any emergency workers on here would probably tell you that the 3rd rollover test BMW shown is highly unrealistic of what would happen in the real world. all im trying to say is it would have been nice to see “BMW Safety Testing” taken a little further.

i definitely give kudos to BMW for doing this type of testing and showing to the public what they do. I’m a BMW fan and I love the X6.

By: Jag

Jag — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:25:33 +0000

i think the slope is 40-45 degrees, that’s quite high and rarely met in common driving / accidents. the thing is that the X6 is proved to not easily be rolled over, and once rolled over, it is not much damaged. if everything happened the way you want, there’s only 1 thing to be proved: the X6 is such an unreliable and unsafe vehicle. of course that would never happen.

By: Jordan

Jordan — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:43:56 +0000

i think personally that rollover test with the X6 could have been done better. it should have been done on a higher slope and had the X6 end up on it’s back with at least the front window smashed, something more serious than what it showed. it really didn’t look like anything happened in that last rollover test …. :S