Find Reviews by Make:
After early versions of the 2010 Mustang Convertible were caught crushing crash dummy heads, Ford re-worked its retro cruiser for a less “mind-blowing” crash test performance. If you’ve got a 2010 ‘stangvertible in mind, you might want to make sure it was built after December of last year.
20 Comments on “Ford Beats The Mustang Convertible Crunch...”
Read all comments
And people wonder why I want a true coupe version of a Miata (hopefully the FT-86 fits the bill). Chassis rigidity is not something that verts are known for.
Question – Shouldn’t Ford have known it was going to fail? If so, why didn’t they fix it?
agree 1000% with jmo
a car leaving the factory in 2009 that costs the thick end of $30k+ should not have this “issue” (well any factory outside of china)
and yet Toyota get hung… what a world we live in
You could think so, but it doesn’t always happen this way. When Toyota introduced their new Tundra, it didn’t get 5 stars. Toyota was very unhappy about it. They added some knee airbags later and got the 5 stars.
Point being, you can test several on your own, but you still might miss something in the gov’t test.
Funny, cars.com has everything other than rear collisions listed as “acceptable” or “good” for the IIHS for the 2008 mustang convertible. What changed? Was the non-refreshed vert even crash tested?
http://www.cars.com/go/crp/research.jsp?superTrim=&makeid=14&logtype=7&mode=&destURL=features.jsp&year=2008&acode=USB80FOC052A0&modelid=179§ion=features&myid=9311§ion=features&mode=&aff=national
Wow… a car with a canvas roof that retracts into trunk isn’t as crashworthy as one with a metal roof?…..Who knew?
I agree that convertibles are not purchased with crash safety in mind. I wouldn’t want to flip one either. Will this affect sales? No.
Having said that Ford made the fix pretty quickly.
Were the previous generation worse or the same as the 2010’s?
The IIHS videos that show the early version of the ~2004 S197 show the header slapping down the driver’s head … the vids from not much later show the header not doing a slap-down motion … I was surprised to see this happening again in the 2010 model … new vehicles should be taking one step forward, not two steps back …
Maybe it would perform better if it wasn’t wearing 1930’s whitewalls.
The 2005-09 Mustang convertible earned an Acceptable rating in the same test. But the head still hit the A-pillar, just not as hard as in the early 2010 model. In that generation model, another running change had to be made in the ’07 model year because the driver door opened in the first of two tests.
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=816
@Quentin –you do know there’s a bit of difference between a car that is designed from the start to be a roadster (the Miata), and a large coupe that was designed.. as a coupe, and then had the roof cut off, right?
Huge difference in stiffness.
There is a difference, but a vert simply isn’t going to be as stiff as a fixed roof coupe. Physics and all that.
I really do like the Miata. I test drove an 06 before settling on the more practical GTI. I loved the Miata. This is just another tick mark in the reasons why I didn’t buy it.
So safety and quality are not job #1…so what is?
Hiding from unintended acceleration data that shows Ford is just as bad as Toyota in that regard?
Can the changes that Ford made be retro fitted to older models?
Hopefully!
Responding to an identified problem quickly, and apparently effectively.
Sounds like the right approach. Ford appears to have learned from past experiences.
At the risk of sounding like a complete idiot, I wonder if the test results would have been much different had the top been up.
Before I get the snarky comments that I may so richly deserve, I’ve rented Mustang convertibles a few times in recent years. The top frame is nothing as structurally sound as the coupe’s steel roof, but it’s also not a flimsy piece of canvas with a few umbrella bows built in.
I’ve seen very minor additions to a vehicle that had significant effects on crash tests, so I wonder if simply having the top up would provide just enough support to prevent the windshield header from flexing in and slightly downward. And since convertibles are more often driven with the top up, it may be a risk that some owners could live with.
Any engineers out there who care to weigh in on this?
I doubt that the top being up would have much positive effect (yes I am an engineer). It is a collection of metal segments rather than a stamped outer and inner roof section. And it is designed to move, so it is unlikely to be much better than if the top were down. They crash tested a worse cash scenario which is the right thing to do. (I also did some crash testing for a seating supplier.) As a test engineer, I loved breaking things. Ah, the FMVSS 207/210 test, and the 201 test also, those were the days.
Thanks, detlump…I appreciate you taking my question seriously.
And if you ever worked for Ford to ensure compliance with those FMVSS (I looked them up), I sincerely thank you for contributing to my survival of the teen and college driving years (1980 to 1987).
One of the reason I don’t think I will ever own a convertible again.
Anyone know if the hard tops that are removable are any better or worse than the traditional rag tops? The hard tops I am describing are like the Vette and the Solstice Coupe. Not too many people make them cars that have this anymore.
I doubt that a removable hardtop would make much difference in crashworthiness, as the top is not all that robustly attached to the body anyway.
However, a convertible top–hard or soft–may help protect occupants in certain situations. For example, in a rollover, the top may help keep arms from flopping around and possibly being crushed. But then again, what’s the point of driving a convertible if one is going to go around with the top up all the time?