Subaru Outback Forums banner

Why do Subaru Outbacks have a lower death rate vs. other midsize SUV's?

15K views 23 replies 14 participants last post by  Sir Sawgrass 
#1 ·
I'm cross shopping 4runners with outbacks and I noticed something interesting with the IIHS death rate statistics. Despite both cars having traction control (which mitigates rollover risk), the Subaru Outback has a lower death rate vs. the 4runner. You can look up the stats here: Driver death rates but here are the figures:

4th gen Outback:
overall: 6
Multi vehicle: 0
single vehicle: 6
rollover: 3

4th gen 4Runner:
Overall: 13
Multi vehicle: 4
Single vehicle: 8
Rollover: 8

Now despite the traction control, I can understand the rollover. What I can't understand is the multi vehicle stats. One would think that the sheer mass of the 4runner would offer better protection vs. the outback in a multi vehicle or even single vehicle crash.

Can anyone comment as to why, in every single category of crash over hundreds of thousands of cars, the Outback is superior to the 4runner?
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Apples and Oranges. A subaru outback is on a car platform, and a 4 runner shares its underpinings with the body on frame Tacoma.

historically speaking SUVs crush under their own weight. and the manufactures as a whole are guilty of not beefing up the safety cage on truck based SUVs and Pickups in a timely manner.

so if you want to compare the 4 runner to something,...you can think of it as a Tacoma with a lot more roof and pillars,...then compare it to a Chevy Tahoe which is still body on frame.

maybe compare a Subaru outback with a bigger Highlander or a smaller Rav4.
 
#3 ·
I will hazard a few guesses:

1. Full-time AWD is more effective at maintaining control than 2WD with traction control or part time 4WD.
2. 4Runner has a much higher center of gravity than an Outback. The boxer engine keeps the weight lower, and the 4Runner has higher ground clearance.
3. 4Runner is 6 years old, designed to lower safety testing standards. Most companies design to what IIHS tests for.
4. Subaru is a company that emphasizes safety more than Toyota.
5. 4Runner is a truck, and trucks are not generally designed as much for safety.
 
#4 ·
Driver demographics is a key variable. In doing safety comparisons, look at similar vehicles with similar buyer demograhics. In looking at the IIHS data, the Outback is classed as a wagon, not an SUV and there are SUVs with better safety ratings than either the 4Runner or Outback (at least on this safety scale).
 
#20 ·
Absolutely spot on. Highlander and SUV owners in general are more aggressive in how/where they use their vehicles plus age/social demographics are key influencers such and family and older owners.

A lot of people want to say the OB is a CUV or SUV it is neither..it is a station wagon with higher ground clearance with AWD. No more no less. Subaru brand identification includes its safety pre-eminence so it is going to afford more safety features than the highlander which is a truck and not subject to the same level of safety requirements and cars.

Another thought..... Up in this neck of the woods during a winter snowstorm...... While traveling on a snow covered highway, the big 4WD SUVs and truck are hauling cuz they they think they can..... So whatyda think the majority of vehicles that are off the road and often on their sides or roofs? Yep..... The "invincibles"
 
#5 ·
How about the number one reason - the 4Runner is a truck, which has different (less stringent) Federal roof structural regulations than cars. Less structural strength in the roof means more injuries and deaths in a rollover accident.
 
#6 ·
There are a bunch of reasons.


Regarding crash avoidance, traction control is great but there are a bunch of other factors, including the effectiveness of AWD, the center of gravity, visibility, safety measures like eyesight, etc. Even with traction control, a low center of gravity is going to greatly help prevent rollovers.


Regarding demographics, they correct for age and gender. However, there are more demographics at play. Any car which tends to appeal more to conservative drivers will fair better. Within Subaru, for instance, Outback is gonna beat a WRX STI based on demographics alone. The former is a family wagon and gets driven like a family wagon. The latter is a sports car and appeals to people who want to drive it like one.


There's also a HUGE variation in the design of vehicles. Crumple zones and all that. Trucks, quite frequently, do poorly compared to larger cars. Frame is too stiff. Remember, you want the car to absorb energy! The more crumple and twisted metal upfront, the better, so long as it doesn't go into the passenger compartment. Air bags, seat design, roll cage design, etc. all come into this as well.


Which brings us to probably the #1 advantage for all Subaru's. They have a flat engine mounted low. In a severe frontal, most manufacturers have to keep the engine from being pushed into the driver compartment by stiffening the frame as it gets closer. This has limits depending on how severe the impact is, and again, remember stiffer frame = less energy absorption. Subaru, though, is able to allow the engine to be pushed UNDER the driver. Leg injuries and such may be more likely, but they don't tend to cause death.
 
#11 ·
Thanks for this great explanation. As you pointed out, they adjusted for age and gender, and I agree that attitude is a variable they can't compensate for. This also explains why other midsize SUV's like a Kia Sorento have a 0 for death rate. Their drivers are probably so busy trying not to be seen that they just end up avoiding accidents, ha ha.:laugh:

I'll bet they also don't account for raised vehicles. 4runners tend to be raised to do better off road, which makes them crappy cars to be in an accident with. That being said, I do worry that the boxer engine, if getting hit by a raised car, could actually be a negative. If the incompatibility is large enough, the raised engine could miss the outback's engine altogether and enter the cockpit.
 
#7 ·
When you crash, you want the car to fold up and absorb energy. Mercedes Benz pioneered this safety engineering. Stiff (as in truck frame) is bad in a crash. Think of the 4Runner as the '59 Chevy in this test and you will see a reason why it is statistically more dangerous.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_r5UJrxcck
 
#9 ·
It's corrected for age and gender. But not attitude. So if they're just older, then it doesn't show up. If they differ in their personality, it might.


i.e. are old male Subaru drivers safer than an equally old male 4runner drivers? And same question for equally young drivers, or replace male with female, etc.
 
#10 ·
You can’t use that (OP) data set to compare crash/death safety between models, it is simply a report on specific vehicles. The sample (Exposure) isn’t even normalized, and more importantly the OB/4Runner are in different vehicle classes.
For safety ratings, you’re better off using IIHS crash testing/grading where data is derived using controlled constants. You’ll find the Leg/OB with top safety accolades, even the Highlander beat their higher model 4Runner.
But then again, survivability is a good 95% the driver.
 
#13 ·
I sold a 4runner for a new Subaru.

4runner requires every ounce of driving skill you can muster when in the throws of avoiding a high speed accident. Add that most 4runner drivers lack the skills to keep one right side up in an emergency situations that alone will put the 4runner on a much worse data point than a Subaru.

I had mine up on two wheels more than once while avoiding an accident in process. Pucker factor 11 for sure. Did not miss that aspect at all getting the Subaru. As pointed out car safety standards far out class truck standards. Which is why my kids first car will be a modern car and midsized.
 
#14 ·
And that said, crash tests do favor cars, but they do it by hitting it with an immovable object. I.e a compact may test better than a truck. But in a real head on crash between the two, the truck wins because of momentum. Truck doesn't stop, compact gets put into reverse rather suddenly.

But if hitting a thick cement wall, well, the compact will be better, as the tests show. Both vehicles stop cold and its all about the crumple and any objects entering the cockpit. Plus the truck just had more kinetic energy to absorb in the first place.

As an extreme example, think of an 18 wheeler. I'm guessing they'd test pretty terribly.
 
#15 ·
And that said, crash tests do favor cars, but they do it by hitting it with an immovable object. I.e a compact may test better than a truck. But in a real head on crash between the two, the truck wins because of momentum. Truck doesn't stop, compact gets put into reverse rather suddenly.

But if hitting a thick cement wall, well, the compact will be better, as the tests show. Both vehicles stop cold and its all about the crumple and any objects entering the cockpit. Plus the truck just had more kinetic energy to absorb in the first place.

As an extreme example, think of an 18 wheeler. I'm guessing they'd test pretty terribly.

18 wheeler = Large Trucks from the IIHS:

Fatality Facts
 
#16 ·
As stated by many posters there is a huge range of reasons. Cars are safer than heavy vehicles in higher speed crashes because they fold up, engines slide under the vehicle during head ons, side intrusion bars blah blah blah list goes on. 4x4 owners think they are safer as they have a heavier vehicle around them. They don't manoeuvre as well to avoid collisions and some don't have the complex crumple zones. This often results in ruptured aortas or other major blood vessels and snapping of the spinal chord at the brain stem which usually causes death. I have witnesses people bleed out internally and die before my eyes with very few visible injuries. Often occupants will have multiple smaller injuries that result in system overload and death. This can also be said about driving older cars without crumple zones. In the end Subaru drivers are just safer and probably drive slower.
 
#17 ·
I ended up defering my decision and now I need to go with one or ther other. Still waffling between the two cars. I live in Maine so lots of other pickups and SUV's are giving me pause from buying the outback (which I think I would like to drive a lot more). Came across this head on accident article with a 4runner vs Outback and clearly the 4runner does a lot better... but the outback was clearly an earlier gen outback...

Vehicle Accident News Stories & Articles: October 2011
 
#19 ·
#18 · (Edited)
This is what I can't understand, the data is here / proven ie The car/wagon platform is

generally safer in a crash because the safety requirements for cars are higher / better (ie

crumple zones to absorb crash impact better / safety cage /multiple airbags/better

stability etc) than the one for trucks /SUVs (too rigid / height /stability issues as well)

Regardless of both having ABS stability control etc

And yet people flock like leemings to buys these things!!!!!!!!! truck/SUVs! the perception of being safer in a larger vehicle!
The roll over stats (stability) and single vehicle accidents tell the story as well!

Since 01 Outbacks (and similar Subarus) have a reasonable crash saftey rating and the more recent the better - the early ones perhaps not as good as previously mentioned.

Sure if a larger vehicle hits a smaller one its going come off better but if the larger vehicle doesn't crumple and absorb the impact of the crash, more impact shock is transfered to the occupants and there is the possibility of more serious (internal injuries) as previously mentioned.
Its more preferable that the occupants come off better in a crash than the vehicle.
 
#21 ·
I ask myself the same question the Subaru or the 4runner. I have own many of 4-wheel drive vehicles in my life time.

I notice the 4runner has part time 4-wheel. The one thing I like about the Outback is if you have to dodge a head on with another car or truck you do not push any buttons you are in all-wheel drive where the car will do it for you when needed. Which give you an edge over a part time 4 wheel drive system that you must remember to push a button at a time you want both hands on the wheel.

As far as snow Subaru will bring you home in snow. Back in 2003 I drove through Montana, I notice in the big cities I saw the big SUV and trucks. However, out away from the cities I saw Subaru Outback's everywhere. They were the number one selling car in Montana a Subaru dealer told me in Montana.
 
#23 ·
...I notice the 4runner has part time 4-wheel. The one thing I like about the Outback is if you have to dodge a head on with another car or truck you do not push any buttons you are in all-wheel drive where the car will do it for you when needed. Which give you an edge over a part time 4 wheel drive system that you must remember to push a button at a time you want both hands on the wheel.
Depends on which 4Runner one looks at. While the above applies to the V6, the V8 ones have full time 4 wheel drive, similar to the Land Cruisers.

In my neck of the woods, too, I think the Outback is/was the best selling vehicle.
 
#22 · (Edited)
Isn't it more important how the occupants fare in a crash ( the state of their injuries) rather

than being more concerned about vehicle size (larger) / extent of vehicle damage / driver

behaviour (demograghics etc)

Its about how safe are you in a crash rather than why crashes happen.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top