Ford Bronco Doesn't Ace Safety Tests

Matthew Guy
by Matthew Guy

While the full-size Bronco might be one of the hottest games in town, its performance in some key safety measures failed to wholly impress the IIHS crash test dummies. Their major beefs? Headlights and whiplash.

This is not to say the Bronco is an unsafe vehicle or that it flies apart at the seams like in the zero-star performances of some machines from overseas. In fact, it garnered top marks in a number of areas, including the notoriously tough small overlap front crash tests on both the passenger and driver sides. That’s the exam meant to simulate sailing headfirst into a solid wall or low barrier, making contact with the immovable object in the car’s headlight area. The only place in which the IIHS noted any issue here was when one of the dummies appeared to suffer an injured ankle thanks to a dead pedal which ended up at a wonky angle after the crash test.

But it was those big round peepers which caused some consternation, earning the Bronco just a ‘marginal’ overall rating. The IIHS testers said on a simulated straightaway, visibility was fair on both sides of the road. On curves, however, visibility was deemed to be inadequate in all tests. That quartet of exams includes 250m and 150m radius curves in both left and right directions if you’re wondering and you probably weren’t.

It’s worth noting the Base trim and the Big Bend without an extra-cost lighting package have even dimmer headlamps thanks to their less expensive illumination systems. IIHS tests high beams as well, of course, finding them to offer good, visibility on the right side of the road and fair on the left side when measured on a straightaway stretch of tarmac. On curves, visibility was fair on the gradual right and both left curves but inadequate on the sharp right curve. As you’d expect, high-beam assist compensates for some limitations of this vehicle’s low beams on the straightaway and all 4 curves. Thank you, Captain Obvious.

As for the result in a head restraint and seat test, the IIHS is said to be looking for a number of results in that assessment. Good geometry is essential for an effective head restraint, they say, going on to explain that if a head restraint isn’t behind and close to the back of an occupant’s head, it can’t prevent whiplash in a rear-end collision. This is why it’s important to properly adjust the things when getting behind the wheel of a car and not simply leave them where Aunt Doris had them while driving to church. Bronco scored ‘acceptable’ here, thanks to the neck of a test dummy which was found to have been subjected to a moderate force in a simulated rear-end crash.

Still, the 4-door midsize SUV did earn a “good” rating (the highest possible) in five out of six crashworthiness tests. Sure beats those zero-star econoboxes in other markets.

[Image: Ford]

Matthew Guy
Matthew Guy

Matthew buys, sells, fixes, & races cars. As a human index of auto & auction knowledge, he is fond of making money and offering loud opinions.

More by Matthew Guy

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 27 comments
  • Zackman Zackman on Dec 17, 2021

    I'm really surprised that headlight issues remain in this era. After all, Chrysler seemed to be in the crosshairs for their substandard headlights many years ago - along with almost everything else they built. Makes me wonder why this is still a problem. Projection lenses? If that's so, they're only good for the straightaway. When I had my 2012 Impala, the headlights seemed ok, but when the ditch lights were switched on, they lit up the road directly in front of the car and even a bit beyond the sides, which made all the difference. Perhaps Ford rushed the Bronco to market a bit too early? I think it's still a nice vehicle, though, and wouldn't mind owning one.

  • Art Vandelay Art Vandelay on Dec 17, 2021

    Did it flip over in any of these tests? If I remember, that is the bar the Wrangler set.

  • Formula m How many Hyundai and Kia’s do not have the original engine block it left the factory with 10yrs prior?
  • 1995 SC I will say that year 29 has been a little spendy on my car (Motor Mounts, Injectors and a Supercharger Service since it had to come off for the injectors, ABS Pump and the tool to cycle the valves to bleed the system, Front Calipers, rear pinion seal, transmission service with a new pan that has a drain, a gaggle of capacitors to fix the ride control module and a replacement amplifier for the stereo. Still needs an exhaust manifold gasket. The front end got serviced in year 28. On the plus side blank cassettes are increasingly easy to find so I have a solid collection of 90 minute playlists.
  • MaintenanceCosts My own experiences with, well, maintenance costs:Chevy Bolt, ownership from new to 4.5 years, ~$400*Toyota Highlander Hybrid, ownership from 3.5 to 8 years, ~$2400BMW 335i Convertible, ownership from 11.5 to 13 years, ~$1200Acura Legend, ownership from 20 to 29 years, ~$11,500***Includes a new 12V battery and a set of wiper blades. In fairness, bigger bills for coolant and tire replacement are coming in year 5.**Includes replacement of all rubber parts, rebuild of entire suspension and steering system, and conversion of car to OEM 16" wheel set, among other things
  • Jeff Tesla should not be allowed to call its system Full Self-Driving. Very dangerous and misleading.
  • Slavuta America, the evil totalitarian police state
Next