美規Kuga小面積撞測!副駕座拿到最差poor成績

anfernee93 wrote:
deploy部署，Google整段文意: 會“fail to deploy”就是25%偏位撞擊時打中kuga側邊氣囊的corner case導致側邊氣囊打不開（無法部署）。

web101tw wrote:
紙糊的車當然不可能變...(恕刪)

Saber422 wrote:
你現在知道國產車有多可怕了吧
一台在美國poor的車
還是大勝台灣鋁罐車
所以美國CRV5才會1000mpa以上鋼材
多了台版CRV5足足近30%啊

web101tw wrote:
氣囊(氣簾)是汽車...(恕刪)

danny750325 wrote:
Side airba...(恕刪)

anfernee93 wrote:
大哥，身為6t車主...(恕刪)

danny750325 wrote:
唉~無所謂啦!送測...(恕刪)

tokikawa wrote:
這段話沒問題
只是主角要換成toyota
很多toyota也都拿G了,一樣一堆人說不安全
Kuga則是完全相反
撞了P
結果很多人認為撞擊測試有問題
甚至沒有撞擊測試的國產車,以往在其他品牌都配歸類為"國外成績不予參考"的安全問號族群
Kuga雖同樣是"國外成績無法參考",卻因為國產沒撞過,可以假設結果會更好

品牌才是關鍵

danny750325 wrote:
Side airbag issue
In contrast, the side curtain airbags in the Escape and Outlander Sport didn't deploy. This contributed to the Escape's marginal rating and the Outlander Sport's poor rating for restraints and kinematics.

"That's not something we expect to see after so many years of crash testing," Mueller says. "Side curtain airbags should deploy in crashes like this."

Without side airbag protection, the right front passenger would be vulnerable to contact with side structure and outside objects in a small overlap front crash. In the Escape, the dummy's head contacted the front airbag but then rolled around the right side. In the Outlander Sport, the dummy's head barely contacted the front airbag before sliding off the right side, allowing the head to move sufficiently far forward to hit the upper interior trim panel on the door.

以上是IIHS內文，請問哪裡有看見fail to deploy? 您知道didn't怎麼翻嗎?您都不看整段文章就斷章取義，那個網站小編說什麼就信。

美規沒側氣簾，只是在映證側氣簾的重要性，讓台灣消費者警惕。台灣福特該給足的基本被動安全還是要給。