Your (inaugural) post is off base and lacks substance.

You would be a lot more respected if you divulged your true motivations in trying to denounce a manufacturer that has made its mission to save people's lives.

Not sure if you work for Honda or at a Honda dealer but, apparently, you are doing the same in other forums, proclaiming Honda is the best thing since sliced bread:

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...497971-Why-are-Honda-manual-transmissions-so-much-better-than-most-other-makers

I also know you are active in the Acura and/or MDX forums but your post above is unsubstantiated.

By the way, thank you for giving us the schematics of the Honda/Acura SUV; I see a lot less orange, yellow and especially red (ultra high strength steel) in the critical areas of the car, especially the sides (Honda Blue or softer steel rules...).

 

Be careful, you might hurt his feelings.

 

+1
Volvo knows how many trucks and SUVs are on the road, do you actually believe they would be stupid enough to over look this??

 

First time poster troll! Go back where you came from :facepalm:

 

lol... how could you even take this guy seriously

 

This guy is waiting for approval... please don't

 

A agree with the post above that the poster simply does not know what he is speaking about. If he had actually LOOKED at an XC90 by simply opening the hood, he would see that Volvo too has the cross structure at the ends of the upper structural members. TROLL!

 

Also the xc90 is a relatively high riding vehicle so of course it is "crash compatible" with other ones.

Mainly I suspected a troll when I saw a first-time poster who knew how to post photos.

 

Wow.. he's not even a clever troll......:facepalm::thumbdown:

 

Have I got some news for you!!!

 

Honda and Acura have a fatal flaw in their vehicles in that they use Takata airbags which inflate using highly unstable ammonium nitrate as a propellant.
The airbag explodes shooting shrapnel towards it occupants.
Interstingly, due to lack of availablity (costs) recalled Honda vehicles utlized the same unstable ammonium nitrate airbags, which means they will need to be recalled again in the future.

Other safety hazards are its VCM (Vehicle Cylinder Management) in which their 1/2 the of the V6 or 4cylinders engines are shut off in order to meet MPG standards.
Shutting of 1/2 of the cylinders makes the engine terribly unbalanced causing the car to vibrate at idle, or worse at 40+mph.
Their cheap solution was to mount the engine on shock absorbers and use noise cancellation in the cabin to counteract the vibrating engine.

If Honda had done it right they would have used guanidine nitrate (yea costs more $) in their airbag inflators, and turbos and superchargers to make a fuel efficient yet powerful engine.

 

Very interesting first post.....way to get started on the right foot!!!! Now you have me thinking, maybe I should cancel my OSD for May and go buy a Honda....... LOL

 

This is worth a read. One reason my wife wanted an XC90 -- no deaths reported, worldwide. And no, that's not the new one. It does say something about the company, though.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Driver_DeathRates_sr5001_emb.pdf

 

The available data does not support the assumption that the XC90 II has a "massive safety flaw".

It is impossible to determine the level of safety (or lack thereof) a modern unibody structure provides in a collision just by looking at it. A lot of thought and research is needed to construct a save car. In many cases there is more than one method that can be used to build a crumple zone and safety cell. Direct comparisons between different construction methods need to be based on their real world performance, not material usage percentages.
A car made completely from boron steel would crumple very little in an accident which is very godd if you want your safety cell to only be scratched in an accident. Very likely such a car would also kill the occupants in nearly every crash because nothing else is there to absorb the energy from the crash.

As for the Honda Pilot ('16 MY) and XC90 II ('16 MY) crash compatibility with a higher riding vehicle:
18,6 cm ground clearance for the Honda
23,8 cm ground clearance for the Volvo (conventional suspension)
22,7 cm ground clearance for the Volvo (air suspension, lowest setting)
26,7 cm ground clearance for the Volvo (air suspension, highest setting)

For comparison a Ford F-150 ('16 MY) and a Dodge Ram 1500 ('16 MY):
21,3 cm ground clearance for the F-150 (SuperCrew Cab, lowest measurement given)
23,9 cm ground clearance for the F-150 (SuperCrew Cab, highest measurement given)

22,1 cm ground clearance for the Ram 1500 (regular cab, 4x2, lowest measurement given)
23,9 cm ground clearance for the Ram 1500 (Crew Cab, highest measurement given)

Seems unlikely that the crumple zone of the Volvo will be overridden. Also at some point it will be impossible to engineer a solution for everything without compromising looks, fuel economy, cost(s), pedestrian safety and a bunch more things.

Sources:
http://automobiles.honda.com/pilot/specifications.aspx (Honda)
https://www.media.volvocars.com/global/en-gb/models/all-new-xc90/2016/specifications (Volvo)
http://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/specifications/view-all/ (Ford)
http://www.ramtrucks.com/model-compare/detailed-chart/?modelYearCode=CUT201613 (Dodge)

 

The available data does not support the assumption that the XC90 II has a "massive safety flaw".

It is impossible to determine the level of safety (or lack thereof) a modern unibody structure provides in a collision just by looking at it. A lot of thought and research is needed to construct a save car. In many cases there is more than one method that can be used to build a crumple zone and safety cell. Direct comparisons between different construction methods need to be based their real world performance, not material usage percentages.
A car made completely from boron steel would crumple very little in an accident which is very godd if you want your safety cell to only be scratched in an accident. Very likely such a car would also kill the occupants in nearly every crash because nothing else is there to absorb the energy from the crash.

As for the Honda Pilot ('16 MY) and XC90 II ('16 MY) crash compatibility with a higher riding vehicle:
18,6 cm ground clearance for the Honda
23,8 cm ground clearance for the Volvo (conventional suspension)
22,7 cm ground clearance for the Volvo (air suspension, lowest setting)
26,7 cm ground clearance for the Volvo (air suspension, highest setting)

For comparison a Ford F-150 ('16 MY) and a Dodge Ram 1500 ('16 MY):
21,3 cm ground clearance for the F-150 (SuperCrew Cab, lowest measurement given)
23,9 cm ground clearance for the F-150 (SuperCrew Cab, highest measurement given)

22,1 cm ground clearance for the Ram 1500 (regular cab, 4x2, lowest measurement given)
23,9 cm ground clearance for the Ram 1500 (Crew Cab, highest measurement given)

Seems unlikely that the crumple zone of the Volvo will be overridden. Also at some point it will be impossible to engineer a solution for everything without compromising looks, fuel economy, cost(s), pedestrian safety and a bunch more things.

Sources:
http://automobiles.honda.com/pilot/specifications.aspx (Honda)
https://www.media.volvocars.com/global/en-gb/models/all-new-xc90/2016/specifications (Volvo)
http://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/specifications/view-all/ (Ford)
http://www.ramtrucks.com/model-compare/detailed-chart/?modelYearCode=CUT201613 (Dodge)

Wow, thanks for sharing......