2017 Ford Escape improves crash test performance, but still isn't 'good'

Ford improved the Escape's front structure beneath its redesigned nose for 2017, and it reinforced the vehicle's door hinges as well. Those changes helped out a lot, but they weren't quite enough to elevate it to the top of the IIHS's safety ratings.

Brendan McDermid/Reuters/File
Guests are served coffee while riding in a 2017 Ford Escape SUV during Ford's "Escape the Room" drive experience in New York City in June

The updated 2017 Ford Escape compact crossover received more than just a cosmetic facelift this year. Structural changes to the vehicle's front end were enough to boost its crashworthiness, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

The Escape's performance in the IIHS small-overlap test improved from a dismal "Poor" rating in 2016 to a much-improved "Acceptable." That's still one mark shy of "Good," the agency's top rating, and a requirement for its coveted Top Safety Pick ranking. 

The challenging small overlap test evaluates how a vehicle's safety structure holds up in a frontal impact—think two cars heading toward one another on a two-lane road. IIHS introduced the test a few years ago, and it has proven difficult for many automakers to pass. 

Ford improved the Escape's front structure beneath its redesigned nose for 2017, and it reinforced the vehicle's door hinges as well. Those changes helped out a lot, but they weren't quite enough to elevate it to the top.

That makes the Escape one of only a handful of small crossovers and SUVs not rated as a Top Safety Pick—or a Top Safety Pick+, which is reserved for top-scoring vehicles that also offer automatic emergency braking. 

Here's a look at the current Top Safety Pick+ award recipients among small crossovers and SUVs:

  • Hyundai Tucson
  • Mazda CX-3
  • Mazda CX-5
  • Toyota RAV4
  • Kia Sportage
  • Subaru Forester
  • Honda CR-V
  • BMW X1
  • Fiat 500X
  • Mitsubishi Outlander
You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.