“The rapid progress manufacturers have made to improve these vital crash avoidance systems is impressive,” said David Harkey, president of the IIHS. “Vehicles that excel in this new test will save lives, as it addresses the most dangerous kinds of front-to-rear crashes.”
Of the 30 latest vehicles evaluated under the updated standards, 22 earned either a “good” or “acceptable” rating—an improvement that requires systems to effectively prevent or substantially mitigate collisions at higher speeds. By contrast, when the first batch of small SUVs was tested in April, only three of the ten models met that threshold.
Among the models earning the highest rating for their standard braking systems were the Acura ZDX, BMW X5 and X6, Cadillac Lyriq, Chevrolet Blazer EV, Genesis GV80, Honda Prologue, Hyundai Santa Fe, Kia EV9 and Sorento, Lexus NX, Subaru Forester, and Toyota’s Camry, Crown Signia, and Tacoma. The Mercedes-Benz E-Class, while rated only “acceptable” for its standard system, offers an optional upgrade that received a top score.
Other models, including the Genesis G80, Honda HR-V, Hyundai Sonata, Jeep Wagoneer, and Mazda CX-50, received an “acceptable” rating, as did an optional system available for the Acura MDX. The Ford Expedition received a “marginal” rating, while several models, including the Audi Q7 and Q8, Buick Envista, Chevrolet Tahoe and Trax, Kia Seltos, and Nissan Altima, performed poorly.
Higher Speeds, More Challenging Scenarios
For years, the IIHS tested automatic braking systems at speeds of 12 and 25 mph, with a single car positioned in the center of the travel lane. That evaluation was discontinued in 2022 after nearly every tested vehicle earned the top “superior” rating.
The updated test, by contrast, increases speeds to 31, 37, and 43 mph and introduces additional obstacles, including a motorcycle and a semitrailer, in addition to a passenger car. Vehicles are assessed not only with the obstacles directly ahead but also when they are offset in the lane.
The new evaluation more closely reflects real-world accident data, including high-speed rear-end crashes that often result in serious injuries or fatalities. According to federal crash data, rear-end collisions with semitrailers kill more than 400 people annually, while rear impacts are responsible for more than 200 motorcyclist deaths each year.
During testing, vehicles are evaluated on both their forward collision warnings and automatic braking capabilities. If a vehicle fails to significantly reduce its speed in lower-speed tests, only its forward warning system is assessed in the higher-speed trials. In the semitrailer test, the driver manually steers out of the lane to avoid a crash, and only the forward warning system is measured.
Points are awarded based on two main factors: whether the vehicle issues a warning at least 2.1 seconds before impact and how much it slows down before collision. Speed reduction accounts for two-thirds of the total score, while warning effectiveness makes up the remaining third.
Where the Vehicles Stood Out—Or Fell Short
Vehicles with top-rated systems successfully warned drivers in advance and stopped completely in all trials involving the passenger car. They also met those standards in most motorcycle tests and consistently provided timely warnings in the semitrailer scenario.
However, some vehicles failed to stop before impact in at least one motorcycle test, though they managed to slow significantly. A few models were a fraction of a second late in issuing forward collision warnings for motorcycles.
Among vehicles rated “acceptable,” most avoided impact in a majority of test scenarios and provided timely alerts. But their performance at higher speeds—particularly in motorcycle trials—was inconsistent. None of the acceptable-rated models prevented a collision in the 43 mph motorcycle test, and some struck the motorcycle target at speeds exceeding 25 mph.
The lowest-rated systems struggled the most with motorcycle detection. Every “poor” performer struck the motorcycle target even in the slowest test at 31 mph, with some barely reducing speed or failing to issue timely warnings.
Most of the lowest-rated vehicles also performed poorly in the passenger car test. In the 37 mph trial, most failed to slow sufficiently to qualify for further braking assessments. However, many were still able to provide forward collision alerts in passenger car and semitrailer scenarios.
“These results indicate that preventing crashes at higher speeds, especially collisions with motorcycles, remains a challenge for some systems,” Harkey said. “Motorcycles are a special area of concern because, unlike passenger vehicle occupants, riders have little protection from crash injuries.”
Updated front crash prevention ratings: various models
| 2024 Acura ZDX | G |
| 2024-25 BMW X5 | G |
| 2024-25 BMW X6 | G |
| 2024-25 Cadillac Lyriq | G |
| 2024-25 Chevrolet Blazer EV | G |
| 2025 Genesis GV80 | G |
| 2024 Honda Prologue | G |
| 2024-25 Hyundai Santa Fe | G |
| 2024-25 Kia EV9 | G |
| 2024-25 Kia Sorento | G |
| 2024-25 Lexus NX | G |
| 2024-25 Mercedes-Benz E-Class | G optional system A standard system |
| 2025 Subaru Forester | G |
| 2025 Toyota Camry | G |
| 2025 Toyota Crown Signia | G |
| 2024-25 Toyota Tacoma | G |
| 2025 Acura MDX | A optional system |
| 2025 Genesis G80 | A |
| 2025 Honda HR-V | A |
| 2024-25 Hyundai Sonata | A |
| 2023-25 Jeep Wagoneer | A |
| 2025 Mazda CX-50 | A |
| 2023-24 Ford Expedition | M |
| 2025 Audi Q7 | P |
| 2025 Audi Q8 | P |
| 2024 Buick Envista | P |
| 2023-24 Chevrolet Tahoe | P |
| 2024 Chevrolet Trax | P |
| 2024-25 Kia Seltos | P |
| 2024-25 Nissan Altima | P |
Key
- G Good
- A Acceptable
- M Marginal
- P Poor
SOURCE: IIHS