I've been reading with interest some of the other blog entries on the Ford Edge. It seems to be growing on the staff, as it is on the general public. Yet at the same time, there's not a lot of enthusiasm for this vehicle. Yes, it's got good acceleration, nice amenities, smooth ride, and nice style...
I drove it over the weekend. It felt strong, but it also felt bulkier to drive than a lot of other crossovers, some of which were significantly larger. (I prefer the Enclave or the Veracruz to the Edge). The lux touches were nice, but some of the material choices (hard plastics, etc.) did bother me. Ironically, although I'm a stickler for visibility, I didn't find the Edge's rear visibility quite as bad as some others did. Perhaps that's because I usually adjust the driver seat to sit up high, which gives you a better view over the head restraints . Still, that middle head in particular is a problem.
But the Edge is in good company. Even the oh-so-safe Volvo XC90s had a serious issue with head restraints blocking the view. (As several soccer moms told me.)
Perhaps it's a matter of trading one safety feature for another. Automakers have to pass rear crash tests, right? So those head restraints have to work well if the car's going to get good grades; hence the obstrusive design. But now that we have a new law that will create a rear visibility standard for all cars sold in the U.S., perhaps automakers will pay more attention to the view the driver has of the road. Because if they don't, their crash test scores will get dinged.
Seems to me that the L-shaped headrests (the ones that push down flush onto the rear seatback) are the way to go. They're out of the way when you don't need them, but you can raise them if you do. Seems like the best of both worlds to me. Question is, why aren't more carmakers using them? I'll be interested to see how automakers cope with the new standard, and how it affects head restraints, the pillar design, and the electronics (such as sensors or cameras) that may become standard.
- Joanne Helperin, Senior Features Editor @ approx. 18,360 miles
tmanz says:
08:04 PM, 05/19/08
I actually had to follow the link to the rear visibility standard because I thought it was a joke at first.
I remember back when they first started talking about problems like that they had a Lexus RX(something) on the news and had kids stand behind it in a line to show how bad the view was out the back. The people were shocked at how little they could see.
That last line is the sad problem with people anymore. They really couldn't tell just looking out the back that they weren't seeing much?
Out the back of that Edge you can tell if it is daylight or dark out. The view reminds me of the cheap movie effect where they move the camera in and zoom out at the same time.
I guess we may really need the government to act if people are buying these things without realizing they can't see anything behind them. But perhaps the government should just take away their license.
I like to be able to see clearly around me (not so clearly that I want the Pacer to come back). So if I sit in a car on the lot and can't see I just get out and cross it off my list. But then again I'm not shopping for a car to impress the neighbors, I'm shopping for a car to drive.
estreka says:
08:44 PM, 05/19/08
I commend the intent of the law, but I think it's going to be counterproductive. With rearview cameras and proximity sensors, automakers will continue to reduce rearward visibility. I'd much rather the government mandate improved visibility rather than stopgap electronic solutions.
daytona_500 says:
09:16 PM, 05/19/08
"I'd much rather the government mandate improved visibility rather than stopgap electronic solutions."
But the real question is, how do you quanitfy visibility, how can you regulate a subjective thing like that?
I think people who find a car to have poor visibility should not buy it rather than drive it an complain.
cx7lover says:
10:05 PM, 05/19/08
If you lower the cupholders in the middle, you gain a lot of view out the back.
ahightower says:
05:51 AM, 05/20/08
I agree a folding center head rest would be nice. But you could also just remove it, I doubt many people regularly have anyone riding in the middle seat who is tall enough to require a head rest.
arumage says:
05:53 AM, 05/20/08
It's odd how Ford chooses to use their technology. My 2005 Freestyle has those L-shaped restraints and was one of the highest scoring vehicles on safety for that year. The Freestyle is also bigger in every direction but is over 100 lbs lighter. The bigger V6 doesn't account for much of that weight.
dougtheeng says:
06:43 AM, 05/20/08
I find that cars with the middle headrest (ie, VW products) are annoying at first but after driving it you quickly learn to adapt. I have never driven the Edge, so I can't comment on that specific vehicle.
misterfusion says:
08:41 AM, 05/20/08
The new issue of CR has an excellent comparo of hatchbacks. Yet about half of the reviews (including the comparo-winning Volkswagen Rabbit) had comments regarding poor rear visibility.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that the C-pillars on these compact cars are getting absurdly large. It's a ridiculous cosmetic choice. (C'mon, it can't ALL be about safety -- there are cars with normal pillars that still get good safety ratings.)
m_thrizzle says:
10:25 AM, 05/20/08
The last gen Toyota MR2 Spyder had a BEEP when you put it in reverse. It was odd for such a small car. Even though I hate the noise, maybe SUV's should have them too. Rear cameras are not the solution. That just means the driver is looking forward at the camera's screen when they are reversing!
Also, take out those headrests if you don't have ppl in the back seat, or at least the middle one.
researchqueen says:
11:35 AM, 05/20/08
Estreka -- The gov't isn't mandating electronic solutions at all. It will be up to automakers how they meet the new rear visibility standard. It could be through better vehicle design (which I hope, because C pillars have certainly become huge), electronic sensor, cameras, additional mirrors -- whatever. I'm guessing that rear visibility will be measured something like what you see in this Subaru test video on YouTube at about 4:42 (Thanks for that, Loren!) For more information on this new law, see here: http://www.edmunds.com/advice/womenfamilies/articles/125292/article.html.
bankerdanny says:
11:48 AM, 05/20/08
Headrest positioning has become one of the bains of my existence. My '07 Subaru Forester has similarly poor rear visibility with the rests in place (although it doesn't have the center rest, so it's not as bad). At least they are removable and therefore reside in my basement.
The front head rests are the real problem. My 5-4 wife likes an upright driving position. But with the seatback essentially verticle the forward leaning headrests push the top of her head down. Silly as it may seem, this is one of the reasons I am thinking about getting rid of the car after only one year of ownership.
Yet another illustration of how difficult it is to design a car that can be comfortable for a wide variety of people.
cx7lover says:
12:09 PM, 05/20/08
They just need to take a few notes from the safety pioneer Volvo, in my S80 a press of the button on the dash drops the headrests in the back.
benson2175 says:
12:10 PM, 05/20/08
I don't know about now but Mercs in the eighties had rear head rests that retracted at the push of a button. Is that hard to do or something? Why don't more cars have that?
estreka says:
12:18 PM, 05/20/08
Thanks for the clarification. From what I read in that article I fully support the law.
cheslin says:
12:34 PM, 05/20/08
Many M-B sedans and coupes have the automatically retracting headrests, and all the SUV's have L-shaped flush units in back. And the XC90 has folding outside rear headrests, and an L-shaped center that goes down flush on the middle seat.
SubyTrojan says:
01:43 PM, 05/20/08
I guess Joanne forgot the link to the video. Again, the pertinent rear visibility footage begins around 4:42.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSkOqbucMqg
tmanz says:
10:41 PM, 05/20/08
so the solution is to attach tall orange flags to little kids like they used to put on kids bicycles :)
johnmarco says:
07:32 AM, 05/21/08
I guess none of you guys watched the Jetsons. The real solution is to get with the future already and put bubble tops on cars.
Seriously though.... I complain about my truck a lot but one thing I love is the visibility; front, back, sides, all fantastic. I hate driving those caves we call SUVs.
researchqueen says:
11:18 AM, 05/21/08
Bankerdanny -- A lot of people complain about the new type of head restraints. They were designed to prevent whiplash (and of course, improve rear crash test scores.) More information in this article, Pain in the Neck. (http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/safety/articles/105554/article.html) The whole point is to keep the restraint as close behind your head as possible in case of a crash. If you like a super upright position, that means that some head restraints will sort of "push" your head forward. Some automakers are better than others at making it all work together comfortably, which is why the test drive is so important.
What's scary is all this talk about people removing head restraints entirely. Hopefully, if they have kids in the back who get tall enough to reach them, they put the restraints back in. Whiplash sucks!
SubyTrojan says:
11:25 AM, 05/21/08
TEST
Pain in the Neck