2019 Ford Explorer

midsize SUV / 4-door SUV

2019 Ford Explorer 4-door SUV
2018 Ford Explorer shown

Crashworthiness

Rating overview
Small overlap front: driver-side
Small overlap front: passenger-side
Moderate overlap front
Side
Roof strength
Head restraints & seats

Crash avoidance & mitigation

Headlights (varies by trim/option)
Front crash prevention
Optional system
Basic

Child seat anchors

LATCH ease of use

Other available safety features

  • Standard daytime running lights
  • Optional blind spot detection
  • Optional lane departure warning
  • Optional lane departure prevention

Key

  • G
    Good
  • A
    Acceptable
  • M
    Marginal
  • P
    Poor
  • Superior
  • Advanced
  • Basic

Some ratings use a scale of Poor to Good. Others range from Basic to Superior.

Small overlap front: driver-side

Rating applies to 2013-19 models

Tested vehicle: 2014 Ford Explorer XLT 4-door 4wd

The Ford Explorer was redesigned for the 2011 model year. Beginning with 2013 models, the seat belts and airbags were modified.

Overall evaluation
Structure and safety cage
Injury measures
Head/neck
Chest
Hip/thigh
Lower leg/foot
Restraints and dummy kinematics
The dummy’s head barely contacted the frontal airbag before sliding off the left side as the steering column moved 17 cm to the right, leaving the head vulnerable to contact with forward structure and allowing little airbag cushioning for the chest. The side curtain airbag deployed and has sufficient forward coverage to protect the head from contact with side structure and outside objects. The side torso airbag also deployed.

Action shot taken during the driver-side small overlap frontal crash test.

The dummy's position in relation to the door frame, steering wheel, and instrument panel after the crash test indicates that the driver's survival space was not maintained well.

During the crash, the dummy's head and torso barely contacted the airbag before sliding off to the left as the steering column moved to the right.

Door hinge pillar and instrument panel intrusion was extensive and contributed to a moderate risk of injuries to the left knee and lower leg.

Technical measurements for this test

Measures of occupant compartment intrusion on driver side

Test ID CEN1402
Lower occupant compartment
Lower hinge pillar max (cm) 34
Footrest (cm) 11
Left toepan (cm) 9
Brake pedal (cm) 8
Parking brake (cm) 18
Rocker panel lateral average (cm) 4
Upper occupant compartment
Steering column 13
Upper hinge pillar max (cm) 26
Upper dash (cm) 23
Lower instrument panel (cm) 20

Driver injury measures

Test ID CEN1402
Head
HIC-15 93
Peak gs at hard contact no contact
Neck
Tension (kN) 1.4
Extension bending moment (Nm) 14
Maximum Nij 0.27
Chest maximum compression (mm) 23
Femur (kN)
Left 3.7
Right 2.2
Knee displacement (mm)
Left 14
Right 3
Knee-thigh-hip injury risk (%)
Left 1
Right 0
Maximum tibia index
Left 0.87
Right 0.61
Tibia axial force (kN)
Left 2.2
Right 0.6
Foot acceleration (g)
Left 63
Right 93

How the driver-side small overlap front test is conducted

Small overlap front: passenger-side

Rating applies to 2013-19 models

Tested vehicle: 2018 Ford Explorer XLT 4-door 4wd

The Ford Explorer was redesigned for the 2011 model year. Beginning with 2013 models, the seat belts and frontal airbags were modified, and a knee airbag for the front passenger was added.

Overall evaluation
Structure and safety cage
Passenger injury measures
Head/neck
Chest
Hip/thigh
Lower leg/foot
Passenger restraints and dummy kinematics
The dummy’s head contacted the frontal airbag but began to roll toward the right side, leaving the head vulnerable to contact with forward structure. The side curtain airbag deployed and has sufficient forward coverage to protect the head from contact with side structure and outside objects. The side torso airbag also deployed.
Driver injury measures
Head/neck
Chest
Hip/thigh
Lower leg/foot
Driver restraints and dummy kinematics

Action shot taken during the passenger-side small overlap frontal crash test.

The dummy's position in relation to the door frame and dashboard after the crash test indicates that the passenger's survival space was not maintained well.

The dummy's head contacted the frontal airbag but then rolled around to the right.

Extensive intrusion of the dashboard and door hinge pillar contributed to a likely risk of injury to the right hip and a possible risk to the left lower leg.

Technical measurements for this test

Measures of occupant compartment intrusion on passenger side

Test ID CEP1813
Lower occupant compartment
Lower hinge pillar max (cm) 38
Footrest (cm) 25
Right toepan (cm) 22
Center toepan (cm) 17
Rocker panel lateral average (cm) 15
Upper occupant compartment
Center dash (cm) 25
Upper hinge pillar max (cm) 33
Upper dash (cm) 32
Right lower dash (cm) 28

Passenger injury measures

Test ID CEP1813
Head
HIC-15 72
Peak gs at hard contact no contact
Neck
Tension (kN) 1.1
Extension bending moment (Nm) 15
Maximum Nij 0.25
Chest maximum compression (mm) 21
Femur (kN)
Left 1.8
Right 6.7
Knee displacement (mm)
Left 5
Right 8
Knee-thigh-hip injury risk (%)
Left 0
Right 32
Maximum tibia index
Left 0.96
Right 0.77
Tibia axial force (kN)
Left 0.5
Right 2.7
Foot acceleration (g)
Left 53
Right 57

Driver injury measures

Test ID CEP1813
Head
HIC-15 13
Peak gs at hard contact no contact
Neck
Tension (kN) 0.5
Extension bending moment (Nm) 10
Maximum Nij 0.13
Chest maximum compression (mm) 19
Femur (kN)
Left 0.0
Right 0.3
Knee displacement (mm)
Left 1
Right 2
Knee-thigh-hip injury risk (%)
Left 0
Right 0
Maximum tibia index
Left 0.31
Right 0.26
Tibia axial force (kN)
Left 0.1
Right 0.6
Foot acceleration (g)
Left 29
Right 20

How the passenger-side small overlap front test is conducted

Moderate overlap front

Rating applies to 2011-19 models

Tested vehicle: 2011 Ford Explorer XLT 4-door 4wd

The Ford Explorer was redesigned for the 2011 model year and now shares the same basic design as the Ford Flex. Frontal ratings are assigned by the Institute based on a test conducted by Ford as part of frontal crash test verification.

Overall evaluation
Structure and safety cage
Injury measures
Head/neck
Chest
Leg/foot, left
Leg/foot, right
Restraints and dummy kinematics
Technical measurements for this test

Measures of occupant compartment intrusion on driver side

Test ID VTF1014
Footwell intrusion
Footrest (cm) 5
Left (cm) 8
Center (cm) 16
Right (cm) 14
Brake pedal (cm) 9
Instrument panel rearward movement
Left (cm) 5
Right (cm) 5
Steering column movement
Upward (cm) -1
Rearward (cm) 0
A-pillar rearward movement (cm) 0

Driver injury measures

Test ID VTF1014
Head
HIC-15 261
Peak gs at hard contact no contact
Neck
Tension (kN) 1.3
Extension bending moment (Nm) 8
Maximum Nij 0.25
Chest maximum compression (mm) 31
Legs
Femur force - left (kN) 0.6
Femur force - right (kN) 3.0
Knee displacement - left (mm) 5
Knee displacement - right (mm) 2
Maximum tibia index - left 0.18
Maximum tibia index - right 0.60
Tibia axial force - left (kN) 1.0
Tibia axial force - right (kN) 1.8
Foot acceleration (g)
Left 65
Right 91

How the moderate overlap front test is conducted

Side

Rating applies to 2016-19 models

Tested vehicle: 2016 Ford Explorer 4-door 4wd

The Ford Explorer was redesigned for the 2011 model year. Beginning with 2016 models, the front seat structure, front seat-mounted side torso airbags, and front and rear door trim were modified to improve occupant protection in side impact crashes. Side ratings are assigned by the Institute based on a test conducted by Ford as part of side crash test verification.

Because there were no changes to the vehicle's body structure since 2011, the structure rating is based on both this test and an earlier test of a 2011 model Explorer conducted by Ford under the test verification procedure.

Rating applies to 2016-19 models

Tested vehicle:2016 Ford Explorer 4-door 4wd

The Ford Explorer was redesigned for the 2011 model year. Beginning with 2016 models, the front seat structure, front seat-mounted side torso airbags, and front and rear door trim were modified to improve occupant protection in side impact crashes. Side ratings are assigned by the Institute based on a test conducted by Ford as part of side crash test verification.

Because there were no changes to the vehicle's body structure since 2011, the structure rating is based on both this test and an earlier test of a 2011 model Explorer conducted by Ford under the test verification procedure.

Overall evaluation
Structure and safety cage
Driver injury measures
Head/neck
Torso
Pelvis/leg
Driver head protection
Rear passenger injury measures
Head/neck
Torso
Pelvis/leg
Rear passenger head protection
Technical measurements for this test

Measures of occupant compartment intrusion on driver side

Test ID VTS1502 VTS1013
B-pillar to longitudinal centerline of driver's seat (cm) -20.5 -23.5
Negative numbers indicate the amount by which the crush stopped short of the seat centerline.

Driver injury measures

Test ID VTS1502 VTS1013
Head HIC-15 88 69
Neck
Tension (kN) 1.0 1.0
Compression (kN) 0.2 0.0
Shoulder
Lateral deflection (mm) 21 22
Lateral force (kN) 1.0 1.4
Torso
Maximum deflection (mm) 31 18
Average deflection (mm) 23 16
Maximum deflection rate (m/s) 2.40 3.60
Maximum viscous criterion (m/s) 0.30 0.10
Pelvis
Iliac force (kN) 1.6 1.8
Acetabulum force (kN) 1.5 1.4
Combined force (kN) 2.9 2.8
Left femur
L-M force (kN) 0.4 0.2
L-M moment (Nm) 105 74
A-P moment (Nm) 17 23

Passenger injury measures

Test ID VTS1502 VTS1013
Head HIC-15 63 46
Neck
Tension (kN) 0.1 0.0
Compression (kN) 0.2 0.4
Shoulder
Lateral deflection (mm) 22 23
Lateral force (kN) 1.4 1.4
Torso
Maximum deflection (mm) 23 17
Average deflection (mm) 19 14
Maximum deflection rate (m/s) 3.20 2.40
Maximum viscous criterion (m/s) 0.30 0.18
Pelvis
Iliac force (kN) 0.3 0.2
Acetabulum force (kN) 1.6 1.7
Combined force (kN) 1.8 1.8
Left femur
L-M force (kN) 0.2 0.1
L-M moment (Nm) 38 56
A-P moment (Nm) 22 18

How the side crash test is conducted

Roof strength

Rating applies to 2011-19 models

Tested vehicle: 2011 Ford Explorer XLT 4-door 4wd

Overall evaluation
Curb weight 4,661 lbs
Peak force 21,347 lbs
Strength-to-weight ratio 4.58

How the roof strength test is conducted

Head restraints & seats

Rating applies to 2018-19 models

Seat type: Power leather seat

Overall evaluation
Dynamic rating
Seat/head restraint geometry
Technical measurements for this test
Seat type Power leather seat
Geometry
Backset (mm) 12
Distance below top of head (mm) 16
Seat design parameters
Pass/fail Pass
Max T1 acceleration (g) 11.2
Head contact time (ms) 48
Force rating 1
Neck forces
Max neck shear force (N) 22
Max neck tension (N) 478

How the head restraint & seat test is conducted

Front crash prevention

System details

  • Optional Collision Warning with Brake Support

Package name

  • Optional Adaptive Cruise Control and Forward Collision Warning

Applies to 2015-19 models

Overall evaluation

  • This system meets the requirements for forward collision warning.
  • Autobrake not available.
Basic
Basic
with optional equipment

How front crash prevention is evaluated

Headlights

Ratings are given for 2 different headlight variations available on this vehicle.

Trim level(s)

  • XLT trim equipped with Ford Safe and Smart package
  • Limited trim equipped with Ford Safe and Smart package
  • Sport trim equipped with Ford Safe and Smart package
  • Platinum trim
Low-beam headlight type LED reflector
High-beam headlight type Halogen reflector
Curve-adaptive? No
High-beam assist? Yes
Overall rating
Distance at which headlights provide at least 5 lux illumination:
car-simpler car-simpler car-simpler car-simpler car-simpler 0 ft 100 ft 200 ft 300 ft 400 ft 500 ft 600 ft Low beams Optimal low-beam illumination High beams Optimal high-beam illumination High-beam assist credit Excessive glare

Low beams
On the straightaway, visibility was good on both sides of the road. On curves, visibility was fair on the sharp left and both right curves and inadequate on the gradual left curve.

The low beams created excessive glare.

High beams
On the straightaway, visibility was fair on the right side of the road and inadequate on the left side. On curves, visibility was fair on both right curves and inadequate on both left curves.

High-beam assist compensates for some limitations of this vehicle's low beams on both left curves and on both right curves.

Technical measurements for this test
Trim level(s)
  • XLT trim equipped with Ford Safe and Smart package
  • Limited trim equipped with Ford Safe and Smart package
  • Sport trim equipped with Ford Safe and Smart package
  • Platinum trim
Low-beam headlight type LED reflector
High-beam headlight type Halogen reflector
Curve-adaptive? No
High-beam assist? Yes
Overall rating
Applies to 2018-19 models
LOW BEAMS Average minimum useful
illumination distance (5 lux)
Amount glare
exceeded threshold
Straightaway right edge 110.7 m 232.1 %
Straightaway left edge 64.5 m 232.1 %
250m radius right curve, right edge 60.1 m 57.2 %
250m radius left curve, left edge 53.8 m 92.7 %
150m radius right curve, right edge 53.6 m 81.3 %
150m radius left curve, left edge 48.3 m 67.3 %
HIGH BEAMS Average minimum useful
illumination distance (5 lux)
Straightaway right edge 136.9 m
Straightaway left edge 100.1 m
250m radius right curve, right edge 68.0 m
250m radius left curve, left edge 62.0 m
150m radius right curve, right edge 55.8 m
150m radius left curve, left edge 52.5 m

Trim level(s)

  • Base trim
  • XLT trim
  • Limited trim
  • Sport trim
Low-beam headlight type LED reflector
High-beam headlight type Halogen reflector
Curve-adaptive? No
High-beam assist? No
Overall rating
Distance at which headlights provide at least 5 lux illumination:
car-simpler car-simpler car-simpler car-simpler car-simpler 0 ft 100 ft 200 ft 300 ft 400 ft 500 ft 600 ft Low beams Optimal low-beam illumination High beams Optimal high-beam illumination Excessive glare

Low beams
On the straightaway, visibility was good on both sides of the road. On curves, visibility was fair on the sharp left and both right curves and inadequate on the gradual left curve.

The low beams created excessive glare.

High beams
On the straightaway, visibility was fair on the right side of the road and inadequate on the left side. On curves, visibility was fair on both right curves and inadequate on both left curves.

Technical measurements for this test
Trim level(s)
  • Base trim
  • XLT trim
  • Limited trim
  • Sport trim
Low-beam headlight type LED reflector
High-beam headlight type Halogen reflector
Curve-adaptive? No
High-beam assist? No
Overall rating
Applies to 2018-19 models
LOW BEAMS Average minimum useful
illumination distance (5 lux)
Amount glare
exceeded threshold
Straightaway right edge 110.7 m 232.1 %
Straightaway left edge 64.5 m 232.1 %
250m radius right curve, right edge 60.1 m 57.2 %
250m radius left curve, left edge 53.8 m 92.7 %
150m radius right curve, right edge 53.6 m 81.3 %
150m radius left curve, left edge 48.3 m 67.3 %
HIGH BEAMS Average minimum useful
illumination distance (5 lux)
Straightaway right edge 136.9 m
Straightaway left edge 100.1 m
250m radius right curve, right edge 68.0 m
250m radius left curve, left edge 62.0 m
150m radius right curve, right edge 55.8 m
150m radius left curve, left edge 52.5 m

How headlights are evaluated

Child seat anchors

Applies to 2015-19 models

Overall evaluation
Vehicle trim XLT
Seat type cloth

This vehicle has 3 rear seating positions with complete child seat attachment (LATCH) hardware.

It has 1 additional seating position with a tether anchor and the ability to borrow lower anchors from the other seating positions.

Note: When anchors are borrowed, they aren't available to use in their designated positions.

1 2 3 6 4
G Good
A Acceptable
M Marginal
P Poor
Seating positions that rely on borrowed lower anchors or have only a tether anchor available are not rated.
thether anchor symbol
Tether anchor
lower anchor symbol
Lower anchors
shared lower achors symbol
Lower anchor(s) can be borrowed from adjacent positions(s)
No hardware available

Details by seating position

1
Tether anchor
hard-to-find location
no other hardware could be confused for anchor
Lower anchors
too deep in seat
not too much force needed to attach
easy to maneuver around anchors
2
Tether anchor
hard-to-find location
no other hardware could be confused for anchor
Lower anchors
Can be borrowed from 1 and 3
3
Tether anchor
hard-to-find location
no other hardware could be confused for anchor
Lower anchors
too deep in seat
not too much force needed to attach
easy to maneuver around anchors
4
Tether anchor
hard-to-find location
other hardware could be confused for anchor
Lower anchors
not too deep in seat
not too much force needed to attach
easy to maneuver around anchors
Technical measurements for this test

Seat position 21

3

Lower anchor A
Open access rated No
Depth (cm) 2-4
Force (lbs) 14
Clearance angle (degrees) 64
Lower anchor B
Open access rated No
Depth (cm) 2-4
Force (lbs) 21
Clearance angle (degrees) 59
Tether anchor
Location Bottom seatback
Confusing hardware present No
Has contrasting label
within 3 inches of tether anchor
No

Seat position 22

2

Lower anchor A
Lower latch is shared for this seat position
Lower anchor B
Lower latch is shared for this seat position
Tether anchor
Location Bottom seatback
Confusing hardware present No
Has contrasting label
within 3 inches of tether anchor
No

Seat position 23

1

Lower anchor A
Open access rated No
Depth (cm) 2-4
Force (lbs) 19
Clearance angle (degrees) 63
Lower anchor B
Open access rated No
Depth (cm) 2-4
Force (lbs) 31
Clearance angle (degrees) 63
Tether anchor
Location Bottom seatback
Confusing hardware present No
Has contrasting label
within 3 inches of tether anchor
No

Seat position 33

4

Lower anchor A
Open access rated No
Depth (cm) -2-0
Force (lbs) 0
Clearance angle (degrees) 80
Lower anchor B
Open access rated No
Depth (cm) -2-0
Force (lbs) 0
Clearance angle (degrees) 80
Tether anchor
Location Bottom seatback
Confusing hardware present Yes
Has contrasting label
within 3 inches of tether anchor
No

How child seat anchors are evaluated