Greetings all... another interested potential Element owner here.

Question... I know I may not be like a lot of you for this, but I won't buy a CR-V or other light SUV because of the rollover risk during emergency maneuvers. This car will be the one my wife drives, not me. So... for those who own both a CR-V and an Element, how would you rate the Element for tippyness in comparison?

It looks like the Element has more clearance than the CR-V, which I find strange because it doesn't look higher.

Any input you have is appreciated... thanks.

Well, I don't own one yet so I can't speak from experience. But from all the reviews I have read, the Element doesn't tend to lean in hard turns. This is due to the fact that everything is hung very low in order to allow the interior to have the flat floor from front to rear. This gives the Element a lower center of gravity, which in turn provides a more stable feel.

Here is a quote from Automobile mag in an article about the E "With higher damping rates and greater roll resistancethan the CR-V,...." So if they are correct, that answers your question. But we all knew the E was better, right? 8)

After a couple of weeks, I'm a bit more relaxed driving my Element. I'm now taking off ramps faster and have not experienced any kind of tippy feel. As a matter of fact it handles much better than my last car (granted it was a station wagon). Car and Driver have the Element pulling higher lateral g's than the CR-V. The Element sits about two inches lower and has a wider track than the CR-V, both of these help keep the center of gravity lower, that helps keep the thing flatter in corners. This is my first truck and I'm very pleased at how well it handles. Hope this helps.

Jim R

It's not a Porshe. The biggest factor in roll overs is your driving.

Respected organizations like Motorweek have evaluated the Element in Slalom runs - and they have reported no increased rish of rollover.

Companies, like Honda, risk a lot in lawsuits and lost business if they have rollover problems.

Drive it reasonably and you'll never have a problem :)

The Motorweek review has been made into a movie. In it you can clearly see the "E" agressively managing the slalom course with ease.

Iskie

After owning a 92 montero for 11 years I know that roll-sway-toplight feeling very well. The element is glued to the ground in comparison.

The E is lower & wider then the CRV so the rollover risk is lower. Car & Driver also ran the skid pad test on the E and if I recall it tied the BMW SUV for first place in the SUV category for the skid pad. Keep in mind if you will be loading it with tons of stuff you can raise the center of gravity and increase the likely hood of a rollover. If you us the roof rack and max it out the extra weight can raise the center of gravity a great deal. This is true for any vehicle of course but I just wanted to mention it.

I totally agree with the poster who said the greatest risk of rollover is your driving. Before getting my Element, I was a proud Jeep Wrangler owner for 10 years - which everybody thinks tip over with a slight breeze. Not once did I ever come close to a rollover condition. That said, the Element feels really stable to me going around turns...

The suspension on the Element is especially stiff and the torsional strength of the body design (probably because of the ultra-reinfocred concealed b-pillar) makes body roll very minimal. You could probably roll it if you tried REALLY hard, but I really love the "glued to the road" feeling I get when going around turns.

I owned a CRV and recently got the E. I have not noticed much difference on turns but I am carefull. So I would say it all depends on how you drive, SUVs have a higher risk of rollover so just be more carefull on turns. All E reviews seem to say it is less of a risk than most SUVs.

I was driving some nice, curvy mountain roads yesterday and did not notice much sway through some of the sharper downhill turns. I wasn't taking them at 80 mind you, but at the recommended speed or 5 miles an hour faster. It ain't a German street machine, but I think that it handled the terrain great.

[quote:b17a8fe05f="patedugan"]I totally agree with the poster who said the greatest risk of rollover is your driving. .[/quote:b17a8fe05f]

Absolutely true.

However, you have no control over OTHER PEOPLE's driving skills. It's an inssue when you are forced to execute a evasive maneuver to avoid one of those bad drivers.

I'm very glad you never tipped your Jeep. The odds are very much in your favor, because even though the rollover risk is there, it's still relatively rare for a person to roll an SUV. The problem is, because of rollover, you're more likely to die in a single person accident in an SUV as a result of the rollover risk.

Another factor is not knowing the difference between a jeep and a car. They have very different turning radius... so if you're used to a car, and you're forced into an avoidance situation, you'll turn the wheel too much and overcorrect... flippage.

Some people are willing to take that risk and play the odds. Some aren't. At least in the US, it's a free country, do what you want as long as you have health insurance, eh? :) If I"m driving it, I'm probably willing to take that risk. But not when my wife is driving with my kids in the car.

The Element is not lower than the CR-V, it is quite a bit taller...just go to a site like Edmunds.com and you can look up the specs on any car or truck. Also, the width is such a marginal factor it doesn't even count...the E is a little over an inch wider...WOW. The CR-V does have more ground clearance, but the body is like 7" lower in height than an E. The CR-V also has the wider wheelbase...These differences can hardly even count...but, I suspect that Honda tightened up the suspension on the E to help it handle the corners better...a sacrifice had to be made somewhere.

That is contradictory... You say that the CR-V has more ground clearance, but that the Element is not lower - one of these statements is not true. Also, the Element can be both taller and lower than the CR-V as well (the roof is higher, the frame/body is lower).

Just because the CR-V has more ground clearance it does not have to be higher...we are talking about total height from the ground up, not from the start of the body to the top...My point is that people need to state facts and not just guess at the dimensions of the Element...everyone is saying, "It is wider", "It has a longer wheelbase", "It is lower, so it will not tip as easy"...with all of these things being either false or with such little difference it can't matter. It's amazing to me how people talk things up when they get excited. Everyone, especially potential new buyers, would be way ahead if facts could be stated in these matters instead of guesses. Again...www.edmunds.com, or www.honda.com and look under specifications...it's all right there.

Car and Driver said :

Although the Element is based on the CR-V, its dimensions are significantly different. The length is a foot shorter, the wheelbase has been trimmed 1.7 inches, the roofline is 7.8 inches higher, the front track 1.7 inches narrower, and the floor about an inch lower. It rides on a highly modified CR-V chassis, and because it has no visible B-pillars, it sports reinforced joints, strengthened lower side sills, larger crossmembers, enlarged rocker panels, and five bulkheads per side. In place of traditional B-pillars, Honda went with reinforced vertical beams within the rear doors and locked them into the side sills with a hook-and-catcher system. Honda claims the resulting chassis resists bending better than the CR-V, nearly matches it in twist resistance, and is strong enough to achieve a five-star side-impact rating.
The downside to the beefed-up structure is heft, and the front-wheel-drive, manual-transmission Element EX tested here tips the scales at 3344 pounds, just 23 pounds shy of a four-wheel-drive, manual-transmission CR-V EX we tested in November 2001. Honda says Elements haul an extra 250 pounds compared with similarly equipped CR-Vs. To compensate for the added weight, Honda shortened the gearing, increased roll stiffness, and upped the damping levels of the suspension.

Despite its tall frame and mail-truck appearance, the Element's low floor, wide track, and stiff suspension — which is firm but not harsh — turn it into a sporty machine. Through tight turns and quick transitions, the boxy Honda stays relatively flat, performing like a Doberman trapped inside a Great Dane's body. On the skidpad, our test vehicle pulled a very impressive 0.78 g, which beats the CR-V's 0.72 g and even ties the last BMW 330i we tested (October 2002).
To unsettle the Element, we had to enter a corner pretty hot, at which point it talks back with understeer and hints of a wagging tail. But since our premonitions told us we might be swapping the shiny and dark sides under those circumstances, these traits put us at ease. The more we drove it, the more fun we had.
For Gen Yers who drive a few 10ths below how they play, we recommend checking out a four-wheel-drive version. With its better front-to-rear weight distribution and improved rear traction, we surmise that it offers a stickier tail and a more composed driving experience. And since these young guns will be going extreme, it's better suited for the sand and snow. But they should use caution because the Element's on-demand four-wheel-drive system and 6.9 inches of ground clearance aren't intended for serious off-road use.

How is that for facts so far?

CanadianDriver said

On gravel and uneven roads the Element is stable and predictable. It's also solid as a rock, with no creaking or rattling evident. On the highway wind noise is surprisingly low, given the brick-like aerodynamics. Strong crosswinds will unsettle it, though, requiring a firm grip on the steering wheel.

Men'sJournal said:

Hondas are historically drowsy off the line, but the Element's quick gearing and 160-horsepower engine make it feel faster than rivals like the PT Cruiser and Toyota Matrix. The Element's steering is taut, and its body sits bolt upright, even through turns. Honda spent a lot of time and added a lot of metal to make the car feel this stiff, and the dividend is athleticism.

USNews.com said:

The Element's width gives it a feeling of stability and stiffness that's missing in many SUVs. Rarely did I feel the uncomfortable, top-heavy tilt that's the bane of the class. The Element felt very maneuverable on corners, and the 160-horsepower, four-cylinder engine, standard on all models, was quick, spirited, and quiet.

Those are facts.

I am not saying anything other than this is what these people had to say about the E.

You can draw your own conclusions. :D

That's the best I have seen anyone do so far, although even those articles are filled with a lot of opinion, such as when the writers saying, "we surmise ", "make it FEEL faster", and so on. Until an unbiased publication, like Consumer Reports, does a detailed test on the Element, it is too early to draw any conclusions.
In case you haven't noticed, I as of yet, am not an Element owner. I am on the fence trying to decide between it, a CR-V, or a Accord Coupe. I am a loyal Honda owner, but to me the Element is too new at this point to take a chance on. I also have evaluated the plastic panels and was less than thrilled with the results...and until Honda releases the crash test results, I would not even think about this vehicle. Yeah I know, everyone expects it to do well, but the lack of a pillar is troublesome. Chevrolet and Ford's extended cab trucks are both built nearly exactly like the Element in these areas and those things come all to pieces where the doors close together.
I am not anti-Element, I just think it is too early to form an educated opinion on...and as Honda has always done in the past, I am sure they will correct many of the problems in the upcoming years. 8)

Gambitt, I'm in a similar position to you... though I've actually decided against the Element (and CRV) for now. I'll reevaluate when I have more info.

Since my wife will be driving it, I've decided on a Subaru Legacy wagon. Yes, my head beat out my heart on this one. I also decided against the CR-V because of the rollover possibility.

Here's some info for you:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/consumer/autos/mauto696.htm

..and some more:
http://www.edmunds.com/news/column/writeanddrive/46851/article.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rollover/etc/before.html

To be clear, there is some conflicting information here... the NHTSA has given the CR-V three stars, it's highest rating in the SUV class. Like the other ratings in the first article above, those ratings are based on a mathematical formula, not on actual testing.

Oh, and it's also pretty clear that, even though deaths are significantly higher in single car accidents involving SUVs, your own risk is actually pretty small statistically. On the other hand, I've decided that my family isn't worth that extra risk... just my opinion though.

Very informative links...I am glad to see that other people are having the same deliberation I am. I am thinking of going with the Accord Coupe...but if I do I will have to purchase an older model pickup to handle occasional chores...but then again I probably would have to even if I purchased an Element or CR-V. Thanks for the articles.

Gambitt

Two things:

1) You are the largest factor in a rollover - YOUR driving.

2) Statistically, the numbers of accidents where a SUV protects you by its height and weight is MUCH greater than the number of rollovers.


The chances that your SUV will keep you from getting hurt far outweigh the potential rollover risk...

SUV's are under attack, and they play up the unlikely chance of rollover risk and they play down the safety aspect.

Most rollovers occur when people are running from the COPS. There's some truth. Don't get an Element or CRV if you are going to take the COPS on a chase - you'll probably end up on your side !

Two things:

1) You are the largest factor in a rollover - YOUR driving.
[/quote:1e72f13e63]

No argument, again.

[quote]2) Statistically, the numbers of accidents where a SUV protects you by its height and weight is MUCH greater than the number of rollovers.

The chances that your SUV will keep you from getting hurt far outweigh the potential rollover risk...

SUV's are under attack, and they play up the unlikely chance of rollover risk and they play down the safety aspect.

I'd love to read your source for this. I don't know enough to dispute it, but presumably this isn't just your opinion... correct?

Why is it that some insurance companies are offering higher rates for SUVs compared to other vehicles of the same cost?

Most rollovers occur when people are running from the COPS. There's some truth. Don't get an Element or CRV if you are going to take the COPS on a chase - you'll probably end up on your side !

Again, interesting, but I sure would like to see some data to back these claims up please... thanks.

Here are a couple of interesting quotes from the PBS piece:

# There will be an estimated 70,000 SUV rollovers in 2002, in which it's estimated 2000 people will die.

# In the 10-year period during which Ford-Firestone related rollovers caused some 300 deaths, more than 12,000 people -- 40 times as many -- died in SUV rollover crashes unrelated to tire failure.

#A Ford Explorer is 16 times as likely as the typical family car to kill occupants of another vehicle in a crash.

# How serious is the motor vehicle rollover problem in the U.S. today?

Single-vehicle rollovers (for all vehicles, not just SUVs) cause more fatalities than any other kind of motor-vehicle accident -- one-quarter of all deaths yearly. In 1999, 63 percent of all SUV deaths were in rollovers.

# Do SUVs have higher rollover rates than other types of vehicles?

Yes. In 2000, SUVs had the highest rollover involvement rate of any vehicle type in fatal crashes -- 36 percent, as compared with 24 percent for pickups, 19 percent for vans and 15 percent for traffic cars. SUVs also had the highest rollover rate for passenger vehicles in injury crashes -- 12 percent, as compared to 7 percent for pickups, 4 percent for vans and 3 percent for passenger cars.

# How many people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2000?

In the estimated 6,394,000 police-reported motor vehicle traffic crashes during 2000, 41,821 people were killed -- an increase of 0.2 percent over 1999. 3,189,000 people were injured in motor vehicle traffic crashes and 4,286,000 crashes involved property damage alone. An average of 115 people died each day in motor vehicle crashes in 2000 -- one every 13 minutes.

Gotta watch the KILL rate

If this link doesn't work. go to aternet.org and search bumber mentality

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14839

I've read a lot on the subject.. Don't have individual sources to cite..

I do know the media presents data in a persuasive manner instead of reporting facts. SUV's are in the cross hairs of the politically correct.

Back to facts, which you have a good many -

# How serious is the motor vehicle rollover problem in the U.S. today?

Single-vehicle rollovers (for all vehicles, not just SUVs) cause more fatalities than any other kind of motor-vehicle accident -- one-quarter of all deaths yearly. In 1999, 63 percent of all SUV deaths were in rollovers
ENDquote


The above statement indicates that 75% of all traffic related deaths occur in accidents without (other than) rollovers..

So, the media has people concerned about the 25% of traffic related deaths as opposed to the 75% of traffic deaths.

Look at that article, why are they focusing on the 25% of deaths - think it might have something to do with SUV's, gas, politics ??

That article by boneheadz was a perfect example of the media and their hatred of SUVs. Check out all the unquantifiable terms in that article - talk about opinion.

The "Kill Rate" only makes sense if you think SUV's (and commercial vehicles) will be banned in their totality.

Otherwise, why would you give up an SUV, to be more likely to have you or your family killed by one? You significantly lessen you personal "Kill Rate" by being in another SUV.

SUV's are only worse than cars in one category - Rollovers. So, their detractors have seized upon the Rollover rate - but, their own numbers show that Rollovers (of cars and trucks) only account for 25% of all traffic related death.

Some people want to put their family at risk to make a political statement - have at it. I think they call them - Human shields.

Here are full statistics for 2001: http://www.hwysafety.org/safety_facts/fatality_facts/passveh.htm

Driver deaths per million miles for all cars: 83
Driver deaths per million miles for all SUVs: 73
Passenger deaths per million miles for all cars: 124
Passenger deaths per million miles for all SUVs: 115

While SUVs roll over more, they kill less of their occupents overall and are much safer in some other accident types.

For example, look at multivehicle accidents. The small car class (wheelbase 101-105 in, which includes popular vehicles like the Civic) kills nearly twice as many drivers as 3000-lb SUVs and nearly four times as many drivers as 4000-lb SUVs in multicar accidents.

So far this is a good discussion, no name calling or condescending attitudes for the most part... excellent, thanks. I'm learning a lot.

Look at this for more details on the info you provided:

Driver deaths per million passenger vehicles 1-3 years old, 2001
Vehicle size Rate
Car — mini 121
Car — small 109
Car — midsize 77
Car — large 63
Car — very large 69
Pickup — 4WD, 3,000-3,999 lbs. 152
Pickup — 4WD, 4,000-4,999 lbs. 115
Pickup — 4WD, >=5,000 lbs. 119
Utility vehicle— 4WD, < 3,000 lbs. 129
Utility vehicle— 4WD, 3,000-3,999 lbs. 65
Utility vehicle— 4WD, 4,000-4,999 lbs. 61
Utility vehicle— 4WD, >=5,000 lbs. 61
NOTE: There are no 4WD pickups < 3,000 lbs.

©1996-2003, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Highway Loss Data Institute
---------

So my conclusions: it's obviously safer to be in a mini car then the lightest SUVs. However, neither the CRV or the Element fall into that category. Also note that large cars and large SUVs are equally as safe over all.

It's interesting there's no category for 2WD SUVs in the 3k-4klb range. I wonder how they count them?

I really wish I could see this data broken down by vehicle make/model.

I also want to add that the reason I think people are focusing on single vehicle incidents is because those are presumably more likely to be avoidable if you are in a better handling vehicle.

[quote:67c51fac28="Simon"]That article by boneheadz was a perfect example of the media and their hatred of SUVs. Check out all the unquantifiable terms in that article - talk about opinion..[/quote:67c51fac28]

It's an article that is OBVIOUSLY an opinion. Anyone who reads an article displaying such obvious bias and expecting a level headed view is a little silly, to me.

I don't think "the media" gives a damn about SUVs one way or another, unless talking about them can sell newspapers. It obviously does.

The artical does state facts. Yes there is some bias there I won't deny that. But the piont is being missed. SUVs, and I don't count the element, crv or the like, kill the people the hit, not the driver. The are impractical. Yes they can carry passangers, but socan a mini van. The are built on a truck platform, but can not carry the same weight. the are simply a status symble. I challange you to find a suv owner that uses it for its intended purpose. Most are not able to handle off road or cargo.

I fail (and this is just an opinion) to see why there are so many of these large truck on the road. They kill people, the driving habit of some of the owners kill people. (The guy passing me last night in a snow storm doing 80 kph 4x4 does not help you stop on ice.)

Read the artical carefully, there are facts there. If you doubt it, check them yourself. If you disagree, remember, this is my opinion based on my interpritation of what I have read.

I am not as worried about single car accidents because I'm confident of my driving ability and CAUTION. If you buying one for your kid, that's another story.

What I fear, and I believe this is the more popular view, is that other guy running the light OR crossing the center line and hittiing you head on.

In December, 1993 a Pickup truck crossed the center line on a two lane road and hit my wife head on. It was 6:00 PM on Friday night and she was coming home from work. She has health problems to this day, and has never returned to work. The guy had the legal minimum for insurance in our state (20,000), that was exhausted in about 1.5 days after she was moved to Johns Hopkins University Hosptial. The guy was on/off handy man with no assets and his last job on record was delivering phone books. She was hospitalized for over 50 days, and her health problems continue. She will always be at a higher risk for blood clots, they are trying to avoid any type of surgery for her, she has Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome, she needs her knees replaced, arthritis, and on and on..

She was driving a 1988 Toyota Corrolla, which was, of course, totalled.
They had to use the jaws of life to cut her out of the vehicle.

I don't want any sympathy, we're past all that... From now on, my family rides in an SUV and I commute in the Element..

Pickups driven by construction crews, plumbers, electricians and so many small business owners are just as dangerous (to others) as SUV's. Regardless of what happens to SUVs these vehicles will be on the road, as long as they are, I want the option to drive a larger, heavier vehicle.
Much of the damage done to occupants is simple physics - weight, speed, center of gravity. SUVs are safer to drive for that reason alone.

there are considerably less commercial pick ups on the road than SUVs. I think that most people who drive SUVs are good drivers. However, there are some who seem to believe they are invincible. There is a part in the article where a women kills someone in her SUV and goes out and buys a bigger one. I commute with these people every day.

A couple of days ago I was tail gated and cut off by a guy in a full size chev truck. In the element I was a little freaked. I felt more secure in my truck. (dodge Dakota v8) I rarely got cut off or bullied on the road. The reality is I am probably safer in the element.

What happened to your wife was tragic. Two things to think about. 1. Cars are safer now. 2. SUVs are mass produce and turned into lux rides. The do not have the same safety standards as a car. In 1990, I slid my 87 Nissan truck under a semi. I was on the brakes and traveling about 20 kph. I hit the truck about half way up my windshield and peeled the roof off. There is no law requiring roof reinforcement on truck or SUV. If you do roll you SUV the roof will most likely cave in under the weight.

As I said earlier, our opinions are based on our own Interpretation of the information we read. If you believe that SUVs are safer, no one will change your mind. Cars or truck are only as safe as the people driving them. With the exception of the pinto.

Interesting stuff, but some things to keep in mind when reading these statistics are: There are many more cars on the road than suvs...even though suvs are the rage now, many cannot afford them, and cars are still the dominating vehicle in the us...this in itself make the statictics for car wrecks unequal when compared to suvs.
Just because you are in a suv, does not mean you will be safe...even in a head on collision...go to the IIHS crash test site and look it over...many cars score better than trucks and suvs. Yes, suvs are usually heavier and taller and some do tend to provide more protection in a wreck.
As for the rollover...I think it is hilarious to hear people say, "The rollover issue is not a concern, I watch my driving" . This might be true, but can you watch the millions of other crazy drivers out there that will cause you to do the type of driving that will lead to a rollover? Just like bikers, most of them are careful and watchful, but there are still thousands in wrecks every year because of the other person failing to see them...you cannot plan for an accident...you can only do your best and hope it is good enough.
The suv craze will eventually die down, especially if gas prices stay this high. Car and Driver magazine loves to dog the suv buyers, but they realize that is where a lot of the audience is, so they humor them.
I see the good and the bad...I would like an suv, but all of the models that interest me are 30k or higher, so I will stick with automobiles for now.

Gambitt

What do people class the element as? My registration says stationwagon. ick I know but I don't consider it a SUV It is closer to a stationwagon.

Well, when rollovers are 25% of the total deaths (Cars and trucks), it does make sense to put more credence in the 75%.

75% are non-rollover related deaths - I'll focus on the 3/4 while some focus on the 1/4..

To each his own.. :D

[quote:1b40a3d9d8="boneheadz"]What do people class the element as? My registration says stationwagon. ick I know but I don't consider it a SUV It is closer to a stationwagon.[/quote:1b40a3d9d8]

Some states they are SUVs and in some they are wagons.

It's heavy, mostly 4WD, looks like an SUV...

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, a looks like a duck..

[quote:9373b8e3bb="Simon"]
75% are non-rollover related deaths - I'll focus on the 3/4 while some focus on the 1/4..

To each his own.. :D[/quote:9373b8e3bb]

Yep.. on the other hand, how many of those 25% are avoidable if you were driving a better handling vehicle?

I've also seen evidence that SUVs aren't always the safest vehicles in multiple car accidents as well. Because of a car's lower center of gravity, a car the same weight would often do better than an SUV.

Best of luck to you and your wife... that's pretty nasty.

Thanks bud !

To me the 1/4 sounds pretty high, especially when you consider than out of the other 75%, probably somewhere around 90% of that is under 30 mile an hour fender benders. This is the type of work that keeps bodyshops in business:)