The article is just flat wrong about Honda. The small overlap tests started in 2013, most of the Hondas already scored "Good" in the small overlap tests by 201

The article is just flat wrong about Honda. The small overlap tests started in 2013, most of the Hondas already scored "Good" in the small overlap tests by 2013. The Author awards BMW and M-B excellent status for correcting their problems by 2017, but most of their cars were Poor/Marginal for 4 years. Somehow Honda is worse for having most of their models "Good" in 2013 with only a few models having issues. The Civic and the Accord for example have never been tested as anything but "Good" in these tests, whereas comparing them to the BMW 3-series and M-B C Class those cars tested out as "Poor" or "Marginal" for 4-5 years before they were corrected. The Pilot by comparison did have problems. How this equates to BMW/M-B being great and Honda being problematic is terrible. Note the author in his notes doesn't denote which cars/trucks/SUVs in which model years he's actually talking about, making it impossible to figure out how he's judging the brands. Most of doing well on these tests tended to have to do with where in the redesign cycle a manufacturer was with a particular car/truck/SUV.