Top Safety Pick

2021 Ford Edge

midsize SUV / 4-door SUV

Award applies only to vehicles with specific headlights

2021 Ford Edge 4-door SUV — 2020 Ford Edge shown

Crashworthiness

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

Crash avoidance & mitigation

Evaluation criteria	Rating
Headlights (varies by trim/option)
Front crash prevention: vehicle-to-vehicle
Optional system	Superior
Standard system	Superior
Front crash prevention: pedestrian (day)
Standard system	Advanced
Optional system	Advanced

Seat belts & child restraints

Evaluation criteria	Rating
LATCH ease of use

Other available safety features

Standard blind spot detection
Standard lane departure warning & 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 2019-24 models

Tested vehicle: 2016 Lincoln MKX Select 4-door 4wd

The Lincoln MKX was redesigned for the 2016 model year. Beginning with the 2019 model year, the Lincoln MKX was restyled and renamed the Lincoln Nautilus. Also beginning with the 2019 model year, the Ford Edge was modified using the same body and bumper structure as in the Lincoln MKX since 2016. Therefore, all ratings on this page apply to the Ford Edge beginning with 2019 models, the Lincoln Nautilus, and Lincoln MKX.

Evaluation criteria	Rating

Structure and safety cage
Driver injury measures
Head/neck
Chest
Hip/thigh
Lower leg/foot
Driver restraints and dummy kinematics

Action shot taken during the 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 maintained very well.

The frontal and side curtain airbags worked well together to keep the head from coming close to any stiff structure or outside objects that could cause injury.

The driver's space was maintained well, and risk of injuries to the dummy's legs and feet was low.

Technical measurements for this test

Evaluation criteria	Measurement
Test ID	CEN1611
Lower occupant compartment
Lower hinge pillar max (cm)	9
Footrest (cm)	4
Left toepan (cm)	4
Brake pedal (cm)	5
Parking brake (cm)
Rocker panel lateral average (cm)	4
Upper occupant compartment
Steering column	2
Upper hinge pillar max (cm)	8
Upper dash (cm)	5
Lower instrument panel (cm)	6

Evaluation criteria	Measurement
Test ID	CEN1611
Head
HIC-15	69
Peak gs at hard contact	no contact
Neck
Tension (kN)	0.9
Extension bending moment (Nm)	10
Maximum Nij	0.20
Chest maximum compression (mm)	26
Femur (kN)
Left	0.8
Right	0.6
Knee displacement (mm)
Left	2
Right	0
Knee-thigh-hip injury risk (%)
Left	0
Right	0
Maximum tibia index
Left	0.40
Right	0.37
Tibia axial force (kN)
Left	1.4
Right	0.8
Foot acceleration (g)
Left	29
Right	28

About the small overlap front test

Small overlap front: passenger-side

Rating applies to 2019-24 models

Tested vehicle: 2018 Lincoln MKX Select 4-door 4wd

The Lincoln MKX was redesigned for the 2016 model year. Passenger-side small overlap frontal ratings are assigned by the Institute based on a test conducted by Ford.

Beginning with the 2019 model year, the Lincoln MKX was restyled and renamed the Lincoln Nautilus. Also beginning with the 2019 model year, the Ford Edge was modified using the same body and bumper structure as in the Lincoln MKX since 2016. Therefore, all ratings on this page apply to the Ford Edge beginning with 2019 models, the Lincoln Nautilus, and Lincoln MKX.

Evaluation criteria	Rating
Overall evaluation
Structure and safety cage
Passenger injury measures
Head/neck
Chest
Hip/thigh
Lower leg/foot
Passenger restraints and dummy kinematics
Driver injury measures
Head/neck
Chest
Hip/thigh
Lower leg/foot
Driver restraints and dummy kinematics

Technical measurements for this test

Evaluation criteria	Measurement
Test ID	VTP1722
Lower occupant compartment
Lower hinge pillar max (cm)	9
Footrest (cm)	3
Right toepan (cm)	4
Center toepan (cm)	2
Rocker panel lateral average (cm)	2
Upper occupant compartment
Center dash (cm)	4
Upper hinge pillar max (cm)	7
Upper dash (cm)	5
Right lower dash (cm)	7

Evaluation criteria	Measurement
Test ID	VTP1722
Head
HIC-15	110
Peak gs at hard contact	no contact
Neck
Tension (kN)	0.9
Extension bending moment (Nm)	13
Maximum Nij	0.19
Chest maximum compression (mm)	25
Femur (kN)
Left	0.1
Right	0.5
Knee displacement (mm)
Left	0
Right	2
Knee-thigh-hip injury risk (%)
Left	0
Right	0
Maximum tibia index
Left	0.36
Right	0.27
Tibia axial force (kN)
Left	0.8
Right	0.8
Foot acceleration (g)
Left	19
Right	28

Evaluation criteria	Measurement
Test ID	VTP1722
Head
HIC-15	32
Peak gs at hard contact	no contact
Neck
Tension (kN)	0.8
Extension bending moment (Nm)	9
Maximum Nij	0.16
Chest maximum compression (mm)	21
Femur (kN)
Left	0.5
Right	0.4
Knee displacement (mm)
Left	1
Right	0
Knee-thigh-hip injury risk (%)
Left	1
Right	0
Maximum tibia index
Left	0.31
Right	0.32
Tibia axial force (kN)
Left	0.7
Right	0.9
Foot acceleration (g)
Left	31
Right	52

About the small overlap front test

Moderate overlap front: original test

Rating applies to 2015-24 models

Tested vehicle: 2015 Ford Edge SEL 4-door 4wd

The Ford Edge was redesigned for the 2015 model year, and the Lincoln MKX was redesigned for the 2016 model year. Moderate overlap frontal ratings are assigned by the Institute based on a test conducted by Ford.

Beginning with the 2019 model year, the Lincoln MKX was restyled and renamed the Lincoln Nautilus. All ratings on this page apply to the Edge, MKX, and Nautilus.

Evaluation criteria	Rating
Overall evaluation
Structure and safety cage
Driver injury measures
Head/neck
Chest
Leg/foot, left
Leg/foot, right
Driver restraints and dummy kinematics

Technical measurements for this test

Evaluation criteria	Measurement
Test ID	VTF1417
Footwell intrusion
Footrest (cm)	3
Left (cm)	5
Center (cm)	3
Right (cm)	6
Brake pedal (cm)	9
Instrument panel rearward movement
Left (cm)	0
Right (cm)	1
Steering column movement
Upward (cm)	0
Rearward (cm)	-5
A-pillar rearward movement (cm)	0

Evaluation criteria	Measurement
Test ID	VTF1417
Head
HIC-15	189
Peak gs at hard contact	no contact
Neck
Tension (kN)	1.1
Extension bending moment (Nm)	9
Maximum Nij	0.25
Chest maximum compression (mm)	26
Legs
Femur force - left (kN)	0.8
Femur force - right (kN)	1.2
Knee displacement - left (mm)	3
Knee displacement - right (mm)	1
Maximum tibia index - left	0.24
Maximum tibia index - right	0.36
Tibia axial force - left (kN)	1.2
Tibia axial force - right (kN)	2.3
Foot acceleration (g)
Left	39
Right	61

About the original moderate overlap front test

Side: original test

Rating applies to 2015-23 models

Tested vehicle: 2015 Ford Edge SEL 4-door 4wd

The Ford Edge was redesigned for the 2015 model year, and the Lincoln MKX was redesigned for the 2016 model year. Side ratings are assigned by the Institute based on a test conducted by Ford.

Beginning with the 2019 model year, the Lincoln MKX was restyled and renamed the Lincoln Nautilus. All ratings on this page apply to the Edge, MKX, and Nautilus.

Evaluation criteria	Rating
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

Test ID	VTS1418
B-pillar to longitudinal centerline of driver's seat (cm)	-20.0
Negative numbers indicate the amount by which the crush stopped short of the seat centerline.

Evaluation criteria	Measurement
Test ID	VTS1418
Head HIC-15	89
Neck
Tension (kN)	0.7
Compression (kN)	0.4
Shoulder
Lateral deflection (mm)	37
Lateral force (kN)	1.5
Torso
Maximum deflection (mm)	30
Average deflection (mm)	24
Maximum deflection rate (m/s)	2.74
Maximum viscous criterion (m/s)	0.30
Pelvis
Iliac force (kN)	1.0
Acetabulum force (kN)	1.5
Combined force (kN)	2.4
Left femur
L-M force (kN)	0.7
L-M moment (Nm)	13
A-P moment (Nm)	90

Evaluation criteria	Measurement
Test ID	VTS1418
Head HIC-15	68
Neck
Tension (kN)	0.2
Compression (kN)	0.3
Shoulder
Lateral deflection (mm)	35
Lateral force (kN)	1.8
Torso
Maximum deflection (mm)	28
Average deflection (mm)	21
Maximum deflection rate (m/s)	3.27
Maximum viscous criterion (m/s)	0.32
Pelvis
Iliac force (kN)	0.2
Acetabulum force (kN)	1.8
Combined force (kN)	1.8
Left femur
L-M force (kN)	0.7
L-M moment (Nm)	28
A-P moment (Nm)	107

About the original side crash test

Roof strength

Rating applies to 2015-23 models

Tested vehicle: 2015 Ford Edge SEL 4-door 4wd

Overall evaluation
Curb weight	4,237 lbs
Peak force	21,652 lbs
Strength-to-weight ratio	5.11

About the roof strength test

Head restraints & seats

Seat type: Power cloth seat

Overall evaluation
Dynamic rating
Seat/head restraint geometry

Technical measurements for this test

Seat type	Power cloth seat
Geometry
Backset (mm)	10
Distance below top of head (mm)	9
Seat design parameters
Pass/fail	Pass
Max T1 acceleration (g)	11.7
Head contact time (ms)	50
Force rating	1
Neck forces
Max neck shear force (N)	0
Max neck tension (N)	393

About the head restraint & seat test
Currently, IIHS tests apply only to front seats.

Headlights

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

Trim level(s)

Titanium trim equipped with 301A package
ST trim equipped with 401A package

Evaluation criteria	Rating
Low-beam headlight type	LED projector
High-beam headlight type	LED projector
Curve-adaptive?	Yes
High-beam assist?	Yes
Overall rating
Distance at which headlights provide at least 5 lux illumination:

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

The low beams created some 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 good in all 4 tests.

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

Technical measurements for this test

Evaluation criteria	Measurement
Trim level(s)	Titanium trim equipped with 301A package ST trim equipped with 401A package
Low-beam headlight type	LED projector
High-beam headlight type	LED projector
Curve-adaptive?	Yes
High-beam assist?	Yes
Overall rating Applies to 2019-24 models

LOW BEAMS	Average minimum useful illumination distance (5 lux)	Amount glare exceeded threshold
Straightaway right edge	99.4 m	18.9%
Straightaway left edge	58.0 m	18.9%
250m radius right curve, right edge	77.8 m	14.6%
250m radius left curve, left edge	57.6 m	None
150m radius right curve, right edge	71.8 m	None
150m radius left curve, right edge	56.8 m	5.9%

HIGH BEAMS	Average minimum useful illumination distance (5 lux)
Straightaway right edge	134.8 m
Straightaway left edge	117.3 m
250m radius right curve, right edge	89.5 m
250m radius left curve, left edge	83.9 m
150m radius right curve, right edge	75.4 m
150m radius left curve, left edge	73.2 m

Trim level(s)

SE trim
SEL trim
Titanium trim
ST trim

Evaluation criteria	Rating
Low-beam headlight type	LED projector
High-beam headlight type	LED projector
Curve-adaptive?	No
High-beam assist?	Yes
Overall rating
Distance at which headlights provide at least 5 lux illumination:

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

The low beams created excessive glare.

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

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

Evaluation criteria	Measurement
Trim level(s)	SE trim SEL trim Titanium trim ST trim
Low-beam headlight type	LED projector
High-beam headlight type	LED projector
Curve-adaptive?	No
High-beam assist?	Yes
Overall rating Applies to 2019-24 models

LOW BEAMS	Average minimum useful illumination distance (5 lux)	Amount glare exceeded threshold
Straightaway right edge	101.5 m	201.8%
Straightaway left edge	65.6 m	201.8%
250m radius right curve, right edge	68.5 m	20.0%
250m radius left curve, right edge	64.7 m	117.9%
150m radius right curve, right edge	52.5 m	47.1%
150m radius left curve, left edge	56.3 m	140.3%

HIGH BEAMS	Average minimum useful illumination distance (5 lux)
Straightaway right edge	113.3 m
Straightaway left edge	99.8 m
250m radius right curve, right edge	70.0 m
250m radius left curve, left edge	71.9 m
150m radius right curve, right edge	53.9 m
150m radius left curve, left edge	57.3 m

About the headlight evaluation

Front crash prevention: vehicle-to-vehicle

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

System details

Optional Pre-Collision Assist with Automatic Emergency Braking

Package name

Optional Ford Co-Pilot360 Assist+

Overall evaluation

Applies to 2019-23 models

Superior

with optional equipment

This system meets the requirements for forward collision warning.
In the 12 mph test, this vehicle avoided a collision.
In the 25 mph test, this vehicle avoided a collision.

System details

Standard Pre-Collision Assist with Automatic Emergency Braking

Package name

Standard Ford Co-Pilot360

Overall evaluation

Applies to 2019-23 models

Superior

This system meets the requirements for forward collision warning.
In the 12 mph test, this vehicle avoided a collision.
In the 25 mph test, this vehicle avoided a collision.

About the original front crash prevention test

Front crash prevention: pedestrian (day)

Ratings are given for 2 different systems available on this vehicle.

System details

standard Pre-collision Assist with Autonomous Emergency Braking

Overall evaluation

This rating applies to all 2019-24 models

Advanced

Crossing child

In the 12 mph test, impact speed was reduced by 11 mph.
In the 25 mph test, impact speed was reduced by 20 mph.

Crossing adult

In the 12 mph test, this vehicle nearly avoided a collision.
In the 25 mph test, impact speed was reduced by 23 mph.

Parallel adult

In the 25 mph test, this vehicle avoided a collision.
In the 37 mph test, impact speed was reduced by 22 mph. A warning was issued 1.8 seconds before impact.

System details

optional Pre-Collision Assist with Automatic Emergency Braking

Overall evaluation

This rating applies to 2019-24 models of the following trim lines: SEL trim equipped with Ford Co-Pilot 360 Assist+ package, Titanium trim equipped with Ford Co-Pilot 360 Assist+ package, ST trim equipped with Ford Co-Pilot 360 Assist+ package

Advanced

with optional equipment

Crossing child

In the 12 mph test, this vehicle avoided a collision.
In the 25 mph test, impact speed was reduced by 17 mph.

Crossing adult

In the 12 mph test, impact speed was reduced by 11 mph.
In the 25 mph test, impact speed was reduced by 11 mph.

Parallel adult

In the 25 mph test, this vehicle avoided a collision.
In the 37 mph test, impact speed was reduced by 17 mph. A warning was issued 1.8 seconds before impact.

About the pedestrian front crash prevention test

Child seat anchors

Rating applies to 2015-24 models

Evaluation criteria	Rating
Overall evaluation
Vehicle trim	SEL
Seat type	leather

This vehicle has 2 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.

Evaluation criteria	Rating
Overall evaluation
Vehicle trim	SEL
Seat type	leather

Rating icon	Rating
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

Position	Rating
1
1	Tether anchor
	easy-to-find location
	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
2	Tether anchor
	easy-to-find location
	no other hardware could be confused for anchor
	Lower anchors
	Can be borrowed from 1 and 3
3
3	Tether anchor
	easy-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

Lower anchor A
Open access rated	No
Depth (cm)	0-2
Force (lbs)	29
Clearance angle (degrees)	66
Lower anchor B
Open access rated	No
Depth (cm)	0-2
Force (lbs)	18
Clearance angle (degrees)	70
Tether anchor
Location	Middle seatback
Confusing hardware present	Yes
Has contrasting label within 3 inches of tether anchor	No
Tether anchors can be accessed while seatback is properly positioned for use of LATCH	Not measured

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	Middle seatback
Confusing hardware present	No
Has contrasting label within 3 inches of tether anchor	No
Tether anchors can be accessed while seatback is properly positioned for use of LATCH	Not measured

Lower anchor A
Open access rated	No
Depth (cm)	2-4
Force (lbs)	22
Clearance angle (degrees)	69
Lower anchor B
Open access rated	No
Depth (cm)	2-4
Force (lbs)	24
Clearance angle (degrees)	68
Tether anchor
Location	Middle seatback
Confusing hardware present	Yes
Has contrasting label within 3 inches of tether anchor	No
Tether anchors can be accessed while seatback is properly positioned for use of LATCH	Not measured

About the child seat anchor evaluation