Top Safety PickTop Safety Pick criteria

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
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

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

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.

Overall evaluation
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

Measures of occupant compartment intrusion on driver side

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

Driver injury measures

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.

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

Measures of occupant compartment intrusion on passenger side

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

Passenger injury measures

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

Driver injury measures

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.

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

Measures of occupant compartment intrusion on driver side

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

Driver injury measures

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.

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 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.

Driver injury measures

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

Passenger injury measures

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 weight4,237 lbs
Peak force21,652 lbs
Strength-to-weight ratio5.11

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
Low-beam headlight typeLED projector
High-beam headlight typeLED projector
Curve-adaptive?Yes
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 Some glare

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
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
Low-beam headlight typeLED projector
High-beam headlight typeLED projector
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 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
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
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
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
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
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

Overall evaluation
Vehicle trimSEL
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.

Overall evaluation
Vehicle trimSEL
Seat type leather
1 2 3
GGood
AAcceptable
MMarginal
PPoor
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
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
Tether anchor
easy-to-find location
no other hardware could be confused for anchor
Lower anchors
Can be borrowed from 1 and 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

Seat position 21

3

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

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 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

Seat position 23

1

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