The Ford Mustang has standard driver and front passenger side knee airbags mounted low on the dashboard. These airbags helps prevent the driver and front passenger from sliding under their seatbelts or the main frontal airbags; this keeps them better positioned during a collision for maximum protection. Knee airbags also help keep the legs from striking the dashboard, preventing knee and leg injuries in the case of a serious frontal collision. The Challenger doesn’t offer knee airbags.
The Mustang has standard Pre-Collision Assist, which use forward mounted sensors to warn the driver of a possible collision ahead. If the driver doesn’t react and the system determines a collision is imminent, it automatically applies the brakes at full-force in order to reduce the force of the crash or avoid it altogether. The Challenger offers an available collision warning system without the automated brake feature that would prevent or reduce the collision if the driver fails to react.
The Mustang’s lane departure warning system alerts a temporarily inattentive driver when the vehicle begins to leave its lane and gently nudges the vehicle back towards its lane. The Challenger doesn’t offer a lane departure warning system.
The Mustang has a standard blind spot warning system that uses sensors to alert the driver to objects in the vehicle’s blind spots where the side view mirrors don’t reveal them. A system to reveal vehicles in the Challenger’s blind spot costs extra.
To help make backing out of a parking space safer, the Mustang has a standard rear cross-path warning system, which uses sensors in the rear bumper to alert the driver to vehicles approaching from the side, helping the driver avoid collisions. Rear cross-path warning costs extra on the Challenger.
The Mustang’s driver alert monitor detects an inattentive driver then sounds a warning and suggests a break. According to the NHTSA, drivers who fall asleep cause about 100,000 crashes and 1500 deaths a year. The Challenger doesn’t offer a driver alert monitor.
Both the Mustang and the Challenger have standard driver and passenger frontal airbags, front side-impact airbags, front seatbelt pretensioners, four-wheel antilock brakes, traction control, electronic stability systems to prevent skidding, daytime running lights, rearview cameras and available rear parking sensors.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does 35 MPH front crash tests on new vehicles. In this test, results indicate that the Ford Mustang is safer than the Dodge Challenger:
|
Mustang |
Challenger |
OVERALL STARS |
5 Stars |
4 Stars |
|
Driver |
|
STARS |
5 Stars |
4 Stars |
Neck Injury Risk |
23% |
28% |
Neck Compression |
31 lbs. |
31 lbs. |
|
Passenger |
|
STARS |
5 Stars |
5 Stars |
HIC |
125 |
209 |
Chest Compression |
.6 inches |
.7 inches |
Neck Injury Risk |
23% |
29% |
Neck Stress |
172 lbs. |
180 lbs. |
Leg Forces (l/r) |
47/13 lbs. |
190/375 lbs. |
New test not comparable to pre-2011 test results. More stars = Better. Lower test results = Better.
A significantly tougher test than their original offset frontal crash test, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety does 40 MPH small overlap frontal offset crash tests. In this test, where only 25% of the total width of the vehicle is struck, results indicate that the Ford Mustang Fastback is safer than the Challenger:
|
Mustang |
Challenger |
Overall Evaluation |
ACCEPTABLE |
MARGINAL |
Head Neck Evaluation |
GOOD |
GOOD |
Peak Head Forces |
0 G’s |
0 G’s |
Steering Column Movement Rearward |
5 cm |
8 cm |
Chest Evaluation |
GOOD |
GOOD |
Max Chest Compression |
25 cm |
26 cm |
Hip & Thigh Evaluation |
GOOD |
GOOD |
Hip & Thigh Injury Risk R/L |
0%/0% |
0%/0% |
Lower Leg Evaluation |
GOOD |
POOR |
Tibia index R/L |
.74/.66 |
1.46/1.01 |
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does side impact tests on new vehicles. In this test, which crashes the vehicle into a flat barrier at 38.5 MPH and into a post at 20 MPH, results indicate that the Ford Mustang is safer than the Dodge Challenger:
|
Mustang |
Challenger |
|
Front Seat |
|
STARS |
5 Stars |
5 Stars |
HIC |
117 |
145 |
Chest Movement |
.7 inches |
1.1 inches |
Abdominal Force |
142 lbs. |
174 lbs. |
Hip Force |
259 lbs. |
505 lbs. |
|
Into Pole |
|
STARS |
5 Stars |
5 Stars |
Max Damage Depth |
13 inches |
16 inches |
New test not comparable to pre-2011 test results. More stars = Better. Lower test results = Better.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) performs roof strength tests. In that test the Mustang earned the top rating of “Good” because its roof supported over four times the Mustang’s weight before being crushed five inches. The Challenger was rated lower at “Acceptable.”
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety rates the general design of front seat head restraints for their ability to protect front seat occupants from whiplash injuries. The IIHS also performs a dynamic test on those seats with “good” or “acceptable” geometry. In these ratings, the Mustang is safer than the Challenger:
|
Mustang |
Challenger |
Overall Evaluation |
GOOD |
ACCEPTABLE |
Head Restraint Design |
GOOD |
GOOD |
Distance from Back of Head |
18 mm |
61 mm |
Distance Below Top of Head |
26 mm |
28 mm |
Dynamic Test Rating |
GOOD |
ACCEPTABLE |
Seat Design |
Pass |
Fail |
Neck Force Rating |
Low |
Low |
Max Neck Shearing Force |
73 |
83 |
(Lower numerical results are better in all tests.)
Instrumented handling tests conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and analysis of its dimensions indicate that the Mustang, with its five-star roll-over rating, is 1.8% less likely to roll over than the Challenger, which received a four-star rating.