The middle row seatbelts optional on the Expedition Max inflate when a collision is detected, helping to spread crash forces over a much larger area of the body and limiting head and neck movement. This can help prevent spinal and internal injuries. The Armada doesn’t offer inflatable seatbelts.
The Expedition Max has standard Post-Collision Braking, which automatically apply the brakes in the event of a crash to help prevent secondary collisions and prevent further injuries. The Armada doesn’t offer a post collision braking system: in the event of a collision that triggers the airbags, more collisions are possible without the protection of airbags that may have already deployed.
When descending a steep, off-road slope, the Expedition Max 4x4’s standard Hill Descent Control allows you to creep down safely. The Armada doesn’t offer Hill Descent Control.
To help make backing out of a parking space safer, the Expedition Max has standard Cross Traffic Alert with Cross Traffic Braking, systems which detect vehicles approaching from the sides and can automatically apply the brakes to prevent a collision. Only the Armada Platinum offers Intelligent Back-Up Intervention.
Both the Expedition Max and the Armada have standard driver and passenger frontal airbags, front side-impact airbags, side-impact head airbags, front seatbelt pretensioners, height adjustable front shoulder belts, plastic fuel tanks, four-wheel antilock brakes, traction control, electronic stability systems to prevent skidding, crash mitigating brakes, daytime running lights, lane departure warning systems, blind spot warning systems, rearview cameras, rear cross-path warning, driver alert monitors, available all wheel drive and around view monitors.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does 35 MPH front crash tests on new vehicles. In this test, results indicate that the Ford Expedition Max is safer than the Nissan Armada:
|
Expedition Max |
Armada |
OVERALL STARS |
5 Stars |
3 Stars |
|
Driver |
|
STARS |
5 Stars |
2 Stars |
HIC |
165 |
258 |
Neck Injury Risk |
32% |
43% |
Neck Stress |
361 lbs. |
377 lbs. |
Leg Forces (l/r) |
23/39 lbs. |
877/369 lbs. |
|
Passenger |
|
STARS |
5 Stars |
3 Stars |
Chest Compression |
.4 inches |
.9 inches |
Neck Injury Risk |
35% |
38% |
Neck Stress |
155 lbs. |
251 lbs. |
Neck Compression |
74 lbs. |
153 lbs. |
Leg Forces (l/r) |
271/178 lbs. |
509/594 lbs. |
New test not comparable to pre-2011 test results. More stars = Better. Lower test results = Better.
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 Expedition Max is safer than the Nissan Armada:
|
Expedition Max |
Armada |
|
Front Seat |
|
STARS |
5 Stars |
5 Stars |
HIC |
23 |
27 |
Chest Movement |
.5 inches |
1 inches |
|
Into Pole |
|
STARS |
5 Stars |
5 Stars |
Max Damage Depth |
13 inches |
16 inches |
HIC |
134 |
437 |
Hip Force |
569 lbs. |
684 lbs. |
New test not comparable to pre-2011 test results. More stars = Better. Lower test results = Better.
Instrumented handling tests conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and analysis of its dimensions indicate that the Expedition Max is 1.1% to 4.4% less likely to roll over than the Armada.