Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs) have become increasingly popular for their versatility, spacious interiors, and perceived safety.
However, their higher center of gravity than sedans makes certain models more susceptible to rollovers during accidents or emergency maneuvers.
While modern SUVs incorporate advanced safety features like electronic stability control and rollover protection systems, some vehicles still pose higher risks based on their design, weight distribution, and handling characteristics.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) uses a Static Stability Factor (SSF) to evaluate rollover resistance, with lower scores indicating greater rollover risk.
This article examines ten SUV models that have historically demonstrated a higher propensity for rollovers in accident scenarios, based on crash test data, safety ratings, and real-world accident statistics.
Understanding these risks can help consumers make more informed purchasing decisions and take appropriate precautions when driving these vehicles, such as avoiding sharp turns at high speeds and ensuring proper tire maintenance.
1. Ford Explorer (pre-2011 models)
The Ford Explorer, particularly models manufactured before 2011, has one of the most notorious reputations for rollover susceptibility.
The early generation Explorers gained significant media attention during the Firestone tire controversy in the late 1990s and early 2000s when tire failures combined with the vehicle’s high center of gravity resulted in numerous fatal rollover accidents.
These incidents led to one of the largest recalls in automotive history. The pre-2011 Explorer models were built on a truck-based, body on frame platform that raised the vehicle’s center of gravity.
This design, while providing excellent off-road capabilities and towing capacity, created inherent stability issues during emergency maneuvers like sudden lane changes or obstacle avoidance.
The NHTSA awarded these models a concerning three-star rollover rating (out of five), indicating a 20-30% risk of rollover during a single-vehicle crash.
Ford addressed these concerns comprehensively in their 2011 redesign by transitioning to a car-based unibody construction that significantly lowered the center of gravity.
The manufacturer also implemented standard electronic stability control and Roll Stability Control systems that can detect potential rollover situations and automatically adjust braking and engine torque to maintain vehicle control.
Owners of pre-2011 models should be particularly cautious about overloading the roof rack, which further raises the center of gravity.
Additionally, maintaining proper tire pressure and replacing tires at recommended intervals is crucial for these vehicles, as tire failures were a contributing factor in many documented rollover incidents.
2. Jeep Wrangler
The Jeep Wrangler, while celebrated for its exceptional off-road capabilities and iconic design, consistently scores poorly in rollover resistance tests.
Its narrow track width, combined with a tall body design and high ground clearance, creates a particularly high center of gravity.
The NHTSA has historically assigned the Wrangler a three-star rollover rating, indicating a risk of rollover approximately 20-30% higher than average SUVs.
The Wrangler’s design prioritizes features beneficial for off-roading short wheelbase, solid axles, and significant ground clearance all of which compromise on-road stability, particularly during emergency maneuvers.
The two-door Wrangler models present an even higher risk than their four-door counterparts due to their shorter wheelbase.
When driven aggressively on paved roads, especially during sharp turns or sudden lane changes, the vehicle can become unstable more quickly than SUVs designed primarily for on-road use.
Modifications popular among Wrangler enthusiasts, such as lift kits and oversized tires, can further exacerbate rollover tendencies by raising the center of gravity even higher.
While these modifications enhance off-road performance, they significantly increase risk during normal driving conditions.
Even the removable roof a beloved feature of the Wrangler impacts the structural integrity during rollovers, potentially reducing protection compared to fixed-roof vehicles.
Despite these concerns, recent Wrangler models have improved with the addition of electronic stability control systems.
Jeep has also implemented a sophisticated roll mitigation system that can apply individual brakes and modulate engine power when sensors detect an impending rollover situation.
Owners should remain vigilant about their driving behavior, avoid excessive speeds during turns, and carefully consider how aftermarket modifications might affect vehicle stability.
3. Suzuki Samurai
Though no longer in production, the Suzuki Samurai earned perhaps the most infamous reputation for the rollover propensity of any SUV.
This compact off-roader became the center of controversy in 1988 when Consumer Reports published a review stating that the vehicle was dangerously prone to rollovers during emergency handling maneuvers.
Their testing showed the Samurai could tip onto two wheels during sharp turns, considerably increasing rollover risk.
The Samurai’s extremely narrow track width (just over 55 inches) combined with a relatively high ground clearance created an inherently unstable platform.
With a wheelbase of only 86.6 inches nearly two feet shorter than modern compact SUVs, the vehicle’s dimensions were fundamentally problematic for stability.
The lightweight construction (approximately 2,000 pounds) meant that relatively small lateral forces could initiate a rollover, especially during emergency avoidance maneuvers.
Consumer Reports’ critique sparked a decade-long legal battle with Suzuki, with the automaker arguing that the testing procedures were unfair and designed to produce rollover results.
Nonetheless, sales of the Samurai plummeted after the report, and the model’s reputation never fully recovered.
The controversy contributed significantly to heightened awareness of SUV rollover risks in general and led to improved testing standards for all vehicles.
Owners of surviving Samurai vehicles should exercise extreme caution, particularly when driving at highway speeds or in windy conditions. Modifications that raise the center of gravity, such as lift kits, should be avoided entirely.
The Samurai serves as a historical reminder of how critical stability factors are in SUV design, and its legacy prompted significant safety improvements across the entire SUV market in subsequent decades.
4. Chevrolet Trailblazer (2002-2009)
The first-generation Chevrolet Trailblazer, produced from 2002 to 2009, demonstrated significant rollover vulnerability due to its truck-based construction and high center of gravity.
With a relatively narrow track width compared to its height, the Trailblazer received only three stars out of five in the NHTSA’s rollover resistance ratings, indicating a 20-30% risk of rollover during a single-vehicle crash.
This mid-size SUV featured body-on-frame construction typical of trucks, which raised its center of mass compared to car-based crossovers.
While this design provided advantages in towing capacity and off-road capability, it created inherent stability compromises.
The vehicle’s relatively soft suspension tuning, while delivering a comfortable ride, allowed for significant body roll during cornering that could exacerbate rollover tendencies during emergency maneuvers.
Earlier models of the Trailblazer (2002-2003) were particularly concerning as they lacked standard electronic stability control systems that later became mandatory.
Without these technological safeguards, drivers had fewer electronic interventions to prevent loss of control in situations that might lead to rollovers.
The extended-length Trailblazer EXT variant presented even greater risks due to its longer body and additional weight behind the rear axle.
The Trailblazer’s rollover issues became evident in real-world accident statistics, with higher-than-average fatality rates in single-vehicle accidents compared to contemporary SUVs with more modern designs.
This data prompted Chevrolet to implement significant improvements in later model years, including standard stability control systems by 2006 and structural reinforcements to better protect occupants during rollover events.
Owners of these Trailblazer models should be particularly cautious about roof loading, as cargo carriers or roof racks further raise the center of gravity.
Additionally, maintaining appropriate tire pressure and ensuring even tire wear are crucial for optimizing what limited stability these vehicles offer.
Also Read: 10 Diesel Trucks Known for Legendary Longevity & Reliable Travel
5. Nissan Pathfinder (pre-2013 models)
The Nissan Pathfinder, particularly generations manufactured before the 2013 redesign, presents considerable rollover risks due to its traditional truck-based construction.
Built on a rugged body-on-frame platform shared with Nissan’s pickup trucks, these earlier Pathfinder models featured a high ride height that, while beneficial for off-road adventures, significantly raised the center of gravity and compromised on-road stability.
NHTSA testing awarded these Pathfinder generations a concerning three-star rollover rating, indicating a 21.9% risk of rollover during a single-vehicle crash.
This rating placed the vehicle below average among its contemporaries and highlighted the inherent stability limitations of its design.
The combination of a narrow track width relative to its height created unfavorable dynamics during emergency maneuvers, particularly on models equipped with optional off-road packages that further increased ground clearance.
The third-generation Pathfinder (2005-2012) demonstrated particularly problematic handling characteristics during evasive maneuvers. Consumer testing revealed excessive body lean during sharp turns, which could potentially lead to tire lift-off in extreme situations.
Additionally, models equipped with the optional third-row seating carried more weight behind the rear axle, potentially exacerbating instability during emergency handling situations.
Nissan addressed these concerns comprehensively with their 2013 redesign, which abandoned the truck-based platform in favor of a car-based unibody construction.
This fundamental architecture change lowered the center of gravity substantially and improved the vehicle’s dynamic stability.
The newer models also incorporate advanced electronic stability systems with specific programming to mitigate rollover risks.
Owners of pre-2013 Pathfinders should exercise additional caution when driving at highway speeds or in adverse weather conditions.
Avoiding overloading, particularly with roof-mounted cargo, is essential as additional weight above the vehicle’s center of gravity dramatically increases rollover propensity.
6. Toyota 4Runner (early generations)
The Toyota 4Runner, particularly earlier generations through 2009, has demonstrated notable rollover vulnerability due to its purpose-built off-road design.
This SUV’s traditional body-on-frame construction and substantial ground clearance, while excellent for off-road capability, create a raised center of gravity that compromises stability during emergency maneuvers on paved roads.
NHTSA testing consistently rated these 4Runner generations with three stars for rollover resistance, indicating a roughly 22-24% chance of rollover during a single-vehicle crash.
This rating placed the vehicle below average in its category for rollover safety. The vehicle’s relatively narrow track width compared to its height created an unfavorable Static Stability Factor, one of the key metrics used to predict rollover propensity.
The 4Runner’s suspension design, optimized for articulation and off-road performance, allows for significant body roll during on-road cornering.
This characteristic, while beneficial when traversing uneven terrain, can reduce the effective track width during hard cornering maneuvers, potentially leading to “tip-up” scenarios where wheels on one side lose contact with the road.
Earlier models (pre-2003) were particularly concerning as they predated the widespread implementation of electronic stability control systems.
Toyota has continuously improved the 4Runner’s stability in newer generations, implementing Toyota’s KDSS (Kinetic Dynamic Suspension System) in higher trim levels, which reduces body roll without compromising off-road articulation.
Additionally, all current models feature comprehensive stability control systems with specific programming to detect and mitigate potential rollover scenarios.
Owners of earlier 4Runner models should be particularly cautious about modifications such as lift kits and oversized tires, which further raise the center of gravity.
They should also avoid sudden steering inputs at highway speeds and exercise additional care when driving on winding roads or in adverse weather conditions, as these scenarios can more easily trigger the vehicle’s inherent stability limitations.
7. Isuzu Trooper
The Isuzu Trooper, particularly models from the second generation (1991-2002), gained notoriety for rollover concerns after Consumer Reports issued a “Not Acceptable” rating in 1996 due to tip-up tendencies during emergency maneuvers.
Their testing revealed that the Trooper could lift its inside wheels off the ground during their “avoidance maneuver” test, indicating a dangerous propensity for rollover under certain driving conditions.
The Trooper’s boxy design and tall stance, while providing excellent visibility and interior space, created an unfavorable height-to-width ratio that compromised lateral stability.
With a relatively narrow track width of approximately 59 inches and a height exceeding 73 inches, the vehicle’s proportions created an inherently high center of gravity.
This design sacrificed stability for off-road capability and interior volume a common trade-off in SUVs of that era.
Following Consumer Reports’ negative assessment, Isuzu engaged in a prolonged legal battle with the publication, claiming the tests were designed to produce failures and did not represent real-world driving conditions.
However, NHTSA investigations and real-world accident data suggested the concerns were valid.
The controversy significantly damaged the Trooper’s reputation and sales in North America, contributing to Isuzu’s eventual withdrawal from the passenger vehicle market in the United States.
Later model years of the Trooper incorporated improvements to suspension tuning and wider tires in an attempt to address stability concerns.
However, these modifications only marginally improved the vehicle’s fundamental design limitations.
By today’s standards, the lack of electronic stability control systems in these vehicles represents a significant safety omission that modern SUVs have addressed.
Owners of surviving Troopers should exercise considerable caution, particularly during highway driving and lane-change maneuvers.
Maintaining proper tire pressure, avoiding overloading (especially roof cargo), and refraining from aggressive driving maneuvers are essential precautions for these vehicles.
8. Mitsubishi Montero/Pajero (2001-2006)
The Mitsubishi Montero (known as the Pajero in global markets), particularly the third generation models produced between 2001 and 2006, demonstrated significant rollover vulnerability.
Like the Isuzu Trooper, the Montero was the subject of a controversial Consumer Reports evaluation in 2001 that resulted in a “Not Acceptable” rating due to its performance in emergency handling tests.
During these tests, the Montero lifted two wheels off the ground, indicating a dangerous instability that could lead to rollovers.
The vehicle’s design featured a tall, boxy profile with a substantial ground clearance of 8.5 inches, creating an inherently high center of gravity.
While this design provided excellent off-road capability and a commanding driving position, it significantly compromised on-road stability during emergency maneuvers.
The NHTSA awarded these Montero models a three-star rollover rating, indicating a 21.9% risk of rollover during a single-vehicle crash.
Mitsubishi disputed Consumer Reports’ findings vigorously, claiming the testing protocols were unrealistic and designed to provoke failures. However, the damage to the vehicle’s reputation was substantial, and sales declined significantly following the negative publicity.
The controversy became particularly problematic for Mitsubishi as it coincided with a period when public awareness of SUV rollover risks was heightening following high-profile cases involving other manufacturers.
Later model years implemented technical improvements including refined suspension tuning and the introduction of Mitsubishi’s Active Stability Control system, which could detect potential rollover situations and apply individual brakes to maintain stability.
However, these improvements could not fully overcome the fundamental physics of the vehicle’s top-heavy design.
Current owners of these Montero/Pajero models should maintain vigilance regarding tire conditions, as uneven wear or improper inflation can further compromise stability.
Additionally, they should avoid aggressive driving maneuvers, particularly at highway speeds, and exercise extra caution during adverse weather conditions that might reduce traction.
9. Land Rover Discovery (Series I and II)
The Land Rover Discovery, particularly the Series I (1989-1998) and Series II (1998-2004) models combined exceptional off-road capability with concerning on-road stability characteristics.
These vehicles featured an unusually high center of gravity even by SUV standards due to their tall, boxy design and significant ground clearance designed for traversing extreme terrain.
The Discovery’s height of approximately 77 inches made it one of the tallest production SUVs of its era.
NHTSA testing assigned these Discovery generations a three-star rollover rating, indicating a roughly 23% risk of rollover during a single-vehicle crash.
This rating placed the vehicle among the more rollover-prone SUVs of its time. The Discovery’s narrow track width relative to its height created an unfavorable Static Stability Factor that made it particularly vulnerable during emergency maneuvers or when driven on uneven road surfaces.
The Discovery’s sophisticated air suspension system, while providing excellent off-road articulation and adjustable ride height, could sometimes exacerbate stability issues.
The system allowed the vehicle to rise significantly for off-road driving, further raising an already high center of gravity.
If this raised suspension setting was inadvertently used during on-road driving, the rollover risk increased substantially.
Land Rover implemented Active Roll Mitigation systems in later Discovery II models to address these concerns, but the technology of that era had limitations compared to modern stability control systems.
The fundamental design priorities of the vehicle emphasizing off-road capability, visibility, and interior space over on-road stability remained unchanged until the completely redesigned Discovery 3 (LR3 in North America).
Owners of these classic Discovery models should be particularly vigilant about roof loading, as the vehicle’s design already places mass very high in the chassis.
Adding roof-mounted cargo or equipment further compromises stability. Additionally, maintaining the complex suspension system is crucial, as failures can lead to uneven ride heights that negatively impact handling and potentially increase rollover risks.
10. Mercedes-Benz M-Class (First Generation, 1997-2005)
The first-generation Mercedes-Benz M-Class, produced from 1997 to 2005, represented the luxury automaker’s first foray into the SUV market and demonstrated significant rollover vulnerability despite its premium positioning.
Initial models received only a three-star rating from NHTSA for rollover resistance, indicating a 22.9% risk of rollover during a single-vehicle crash a surprisingly poor showing for a vehicle from a manufacturer known for safety innovations.
The early M-Class featured a relatively high center of gravity combined with a suspension system that prioritized comfort over handling precision.
This combination created substantial body roll during cornering maneuvers, reducing the effective track width in dynamic situations and potentially leading to decreased stability during emergency maneuvers.
The vehicle’s substantial weight (approximately 4,800 pounds) provided some stability benefits compared to lighter SUVs, but could not fully compensate for the fundamental design compromises.
Perhaps most concerning was the M-Class’s performance in the Swedish “moose test” an evasive maneuver evaluation famously failed by the Mercedes A-Class in 1997.
Early production M-Class vehicles demonstrated alarming instability during this test, with a tendency to lift inside wheels during the rapid lane-change maneuver.
This revelation prompted Mercedes-Benz to implement mid-cycle stability enhancements, including revised suspension tuning and the implementation of the Electronic Stability Program (ESP) as standard equipment on all models by 1999.
Mercedes addressed many of these issues in the second-generation M-Class introduced in 2005, which featured a significantly wider track, lower center of gravity, and more sophisticated stability control systems.
The redesign resulted in a much-improved four-star rollover rating from NHTSA. Owners of first-generation M-Class vehicles should ensure their vehicle’s ESP system is functioning correctly, as it provides a critical safety net for the vehicle’s inherent stability limitations.
Additionally, they should maintain appropriate tire pressure, avoid aggressive driving maneuvers, and exercise particular caution when driving in adverse weather conditions or on winding roads.
Also Read: 10 Japanese Cars That Are Known for Unbreakable Reliability
