Nissan Engineers Put On The Dunce Cap After 2017 Titan Gets A Marginal Crash Rating

What I can't wrap my head around, is with the availability and the state of Computer-Aided Design (CAD systems), an auto-manufacturer can reasonably predict things like a crash rating and occupant injury/survivability during the design phase, long before the vehicle gets built.

So what's the manufacturer's thinking that results in a low crash ratings? Do they design death-traps for people who don't have a reason to live but still need to get around? Do they believe that's the price of cost-reduction (i.e., you can only make a car safe if it's expensive, or big, or heavy and sucks a lot of fuel)? Are they lazy? Just don't care? Don't know any better?

My (scientifically unproven) suspicion is that it's purely a matter of profit: What's the minimum cost/effort I can put into The Shiny New Toy, convince a sufficient number of consumers to buy it, while passing the minimum legal requirements to sell it :-(

Well, given that the "all new" Titan is really just a mild evolution of the previous one with uglier styling, the platform designed prior to 2004 is showing its age.

"Nissan Engineers Put On The Dunce Cap"

(Guess we're out of creative ideas for catchy headlines).

How about something simply factual, such as: "2017 Nissan Titan Gets Marginal Crash Rating"

I'm not sure if AutoSpies is run by a bunch of "bros", or whether sensationalism and polarization is just one of their click strategies, perhaps to boost ad revenue by quantifying traffic.

Holy crap!