New Camry/Caliber "Fail To Get Top Safety Recommendation"

[Perian]

Link: http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dl...0of%20Contents

Automotive News / August 7, 2006 - 6:00 am

WASHINGTON -- Despite generally good performances, two popular new models failed to get top safety recommendations after tests by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

The 2007 Toyota Camry was rated "good" in the high-speed frontal offset crash test, according to results scheduled to be made public Sunday, Aug. 6.

The Camry also was one of the best vehicles tested so far in side impacts, the institute said. But it was rated only "marginal" in protecting occupants in rear-end crashes.

The 2007 Dodge Caliber is much safer than the Neon it replaced, said the institute, a research organization for auto insurers. But the Caliber still got only "marginal" ratings in side and rear crashes.

WASHINGTON -- Toyota's 2007 Camry sedan and 2006 RAV4 sport utility earned the highest rankings for front- and side-impact safety in the latest round of crash tests by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

But five of the six models evaluated did not perform well in rear crash tests and none earned the group's "Top Safety Pick" award, the institute said Sunday.

"Now it's the norm for vehicles to earn good ratings in the frontal test, and performance in the side test is rapidly improving," institute President Adrian Lund said.

"But protection against neck injury in rear-end crashes still needs a lot of work. Front and side crashes usually are more serious, but rear impacts are more common."

Along with the Camry and RAV4, the vehicles tested included the 2007 Dodge Caliber small crossover and the 2006 Hyundai Tucson small SUV, and the 2006 Kia Optima and Lincoln Zephyr sedans. All but the RAV4 are equipped with standard side air bags with head protection.

In front crash tests, all six models were rated "good" or "acceptable," the two highest scores among four possible rankings. In side crash tests, all earned "good" or "acceptable," except the Optima, which did not undergo a side-impact test. Only the Optima "earned a "good" ranking for rear crash protection.

The testing involves mechanically driving a vehicle into a barrier at 40 mph to test its front rating, smashing a vehicle in its side with a barrier moving at 31 mph and hitting a vehicle from behind at 20 mph.

Two sophisticated crash test dummies inside each vehicle, one in front and the other in back, help to evaluate possible injuries, and a slew of sensors and machines measure other dynamics during the crash.

Toyota Motor Corp. spokesman Bill Kwong took issue with the rear crash rankings of the Camry and RAV4 and said its own tests show customers are getting protection comparable to that of other top-ranked vehicles.

"We'll agree to disagree," he said. "We have a test and they have a test. It doesn't mean that we're right and they're wrong."

What's not debatable is that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will likely mandate by the end of the year that automakers install side-impact air bags in all vehicles, spokesman Rae Tyson said.

[Perian]

With all due respect, please remember that the IIHS test is NOT a government test, and NOT a requirement for public sale of a vehicle.

It is however, a marketing managers dream if the scores are high enough...

[logansowner]

I'm inclined to wonder now why with the knowledge of these tests that any automaker should have why they don't perform these tests on their own and tweak th cars until they get it right. THEN take it for official tests.

[pontiacjs]

Being that this is the "INSURANCE INSTITUTE FOR HWY SAFETY" doesn't it make sense that they would go out of there way to score a car low so that the insurance companies can use their data to raise your rates?

[Havasavana]

Originally Posted by logansowner

I'm inclined to wonder now why with the knowledge of these tests that any automaker should have why they don't perform these tests on their own and tweak th cars until they get it right. THEN take it for official tests.

I agree completely. And I wonder whether the CEOs of companies, and the boards, are paying attention. Such GOOD, or BAD, publicity.

[Tiger]

Toyota Motor Corp. spokesman Bill Kwong took issue with the rear crash rankings of the Camry and RAV4 and said its own tests show customers are getting protection comparable to that of other top-ranked vehicles.

"We'll agree to disagree," he said. "We have a test and they have a test. It doesn't mean that we're right and they're wrong."

It's official...Toyota is now the "OLD" cranky manufacturer that GM used to be years ago.

[Buick61]

Originally Posted by logansowner

I'm inclined to wonder now why with the knowledge of these tests that any automaker should have why they don't perform these tests on their own and tweak th cars until they get it right. THEN take it for official tests.

They do. They engineer their cars with these tests in mind, but it costs money to get perfect scores. Even Toyota put a bar in the middle of the back bumper of the last-gen Camry so that it would ace the rear pole test...IIHS found out about it and tested the Camry off-center to circumvent the cheat.

[mbukukanyau]

Well, our tests show that your neck will survive a 40MPH crash..
So whether other tests show otherwise is up to them...

good luck neck.. Give me your wallet stupid.. to hell with your neck

[01cavalier]

I'm surprised by the rating on the Camry. I expect better...

[jbartley]

ouch! that stings!

[cadillacpimpin]

toyota is becoming gm, more than they think.

[Joe Ego]

And yet, that's not how the test results were reported in the news this morning on local radio. Something like "perfect" for side impact scores and "good" for frontal impact.

[usa1]

Automakers have been trying to design their cars to get good crash ratings for years. The government has their tests and they are fairly static. The IIHS changes theirs all the time. IIHS tests are a moving target to keep pressure on the industry to improve all aspects of safety.

Sounds good doesn't it? However, you need to consider that the IIHS doesn't care about anything other than crash rating and low cost of repairs. They don't care if the car get poor mileage because it weighs 500 pounds more than the previous model so it can get a good crash rating. They don't care if it costs thousands of dollars more to get the dozens of air bags and other safety items needed to do well in the the test.

Safety is a selling point nowadays, so car makers will keep adding air bags all over the place. It's like the mindless rush to add gizmos to cars. They are all feature you have to offer to to be competitive even when people don't need them or know how to use them. Do I need an specialized air bag that protects me in a condition that is less likely than being struck by lightning?

We could discuss how the "quest for safety" has restricted our lives with more regulation/requirements/laws than someone 30 years ago could ever imagine, but that's another topic.



Mark

[ponchoman49]

Toyota: "How dare they pick on our superior products"
Teacher: "Your students are doing ok but they sure are odd looking ducks that run fast in V6 form but offer nothing tangible over the other ducks"
Toyota: "Our ducks are better than your ducks"
Teacher: "That will be a cold day in hell"
Toyota: "We will destroy GM"
Teacher: "I wouldn't buy a current Toyota product at gunpoint"
Toyota: "Please come in my office" grope, grope, fondle
Teacher: "he touched me!!!!!!!

[tgferg67]

Where's the story??
The 2007 Camry received the same IIHS crash test ratings as the previous 2006 model.

2006 & 2007 Camry IIHS frt and side ratings.
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=291

2006 & 2007 Camry IIhs rear ratings
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/head_res...ts.aspx?toyota

How the Camry's IIHS ratings compares with other midsize models(listed better to worse)
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=30