Toyota models rank at bottom of crash-safety study

[uboys]

http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_4699240

Toyota Motor Corp., whose vehicles earn top marks for buyer satisfaction, has more models than any other automaker ranked at the bottom of a crash-protection study.
Toyota and its Lexus division accounted for nine of 16 vehicles with "acceptable," "marginal" or "poor" rear- impact protection, lowering their overall rating, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said today.

[uboys]

Read up folks!
You'll only see it here.

[Michael_S]

The article doesn't make sense.
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/default.aspx

13 Top picks are listed.
3 Honda/Acuras.
3 Subarus
2 Audis
2 Hyundai/Kia vehicles (and really, they are 1 vehicle with cosmetic differences)
1 Volvo
1 Mercedes
1 GM (Saab)

Most vehicles from most automakers missed the list. There are no Chryslers, no Fords, no Mitsubishis, no BMWs, no Nissans, no Mazdas... why single out Toyota?

[Bvonscott]

^^ Because they suck?

No seriously GM has plenty of very safe models that would have made the list if they had E.S.C. This will force the automakers to implement it sooner rather than later. Toyota just has lower crash ratings than GM, and they have less new safety technologies implemented too. perception vs reality.

[PhishPhood]

Originally Posted by Bvonscott

^^ Because they suck?

No seriously GM has plenty of very safe models that would have made the list if they had E.S.C. This will force the automakers to implement it sooner rather than later. Toyota just has lower crash ratings than GM, and they have less new safety technologies implemented too. perception vs reality.

Actually here's the rankings for the major categories ( being accurate is key ). ESC is mandated for all vehicles for MY 2009 and later by the Federal Gov't.

Small cars ( all fail due to lack of ESC )
1 Civic
2 Impreza
3 Prius
4 Cobalt
5 Mini Cooper
6 Corolla

Moderately priced midsized
1 Legacy - The only top pick
2 A3 ( fails rear crash )
3 Malibu ( fails rear crash )
4 Camry ( fails rear crash )
5 Passat ( fails rear crsh )
6 Jetta ( fails rear crash )

Large Family Cars ( all fail )
1 Ford 500/Montego ( No ESC )
2 Avalon ( fails rear crash )
3 Azera ( fails side & rear crash )
4 Lucerne ( fails side & rear crash )
5 Impala ( fails front & rear crash )
6 Charger/300 ( fails side & rear crash )

Minivans
1 Sedona/Entourage - The only Top Pick
2 Odyssey ( fails rear crash )
3 Sienna ( ditto )
4 Quest ( ditto )
5 Freestar ( fails side crash )
6 Caravan ( fails all tests )

Small SUV's
1 CR-V - Top Pick
2 Forester - Top Pick
3 RAV4 ( fails rear crash )
4 Escape/Mariner ( fails front & rear crash )
5 Tuscon/Sportage ( fails all tests )
5 Vue ( fails side and rear crash )

Midsized SUV's
1 Tribeca - Top Pick
2 Pilot - Top Pick
3 RDX - Top Pick
4 Freestyle ( no ESC ? )
5 FJ Cruiser ( fails rear crash )
6 Torrent/Equinox ( fails rear crash )

[ByTheLake]

Take it with a grain of salt. The IIHS exists mainly to support the lobbying activities of the insurance industry.

A good overview exists in this week's Autoextremist article. Delorenzo states "The real story is that the IHS, which is funded by the insurance companies, basically functions as a lobbying group for the insurance industry, even though it takes great pains to masquerade as a "concerned" company engaged in automotive safety research - one only looking out for our well-being of course."

[Hotspur]

Originally Posted by ByTheLake

Take it with a grain of salt. The IIHS exists mainly to support the lobbying activities of the insurance industry.

It's no secret they are funded by the insurance industry. It's the Insurance Institiute for Highway Safety after all.

The main purpose is not lobbying. It's testing cars and then setting insurance rates according to the tests. IIHS hopes to compel the auto industry to build cars that are both safer and less costly to repair.

Why? Insurance company profits of course!! The less insurance companies pay out the more they keep. And rates never go down. A great scam!

[A Bum In A Bus]

How can we get this information to CNN. All day long they have praised Toyota's quality, someone at GM, I don"t know who, needs to get this to CNN and demand equal time. I can hardly stand watching Susan La'bigmouth do the market report, she absolutely gushes over the Japanese products.

[supermoto]

Originally Posted by PhishPhood

Actually here's the rankings for the major categories ( being accurate is key ). ESC is mandated for all vehicles for MY 2009 and later by the Federal Gov't.

Small cars ( all fail due to lack of ESC )
1 Civic
2 Impreza
3 Prius
4 Cobalt
5 Mini Cooper
6 Corolla

Moderately priced midsized
1 Legacy - The only top pick
2 A3 ( fails rear crash )
3 Malibu ( fails rear crash )
4 Camry ( fails rear crash )
5 Passat ( fails rear crsh )
6 Jetta ( fails rear crash )

Large Family Cars ( all fail )
1 Ford 500/Montego ( No ESC )
2 Avalon ( fails rear crash )
3 Azera ( fails side & rear crash )
4 Lucerne ( fails side & rear crash )
5 Impala ( fails front & rear crash )
6 Charger/300 ( fails side & rear crash )

Minivans
1 Sedona/Entourage - The only Top Pick
2 Odyssey ( fails rear crash )
3 Sienna ( ditto )
4 Quest ( ditto )
5 Freestar ( fails side crash )
6 Caravan ( fails all tests )

Small SUV's
1 CR-V - Top Pick
2 Forester - Top Pick
3 RAV4 ( fails rear crash )
4 Escape/Mariner ( fails front & rear crash )
5 Tuscon/Sportage ( fails all tests )
5 Vue ( fails side and rear crash )

Midsized SUV's
1 Tribeca - Top Pick
2 Pilot - Top Pick
3 RDX - Top Pick
4 Freestyle ( no ESC ? )
5 FJ Cruiser ( fails rear crash )
6 Torrent/Equinox ( fails rear crash )

These vehicles didn't fail as you choose to call it. Many are merely sold without ESC that hasn't proven it can make a substantial difference in crash avoidance, although I don't think it will make anything worse. Some of the others got a rating of acceptable, marginal or poor in one of the crash tests instead of good and you are calling that a failure, when that's hardly the case. The 500 was a Gold Pick last year with a good score in all three tests and this year does just as well, but you call it a failure because the IIHS now thinks anything without ESC is just not good enough.

[FStephenMasek]

Originally Posted by PhishPhood

Actually here's the rankings for the major categories ( being accurate is key ). ESC is mandated for all vehicles for MY 2009 and later by the Federal Gov't.

Small cars ( all fail due to lack of ESC )
1 Civic
2 Impreza
3 Prius
4 Cobalt
5 Mini Cooper
6 Corolla

Moderately priced midsized
1 Legacy - The only top pick
2 A3 ( fails rear crash )
3 Malibu ( fails rear crash )
4 Camry ( fails rear crash )
5 Passat ( fails rear crsh )
6 Jetta ( fails rear crash )

Large Family Cars ( all fail )
1 Ford 500/Montego ( No ESC )
2 Avalon ( fails rear crash )
3 Azera ( fails side & rear crash )
4 Lucerne ( fails side & rear crash )
5 Impala ( fails front & rear crash )
6 Charger/300 ( fails side & rear crash )

Minivans
1 Sedona/Entourage - The only Top Pick
2 Odyssey ( fails rear crash )
3 Sienna ( ditto )
4 Quest ( ditto )
5 Freestar ( fails side crash )
6 Caravan ( fails all tests )

Small SUV's
1 CR-V - Top Pick
2 Forester - Top Pick
3 RAV4 ( fails rear crash )
4 Escape/Mariner ( fails front & rear crash )
5 Tuscon/Sportage ( fails all tests )
5 Vue ( fails side and rear crash )

Midsized SUV's
1 Tribeca - Top Pick
2 Pilot - Top Pick
3 RDX - Top Pick
4 Freestyle ( no ESC ? )
5 FJ Cruiser ( fails rear crash )
6 Torrent/Equinox ( fails rear crash )

Thank you for posting the whole picture! I am much more inclined to trust the IIHS than the US government. Yes, they want cars which better protect the people inside, thus reducing claims. My only complaint, and one their director rejected when I raised the issue with him, is their lack of dynamic tests to determine accident avoidance ability - acceleration, braking, and handling (lane change, equally spaced cones, skid pad). Avoiding a wreck is the safest situation of all.

[stormwatcher]

Originally Posted by uboys

http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_4699240
Toyota Motor Corp., whose vehicles earn top marks for buyer satisfaction, has more models than any other automaker ranked at the bottom of a crash-protection study.
Toyota and its Lexus division accounted for nine of 16 vehicles with "acceptable," "marginal" or "poor" rear- impact protection, lowering their overall rating, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said today.

Poor article.

Two main questions:
1) Why does it only mention rear-impact results??? Why are the equally or more important front and side impact results omitted?

2) Why are acceptable ratings included in this total?

[fp115]

I wonder whatever happened to Volvo who still claim they have the safest cars all around.

[superstreet]

Originally Posted by Bvonscott

^^ Because they suck?

No seriously GM has plenty of very safe models that would have made the list if they had E.S.C. This will force the automakers to implement it sooner rather than later. Toyota just has lower crash ratings than GM, and they have less new safety technologies implemented too. perception vs reality.

thats right

[PhishPhood]

Originally Posted by supermoto

These vehicles didn't fail as you choose to call it. Many are merely sold without ESC that hasn't proven it can make a substantial difference in crash avoidance, although I don't think it will make anything worse. Some of the others got a rating of acceptable, marginal or poor in one of the crash tests instead of good and you are calling that a failure, when that's hardly the case. The 500 was a Gold Pick last year with a good score in all three tests and this year does just as well, but you call it a failure because the IIHS now thinks anything without ESC is just not good enough.

I used 'fail' as an incendiary word because in the world of IIHS, the only way to get a Top Pick is to be perfect in every test and have all their required equipment, such as ESC. Missing even one relegates a vehicle to 2nd place or lower so it's 'failed' to become a Top Pick.

No the also-rans are not unsafe but they 'fail' to get top marks. Essentially now it's an 'A' or it's an 'F'.

Regarding ESC, on the IIHS website they specifically state that the addition of this to all vehicles could/should cut single car crashes/injuries/deaths by 50%. EURO/NCAP says the same thing and recommends on it's site that no consumer should buy a vehicle that doesn't have ESC. They have had this for at least two years now. The US Govt has now mandated it.

[PhishPhood]

Originally Posted by superstreet

thats right

Looking at the previous post with the 5 major sales segments, that doesn't appear to be right. It sems to be a mixed bag.