Toyota needs to greatly improve their designs - latest designs performing poorly in IIHS small overlap crash tests... (2014, buy)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Were any of the IIHS small overlap crash tests, survivable, with any of the cars that were tested? I'm having issues with Youtube, and can't watch the vids on this PC.
Breadgirl... yes all of these tests seemed to be where the driver would have survived. The injuries to the head, neck and chest were low on all I believe. The poor ratings were for a poorly structured passenger cage and foot/leg injuries.
If you click on the link above the video, it takes you to their site and it shows the injury ratings.
Were any of the IIHS small overlap crash tests, survivable, with any of the cars that were tested? I'm having issues with Youtube, and can't watch the vids on this PC.
Click link... even the Prius with a poor rating didn't have life threatening injuries... just a lot of leg injuries and poor safety cage in this particular crash. Still yet, the dummys head missed the airbag and hit the instrument panel... so a faster crash could mean bad news.
I seriously doubt anybody will use these tests in their determining the cars they buy. Most folks have credit issues these days and about 70% of the folks walking in dealerships are just hoping they can actually buy something, anything. Those with decent credit are going to buy usually due to ownership brand loyalty. Those that don't, just see themselves in a particular car and that's what they buy. Rarely will someone gravitate to a Toyota, GM, or Ford because of supposed retained value.
I absolutely disagree. I purchase vehicles based on safety features because my life is the most important thing. That is why I've always driven BMW's or VW's and demanded side curtain airbags long before they became industry norm
That being said this particular test isn't that important to me. It seems like a very rare type of accident and I'd put far more weight into the side impact or moderate overlap tests
I wonder if my uncles friend whose wife was sadly killed in a crash like this about 3 years ago when her Kia Soul hit a tree (a hit just like this test) and caved into the passenger cage and killed her thought the same thing?
If someone doesn't worry about safety, then they probably have no brain power imo. Get real here.
All I am saying is that Toyota needs to improve on how their safety cages perform in this particular test... its clear it can be done considering others do well in this test. I am sure that in time they will, so there should be no argument. The IIHS thought these tests were important enough and care about peoples safety, you shouldn't more-less call them morons. They could save someones life in a crash in the future by making cars safer and safer... maybe someone you know. The car companies also take heed... when the see these tests, they improve their cars. Like I said, in '95, very few cars did well in the moderate off-set test... now all cars do well in it.
Ill "get real". I witness plenty of accidents first hand on a weekly, many times daily basis. Many times having to assign personal and financial responsibility percentages between mutiple drivers. Having the kind of thinking where honestly believing that choosing or not choosing a particular vehicle based on how it performs in one particular test is some of the most delusional and vain train of thinking possible. When a moving object hits another moving OR stationary object the chances of predicting, based on supposed statistics, how it is going to react, what direction it is going to go, and how many secondary impacts that are going to occur is about as accurate as predicting the lotto. Anyone can pull anectdotal BS out of their butt and talk "this kind of impact and that kind of impact" but bottom line, even the best accident recreations are only a guess at every nuiance of a crash that is/can be a determining factor in survival/safety. Only many high speed cameras can accurately record MOST everything that happens during an impact, but crashes that hurt people do NOT happen like the sterile enviroment of a testing facility because they do not happen there.
For every new style test that can get people all excited about "whats safe or not" another could come up with 5 new ways of crashing a vehicle that shows the opposite from a differing POA. When you take something like a safety cage and put too much emphasis on particular POAs and angles of impacts many times too much about its overall strength and "safety" is lost in translation which is counterproductive. Its something that race car and roll cage builders have known and used for decades. Also a dirty lil secret in the car business, but everyone involved knows its just another arm of the marketing dept. for them and the agencies involved do not "fight" too much as just like the subject itself, in general its just a case of "squeezing your jelly so tight in your hand to hold onto it you lose it".
Control over these matters are an illusion and a new test gives someone something to talk about, but not much else.
I wonder if my uncles friend whose wife was sadly killed in a crash like this about 3 years ago when her Kia Soul hit a tree (a hit just like this test) and caved into the passenger cage and killed her thought the same thing?
If someone doesn't worry about safety, then they probably have no brain power imo. Get real here.
All I am saying is that Toyota needs to improve on how their safety cages perform in this particular test... its clear it can be done considering others do well in this test. I am sure that in time they will, so there should be no argument. The IIHS thought these tests were important enough and care about peoples safety, you shouldn't more-less call them morons. They could save someones life in a crash in the future by making cars safer and safer... maybe someone you know. The car companies also take heed... when the see these tests, they improve their cars. Like I said, in '95, very few cars did well in the moderate off-set test... now all cars do well in it.
So sorry to hear about the uncles friend's wife.
In as much as I would've loved to have a Mercury Marquis and had a limited $$ budget, I know that I needed a car that got better overall gas mileage and when I was searching for a car safety was close to a number one concern. I wound up with a one owner approx., 66,700 mile 1999 Toyota Camry built in Japan which performed good enough in crash tests and this car has the almost rare for that generation Camry front and passenger side air bags.
Ill "get real". I witness plenty of accidents first hand on a weekly, many times daily basis. Many times having to assign personal and financial responsibility percentages between mutiple drivers. Having the kind of thinking where honestly believing that choosing or not choosing a particular vehicle based on how it performs in one particular test is some of the most delusional and vain train of thinking possible. When a moving object hits another moving OR stationary object the chances of predicting, based on supposed statistics, how it is going to react, what direction it is going to go, and how many secondary impacts that are going to occur is about as accurate as predicting the lotto. Anyone can pull anectdotal BS out of their butt and talk "this kind of impact and that kind of impact" but bottom line, even the best accident recreations are only a guess at every nuiance of a crash that is/can be a determining factor in survival/safety. Only many high speed cameras can accurately record MOST everything that happens during an impact, but crashes that hurt people do NOT happen like the sterile enviroment of a testing facility because they do not happen there.
For every new style test that can get people all excited about "whats safe or not" another could come up with 5 new ways of crashing a vehicle that shows the opposite from a differing POA. When you take something like a safety cage and put too much emphasis on particular POAs and angles of impacts many times too much about its overall strength and "safety" is lost in translation which is counterproductive. Its something that race car and roll cage builders have known and used for decades. Also a dirty lil secret in the car business, but everyone involved knows its just another arm of the marketing dept. for them and the agencies involved do not "fight" too much as just like the subject itself, in general its just a case of "squeezing your jelly so tight in your hand to hold onto it you lose it".
Control over these matters are an illusion and a new test gives someone something to talk about, but not much else.
It's true that any car can kill its occupants in an accident. However, I still wanted a car that's built better to withstand impacts on a grander scale though no car is perfect.
Toyota has a long way to go with crash test performance in the new "small overlap" crash tests from the IIHS. There cars are doing well in the moderate overlap test, but in the small overlap, their cars are doing terrible. Honda has good performers in this test, as well as Subaru. The bad part is that some of Toyotas latest designs are performing poorly... the new Camry and new RAV4 are included. I hope the new '14 Corolla will perform better in this test when Toyota sees how poorly these models are doing. I am not sure how well the Avalon would perform. It is not just Toyota either... many other makes are performing poorly in this test, but over the years they will improve. This was the case in 1995 when IIHS started the moderate overlap crash test... very few cars did well in that test... today all cars do fine in that test... this is why IIHS has moved on to this new small overlap test.
Is this another GM sponsored thread to diss Toyota? Who gives, the very moment Toyota will accommodate this, they will come up with a crosswise small impact test, or upside down flying in the air one, or something else. Geez..
I give some weight to crash tests like this, but I give equal or even more weight to insurance claims data, particular on personal injury. The IIHS website provides this info as well. Generally larger cars are safer, you can't defeat the laws of physics.
I don't think they test small overlap for some of the larger SUVs, but only a fool would say you are safer in a crash in a Civic (which got a Good rating on this test) than a Suburban.
Using absolutes and superlatives is stupid. Not all Toyotas do so bad in the small overlap. Just like not ALL suabrus and hondas do good in them.
Really good way of being safe. Open your eyes and dont run into sh it like a retard. Theres an absolute for ya.
Go out buy some Toyotas and enjoy your crashes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Like I said, in '95, very few cars did well in the moderate off-set test... now all cars do well in it.
Interesting
