Insurance Institute for Highway Safety vs Toyota

[bwilson4web]

Found at:
Consumer Reports Cars Blog: Safety

. . .
On Wednesday, the IIHS released its list of Top Safety Picks for 2010. This year the Institute added a new roof strength test to its requirements for cars to receive the rating. That demanding criteria dramatically shortened the 2010 list.

In its press release announcing the results, IIHS called out Toyota for having no vehicles that qualified.

In response, yesterday Toyota called IIHS’s new methodology “extreme and misleading.” In a statement, Toyota Vice President of Public Affairs Irv Miller said, “There are 38 Toyota, Lexus, and Scion models, and only three were tested for roof strength by IIHS: Camry, RAV4, and Yaris.” He said all Toyota products meet government standards for roof crush. The new IIHS test for roof strength is much tougher than the government standard, which NHTSA looking to make more stringent.
. . .

Weird and the comments under the Toyota press release are interesting too. It also reminds me of the problem of roof strength versus visibility. Stronger root mounts can lead to less rear and side visibility. Given the Prius was not tested, one wonders how it would do.

Sad to say, only 3 of 38 Toyota models, Camry, RAV4 and Yaris were tested, less than 10%. We don't know the ratio of tested to total models for each manufacturer ... just the tested models that passed. More information here:

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009...is-misleading/

. . .
Russ Rader, a spokesman for the institute, said Toyota should not be upset. “All vehicles were eligible, but because we can’t test everything at the start of the model year, in January we sent letters to all manufacturers saying here is the new test we are going to be doing. If you have vehicles you believe will earn a good rating in the new rollover test, give us the names and we’ll test them outside of our normal schedule.”

So automakers had to recommend vehicles to be tested and then reimburse the institute for the cars. Toyota recommended none, so none were tested.

The new test that Mr. Rader referred to is a roof strength test for rollover protection, which the institute began carrying out this year. “We don’t think there are automakers who would miss the opportunity to have their vehicles tested, if they thought they met the criteria,” he said. “We can only assume the vehicles would not do well for roof strength.”
. . .

This puts more details about what is going on. Apparently a new test and IIHS is just following their ordinary order for testing Toyotas. However, I notice they'd asked vendors to pay extra for specific vehicle testing ... sounds like a fund raiser (or shake down?) Regardless, this rate suggests it will take about 13 years at 3 per year to test all Toyota models. But it begs the question about the snarky comment in their press release "... Not a single model from the world’s biggest automaker by sales is represented among this year’s winners. ..."

Had Toyota been listed with the other vendors not making the cut, no problem. This is what IIHS sent out:

Not a single model from the world's biggest automaker by sales is represented among this year's winners. Toyota and its Lexus and Scion subsidiaries had a strong showing in 2009 with 11 winners but were shut out for 2010. Four other manufacturers whose vehicles have earned Top Safety Pick in the past didn't have a qualifying vehicle for 2010: BMW, Mazda, Mitsubishi, and Saab. The Honda Accord picked up the award the past 2 years, but the 2010 didn't earn the required good roof strength rating to qualify (the roof is rated acceptable). The Ford Fusion is another midsize car that dropped off the list for the same reason.

Compare this to a simpler, statement:

Toyota and its Lexus and Scion subsidiaries had a strong showing in 2009 with 11 winners but were shut out for 2010. Four other manufacturers whose vehicles have earned Top Safety Pick in the past didn't have a qualifying vehicle for 2010: BMW, Mazda, Mitsubishi, and Saab. The Honda Accord picked up the award the past 2 years, but the 2010 didn't earn the required good roof strength rating to qualify (the roof is rated acceptable). The Ford Fusion is another midsize car that dropped off the list for the same reason.

Now I wonder if the Camry, RAV4 and Yaris were in the 2009 model list:
http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr112508.html

It looks like the RAV4 was on last year's list but didn't achieve top scores in the recent test. The Camry and Yaris were not on last year's list. IMHO, it would have made sense to test all of the previous year, top picks, against the new test and not pick two cars, the Camry and Yaris, that were not on the list.

It might be interesting to trace how long the new test has been known. Given it takes about 3-5 years for a new body style to show up, manufacturers need enough time to engineer for a new test. It is reasonable to phase in a new test so vendors have time to do the job right.

Bob Wilson

[SageBrush]

IIHS simply has to be clear that not recommended can mean either not tested or failed test. Anything else is spin.

[bwilson4web]

Now I'm really confused based upon this August 2009 report, just three months ago:

Consumer Reports Cars Blog: Crash tests: IIHS tests Honda Insight, Kia Soul, Toyota Prius

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has rated three new 2010 models for crash safety and the results are good. The new Honda Insight hybrid, Kia Soul, and redesigned Toyota Prius earn the Institute’s Top Safety Pick award. The criteria for that award: cars must offer Good protection to front occupants in front, side, and rear collisions, as well as offering electronic stability control (ESC).

The Soul and Prius have standard stability control and standard front and rear curtain airbags and seat-mounted torso airbags. While the Insight also has standard curtain and torso airbags, its stability control comes only on uplevel versions. And that exposes a problem.
. . .

Now I'm really curious about this 'new test.' It looks like the Prius was tested to an earlier standard and with the 'new test,' it just missed the window. If Toyota paid to have the 2010 Prius tested, they need to get some money back.

Bob Wilson

[hill]

Insurance Institute: How to you spell "Self serving".

You see, if the insurance lobby can force manufacturers to make cars bullet proof ... crash proof ... indestructible ... a perfect haven of injury free existence ... then THEY get to CHARGE you GIANT PREMIUMS, with virtually NO RISK. And THAT is what this is all about. The corporate level of insurance is vile. Think back to various huricanes ... and how policy after policy was denied ... forcing matters into courts, where the insurance industry hoped to wear the plaintiffs down ... winning by attritian. Think back to major CA earthquakes, where the industry as a WHOLE chose to simply file for bankruptcy, rather than pay out damage claims ... ending up wealthier than prior to entering bko. The state had to sue the industry to force them to pay. I watched a birthing video of a baby doctor carelessly slicing through the umbilical cord, and RIGHT through the baby's face ... dividing the cheek into two halves. The solution that the insurance carrier (malpractice policy) suggested was to prohibit parents from video taping births. (no evidence to show a jury). Then there's the whole medical insurance affordabililty issue. This is a multi trillion dollar industry that sets the rules, and there is NO stopping them.
Can you tell this is my hot button?

[fuzzy1]

... Now I'm really curious about this 'new test.' It looks like the Prius was tested to an earlier standard and with the 'new test,' it just missed the window. If Toyota paid to have the 2010 Prius tested, they need to get some money back. ...

I would simply say that the 2010 Prius, along with a number of other 2010 cars, earned a 2009 TSP but not a 2010 TSP. Here is a copy of my post elsewhere:

Prior to this news release, a number of other 2010 models had earned 2009 Top Safety Pick awards. Here is what I can glean from the IIHS News Archives (excluding repeats on today's 2010 TSP award list):

September 24, 2009: ... and 2010 Nissan Versa earn Top Safety Pick award

September 18, 2009: 3 midsize SUVs earn Top Safety Pick award
The 2010 Cadillac SRX and the 2010 Chevrolet Equinox, also sold as the GMC Terrain, are the Institute's newest Top Safety Pick award winners.

September 10, 2009: 3 vehicles earn Top Safety Pick award
2010 models of the Dodge Journey, Lincoln MKT, and Mazda 3 are the Institute's newest Top Safety Pick award winners.

August 13, 2009: 3 small cars earn Top Safety Pick award
The 2010 Honda Insight, 2010 Kia Soul, and 2010 Toyota Prius are the Institute's newest Top Safety Pick award winners.

June 15, 2009: ... and Lexus RX earn Top Safety Pick award
The ... and the 2010 Lexus RX, a midsize luxury SUV, are the Institute's newest 2009 Top Safety Pick award winners.

[bwilson4web]

How does this impact our insurance rates? By that I mean the mechanics. Are we going to see a jump up of those cars that now show up in a lower category even though they have not been tested?

Given the time it takes to cycle through the models, it would seem unfair to jack up the rates because the car 'just missed' the new test window.

Bob Wilson

[DeadPhish]

I have a feeling that this brouhaha is about the Corolla and Prius.



As you noted Toyota only submitted 3 vehicles for testing..

• a 2010 Camry which got the top ranking of GOOD
• a 2010 RAV which got the 2nd ranking of ACCEPTABLE
• a 2010 Yaris which also got ACCEPTABLE

When looking at the competitors...

• the Accord was also tested but it did not get a GOOD rating
• neither did the Fusion nor the Altima
• the Civic & Insight II were tested; both got a top ranking of GOOD

The Corolla and the Prius were not tested...do the statements from the IIHS mean to indict the not tested vehicles?

The Camry doesn't suffer by comparison with its main competitors.

However the Corolla and Prius might be considered to be suffering by comparison to the Civic and Insight II. YES and NO. The article seems to be implying that. But looking at the IIHS segment comparo all it says is [ not tested ]. In looking at the whole picture it doesn't tell much at this time.

IIHS-HLDI: Small cars - Current Models

The IIHS can do whatever it wishes IMO, it's a private organization. Toyota can respond however it wishes for the same reason. I wonder if it's simply a matter of timing in that Toyota didn't get enough vehicles to them or whether Toyota was actually blindsided by a new stipulation - especially in the case of the Gen3 Prius - that it hadn't considered during the redesign.

At the moment I think it's too early to tell.

[bwilson4web]

I appreciate your post as you've identified the interesting targets also include the Corolla.

Originally Posted by DeadPhish

. . .
The IIHS can do whatever it wishes IMO, it's a private organization. Toyota can respond however it wishes for the same reason. I wonder if it's simply a matter of timing in that Toyota didn't get enough vehicles to them or whether Toyota was actually blindsided by a new stipulation - especially in the case of the Gen3 Prius - that it hadn't considered during the redesign.

At the moment I think it's too early to tell.

I agree that private organizations can do what they wish. But it looks like IIHS went out of its way to 'pick a fight:'

Not a single model from the world's biggest automaker by sales is represented among this year's winners. ...

The new test moved the goal posts and a lot of manufacturers lost their previous standing but this one sentence singles out Toyota and that was wrong.

Bob Wilson

[bedrock8x]

Sounds like Mr. Rader is asking the manufacturers to provide free cars for testing.
In the down economic condition, every company is cutting back expenses, so both sides refuse to pay and stalemate resulted with no testing.

[SageBrush]

I wondered about that too, bedrock8x. But sending 30 cars to be smashed is chump change in the scheme of things for Toyota in search of good publicity. Heck, they spend that on a couple of commercials.

For all I know, IIHS asked for a car + 100 million for testing.

Second guessing based on inadequate information is not productive. As I posted earlier, I think all we can reasonably expect is for IIHS to report clearly -- and not let their PR blurbs leave the impression that Toyota's fleet failed the new testing.