Consumer Reports pulls Toyota recommendations (Prius v, RAV4, Camry)

The issue happens to be that the front wheel is thrown into the passenger compartment. All MacPherson strut suspensions would likely be at fault.

I remember that in one Ford the wheel broke loose and was thrown outside of the passenger compartment, which resulted in less injury to the dummy in the driver's compartment.

 

Camry had the same ratings as this Audi;
Vehicle Details

The problem imo with the so-called "small overlap crash test" is that the barrier does not impact the side rail/crumple zone, it shreds primarily the fender, engages the wheel towards driver's footwell area for maximum damage.

 

Who reads CR? Too bad, I am sure the media will run with the story, so sick of Toyota bashing by the media. Toyota will bounce back, and surely the next Camry will do just fine in the test. So go buy your Ford, or Audi end enjoy the visits to your dealer, for constant repairs. The plus side is I hear they have good donuts in the morning hours!

 

It is only a problem if it somehow impossible out on the road.

 

You can make the car absolutely safe, but it would weigh three times as it does now.

You an almost eliminate the possibility of dying in a car crash, but never completely. You can be run over as a pedestrian, in a parking lot, or even in a drive up store or in you home.

 

I own a v. I've seen the results of a crash like this involving dents in the seat frame caused by the tire being driven backwards just where it would be most painful. Kid across the street new years eve in a Fiero.

I don't expect Toyota to design just to pass some current tests, I expect they will design a safe car.

Is my Prius less safe than it could be? I think so.

Toyota's fault, yes. Either didn't think of a crash like that or decided to save weight or money not building the protection in. Or stopped designing when the computer told them they could pass all the current tests, not when all the possible scenarios were satisfied.

Will the next design respond to the test/publicity? Sure.

Life goes on.

 

Mike it's way worse than that. I've been driving since I was 15 1/2 ... over 4 decades ... and I've had to take only ONE driving test behind the wheel. We try & try & try to make cars idiot proof, in stead of regulating at the easy end. Would you be comfortable if your airline pilots only had one "behind the wheel" test for their entire career?
.

 

Back when I had a Prius, there was a report from CR or IIHS on the actual, impact absorbing bumpers didn't extend the entire width of the car. It was only wide enough to meet requirements. The cars were fine from the safety stance for the times, but the report was about costs. On a gen2, the thermos and other components were outside the protection of the bumper. So repair and insurance bills were higher than they needed to be due to car companies saving a few bucks on some metal, plastic, and foam.

I wonder how many of the cars that did ok on this new test were due to companies heeding that earlier report.

 

Forty years, ago, I met a guy whose part time job was "organ recovery" at Mission Hospital in San Diego, California.

California, at that time , had repealed their helmet law, because riders wanted "freedom."


They were clearly "free to die," My friend saw the results of these fools more often than he wanted to.

 

Regarding a comment made earlier in the thread, no, not all the cars that did well were designed after the test. Also, model design times are 3-5 years, no manufacturer would be able to respond to this test in the current generations even if they wanted to.
Toyota dropped the ball on this pure and simple. You can argue about people being stupid, not knowing how to drive, whatever, it won't change that reality.

 

These organisations will stay relevant by adding/changing the tests. I heard that they will start rear end crash-testings. Nothing has changed for Prius l & v, Prius is top safety pick!
Vehicle Details

 

that's way better than bad donuts!

 

it's not a matter of being defensive. if people want to make purchases based on cr testing, good on them. i've been driving cars since 1970. i'm all for improving safety, but the biggest improvement you can make is between the ears of the drivers. it's plain to see that most people are at risk because of the way they drive, not because of the fragility of their cars.

 

What about being fragile at the hands of one of these drivers? You can be the best driver in the world, but if some bonehead is coming at you on a narrow two-lane road, which would you do? Hit him head-on, because that's the safest thing to do, or attempt to swerve out of the way, resulting in a front offset collision like this one?

 

Just some quick thoughts:

1. IIS "roll over" moved goal post test - they went out of their way to bad-mouth Toyota cars, CR picked it up
2. IIS "collision avoidance" moved goal post test - they also down-rated the Toyota system
3. IIS "offset impact" moved goal post test - they and CR are once again knocking Toyota
4. CR - apparently the "Prius c" is not good enough for CR and gets no marks for fuel economy . . . nor does any other car

We had bought a multi-year subscription to CR at least three years ago. The current subscription runs out in February and we're moving our subscription goal posts . . . beyond CR's reach. If I want to read trash-talk about the Prius, I can visit my barber, dentist, or family practice office and read the 'car mags' they have in the waiting room. I don't have to pay CR so we can contribute to the local refuse pickup.

Bob Wilson

 

Still think this test primarily send the aluminum or steel wheel to the driver's footwell/pedals area, front fender, wheel to floor area if the wheel is not deflected. This one shreds and slides thru.

 

It looks like it takes 3 years for a model-year change. My thinking is when a test changes, nothing really counts until the 4th year. I don't mind if the IIS wants to issue a 'warning' but trashing cars that met the earlier standard after the IIS moves the goal post . . . that is just wrong.

As for CR, they've lost my confidence.

Bob Wilson

 

Bob, can you elaborate on these issues you have?

Crash tests are ever changing not because they have it out for Toyota, but because they solve one issue and it's then time to move on to the next. Thanks to that progress we have small cars that are no longer truly dangerous to drive.

Thanks to the rollover tests that were conducted years ago SUV's have gone from dangerously prone to rolling to very difficult to roll. These small overlap tests highlight a very real cost-saving measure that Toyota took. Our Volvo that was designed before 2003 still passes this, and every other test perfectly. In this respect Toyota can, and should, do better.

 

You're correct. Oddly, Prius Liftback = Toyota's Best, while Prius Plug-in Hybrid = Toyota's Worst.