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

As has come up in this thread IIHS "poor" rating on 'small overlap front' test crash | Page 3 | PriusChat these frontal collision tests are only done at 35-40mph, and into a stationary object. I would argue that the current standards don't yet go far enough.

 

IMHO the prius v and prius are extremely safe cars, much safer than cars used to be 10 years ago.

According to Consumer reports, my Gen III prius is no longer a safe cars, only those produced in october 2013 or after. To me that is ludicris. My car didn't suddenly become less safe because IIHS created a new test. IMHO the main scenarios for the types of crashes involved in the new test involve drugged, drunk, or distracted behavior. Toyota "fixed" the design of the liftback to pass the test, but we won't know for anouther 10 years if statistically the car is any safer at all. My prius definitely isn't as safe as say a tesla S, but I really don't the new one is any safer at all with me as a driver (Mine is probably safer since I put on different wheels and tires that aid traction, making it less likely to get in an accident at all).

We know the reason for the ratings change. It had everything to do with a new IIHS test. I guess if anything they are highly influenced by the insurance PAC. There was nothing about owning versus not-owning the cars it was simply a matter of the huge influence a PACs new press release has on Consumer reports rating. I read the press release. Doh. I think I can understand it as well if not better than those guys at consumer reports. Here you go on a recent take

New Crash Test Ratings Raise Question: What Really Makes A Car Safe? - Forbes

Now perhaps toyota should have lost recommended status for the camry when all the unintended acceleartion cases were taking place, but this crap doesn't really pass muster. Soon IIHS will say cars aren't safe if they don't include collision avoidance electronics that works well. Its about headlines, but yes if you think the prius v isn't safe, you probably need to get a tesla S for safety.

I think they blew it here, and on their mpg tests. They don't seem to have very competant testers IMHO if IIHS statement can make them mischaracterize cars.

 

As I said in anouther reply, to get it safe you probably need to cough up the money for a tesla S. The prius has a big gas tank that can cause fires. It is lighter than some vehicles, etc. Do we want to say cars need to get much heavier and expensive.

Bottom line don't drive distracted or impared or at higher speeds than weather conditions allow, and the odds of you having this frontal offset crash at greater than 35 mph is extremely low. How low? Probably have a higher chance of winning powerball. Lightning striking you is much much higher.

 

Right. Just don't hit any FOD, and careful charging it at home, lest you light something up.

 

If the government were to impose much stricter crash standards, they would be met in short order with a minimum increase in cost because the economy of scale would be so large - even if it required going to expensive composites to get the right strength to weight ratio. In fact, such a requirement would finally drive those same material costs down to the point where they could be used in many aspects of vehicle construction further reducing overall vehicle weight. Obviously it would not be rolled in all at once, but it would be a perfect complement to the fuel economy standards that we are striving towards, which has proven already, that counter to the claims that legislation like this stifles innovation, we are actually seeing almost every manufacturer building the best cars they've ever built, with prices plunging across the industry.

 

Hey I was talking safety. It sounded like the IIHS wants you to be quite impared and still get out fine. You need a tank. Now here we have a single vehicle crash where the driver obviously was using the car in the most hazardous way.

Second Tesla Model S fire caught on video after Mexico crash

In a lesser car someone would have likely been injured. The prevalance of fires in plug-ins is much less than pure gasoline cars, and when the fires happen there has not been any deaths, quite unlike non-plug-ins. Ofcourse passing a real world crash test or a IIHS one doesn't mean the car has not sustained a great deal of damage. As cars are built more and more like tanks, the amount of damage to the vehicles has gone up a great deal. That is part of the incentive to insurance companies, more expensive cars can have more expensive premiums.

Well this is certainly testable. In the last 30 years crash tests have gotten much tougher, and car makers have responded with much heavier and more expensive cars.

When a car company makes a european or japanese and a american version of the same car, the American version is always heavier. Add the extra fuel for the extra weight, etc. you can't just say make cars tanks. NHTSA estimated the safety requirements between 1981 and 2001 added 125lbs and $825 per car (some luxury cars it hasn't added nearly that amount). I do not know about the requirements between 2001 and today. Cars like the prius offset part of this weight by using aluminum in place of steel, substituting cost for weight. The bmw i3 goes very far here using CFRP and aluminum instead of steel in much of the car. Some safety regulations are worthwhile, roof crush only adds 3lbs and $4 (and no one builds a lower quality roof crush for europe than US), but many simply add cost and weight.

Now little things like a throttle/brake cutoff, that toyota fought the NHTSA about doesn't add much cost or weight. CR had the NHTSA data but highly recomended the camry then, but somehow the new safer camry, which incorporated NHTSA changes is now not recommended. Other things though do, and new crash standards almost always add weight and use more fuel.

 

Talked to a friend today who was in partial frontal offset crash yesterday and walked away with a scratched wrist and no other damage despite his vehicle rolling over and he being hung upside down by his seat belt. No idea why but driver coming over into his lane spotted a ways off and he actually got 80% off the road before his vehicle was hit. '06 Toyota Truck hit by a car. No idea why the driver did what he did and won't get accident report from police for a few days.

 

I am rethinking this comment:

The reason is a Forbes article led me to the IIHS web site:

source: News releases

In April 2009, I had to decide whether or not we'd buy the 2010 Prius but to get the 'advanced' accident avoidance feature, the price would go up $10,000. The accident avoidance system was only $2,000 but on top of nearly $8,000 in upscale, eye-candy.

In September 2013, I came close to pulling the trigger on getting an Lincoln MKZ but the government shutdown squashed the deal. I may go back to the dealer in September 2014 and the option of getting exactly what Toyota denied in 2009: a fuel efficient hybrid with collision avoidance technology.

If Toyota wants to force a bunch of mock luxury by upscale requirements to get accident avoidance, then live with it. Compared to the scrap Toyota wraps their accident avoidance in, the Lincolm MKZ is a serious car. It is not about price, it is about performance and since April 2009, someone in Toyota as lost it.

Now I'm still not a fan of "galloping goal posts," changing the standard with too little time to get them into the manufacturing cycle. It sounds like Toyota put in some sort of kludge with the current Camry and Prius to at least get them into to acceptable range. My experience has been these types of rushed retrofits seldom are optimal and often have a life of their own.

Bob Wilson

 

Yes, but over that same 30-year period, mileage standards essentially remained flat while the real price of fuel dropped rapidly. It was the perfect combination to end up with heavier cars.

That's why I say it should be combined with the upcoming mileage standards. Forcing improved safety standards while at the same time forcing big economy improvements would prevent a repeat of the past 30 years.

The price of cars has fallen precipitously in the last 30 years. The argument against improving them is always that it will drive prices up for consumers, but the reality is that hasn't happened. Instead we get ever safer, more reliable and more efficient cars for less money.

 

ONe of those PACs fighting most to keep cafe mpg low was IIHS, because as they say larger vehciles are safer.

IIHS Says SUVs Now Safer than Cars; Nissan 350Z, Chevy Aveo at Higher Risk

Looky there. Want to be safe, buy a minivan or SUV. SUV's had half the fatality rate of cars.

Now ofcourse some of those SUVs are now Unsafe according to IIHS, you know even though we have the low fatality rates, because, you guessed it, they failed this new test.
Five SUVs flunk new IIHS tests, but not Subaru

Now even in that versa, that has a fairly high fatality rate, we have the added weight and cost of all the regulations. Yes you can simply raise the price and go something like carbon fiber, or do what most have done and added lots of plastic, but they would be lighter and cheaper without all the regs. Some of the regs - 2 front airbags, roof not crushed in a roll over should be kept - it only adds about $30 to the cost of the cars. But that doesn't mean we should be just haphazdously adding new costly regulations because a PAC, even if its the insurance pac, says we need it.

Or you could drop some safety regulations that are stricter than those in europe, and perhaps not raise the price of cars as fast. Remember IIHS has continually given politicians money to keep fuel economy standards down, because as they say, they heavier bigger cars are safer. At least that is the tag line. When you get hit buy a monstrosity class SUV in a nissan versa, the versa doesn't do well.

Huh. I thought cars were older (kept longer) because they were more expensive.
The Cost of Living | 1983
Average price of a car $8500 30 years ago, which was $30,300 in april this year. Yep a new vehicle would cost $12000 less if they built them like they did in 1983. Now cars are nicer and safer, but maybe they didn't need to go up in price that much. They have increased in price substantially, not dropped.

 

The fact that consumers have chosen ever more expensive cars (skewing the average up greatly - remember that credit has been cheap for the latter part of that 30-year period - car loans were very expensive in the 80's and leases were unheard of) is a separate consideration from the fact that overall, prices have fallen significantly. A 1984 Camry cost about $10k, (about 23k in 2012 USD) but it was smaller than today's Corolla, less safe than today's Yaris, with not even a fraction of the amenities.

My 1987 Mercedes 190e cost almost $40k - nearly 80k in 2012 dollars - and this was the entry level line - comparable to today's CLA starting at under $30k - again, despite the new one being safer, almost twice as powerful, and with tech that we couldn't even imagine in the 80's. Today the S class starts not much above that price!!

 

Yes heavy was heavily influenced by the regulations. As I said prices went from $8500 in 1983 to $30300 in april 2013 (last date I've seen).
1983 Toyota Camry - Reviews - CarGurus
$7,988 Original MSRP $7,668 Original MSRP $5,638 Original MSRP
Camry Accord Corrola

According to BLS that camry price is

$18,645.52 in 2013 dollars​

Note colloring comes from those websites. you can quibble if you think the changes since then are worth the extra price, and the camry would have had less added cost than most (reduced regulation, movement to local production, heaviest volume car in a competitive market means it is priced to sell). I borrowed a 1988 camry when my car was totalled. Many of the materials seem higher quality than the ones they use today. We also had voluntary (not really voluntary) import restrictions that inflated the price of small japanese cars at the time compared to american cars.

Yes safety was one of the selling points to put people in bigger and heavier cars. No cars are not cheaper today than 30 years ago. Yes, regulations including all these safety tests make things heavier and more expensive. On the NHTSA table if you subtract 1983 regs from 2001 you will see about $600 (in 2002 dollars) and 65lbs added to each car by regulation. The bottom of the market has been regulated away. Trucks have a much lower cost for the regulations, and indeed the safety regulations are less.

Yes the Merc 190e was a rip off, the CLA is a much better value. Now I understand your misconceptions. Safety requirements don't really impact the price of a mercedes. Mercedes are heavy and safe with or witout regulations. The big thing in a cla versus a 190e is much lower development cost and less expensive ice and pollution control.

I pulled up a blast from the past on the 190e

Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.3-16 vs. E30 BMW M3 - Motor Trend Classic

 

I currently own a 190e as in that video.

I just think you are discounting the enormous effect that cheap credit and leases have on the average price of cars (case in point - I pay $250/month including taxes to lease my PIP - a car driving up those averages with a MSRp of nearly $33k). Comparing car for car, ignoring model names which change with shifting markets, $17k today gets you far more car than in any other point in history. I don't see that as arguable - it's pretty well gospel in the wider auto-industry as a whole.

We should not listen to any one single lobby - things are always more complex than that. That's why pairing fuel economy and safety standards would provide the best of both worlds, lighter, more efficient cars that are also safer.

 

Nice but that isn't exactly your average car. Think of a E190 2.3-16 as a today equivelent of an M3. In 10 years the M3 will be much better in some way, its the top of that tech, which will trickle. I guess the E190 multi-link suspension and good breathing multivalve breathing tech has trickled down into a much less expensive ford focus st which probably would race much better than that car, despite having more interior and cargo volume.

Again average price of a new car in 1983 $8500, today $30,300. I don't care how you slice it things on average have gotten more expensive. I pointed out about $600 of the difference is safety regulation. I don't know all the cars from the era but this regulation will influence those things like a yaris, versa, rio, etc much more than a luxury sport sedan.

Can you point for a source for that gospel? My dad worked in the auto industry and never said any such thing. Vehicle prices have increased much faster than inflation. $17K doesn't get you much today. Neither of us have $17,000 cars. Engines have improved greatly in the last 30 years, but hey look at that chart I gave you. An underpowered Apple Lisa was $9000 back in 83 a little more than your average car. you can probably do everything better on a macbook pro 15 today for $2000, but that car now cost 15x more. Is it any wonder that the average age of vehicles is going up. People can not afford new cars, like they did in the 80s.

We should not listen to any one single lobby - things are always more complex than that. That's why pairing fuel economy and safety standards would provide the best of both worlds, lighter, more efficient cars that are also safer.[/quote]

 

So Camry has regained recomendation...
Toyota Camry Recommended | Car Safety - Consumer Reports News

What about Prius hatch? Seems it has been tested (finally), considered acceptable.

Has anyone found the videos yet?

 

Funny coincidence, I had a conversation Sunday with someone working at a technical call center in Franklin TN. After we went over the technical question, I learned he lives about an hour and a half commute away, just north of Florence, AL. So I started chatting with him about our Prius that get 52 MPG, year round. A little less when it gets freezing code or hot enough to run the air conditioner but more in all other cases.

What was curious is his first question was 'well do you have to monitor some battery level?' I told him no, the computers handles it all and you just drive it like a regular car.

I talked about the newer Honda Accord and Lincoln MKZ but also how our first Prius, a 2003. We bought it used and it now has 160,000 miles and still gives 52 MPG. I also talked about our 2010 Prius with the 1.8L engine and both cars have trailer hitches. I then described towing the trailer and airplane 600 miles through a Nor'easterner three years ago. I pointed out used Prius are very affordable and give similar mileage to new.

But it was his question that suggests the there is still a fear that driving a Prius is special. I've had others say the same thing but I always finish by saying,'it all disappears at the pump when you realize your gas costs have just dropped by half.'

Bob Wilson

 

Hmmm.... Franklin, TN? Was that person at Nissan?

 

No, he is a technician at Cardiolabs. I'm wearing a cell-phone, two-lead heart monitor for a 30 days study and wanted to make sure they were getting a good signal. There is no monitor display of the signal quality but they get 45 seconds before and after I press the alert button.

The doctor's office used small, inadequate pads, more appropriate for a spot, ECG/EKG, than wearable pads. Fortunately, I have good ones with four times the adhesive and conductive gel area as well as a flexible foam back. Furthermore, I use proper 'strain relief' holding the leads with a loop of paper tape to keep the weight of the wire off the snap-on connectors. Finally, I put a strip of paper tape over the snap-on connectors to further minimize mechanical motion.

Bob Wilson

 

I had a valet tell me he didn't like hybrids. "They're too quiet, I don't even know if the damned thing's running!".

 

I am wondering if all the 2014's are OK.
I am thinking the CR annual auto issue may have more to say on it.