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

I'm NOT sure how reliable these test are. Unless they examine technical 50-60 test of the me sort for any one vehicle, there is NO validation that the result of each test would be the same.

Just a difference of a 5 degree variable one an inch or two would more likely than not change the results of the test.

In the real world nothing almost always ever happens the same way as in a controlled test.

The tests are interesting as a "one case" scenario, and re important, but NOT a full predictor of ALL damage and injury results.

 

whatever, never used cr for a car purchase, or anything else for that matter. love our camry.

 

CR is using it's influence to try and force manufacturers to solve a specific safety issue. I don't agree on the importance, so I am sorry to see this fight. I wish CR had decided to push whiplash prevention instead.

 

You'd have to be stupid, dead or totally drunk to run head on in a totally straight line "small overlap" crash. The alert driver will swerve out of the way first.

More deaths are cause by inexperience drivers swerving out of the way and overcorrecting, which causes their vehicle to flip and turn over.

 

CR recommendations on other products I have tried are B.S. They seem to lean on higher priced devices in a category. Usually something hyped by the manufacturer. Things like "Our new razor uses new aqua blue gel to shave closer" and only cost $500. CR will commonly pick this product despite many average results and then site it is picked over the others per it is the only one that has the new aqua blue gel. Many times I think reviewers are just materialistic and just think higher cost results in higher quality.

 

Another notch in the belt adding to the uselessness of CR.

 

I think this is more to protect the alert driver from the oncoming stupid/drunk/texting driver who crosses the centerline just a little too late to react, and not far enough to hit the energy absorbing impact protection squarely where it can do its best job.

 

Doesn't really matter how you protect that area, just come at a slightly different angle and again "no protection". Unless you build a circular car surrounded by crumple zones with the driver in the middle, you will always have weak spots.

There are about 7+ million car accidents in the United States every year. There were 1118 crashes in 2010 that would be considered "small overlap" crashes. That is 0.016% out of 7 million. Seems like a non-existent problem. When you are one of the thousand people it happens to it becomes personal and the biggest problem in the world. In the grand scheme of things, you have a higher chance of slipping in your bathtub and dying.

 

Don't you mean 1118 crashes of a specific study sample, not an entire year?

Elsewhere, I see:

As the Wikipedia entry of IIHS says: "This sort of collision is common on two-lane roads with two-way traffic where a center median is absent." This describes the majority of my driving.

PS: the middle link doesn't seem to be working now. It comes from Ref#5 in the Wikipedia article.

 

I don't understand the defensiveness of the some of the people here. We went through all these arguments when the very first test results were released a year ago. Nothing has changed. To assume that all accidents are due to stupidity and you deserve what you get is extremely myopic and narrow-minded.
Furthermore, the fact that many vehicles pass this test just fine shows that this is, indeed, an oversight on Toyota's part. Watch some of the crash test videos: things like delay of the side airbag activating forcing the driver's head out of the car instead of keeping it inside is not something that should ever be OK.

 

I think it's a particularly unfair timing issue. If you were lucky, you got to design the new car after the test was put out there, not after. I really don;t think it's fair, nor particularly noteworthy that a car fails a brand new test they come up with. All cars in question now had passed every test in effect and did well.

It's all well and good to come up with a valid test that assists engineers in designing safer cars. CR notes in the last car issue I read that the cars that failed were designed before this test came about. Having them pull their recommended ratings this way is balderdash.

What's funny is I still have the last car issue in the main library at home It shows CR didn't recommend the vast majority of Ford products on the market, mostly for cars that had much lower than average reliability. I don;t remember seeing much about that in the press.

 

....correct me if wrong, but if I recall Liftback did OK on this new crash test.

 

Yes, to some extent it was a matter of timing, but Toyota has now dragged their feet on the redesign so it's perfectly reasonable to pull their recommendations. It wouldn't stop me from buying the vehicle, but it's exactly this kind of back and forth that makes vehicles so much safer today than they used to be. Just because we've solved most of the major safety issues doesn't mean we should give up on continued improvements, just because they yield smaller improvements.

 

I don't think that the Liftback was tested.

The Liftback's, and almost all Gen III Prii are nearly identical to the Prius"v." The "v" essentially has larger wheels and brakes. Yet, Consumer Reports still recommends the Prius.

That tell you how much Consumer Reports is informed. I would tend to think that they are myopic and NOT as informed or as thorough as they claim themselves to be.

 

If the liftback wasn't tested, they can't make assumptions about what would have happened in the test. I'm not sure how you think that would be an improvement in reporting practices.

 

That's why I stated that the one test is specific to the particular car with the exact parameters to the exact situation.

They have extrapolated it to all Prius"v's." The extrapolation to all Gen III Prii would not be that far off.

 

Uh, these are the standard NHTSA tests. They are pretty controlled. There is a whole division where they do nothing but crash cars.

 

The rating is not based on the NHTSA test. It is based on the IIHS "small overlap" test.

 

Ok, it doesn't change the fact that it's a controlled test by the only two ratings agencies in the country.