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

I just read that.. and I found this excellent analysis by CR:

Yet, CR claims:

But somehow, a plug-in with two powertrains (which a hybrid also has) is mentioned when questioned about poor "plug-in hybrid" reliability.


source: Japan automakers lose ground in Consumer Reports reliability ratings - latimes.com

 

CR does not know that hybrids also have 2 powertrains? in fact, it is the same car with a bigger battery.

Really, what kind of people would need a car mag to tell them which car to buy?

 

Two problems:

• When the roof crush test was instituted, IIS went out of their way to trash-talk the Toyota cars. But we're seeing that pattern in every one of their "new test" announcement. What I would like to see is a simple table with the score quantified by the specific test failures. Instead their press releases too often fail to list the full table and specific failure mode(s).
• It takes ~3 years for a new model to come out reflecting the engineering time needed to modify or change the design. So if anyone 'modifies' or moves the standard, I don't mind if they want to project a 3-year evaluation but if the cars had meet the earlier standard, say so. Better still, just cite the standard the car met and at most, in parenthesis 'next standard applies in YYYY').

For example, there have been several versions of ISO-9000:

• ISO 9000 (1987) - no experience
• ISO 9000 (1994) - the one I liked because it had hard, non-negotiable standards
• ISO 9000 (2000) - weak, the organization could 'tailor' the standard to mean bukiss
• ISO 9000 (2008) - no apparent change

If I know a car met (IIS - 2009, 5-stars), I'm OK with that even if it is 2011. My thinking is the model-year the car comes out is the standard it meets and it holds that ranking until the model year changes. Both the testing standard and the car are frozen. When the model year changes, it gets tested to the new standard and hold that again until the model changes.

What I object to are 'moving the goal posts' when the manufacturer has no opportunity to meet the 'new test.' That is just wrong.

Bob Wilson

 

Toyota owner pulls CR recommendations.

 

It will take at least a few years, before the IIHS "small overlap" crash will be addressed, since a complete redesign of the engine-transmission and drive wheel layout of the car will be necessary.

The combination of the wheel and the front MacPherson strut suspension makes the unit like a hammer pivoted at the end of its handle.

Currently, the "head of the hammer' being the wheel will crash into the floor of the passenger compartment in the "small overlap" crash.

The front suspension and wheel will need to be moved out further to the front corner of the vehicle and the inner joint of the lower control arm reinforced to retain the pivot.

In that way, when the wheel is driven back, it will still NOT intrude into the area of the driver's floor.

Reinforcing the driver's floor or building a "roll cage" in front of the front wheel would effectively add weight to the structure.

 

I am glad that the new test's for safety are designied. I remember just having lap belts and we didn't even used them. I remember the old cvcc honda with I think 12" wheels and actually saw someone die in one that went off the road and hit a stump. the front tire came back into the driver side just like this test. years later as a xray tech. I think she broke pelvis and died from internal bleeding.

I don't like CR because they often make bad judgements as others have stated above. The prius c is a great car and they just found a bunch of neg. things about it. The Camry hybrid is also excelent and with 17" wheels handles like a sports car. I do hope toyota improves its safety in this type of crash. I would be suprised if they didn't.

above someone stated that all these safety tests should showen on a chart and given result of each test. instead of giving general poor rateing. I agree with that.

new cars even small ones are so much safer than old ones were. So I think we just need to keep up the good work. using better lighter materials, and air bags. better seats ect...

 

that's why i said, 'i'm all for improving safety'. but i'm not selling my pip, are you?

 

I guess the IIHS can't afford to crash at least three of each vehicle under the same test.

I'd really like to know, if the results of each test were "the luck of the draw." At least three each would either confirm or deny the validity of the results.

I'd deem their test to be more valid, if it was repeated by more than one representative sample.

That's why, for almost all industries like manufacturers of parts as simple as bolts, they test a sample form each batch.

 

I see what you are saying, but conversely, it's exactly this process that moves safety forward. I think it is quite clear to anyone who actually bothers to read the test reports that a failure on a new test does not nullify its old rating. What tends to happen is that news media picks up these failures and uses them as juicy headlines and then people never read past that. What's the alternative though? A lot is learned by testing current cars with the new tests because that data helps the automakers build a better next generation. If they do the testing and find a problem, I believe it would be negligent not to release that data to the public who can then make their own decision based on their own analysis.

 

I prefer the rating to be frozen on the first model year of the car. When ratings are listed, date or version stamp them so if the buyer is looking at a new car say 2014 model and the safety rating shows "2010 - 5 stars" no problem. It has to be referenced to a specific safety standard, dated or otherwise unambiguously defined.

Now this is were we can gain something . . . a dealer or NTHSA resident table that shows each standard with the differences from the earlier AND the backup accident rate data showing why each version has merit. For example, using my old man memory:

	Column 1	Column 2
0	[tr][th]Standard[th]Change[th]% of fatal[th]% of injury
1	[tr][td]2009[td]2	000 lbs strong roof[td2]0.1%[td2]0.02%
2	[tr][td]2012[td]18" offset impact[td2]1.0%[td2]0.2%

Source: old man's memory

There is a blanket assumption that each change in accident testing standards is 'a good thing' but we are left ignorant about 'how good.' The safety goal posts move without adequate documentation of the risk reduction and our only metric are "stars." In engineering we like to have metrics, real numbers, and in safety, risks can be quantified but not in subjective 'star' units.

We have similar goals, an accurate accounting for vehicle safety and update of standards based quantifiable metrics. But like Consumer Reports blasting EPA mileage testing while remaining totally opaque about their own protocol . . . well that is not engineering.

Bob Wilson

 

My CR subscription is up for renewing, but I am not going to renew. Not because of this stunt, but because, as others have mentioned, there is a huge discrepancy between their test results/ratings and real world reviews. Just about every product I have looked into (vacuums, kitchen appliances, washing machines, cars) has shown poor consumer reviews (on CR, Amazon, etc) of the top CR rated products and better reviews of the lower rated products. It seems that CR testing protocols don't match real world behavior.

 

My problem is that the so called experts, to my dismay, almost always disappoint.

A lot of times I find out that their so called "expert opinion" is based on self-promotion and "arbitrary" gut feeling.

I've seen how many times that jobs that others have done for customers and how customers brag on the quality of the job that they got and how they "chose wisely."


I had no heart to tell them that they got "screwed."

 

A late thought that comes from my experience with the "Bell the Hybrid" Act that mandated noise makers on hybrid electric and electric cars.

I noticed that the NHTSA reports that claimed a safety hazard from 'silent cars' had some fundamental statistical errors while over 4,000 pedestrians were dying each and every year. It was a practical application of:

Source: Matthew 7:3

Literally that whole effort stood on the graves of 4,000 dead pedestrians every year to get noise makers installed in hybrid electric cars. I was too close to the effort but taking a step back, it reveals the rot, the stink of non-empirically based, safety standards. I lay that blame on NHTSA, IIS, and a host of enablers.

Having a standard is a good thing but Mark Twain once wrote about a hill man who by the standards of his culture was required to kill another man. The hill man felt guilty because he had taken years before doing the killin' his local standards required. Rotten standards lead to rotten results, they have to be updated but it needs to be fact-based, not some glib 'sounds nice' nonsense.

Bob Wilson

 

No small Ovelap barrier here to prevent this crash,

Bad Situation for Crashed Mazda Gets Worse with Tow Truck Fumbler [NSFW] - Carscoops

 

"Looks like we're going to need a longer cable".

 

Bottom line is Prius and Camry still have the best fuel economy, service and reliability. Shouldn't matter that it fails one small overlap test.

 

Prius hatchback hasn't been tested. Prius v has.

 

The front end structure I nearly identical. What makes you think that "ignorance" will mean that the hatchback will fare better?

 

The bottom line here is:

• evidently we must assume entire Prius line may not be up to snuff on this new crash test.
• Prius v is losing CR recommendation because competition is better in this size class
• Sounds like Prius hatchback may not lose CR recommendation, but what does CR say? It is on probabtion? and only recommended because there is not close competition in its class?
• Prius c was not recommended by CR anyway, so it will not get it. One wonders if CR saw this coming and that may help explain the prior inconsistently negative review.

I have been one of those critical of CR coverage of plug_ins and hybrids, but in this case they have some objective ammo. It'll be interesting to see how CR handles it for all vehicles in the annual auto issue. Either a car passed the test, or it failed, or it was not tested, in which case must be on probation.

 

I didn't say that the hatchback will fare better...
I did say it hasn't been tested yet, only Prius v has.

Probably it will score a red "poor", as its larger derivative.

But until testing, La Palisse tells us it hasn't been yet.