I think everyone is going to suck at that test until they start to engineer for it.
 
The F-150 was a deathtrap before they started testing it.  Everyone gets better once their class starts getting included in tests.
 

 
This is just a regular offset.  The kind everyone in a Prius walks away from.  This 2003 F-150 blew the door off and killed the dummy.

Do not taunt Toyota Camry.

Wadded Beef: Do not taunt drive a Toyota Camry.

FTFE

/I know the joke

I love the fact that the IIHS keeps changing up their testing so that manufactures don't engineer the cars to just pass the "standardized" tests.

Okay. But the guy in the video says the car is still recommended despite failing that test because it did well in the other tests.

My prediction: This won't hurt Camry sales much at all.

This place and Underwriters Laboratories must be the raddest places to work

And a six-model-year-old, Daimler-designed Avenger gets top safety pick plus.

The Lexus they tested in the luxury car round also sucked the big one.

GBB: I love the fact that the IIHS keeps changing up their testing so that manufactures don't engineer the cars to just pass the "standardized" tests.

I've enjoyed watching old American designs predating the new tests pass too...

antidisestablishmentarianism: I love to hate on Toyota and their appliance cars as much as the next guy, but they did give us these this year:

[www.autoguide.com image 646x396]
And I wantwill get one.

I poked around one at the dealer's lot and decided I prefer Subaru's BRZ skin. Also, lose the shiatty LRR Prius tires. Low resistance hybrid tires on an alleged sporty coupe? GTFO.

antidisestablishmentarianism: I love to hate on Toyota and their appliance cars as much as the next guy, but they did give us these this year:

[www.autoguide.com image 646x396]
And I wantwill get one.

Oh you mean this?

[unintented_acceleration_joke.png]

akula:

It's just not possible to engineer a vehicle for every possible collision that might happen. Even if you could, the vehicle would be heavy and likely have crap for visibility for the driver (pretty much guaranteeing that there's going to be wrecks).

Unless you design a vehicle from the ground up as a safety mobile and sacrifice fuel mileage, cargo capacity, passenger room, acceleration, speed, range, visibility, ease to enter and exit, price, and anything else you can think of other than safety there is always something you could do to make a car safer.

New test. So that means the engineers at Toyota are very good at designing for the relevant tests and this wasn't one of them. Now that it is, Camry will do just fine in new models.

Don't mind the "appliance" epithet. I'd still get another Toyota (Don't have one now, but used to and loved it)

And FYI, saying the Ford F-150 improved because they started building to to better on the tests ignores that it was a horrible squishallthepassengersmobile for years and years. Your phrasing makes it sound like it was a horrible deathtrap just in pre-production and that no lives are at risk driving an actual production version.

LineNoise: In Toyota's defense, it was a 40mph test. I can't imagine most camry drivers would even survive the excitement of traveling at 40mph, let alone the crash.

I LOLd.

antidisestablishmentarianism: I love to hate on Toyota and their appliance cars as much as the next guy, but they did give us these this year:

[www.autoguide.com image 646x396]
And I wantwill get one.

Me. Too.

Are Happy Fun Balls not safe?

I guess, but I got T-boned in a Prius a few years ago and both my son and I walked away without a scratch. The car took a few thousand dollars worth of damage but the frame held up like a champ. So there's that. *shrug*

I drive a Solara (80% parts overlap with a Camry).

6 years, 155K miles. Aside from scheduled maintenance the only thing it's needed done to it is alignment, tires, and wiper blades. Still on the original set of brakes, although I'll probably have to have them done by spring.

You couldn't ask for a better daily driver, it's completely dependable and low maintenance. First time I've had a car that didn't need a major repair before it was paid off.

My 84 Supra has cruise control, air conditioning and the sunroof still works with aplomb. My daily driver, it's still free from dents and will cruise at 80 all day long while delivering decent MPG.

Between Lexus, Scion and the parent company Toyota, they make the most reliable vehicles in the world.

Toyota Camrys may stick to certain types of skin.

Oldiron_79: Unless you design a vehicle from the ground up as a safety mobile and sacrifice fuel mileage, cargo capacity, passenger room, acceleration, speed, range, visibility, ease to enter and exit, price, and anything else you can think of other than safety there is always something you could do to make a car safer.

Volvo managed to do it for 30+ years. The only bad thing you can say about them is they're boxy and stodgy. They'll keep going forever if you take care of them.

clyph: Oldiron_79: Unless you design a vehicle from the ground up as a safety mobile and sacrifice fuel mileage, cargo capacity, passenger room, acceleration, speed, range, visibility, ease to enter and exit, price, and anything else you can think of other than safety there is always something you could do to make a car safer.

Volvo managed to do it for 30+ years. The only bad thing you can say about them is they're boxy and stodgy. They'll keep going forever if you take care of them.

They look much better these days.

kg2095: clyph: Oldiron_79: Unless you design a vehicle from the ground up as a safety mobile and sacrifice fuel mileage, cargo capacity, passenger room, acceleration, speed, range, visibility, ease to enter and exit, price, and anything else you can think of other than safety there is always something you could do to make a car safer.

Volvo managed to do it for 30+ years. The only bad thing you can say about them is they're boxy and stodgy. They'll keep going forever if you take care of them.

They look much better these days.

[www.privatefleet.com.au image 500x351]

I wouldn't say that:

StopLurkListen: And FYI, saying the Ford F-150 improved because they started building to to better on the tests ignores that it was a horrible squishallthepassengersmobile for years and years. Your phrasing makes it sound like it was a horrible deathtrap just in pre-production and that no lives are at risk driving an actual production version.

No RapMaster2000's phrasing did not suggest that at all. And the attached image and description of the 2003 F-150 crash test is further evidence that your interpretation was not the intended one.

Wadded Beef: Do not taunt Toyota Camry.

Came for this.

What about the upside down sliding on the roof through a gauntlet of low slung chainsaws test? Or the hit by a fiery pallasitic stony-iron meteorite travelling at 362 MPH and an approach of 64 degrees perpendicular to the plane of the horizon test?

Appliance? C'mon, my refrigerator and blender are far more interesting and enjoyable to use. Don't insult regular household appliances by associated them with such a boring hunk of metal.

antidisestablishmentarianism: I love to hate on Toyota and their appliance cars as much as the next guy, but they did give us these this year:

FR-S.jpg


Been wanting to drive one, but nobody in my area has one in. Probably for the better as I might be tempted to trade in my beloved GTI.

Oh and on topic...Camrys suck.

Vermicious Knids: I guess, but I got T-boned in a Prius a few years ago and both my son and I walked away without a scratch. The car took a few thousand dollars worth of damage but the frame held up like a champ. So there's that. *shrug*

That's because there are certain shapes and geometries for cars which are better at absorbing, resisting and deflecting impacts away from the people inside. Unfortunately, those shapes aren't "cool", so they don't sell well to most segments of the buying public, especially young males and older males who think they're still young males. People who buy the Prius are practical, and more see their purchase like buying a tool instead of a fashion accessory.

Yet another reason to drive a big heavy 90's van. I don't have to worry about absorbing damage from a crash. The other explodomobile will fall apart as I blast through their tin can.

Do the red one, Bob.

I fail to understand the Toyota love.

Had to drive a Camry as a replacement rental for a while and I so hated it. Loosy-goosy, tinny feel to the drive, strange cornering and acceleration, and the totally blah look of it. What a yucky point-A to point-B car.

/Would not buy.

cefm: New test. So that means the engineers at Toyota are very good at designing for the relevant tests and this wasn't one of them. Now that it is, Camry will do just fine in new models.

I was impressed with Toyota's response. Basically, "thanks to IIHS for again pushing the envelope. Challenge accepted"

Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball......

Love that episode of SNL.

ftfa Suzuki, on the other hand, recently announced it was pulling out of the U.S. auto market after years of poor sales here.

What?? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I loved the Suzuki Sx4 !

Well maybe your problem is naming your car Kizashi .... sounds like a fibre and grain-filled granola bar.

/Swift is just a copy of the Chevy Aveo.
//bring back the REAL 90's Suzuki Swift !

Pope_Rodger: kg2095: clyph: Oldiron_79: Unless you design a vehicle from the ground up as a safety mobile and sacrifice fuel mileage, cargo capacity, passenger room, acceleration, speed, range, visibility, ease to enter and exit, price, and anything else you can think of other than safety there is always something you could do to make a car safer.

Volvo managed to do it for 30+ years. The only bad thing you can say about them is they're boxy and stodgy. They'll keep going forever if you take care of them.

They look much better these days.

[www.privatefleet.com.au image 500x351]

I wouldn't say that:

[www.vpcuk.org image 600x450]

Well some of them do anyway.

They also used to make a stunning looking car back in the olden days...

toraque: Smeggy Smurf: Yet another reason to drive a big heavy 90's van. I don't have to worry about absorbing damage from a crash. The other explodomobile will fall apart as I blast through their tin can.

I like this train of thought, but the 90's is too recent for safety.  Also, it's a van.  My new plan is to drive to work every day in an M4 Sherman tank.

I was thinking M1 Abrams