If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(YouTube)   Most frightening crash test results of new Toyota mid-size vehicles you'll see, hopefully not first hand   (youtube.com) divider line 52
    More: Fail, IIHS, family car, Toyota, crash tests  
•       •       •

3945 clicks; posted to Business » on 01 Jan 2013 at 9:45 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



52 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-01 08:42:11 AM
Mmm mmm mmm mmm.
 
2013-01-01 09:33:34 AM
I would have scoffed at the "small overlap test" had I not just spent the last two weeks in Chicago and seen dozens of hard, concrete structures that jut out almost exactly like the one in the test does.
 
2013-01-01 09:56:32 AM
Next up, Toyota sues the IIHS to prevent them from making any more crash test results public information.
 
2013-01-01 09:58:47 AM
Jesus. Time to trade in the Toyota (as if the last five or so recalls hadn't already convinced me).
 
2013-01-01 10:16:31 AM

vartian: I would have scoffed at the "small overlap test" had I not just spent the last two weeks in Chicago and seen dozens of hard, concrete structures that jut out almost exactly like the one in the test does.


Mom?
 
2013-01-01 10:31:28 AM
Ok, maybe I was wrong to say Toyota outperforms Honda. Wow. That's kind of scary. Hope they fix that.
 
2013-01-01 10:34:44 AM
So since I own 5 toyotas, what did I just learn? Turn TOWARDS the guy that is about to hit me not away to make sure I have full not partial contact.

Actually if I hit anyone in my 6600 GVW Sequoia they are probably history.
 
2013-01-01 10:35:07 AM
I can't wait to hear Toyota's PR spin for this one.

I found it interesting that the side curtain airbags in the Prius crash appeared to deploy too late.
 
2013-01-01 10:40:07 AM
Well, that's the price you pay for saving the environment Prius owners.
 
Xai
2013-01-01 10:45:29 AM
I would have loved to see how horrific the results would have been from an SUV - those things are about as safe as being on fire.
 
2013-01-01 10:45:50 AM

simusid: So since I own 5 toyotas, what did I just learn? Turn TOWARDS the guy that is about to hit me not away to make sure I have full not partial contact.

Actually if I hit anyone in my 6600 GVW Sequoia they are probably history.


Maybe not.
 
2013-01-01 10:47:05 AM
Once there was this kid who
Got into an accident and couldn't come to school
But when he finally came back
His hair had turned from black into bright white
He said that it was from when
The cars had smashed him so hard
 
2013-01-01 10:54:16 AM

vartian: I would have scoffed at the "small overlap test" had I not just spent the last two weeks in Chicago and seen dozens of hard, concrete structures that jut out almost exactly like the one in the test does.


I was thinking something like that also. I don't have any statistics on crashes to delve into, but I'd bet a good number of them involve having a near-miss and crashing into something with the edge of a car.

And the Toyota side curtain airbag was total FAILZ! It came down after the head glanced off the airbag.
 
Xai
2013-01-01 10:56:47 AM
Damn - i found the moderate overlap for the ford F-150 Link and it looked pretty bad - imagine how much worse this one will be... the dodge wasn't much better Link

compare that to the Toyota camry Link
 
2013-01-01 11:03:45 AM
I love how the Red Sox hate the Yankees.
 
2013-01-01 11:04:38 AM

Krymson Tyde: Mmm mmm mmm mmm.


Came for this.
 
2013-01-01 11:10:08 AM
Goddammitsomuch. We just purchased our Prius. We were also considering the Ford C-Max because the discount was insane but an engineer told us they were designed to break down as soon as the warranty expired.
 
2013-01-01 11:25:28 AM

Bontesla: Goddammitsomuch. We just purchased our Prius. We were also considering the Ford C-Max because the discount was insane but an engineer told us they were designed to break down as soon as the warranty expired.


Aren't they all?
 
2013-01-01 11:26:24 AM
I total led a 2008 Prius and it did very well at protecting me and my wife. (Enough that I bought another one)
 
2013-01-01 11:27:06 AM

arcas: I can't wait to hear Toyota's PR spin for this one.

I found it interesting that the side curtain airbags in the Prius crash appeared to deploy too late.


"Life is best when taken head on."
"Toyota: By forward thinkers, for forward thinkers."
"Don't sideline life's obstacles, put them front and center with Toyota."

Just a few :P
 
2013-01-01 11:43:32 AM
Do a lot of people still buy midsized cars? People concerned with gas mileage tend towards smaller vehicles and people with 2 or more kids all end up with SUVs or minivans.
 
2013-01-01 12:02:33 PM

SnarfVader: simusid: So since I own 5 toyotas, what did I just learn? Turn TOWARDS the guy that is about to hit me not away to make sure I have full not partial contact.

Actually if I hit anyone in my 6600 GVW Sequoia they are probably history.

Maybe not.


Was chatting with the SiL the other day about cars and safety. His is a Captain in the local (professional...not volunteer) EMT/Fire Dept, and as such gets called out to lots of car crash scenes. As a result of what he sees in the real world, he and his wife (my daughter) drive late model full-sized pickups and a full-sized sedan, and they won't ride in compact or subcompact cars.

Older pickups were suspect in roll-overs until an exposé several years ago highlighted that weakness and improvements were made, but all in all he says he sees over and over again that the bigger the vehicle the lower the risk to the occupants in multi-car crashes.

They won't ride in our '02 Golf TDi...
 
2013-01-01 12:08:53 PM

Xai: Damn - i found the moderate overlap for the ford F-150 Link and it looked pretty bad - imagine how much worse this one will be... the dodge wasn't much better Link

compare that to the Toyota camry Link


*** Checks IIHS for Mrs Poopy's Merc **

Yep, the F150 sucks. Figure Mrs P would be okay.
 
2013-01-01 12:12:18 PM
I'm a little surprised they didn't devise this test years ago.

Quite some back, a high school friend an I were hanging around outside my dad's place which is about 1/3 mile off the highway. We heard loud crash from up there and saw there'd been a wreck. We ran across a wheat field up to the highway to help out.

Turns out a the driver of a mid-size car was left of center on a narrow bridge while a farmer with a flatbed pickup was coming the other way. There wasn't enough room on the bridge for the farmer to pull far enough to the right to avoid the car completely and the car sideswiped the truck. The left front corner of the flatbed peeled the car's driver side fender all the way up to and including the door. The driver struck his head on the door pillar, then the windshield, leaving a deep dent in his forehead. Funny, one of the things I remember from his body lying on the side of the road (having been removed by passersby) - he had a brand new pair of green Nike's on his feet.

Anyway, the crash video reminded of this. Same kind of impact.
 
2013-01-01 12:16:51 PM
www.jzmcbride.com
 
2013-01-01 12:20:28 PM

Xai: Damn - i found the moderate overlap for the ford F-150 Link and it looked pretty bad - imagine how much worse this one will be... the dodge wasn't much better Link

compare that to the Toyota camry Link


Umm, if you posted a video of a 2001 model for the F-150. Here in the future Ford fixed it's issues with the 2004 and newer model years.
Link IIHS ratings for the Ford F150

Bottom line, if your looking to buy a vehicle, the IIHS website should be one of your first stops.
 
2013-01-01 12:58:24 PM
Clearly, if counterintuitively, you are safer in a direct head-on crash than one of these glancing blows, though I expect the glancing type impact is more common.
 
2013-01-01 01:13:56 PM

Any Pie Left: Clearly, if counterintuitively, you are safer in a direct head-on crash than one of these glancing blows, though I expect the glancing type impact is more common.


Apparently not...

www.safecarguide.com
 
2013-01-01 02:10:08 PM
If car manufacturers were as concerned with making their cars safe as they are with simply making sure their cars perform well in tests, then a new type of test wouldn't show so much fail.

This is like a student memorizing Romeo and Juliet because that was all that was on last year's Shakespeare test, only to find that the new test all of a sudden also includes Hamlet and Othello.
 
2013-01-01 02:22:32 PM
BigBooper: Xai: Damn - i found the moderate overlap for the ford F-150 Link and it looked pretty bad - imagine how much worse this one will be... the dodge wasn't much better Link

compare that to the Toyota camry Link

Umm, if you posted a video of a 2001 model for the F-150. Here in the future Ford fixed it's issues with the 2004 and newer model years.
Link IIHS ratings for the Ford F150

Bottom line, if your looking to buy a vehicle, the IIHS website should be one of your first stops.


If I'm not mistaken from best I can remember(it was like 10 years ago) the epic death trap fail on the F 150s only applied to extended cabs with rear facing 4 door , standard cabs, 2 door extended cabs. and club cabs was all acceptable according to IIHS but Gotchya journalists portrayed it like it was ALL of them
 
2013-01-01 03:05:40 PM

stiletto_the_wise: If car manufacturers were as concerned with making their cars safe as they are with simply making sure their cars perform well in tests, then a new type of test wouldn't show so much fail.

This is like a student memorizing Romeo and Juliet because that was all that was on last year's Shakespeare test, only to find that the new test all of a sudden also includes Hamlet and Othello.


Yes, it would be nice if automakers could plan and design an auto to survive every possible crash scenario. OTOH, it's not entirely reasonable or economical for them to do so. Having a known test gives them an good goal to meet, and as new tests are devised, they can revise and improve their designs.

Students study what the teacher tells them to; it would be extremely unfair for a teacher to grade a student on material that wasn't assigned. Now that the automakers know what they're to be tested on, you can be certain that auto designs will incorporate new designs to make them safer - the system works.

I'd rather be in a modern auto with all its safety equipment designed to pass those tests, than any old Detroit iron from decades past when the automakers didn't have the tests to worry about at all.

www.automotiveaddicts.com
 
2013-01-01 03:26:32 PM
The best way to have safer cars would be to require the carmakers to include life insurance policies specifically for car crashes with each car they sell. If the carmaker was on the line for $100,000 for any occupant who died in a collision in the car (no matter who was at fault for the accident), cars would be much safer.
There could be a few limitations to stipulate that the vehicle must have been moving at a legal speed, and maybe to omit deaths caused by the car being driven into a lake, but otherwise this would be an unavoidable financial incentive for carmakers to improve safety.

I would just hope that the insurance amount is properly balenced so carmakers dont convert to a safety-only mindset, as that would destroy the fun of cars.


Also, don't forget that a major portion of road fatalities are motorcyclists, who too often are not noticed by car drivers. Newer and better studies of motorcycle crashes are desparately needed (the last good one was the Hurt Report). The vast majority of recent studies simply say "wear a helmet, and dont ride a motorcyle". That's useless info for the many riders who already wear helmets.
 
2013-01-01 04:30:26 PM
I'd rather be in a modern auto with all its safety equipment designed to pass those tests, than any old Detroit iron from decades past when the automakers didn't have the tests to worry about at all.

Look the dust and rust flying off of the 59 Chevrolet. Despite it's paint, I suspect that car wasn't in the best shape before hand. 5 centuries of work hardening and corrosion do make a difference. Hit that late model Chevy with a 76 Impala or better yet, 70s or older Chrysler Imperial or Cadillac Fleetwood, then let's see what happens.
Be advised not all old cars were created equally.
 
2013-01-01 05:34:37 PM

Kurmudgeon: I'd rather be in a modern auto with all its safety equipment designed to pass those tests, than any old Detroit iron from decades past when the automakers didn't have the tests to worry about at all.

Look the dust and rust flying off of the 59 Chevrolet. Despite it's paint, I suspect that car wasn't in the best shape before hand. 5 centuries of work hardening and corrosion do make a difference. Hit that late model Chevy with a 76 Impala or better yet, 70s or older Chrysler Imperial or Cadillac Fleetwood, then let's see what happens.
Be advised not all old cars were created equally.


From the NY Times:

"We didn't want to crash a museum piece," Mr. Zuby said. "We were not looking for one that had been restored for museum or show quality." But the vehicle had to have a solid structure, although a little surface rust would be acceptable.

They found what they wanted in Indiana. "The frame was sound and all the body panels were sound," he said. It had a 3.9-liter 6-cylinder engine and was in driving condition.

The car was bought for about $8,500 and had about 74,000 miles on the odometer, which was broken. It was trucked to the test center in Virginia.

Mr. Zuby said the cloud that shows in the crash video wasn't rust. "Most of that is road dirt that accumulates in nooks and crannies that you can't get it," he said."

Link
 
2013-01-01 05:51:34 PM

vartian: I would have scoffed at the "small overlap test" had I not just spent the last two weeks in Chicago and seen dozens of hard, concrete structures that jut out almost exactly like the one in the test does.


Small overlap is what you would get if drivers coming head on try to avoid each other, but fail.

Imagine Car A passing a semi on a 2 lane road. Car B is the the oncoming lane and swerves onto the shoulder, but not soon enough.
 
2013-01-01 05:57:20 PM

Kurmudgeon: I suspect that car wasn't in the best shape before hand. 5 centuries of work hardening and corrosion do make a difference.


Man, I just can't believe they'd deliberately crash a 500 year old car. Bummer, dude.
 
2013-01-01 07:00:29 PM
You don't know ugly until you see the truck under ride crash test which shows how weak "Mansfield" bars will do nothing to keep your head on your shoulders.

2010 Chevy Malibu
 
2013-01-01 07:26:53 PM
Just wait till next year, when they have the IIHS TOP SAFETY PICK+ SUPER award!
 
Xai
2013-01-01 08:34:10 PM

Land Ark: You don't know ugly until you see the truck under ride crash test which shows how weak "Mansfield" bars will do nothing to keep your head on your shoulders.

2010 Chevy Malibu


I like how the 'canadian standard' bars are effective and cost about $20 more. (0:50 in that vid)
 
2013-01-01 10:04:34 PM

HexMadroom: an engineer told us they were designed to break down as soon as the warranty expired.

Aren't they all?


Not all.  My 1996 Subaru Outback Legacy is on its return trip from the moon.
 
2013-01-01 10:29:09 PM

labman: I total led a 2008 Prius and it did very well at protecting me and my wife. (Enough that I bought another one)


My wife and I were in our 2003 Corolla S when we we T boned at 50mph by some teenage coont who ran a red light. Remarkably, we both survived with minor injuries.

Six months later, we were rear ended in her brand new 2004 Corolla S, by a coont high on meth who had no insurance. We were stopped, she hit us at about 40mph. Again, we survived with minor injuries.

She's on her fourth Toyota now (traded in her Matrix for her Highlander) and I drive a 4Runner. I expect we'll drive Toyota vehicles for the foreseeable future, if not forever. I don't give a rat's ass what the video shows- we lived through two crashes, one of which would undoubtedly have been fatal if we had been in the car I was driving at the time. Also, we haven't experienced any of the "recall" bullshiat- because we know how to hit the brakes instead of step on the gas.
 
2013-01-02 12:29:08 AM
Big surprise. As the historically most common types of accidents in general are addressed by IIHS crash tests, the types of accidents that result in fatalities change, proportionately, to those that have not yet been addressed by IIHS crash studies and thereby not a priority to mitigation by car manufacturers. Since the 1970's the per capita traffic accident fatality rate in the U.S. has dropped considerately and the most common types of fatal crashes have been prioritized in IIHS tests and related public scrutiny. So it only makes sense that the proportion of accident deaths in non-tested crash profiles would become a bigger concern. IIHS does what it needs to do to keep itself relevant; by innovating new tests in relation to the evolving trends. So, of course the manufacturers will adapt, the results of these off-set crash tests will improve and the IIHS will find a new crash profile to highlight. At some point, they will resort to tests highly unlikely crash types such as hardened projectiles launching through seat bottoms, cars being filled with explosive gas and falling from aircraft. Then, when there are no traffic fatalities at all, the IIHS mission shall be forced to creep into studies of people choking on french fries while waiting at fast food drive-thrus.
 
2013-01-02 12:45:19 AM

Bontesla: Goddammitsomuch. We just purchased our Prius. We were also considering the Ford C-Max because the discount was insane but an engineer told us they were designed to break down as soon as the warranty expired.


Your engineer friend is an idiot, and you should be ashamed for even entertaining such a notion.
 
2013-01-02 03:45:18 AM
Chris45215 : The best way to have safer cars would be to require the carmakers to include life insurance policies specifically for car crashes with each car they sell. If the carmaker was on the line for $100,000 for any occupant who died in a collision in the car (no matter who was at fault for the accident), cars would be much safer.

What planet are you on?

1) You take the likelyhood of someone dying in a crash for a given car
2) The number of cars in the field
3) The average payout per crash

And throw it all into an equation to find out how much you need to raise the price of all your vehicles to compensate.
 
2013-01-02 03:58:29 AM
Take your pick:
www.mediabistro.com
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-02 04:02:12 AM

Bontesla: Goddammitsomuch. We just purchased our Prius. We were also considering the Ford C-Max because the discount was insane but an engineer told us they were designed to break down as soon as the warranty expired.


Well, that's because Ford decided to go Eurotrash with its entire lineup - making the same mistake that Japan has always made by letting too many hippies design cars.

Thankfully Chrysler and GM largely have avoided it to some degree, preserving sanity in automotive design.
 
2013-01-02 04:16:17 AM
So..... time get an Accord
 
2013-01-02 10:04:34 AM

Chris45215: The best way to have safer cars would be to require the carmakers to include life insurance policies specifically for car crashes with each car they sell. If the carmaker was on the line for $100,000 for any occupant who died in a collision in the car (no matter who was at fault for the accident), cars would be much safer.
There could be a few limitations to stipulate that the vehicle must have been moving at a legal speed, and maybe to omit deaths caused by the car being driven into a lake, but otherwise this would be an unavoidable financial incentive for carmakers to improve safety.


Sadly, this would likely just cause the companies to spend far more money on lawyers than actual safety research and development.
 
2013-01-02 12:12:56 PM

Kraftwerk Orange: stiletto_the_wise: If car manufacturers were as concerned with making their cars safe as they are with simply making sure their cars perform well in tests, then a new type of test wouldn't show so much fail.

This is like a student memorizing Romeo and Juliet because that was all that was on last year's Shakespeare test, only to find that the new test all of a sudden also includes Hamlet and Othello.

Yes, it would be nice if automakers could plan and design an auto to survive every possible crash scenario. OTOH, it's not entirely reasonable or economical for them to do so. Having a known test gives them an good goal to meet, and as new tests are devised, they can revise and improve their designs.

Students study what the teacher tells them to; it would be extremely unfair for a teacher to grade a student on material that wasn't assigned. Now that the automakers know what they're to be tested on, you can be certain that auto designs will incorporate new designs to make them safer - the system works.

I'd rather be in a modern auto with all its safety equipment designed to pass those tests, than any old Detroit iron from decades past when the automakers didn't have the tests to worry about at all.
[www.automotiveaddicts.com image 500x297]


Only thing I learned from that picture was that aluminum wheels aer safer than steel wheels.
 
2013-01-02 02:50:20 PM
Hey assholes, learn to drive! It's not hard avoiding big things like overpasses. It's not like they just leap out in front of you.
 
Displayed 50 of 52 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report