Toyota models rank at bottom of crash-safety study

[MikeMike]

http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_4699240

Toyota Motor Corp., whose vehicles earn top marks for buyer satisfaction, has more models than any other automaker ranked at the bottom of a crash-protection study.
Toyota and its Lexus division accounted for nine of 16 vehicles with "acceptable," "marginal" or "poor" rear- impact protection, lowering their overall rating, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said today. Models included the Toyota Camry and the Lexus GS 350.
Honda Motor Co., including its Acura division, and Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd.'s Subaru each placed three vehicles among the 13 the study labeled as a "top safety pick." The Saab 9-3 sedan, made by General Motors Corp., was the only model manufactured by a U.S. automaker on the "top safety" list.
Toyota's performance in the crash-safety study contrasts with its industry-leading ranking on the University of Michigan's American Customer Satisfaction Index. The Toyota City, Japan-based company finished atop other automakers for the second year in a row in 2006.
Vehicles earn the insurance institute's top safety ranking based on tests of front-, rear- and side-collision protection. Vehicles had to have electronic stability control as an optional or standard feature to be considered for the top spot this year.
Advertisement


The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has called for automakers to makeAdvertisement

electronic stability
control standard by 2012. The equipment monitors vehicle movement and steering and may help prevent rollover accidents.
Tighter Criteria
"The idea of tightening the criteria for the award is to encourage more vehicle safety improvements," said Adrian Lund, president of the Arlington, Virginia-based institute.
A "poor" grade predicts serious or possibly fatal injuries in front-end and side collision tests performed at 40 miles an hour, while a "good" rating predicts a lower risk of serious injury, said Russ Rader, an institute spokesman.
Passengers in vehicles with "poor" rear-collision ratings are "much more likely" to sustain neck injuries compared with people riding in "good" vehicles, Rader said.
Ming-Jou Chen, a spokeswoman for Toyota's Torrance, California-based sales unit, said she hadn't seen the study as of yesterday and couldn't comment on its results.

 

[senseamp]

Can't have it all. Do you want safety, which you may only need once, or do you want customer satisfaction, which you'll experience every day?

 

[DivideBYZero]

What were they? Acceptable, marginal or poor? Weaksauce article.

 

[Ryan]

LoL - I knew you were gonna rip this from the Lounge from the second I read the thread over there - haha

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Can't have it all. Do you want safety, which you may only need once, or do you want customer satisfaction, which you'll experience every day?

LOL I'll take keeping me alive!

I was, unfortunately, not blessed with nine lives

 

[Vic]

Subaru FTW!

 

[vi edit]

Rear crash safety? Sounds almost like a new category that hasn't really been addressed.

It used to be front impacts which resulted in seat belts and later airbags. Then it was side impacts which resulted in stronger doors and pillars and side impact air bags.

Now we have rear impact. Which results in what? The "active head restraints" that almost every brands is now marketing?

I don't think I've ever heard a brand market their "rear impact" safety awards. Give these brands a cycle to react and they'll increase their scores.

 

[Mermaidman]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Can't have it all. Do you want safety, which you may only need once, or do you want customer satisfaction, which you'll experience every day?

Hmm, lets see, do I want to die only once, or . . .

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Mermaidman

Originally posted by: senseamp
Can't have it all. Do you want safety, which you may only need once, or do you want customer satisfaction, which you'll experience every day?

Hmm, lets see, do I want to die only once, or . . .

Hey, at least you'll die while experiencing customer satisfaction. That is a good way to go.

 

[KaChow]

Drive backwards. Problem solved!

 

[cjchaps]

They failed to mention the vehciles that did well in the test.
I have a 2006 Toyota Rav4 and it got 4 excellent's and 1 acceptable for it's saftey rating. The "top rated" Honda CRV in the same category got all 5 excellents? I'd bet that if you crashed in the same manner in both vehicles results would be 99% similiar as far as your safety is concerned.

 

[OS]

the title is sensationalist and misleading.

http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr112106.html

that is the actual press release, it notes as follows;

ALSO-RANS
Rear protection isn't good

These vehicles earned good ratings in front and side crash tests. They have electronic stability control, standard or optional. They would have won 2007 TOP SAFETY PICK awards if their seat/head restraints also had earned good ratings. Instead rear crash protection is rated acceptable, marginal, or poor (Honda reports that the seat/head restraints in the only Civic model with electronic stability control wouldn?t be rated good).

Acceptable rear protection
Audi A3
BMW 3-series 4dr
Lexus IS 250/350

Marginal rear protection
Acura TL
Honda Odyssey
Lexus ES 350
Lexus GS 350
Toyota Camry
Toyota FJ Cruiser
Toyota Prius
Toyota RAV4

Poor rear protection
Honda Accord 4dr
Infiniti M35
Nissan Quest
Toyota Avalon
Toyota Sienna

 

[zoiks]

hahahaha.