Mike728

Not actually 100% true, since the Avalon and the ES now share the same extended Camry platform. Since the 2013 model year.

Here are links to the 3 crash test results:

Camry
Avalon
ES

I would feel safe in all the above.

Sulu

I am aware of that but compared the ES and Camry on purpose because they are further apart in market niche and price.

Details about the ES sharing a platform with the Avalon, which is on a revised Camry platform can be argued until the cows come home. And we must remember that the modern definition of car platform is not limited just to wheelbase and floorpan. A platform can encompass different wheelbases and floorpans; a platform is about commonality of components (including engines and transmisssions), the mounting of those components and whether different cars can be assembled on the same assembly line.

And, as you yourself said, since all three share the same platform (despite different wheelbase), all 3 share the same IIHS crash-test rating. The difference is in the availability of pre-crash features (which IIHS labels as "FRONT CRASH PREVENTION"): the more expensive, more luxurious ES and Avalon do better (which is expected, since pre-crash features are still relatively expensive and more features are available in the more expensive models.

spwolf

You have no idea about what you are talking about, at all. There is a big difference between 4 and 5 stars and up until 2 years ago, most cars did not pass small offset tests.

There is no other meaningful way to discern safety but in crash tests.

Crash tests are done against barriers, which means that heavier vehicles have a lot harder tasks of getting same result as small vehicles.

Again, if you are looking for advice in forums on crash tests and disregard official crash tests, then your whole approach is completely wrong.

703

Lexus and Toyota did poorly in small overlap tests. Only the redesigned late 2015 models are starting to pass these tests.

BornDriver

If you really care about the safety in the crash, nothing will replace those from the BoF platform.
In the real life vehicles usually crash into each other instead of hitting a huge rock or steel.
4Runner/Lexus GX460/LandCruiser/LX570, just get the right size and comfort for your family.

Toys4RJill

These pictures mean nothing because we don't know what the context of any of them are. That GX might of been going 120 MPH and the red car may of been stationary.

I believe there is evidence that demonstrates that a unibody is safer than a BOF vehicle.

mmarshall

Probably too many different other variables to simply compare unibody vs. BOF without taking those variables into consideration. For example, all else equal (which it usually isn't), BOF vehicles tend to be heavier and more rigid, which adds to safety and stability. But, on the other hand, BOF vehicles usually don't handle as well, and are usually less able to avoid an accident in the first place.

coolsaber

Lexus and Toyota share developmental resources. However each vehicle is designed differently for the price bracket its sold on. So certain similar vehicles might have additional reinforcements or different side panels to accomadate additional eequipment etc etc.

The best test of such is finding reliabile date through NCAP or IIHS or safecar etc etc.

With safety, its all about the $$$$. MB and Volvo reign supreme even in their aged models where new tests are beasted by super old platforms. Example, Toyota and alot of ther automakers go with desiging their vehicles to pass a safety test and regulations, whereas at least Volvo designs their vehicles with safety as a standalone and tests just get passed by themselves. (Small overlap on the 1st gen XC90 comes to mind).

In regards to BOF vs unibody, having a bigger chassis does not really mean squat in accident. By that logic a 70s caddy should be the safest vehicle ever designed, but its not. It folds like an accordian when crashed into a smart car.

Its all about the absorption and distrubtion of the force of impact. If the car is able to distrubite the impact forces properly, the people inside should walk unharmed.

LX570 is a capable vehicle in terms of mechanics, but has absolutely no safety data available.

MattyG

^^^ I was going to say the Euro NCAP standards are considerably higher, although all standards evolve over time.

An apples and oranges comparison from Fifth Gear old vs new.


And the IIHS test of a 2016 Volvo XC90. Notice the difference airbags and structural engineering can make.

MattyG

And one of the few tests of the 2GS400/430 from the IIHS. Astonishing to see the tech at work. One of the things that was always on the back of my mind was safety when I bought mine.

Sulu

Body-on-frame trucks, including pickup trucks and BOF SUVs (such as the Toyota 4Runner) give a false sense of security, due to their height and their hard ladder frames.

Because of their height, they tend to ride over smaller, lower cars during impacts. As a result, the car is crushed under the truck while the truck comes out with relatively light damage. And because of their high and hard ladder frames, during collisions with lower cars, the frames may pierce the more fragile areas of the cars, such as the upper doors and windows.

As a result, Ford designed and installed the BlockerBeam, a "unique frontal–enhanced underride crash
protection system" for its heavy-duty Excursion, F-250, F-350, F-450 and F-550 model trucks in 1999. Installed below the ends of the ladder frame and hidden behind the front airdam, the BlockerBeam is designed to make contact with the stronger floorpans and bumpers on cars during a collision, preventing the heavier and higher truck from riding over and crushing the car.

You obviously do not understand crash testing. In government (NHTSA, Euro NCAP) and insurance industry (IIHS) testing, it may seem that the vehicles are crashed into heavy steel blocks, but they are specially designed barriers that act as though the vehicle being crashed is crashing into another vehicle of similar weight. The result is that small, light cars are tested as though crashing into another small, light car, and larger, heavier trucks crashed into another large, heavy truck.

We really do not know the full capabilities of BOF pickup trucks in the more-stringent IIHS moderate- and small-overlap, side, roof and head restraint crash tests, since GM, Chrysler, Nissan and even Toyota have not completed the full suite of IIHS crash tests; it seems that only Ford has subjected its new aluminum F-150 to the full suite of tests.

I would venture to guess that Ford wanted to prove the strength of its new pickup trucks. I would also guess that the reason that GM, Chrysler and Nissan did not test the full suite of crashes, and Toyota did not subject its Tundra to the small-overlap test is because these manufacturers knew their trucks would not do well in the tests that were not conducted.

In the history of IIHS crash testing (over the past 15~20 years), Ford and Toyota have been consistent -- much more so than all other manufacturers, with exceptions of Volvo and Mercedes-Benz -- in their good showing. All manufacturers have improved in the past 10 years or so, such that they all do quite well, but it has been Ford, Toyota, Volvo and MB that have done well over the longer period.

BornDriver

LOL

Wish your unibody better than those

coolsaber

If you`d like to prove your point I`d suggest showing some images that dont prove ours

Otherwise stop trolling hard with opinions rather than facts

Sulu

Don't know what you are trying to prove with those photos. Regardless, here is what I see...

In that first picture of the Toyota Corolla in the foreground and the Audi Q7 in the background, I would say that the outcome of the collision was as expected, as designed. It looks like the Q7 hit the Corolla on the driver's door (if the Q7 did hit the Corolla, the Corolla survived very well, considering that the Q7 is a much heavier vehicle). The damage to both cars looks survivable, perhaps with only minor injuries and easily extracted by first responders. The Corolla was saved by its door beams that are designed to spread crash forces out to the A and B pillars. The Q7 looks heavily damaged but the driver's door looks (relatively) undamaged so that it could easily be opened, likely by the driver from inside; the front end is designed to collapse like that, to absorb crash forces, preventing the cabin from being (heavily) damaged. Due to designing for crashes, both cars may be damaged but both drivers (and passengers as well) likely escaped with only light injuries.

In that second picture, that looks to be a Lexus LX, a large, heavy, BOF SUV. Assuming that it is a left-hand drive model, the driver's door obviously can be opened. The right side looks like it could be more heavily damaged, but from what I can see, I would say that the outcome still is as expected and as designed. The front end absorbed the crash forces, leaving the cabin (largely) intact, and the driver and passengers surviving.

In that third picture, that is a Land Rover Range Rover, another large, heavy, BOF SUV but it looks like it did not survive as well as the Corolla, Q7 or LX; any rear-seat passengers would likely have been badly injured and injuries may have been fatal. That may be because it was hit from the left rear by a much larger, heavier vehicle, and/or because BOF trucks, despite their seeming invincibility because of the ladder frame, typically have bodies that are not as well designed for crashworthiness as are passenger cars. New cars must be designed to be crashworthy; I am not sure that such regulations have been extended to include trucks (perhaps not, seeing that GM has not tested its large pickup trucks for anything other than the IIHS medium offset front crash test).

Vehicles that accordion inward in a controlled fashion in a crash (as the Audi Q7 and the Lexus LX) absorb the crash forces, leaving the passenger cabin intact and the passengers surviving. Vehicles that rip open, however, no matter if it is an old car or a BOF truck, leave the passenger cabin and passengers terribly vulnerable.

Barring an accident with a tractor trailor or train (in which no car or SUV is likely to survive), I would rather be in a well-designed, modern car that was designed to manage crash forces and have a full suite of air bags, than to be in a fashionable but otherwise poorly designed BOF truck.