ydooby

After the disastrous Poor rating given to all Toyota/Lexus/Scion vehicles across the board for 3 years straight, one would think that Toyota would've learned the lesson and tried to be more forward-thinking in their safety designs, but nope, Toyota decided to continue to do just the very bare minimum of what it takes to earn a Good rating in the currently publicized test procedures.

The RAV4, having finally improved its small overlap frontal crash test rating from Poor to Good with the update for its 2015 model year, is now in the news again for being the only small SUV out of 7 to receive a Poor rating in the same test--but on the passenger side, which tells us that whatever design improvements Toyota made to RAV4 to bring its small overlap rating from Poor to Good on the driver side, they were not applied at all whatsoever to the passenger side, only because it was not part of the standardized test.

How could they not have seen this coming? They really thought they could get away with cheaping out on what is essentially the same type of protection but only on a different side, just because it was not tested? Now they have to endure yet another 3 years of public shaming. Seriously shame on you Toyota! Very, very disappointed.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/deskto...engers-at-risk

IIHS News | June 23, 2016
Vehicles with good driver-side protection may leave passengers at risk

ARLINGTON, Va. — Drivers of vehicles with good small overlap front ratings from the Insurance Institute from Highway Safety can expect to be protected well in a frontal crash involving the left corner of the vehicle. But how would the passengers sitting next to them fare in a right-side small overlap crash? A new study shows that good protection doesn't always extend across the front seat.

The Institute conducted 40 mph passenger-side small overlap tests on seven small SUVs with good driver-side small overlap ratings. Only one of the vehicles, the 2016 Hyundai Tucson, performed at a level corresponding to a good rating, and the others ran the gamut from poor to acceptable.

The results have prompted IIHS to consider instituting a passenger-side rating as part of its TOP SAFETY PICK criteria.

"This is an important aspect of occupant protection that needs more attention," says Becky Mueller, an IIHS senior research engineer and the lead author of the study. "More than 1,600 right-front passengers died in frontal crashes in 2014."

IIHS introduced the small overlap test in 2012, following the success of the moderate overlap front test in spurring automakers to make improvements. While the moderate overlap test involves 40 percent of the width of the vehicle, the small overlap test involves just 25 percent. It is designed to replicate what happens when the front corner of a vehicle collides with another vehicle or an object like a tree or utility pole.

Small overlap crashes pose a challenge because they bypass a typical vehicle's main front structure. Since the test was introduced, 13 manufacturers have made structural changes to 97 vehicles. Of these, nearly three-quarters earned a good rating after the changes.

IIHS conducts its tests for frontal ratings with a driver dummy and with the barrier overlapping the driver side. The reason is simple: Every vehicle on the road has a driver, but there isn't always a passenger riding along.

"It's not surprising that automakers would focus their initial efforts to improve small overlap protection on the side of the vehicle that we conduct the tests on," says David Zuby, IIHS executive vice president and chief research officer. "In fact, we encouraged them to do that in the short term if it meant they could quickly make driver-side improvements to more vehicles. As time goes by, though, we would hope they ensure similar levels of protection on both sides."

The recent passenger-side tests show how big the differences can be. In this group of small SUVs, most didn't perform as well when they were crashed into a barrier on the right side instead of the left. That was even true of models that appeared symmetrical after removing bumper covers and other external components.

"When structural improvements are visible only on the driver side, there are large differences in performance," Mueller says. "But the inverse is not true. Some vehicle structures look the same on both sides, but they don't perform the same. That's why we can't rely on visual analysis but need to monitor this issue and possibly begin rating vehicles for passenger-side protection."

The 2015 Toyota RAV4 and the 2014 Nissan Rogue were the only vehicles to appear asymmetrical. In the passenger-side test, the RAV4 was the worst performer. If the Institute issued ratings for passenger-side protection, the RAV4 would earn a poor rating. The Rogue would earn a marginal.

These two vehicles had the highest amount of passenger-side intrusion. Intrusion measures are important because they indicate how well the structure held up; the greater the amount of intrusion, the higher the likelihood of serious injuries.

Maximum intrusion in the passenger-side test was 13 inches more than in the driver-side test for the RAV4 and 10 inches more for the Rogue. The Rogue's door hinge pillar was torn off completely, and the RAV4's door opened. In a real crash, an open door would leave the occupant at risk for ejection.

Two vehicles that appeared symmetrical, the 2014 Subaru Forester and the 2015 Mazda CX-5, also had substantially more intrusion in the passenger-side test than in the driver-side test.

In earlier research, Mueller found that the most common change manufacturers make to improve vehicle structure for small overlap protection is to strengthen the occupant compartment. To do this, they might use a different type of material or add a few millimeters of thickness — changes that can't be discerned from a visual examination. It's likely these types of modifications were made to the Forester and CX-5, but only on the driver side.

The other three vehicles tested had relatively similar structural performance on both sides of the vehicle. The small differences that were observed could have been caused by normal variability in test results. Another factor is that vehicles are to a certain extent inherently asymmetrical. For example, structures to secure the steering wheel and pedals may provide additional bracing around the driver-side toepan, which prevents some intrusion.

In addition to the seven passenger-side small overlap tests, Institute engineers conducted two passenger-side moderate overlap tests to make sure there weren't any differences in performance in that type of crash. One visually symmetrical vehicle, the 2015 Honda CR-V, and one asymmetrical vehicle, the RAV4, were chosen for these tests. There was little difference from the driver-side moderate overlap tests, and both vehicles would receive a good passenger-side moderate overlap rating.

"We conducted the moderate overlap tests as a spot check, and we weren't surprised that both vehicles performed well," Mueller says. "Many of today's models are designed for the global market and are subject to driver-side moderate overlap tests in right-hand-drive countries. With small overlap, there isn't the same incentive for symmetrical design because we're the only organization conducting the test."

IIHS passenger-side small overlap ratings would remedy that situation. The Institute could start such a program next year and make it a requirement for one of its safety awards as early as 2018.




The structure of the Toyota RAV4 held up well in the driver-side small overlap test (left). In contrast, intrusion was severe in the passenger-side crash.

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

Kudos to the Tuscon

VAIF

I think it should be noted that the RAV4 tested is a 2015 model (pre facelift) and not a 2016 one (facelifted)

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they changed the structure. Maybe more bonding and laser screw welding spots. Probably mostly cosmetic

Sulu

Do we know? Did Toyota say what changes (other than the cosmetic ones) were made?

That may be all that is needed to strengthen the structure where two major components meet. Making the joint where components meet (such as the A-pillar and floorpan) better allows forces in one component to be transferred to the other component.

Fizzboy7

I've never heard the IIHS testing vehicles two years old. What's the deal with that? Manufacturers can be making changes every single model year, some known, some unknown.

And regarding the first line in the opening statement of this thread, "After the disastrous Poor rating given to all Toyota/Lexus/Scion vehicles across the board for 3 years straight..." sounds like a wild statement. Most recent models have tested very well, or improved after not testing well.

Sulu

The vehicles tested are all over the map. The worst-performing ones (Rogue, Forester, RAV4) are also the oldest; the newer models do better; and the brand-new-to-the-market 2016 Hyundai Tucson gets good ratings for both driver and passenger (surprise, surprise!).

These are not comparable vehicles.

Click bait.

situman

Always did wonder why it feels different when I sit in different parts of the passenger compartment. Was wondering why when looking at the bare structure of the LC500 at the auto show, that the second half of the car doesnt use stronger materials as the first half. Less high strength steel and such. Now its a bit clear, to save money and its the front that needs to pass safety tests.

mmarshall

I did a full-review on a new RAV4 a few months ago, and I stated then I wasn't impressed with a lot of the relatively thin, light materials used inside and out. Several of the RAV-4's competitors, IMO, are definitely more impressive in that area.....especially the Kia Sportage.

Sulu

But what you can actually see and feel has very little effect on the strength and crashworthiness of the underlying structure.

coolsaber

gaming the crash safety system is nothing new for any automaker. Remember for Ford f150 recent spotlight, where some models were not equipped with life saving bracing. IIHS brought it up, and wouldnt you know it the very next test saw all models getting the cheap but important life saving brace.

I hate to say it, but Toyota does produce alot of reliable and mechanically sound vehicles, however their crash safety ratings have been basically just achieving certification. Its (and this includes other makes as well) as though the bean counters only care enough to engineer to the bare minimum on crash test ratings. The minute a new one is introduced everyone just flunks out, and wait for a model refresh to pass the next test.

There are those that doo overachieve, like Volvo, but overall reliability is a stinker. So its safety vs reliability lol

mmarshall

True to an extent, but flimsy sheet metal and interior materials still doesn't help matters any.

Sulu

"flimsy sheet metal and interior materials" do not cause the crushing of your legs; the weakness of the structure -- floorpan, A- and B-pillars, etc. -- and the weakness of areas where the major structural pieces join will cause the vehicle to collapse around you and crush your legs, and prevent the proper operation of the doors (whether or not they have flimsy sheet metal).

situman

I recall Lotus commenting on the rigidity of their aluminum tub of the Evora went up even more after bolting on body panels. Perhaps it is different on mass produced cars? So the thickness and strength of body panels can have an affect on the overall structure of the car.

Sulu

Body panels may add to the overall strength (and I think especially adding to the resistance to twisting) of the whole, complete car, especially if the main structure is aluminum (which is softer than steel), but the structure that seems to be most affected in the small overlap crash test is the A-pillar and where it joins the floorpan.

Strengthening the (lower) A-pillar seems to be how automakers improve their small overlap crashworthiness. There is little sheet metal in that area (remember that the front fenders are bolted on and add little if any strength to the crash structure) so body panels will add very little strength in that area.

I am thinking that the front door MAY add some strength, but only if the door stays latched during the crash and does not buckle. The door is more likely to buckle or pop off its latch if the A-pillar does not stay in its position. So it all depends on the strength of the A-pillar.