Fizzboy7

Safety sells, and all manufacturers have known this for a long time. People research and compare crash test scores all the time when shopping for vehicles. So I am not fully convinced Toyota goes out of their way to save money by skimping on structure. In fact, I think that is flat out incorrect. If that were the case, their cars would have had all kinds of safety recalls related to body structure. I think in this case, it is just one that slipped by. For the most part, the brand has scored decently in tests. It would be wise to judge the brand based on all their vehicles, not just one.

coolsaber

What safety recalls have we had on body structure? I get the hesitation to think that A big corporate pillar like Toyota cannot skimp on structure but think about it this way:

The auto industry as a whole operates to strict tolerances on federal safety. The Fed or an organization of the fed sets out strict guidelines for automakers to follow. These guideline are based on research from car makers and of course independent bodies who determine the best safety guidelines overall. They set the standard, auto engineers design their vehicles to meet these standards. As long as their design can pass these standards they call it a success and move on. So then comes a different method of testing or new data that suggest that the old criteria is lacking something and then that becomes the test to pass.

Now we can all agree that, a 20 year old vehicle is barely going to stand up to a new test. However some of these new testing criteria test a certain generation of vehicle. Throughout its production the test standards ratings vary. For instance this generation of RAV 4 was tested for the 2013 MY and it earned a Poor rating in the small overlap test (Driver Side). Toyota committed itself to rectify the problem and the RAV4 returned with updates to score a Good with 2015 models built after November 2014. You would think they`d learn their lesson, but then you get IIHS test a 2015 on the passenger side small overlap and get a poor rating.

I bet Toyota will again commit to rectifying the problem, but again I wonder what similar situations exist on the RAV4.

Some might think, well thats an economical problem, More expensive luxury makes like Lexus, Audi, BMW are totally free from such skipping. Not really, the same story plays out in the higher brands as well.

Overall, the system right now is setup up so that most automakers design their vehicles to basically pass any existing and maybe in the near future crash tests to a protocol. They know which side, which angle will be tested, so they can design in that way. They also pile in the techno gizmos like Lane Dep, BSA, DRCC all the acronyms you can fit to get all their points towards a top safety pick or as near as possible.

LexBob2

I noticed the NX received a "Good" score on this test. I wonder what the difference is?

coolsaber

The NX is derived from the RAV4, but Lexus made it a point to emphasize that the NX was not as related at launch. Until the NX is tested on the passenger side on the small overall lap test, no one knows how different or similar the NX would fair. Basically opinion and theory since the NX was a design introduced as a 15 variant (post the 13 failure on the small overlap) Lexus engineers hopefully engineered the overall structure to satisfy the IIHS requirments.

As of right now the RAV4 fairs Good on the driver side, and poor on the passenger side.

The NX is good on the small overlap driver side like the RAV, but yet to be tested on the passenger side

GSteg

iTrader: (15)

But what about the three other 2015s that received acceptable results?

Sulu

Those 3 were designed / re-designed and introduced later than the RAV4.

Sulu

The USA government only requires, and the the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) tests for full, head-on (100%) crashworthiness. But the European, Australian and Japanese New Car Assessment Programs (NCAP) test for the moderate (40%) overlap crashworthiness. The 100% crash test is easier to pass than the 40% test and all automakers (that sell in the USA and Canada) now do well on both the 100% and 40% tests.

The American Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) believes that the 40% crash test is closer to what is likely to happen in real life, agreeing with the other, international NCAPs, so it started testing cars sold in the USA for 40% (driver side) crashworthiness. But now that all cars do well in the 40% test, in 2012, it initiated a new, small overlap (25%) driver side crash test that neither the NHTSA nor other government NCAPs (that I know of) test for.

Now that automakers are starting to do well in the 25% driver side test, the IIHS has decided to test for small overlap on the passenger side. Neither the small overlap driver nor passenger side crashworthiness are American federal requirements.

As this 25% overlap test is relatively new, newer models will tend to do better, as they are designed on the drawing board to do well in this test. And as with any crash test, re-designing an older model (such as the RAV4) to pass the test will be more difficult than designing a newer model (such as the NX) to pass the test. Retrofitting is always more difficult and more expensive than making something available from the start.

Designing a vehicle to better survive the small overlap test requires strengthening the bottom of the A-pillar. Some automakers do so by adding more metal to the A-pillar, making it visibly fatter; others add welds and adhesive to the area, strengthening not only the A-pillar, but where it joins the floorpan and firewall, which is not easily visible.

Because the 25% overlap test is not a federal requirement, and quick retrofits cost a lot of money, automakers are likely to make only the minimum changes necessary (and may delay such changes to a more opportune time such as model year change or mid-model facelift) so that a model better survives the test.

coolsaber

I guess the response is, until we refresh the RAV4 completely in the next generation, just dont sit on the passenger side?

coolsaber

The 15 Encore was launched in January 2013. The Encore is also sold in the EU market as well under the Opel Moniker since 2012

The 15 CRV was launched in 2012. Also sold in the EU market but to be fair it launched their in 2015

The 15 CX-5 was launched in 2013. Also sold in the EU market as well

The 14 Rogue was launched in 2014. Its also sold in the EU but under the Xtrail moniker

The 14 Forester was launched in 2014.

The tuscon is in its MY1 of the new generation and hence the expected Good Small overlap award

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

unless the one is the one you want to buy.

Sulu

Why the sudden obsession with the "unsafe" RAV4?

It is not like IIHS announcing that the 2015 RAV4 did poorly in the passenger-side small overlap crash test SUDDENLY makes all new 2016 and 2017 RAV4s much, much, much, much more prone to telephone poles suddenly hitting the RAV4 on the forward passenger side?

Were we not willing to drive the RAV4 before we knew about the poor showing on the passenger side? Were we not willing to drive the RAV4 before we knew about the poor showing on the driver side?

GET REAL, people!

Chocolate

At a certain point you just have to stop worrying so much.

By the way, I do feel that some of the manufacturers were not expecting tests on the passenger side, or going to bother to spend the money to reinforce the passenger side, and it's good that they are testing the passenger side now.

Every single IIHS overlap test on youtube is drivers side

situman

It doesnt help that the Rav4 is based on the Corolla architecture, which itself is a couple of generations old with slight modifications and construction techniques. Gotta be incredibly cost inefficient to constantly modify these non-modular structures.

Chocolate

TNGA/modular is the newest way to manufacture. Increased rigidity on these new TNGA models.

chikoo

looks like the passenger side team did not get the memo