Who Took 9 Out of The 16 Worst Rankings In the Latest IIHS Crash-Safety Study?

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.



More photos of this and other cars in our galleries...

2006 Beijing Auto China Show Photo Gallery

And be sure to stay tuned for our coverage of the upcoming LA Auto Show starting on November 29th.

AutoSpies.com Photo Galleries


Read Article

delan - 11/22/2006 1:19:25 PM

-2 Boost

"Toyota and its Lexus division accounted for nine of 16 vehicles with "acceptable," "marginal" or "poor" rear- impact protection"

______________________________________
And how many of the nine were deemed acceptable? marginal? poor?

Whatever!

Everyone is jumping on the "bash Toyota" bandwagon lately and its getting tired.

Agent009 - 11/22/2006 1:27:31 PM

+2 Boost

Go to www.iihs.org for the criteria.

Bill - 11/22/2006 2:06:22 PM

-2 Boost

So tell me, it's ok for Toyota fanboys to bash other brands? Give me a break. Autospies is full of crap posters who are nothing more than fanboys. CAR BASHING IS AN EVERYDAY THING HERE. I've done it too (and in this thread), yes, because some people have bashed cars I like.

Willis, whom I thought was a good poster, has left because he couldn't take the SHIT that goes on here. I'm thinking of leaving too. Autospies and "car enthusiasts"? Hell no.

A real car enthusiast respects other brands, no matter what. Anyone on this site calling themselves a "car enthusiast" is a liar.

Bill - 11/22/2006 2:07:01 PM

-1 Boost

whom should be who

answer - 11/22/2006 2:21:20 PM

+5 Boost

Bill, not sure if you realize this or not, but based upon your own post history here you are no better than those you say you dislike.

mstangpny07 - 11/22/2006 2:42:24 PM

+4 Boost

I am too is getting very tired of this site. And I've been on this site since 4/2005. All of the sudden, all these new people suddenly join, and they don't know much about any car that isnt expensive, German, or a Lexus.I want to yell at them: "THERE ARE CARS THAT ARE GOOD THAT AREN'T EXPENSIVE. SINCE WHEN WAS THIS AN EXPENSIVE CAR SITE? ITS NOT."

I've noticed a few people leave (JCF110, Phantom330,...etc.)and I don't blame them. We even get people kicked off this site because we dont agree with thier views (logical, lexus_dude) and I don't blame them. There is literally a war going on. I the site needs a re-do, bescause it's no longer a site where we post news articles and comment on them , its more like we make up some stuff and wait for the war to start. This site is great, but I think the people over on Autoblog seem to be a bit more civil. A news article is shown (non-user created) and they politely comment, and move on. I'm not bashing the site, I'm bashing the people on it.

(also, i think it would be cool if we had more options on commenting, like color, style, font...etc, and a signature line where we could say what cars we own and stuff)

Just my three cents....

Agent009 - 11/22/2006 3:32:03 PM

+2 Boost

We make postings all pro and con to encourage participation. We are also quite aware that there are many great marquees out there, all worthy in their own right. If anyone thinks there is just one brand that is the pinnacle of everything automotive then they are truly misguided. Maybe too many “Wizard of Oz” reruns or something.

Keep in mind that your viewpoint is one of many, and that others always have something to say. Whether you agree with it or not is always the subject of debate, hence the appeal of our site to many. There are a lot of viewpoints out there, and no one is always right. (I know it is hard to believe) All sites have individuals that have polarizing viewpoints. The only difference is we allow those people to be heard and censor only language not viewpoints.

If you get a bit irate, stop sit back and realize the source of the conflict. If they are really are a jerk, it will be apparent to all out there, and the only one looking foolish is them. In the past I have opened a few eyes and had my eyes opened by the heated discussions that sometime transpire.

Just remember the best defense is to keep your cool and you will prevail. You may never change an adversaries mind. But the way you represent yourself may change 4 or 5 others to your side. After all why lose a war over one small battle?

S4cabriofoxone - 11/22/2006 3:38:40 PM

-3 Boost

People on Insideline, too, only give advice, pictures and informative posts about cars, and they'd never bash each other. I'm getting sicker and sicker of this site.

Agent009 - 11/22/2006 4:02:24 PM

+2 Boost

I saw the comment about JCF110 and Phantom "leaving" the site. JCF110 actually posted an article yesterday and Phantom actually posted a few comment yesterday as well. I assure you both are alive and kicking and active on AutoSpies.

mstangpny07 - 11/22/2006 8:01:29 PM

+2 Boost

Excuse my memory then, I guess they don't post as often as they once did. But that could be because a multitude of reasons.

Agent009 - 11/22/2006 9:14:33 PM

+2 Boost

JCF110 posts as regularly as he ever did. Phantom has never posted as far as I know. I approve the posts, so I should know.

mstangpny07 - 11/22/2006 9:38:32 PM

0 Boost

I mean commented. (I don't usually pay attention to who writes the articles, just those who comment on them) Those are just two names I pulled out of my head.

forget it

rocker - 11/22/2006 11:14:04 PM

+3 Boost

009, excellent comment and excellent articles. I have an idea. Post an article that says the sky is blue and see how many people say that it is not.

PlanoA4 - 11/22/2006 11:36:12 PM

+2 Boost

Well guys it is easy to criticize. And simply put, the uninformed make the best critics. They simply refuse to believe facts.

Unlike many of you, I actually read the article and the looked at the tangible results. The Salt Lake article is factual; however those that are offended need to toughen up a realize something.

No where in the article did it say the Toyota or Lexus models did poorly. It simply stated they did ok. Or in other words: if they were students in a class. Some students are “A” students and others are “B” students. In many of these cases there were a few “A” students and a few “B” students (Toylex). However there were no “C: students. So by default the “B” students were truthfully at the bottom of the class.

So the article really backs up what has been said all along. Toyota and Lexus cars are solid models, but typically not outstanding in performance or engineering. They simply straddle the middle of the road.

I guess there is safety there to a degree. But for my dollar, I would rather walk away from a wreck, rather than be in a neck brace for 6 weeks.

BMW530i - 11/23/2006 9:05:41 AM

+1 Boost

mstangpny07, GOOD POST.

I agree with you. Autospies is all about Japanese vs German. Fanboy vs Fanboy. It's becoming old and boring.

answer - 11/27/2006 2:51:11 AM

+3 Boost

PlanoA4,

If you really did read the article and press release as you say, then how the hell can you come to that conclusion?

This story post and the Salt Lake article say Toyota placed in the "worst" of a Insurance Institute study.

If the press release from the Institute did not mention anything about who the worst performers are (which they didn't), then this story is WRONG!

S4cabriofoxone - 11/22/2006 1:40:26 PM

+1 Boost

Ouch...

And VW/Audi are right at the top, with Subaru!

S4cabriofoxone - 11/22/2006 1:41:00 PM

+3 Boost

Just goes to show you that every company has its weakness. VW can strive to improve its reliability, and Toyota can take measures to make its cars safer.

Agent009 - 11/22/2006 1:52:41 PM

+4 Boost

That is true, there are no perfect makes out there....

answer - 11/22/2006 1:53:58 PM

0 Boost

From the Insurance Institute's website:

"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"


Basically all those Toyotas painted as "dangerous" by the article would have been Top Picks were their rear impact results better.

answer - 11/22/2006 1:57:12 PM

0 Boost

Oh yeah, a brief check of the article at the Insurance Institute's website would have shown that those Toyotas mentioned are not near at the bottom of the crash protection study. Rather they are runners up.

Not sure why the Salt Lake Tribune wrote this up so wrong.

Agent009 - 11/22/2006 3:44:17 PM

-3 Boost

Actually if you weren't chosen as the best you were regulated to worst. The results are that tight.

XYZZ - 11/23/2006 1:47:17 AM

-1 Boost

sounds like "you're either with us or you're against us" kinda black/white, oversimplistic, rivermud filled-brain type of 'logic.' (doesn't even rate being called 'thinking.'

Bill - 11/22/2006 2:10:26 PM

+1 Boost

Yeah, some folks defended the E-Class because the IIHSA ranked it poorly. All the Lexus fanboys bashed the E-Class and said that IIHSA is legit.

Now, it turns out that your Toyota's are piss poor in safety and you resort to bashing and screaming BULLSHIT etc. It's called hypocrasy.

Rupert - 11/22/2006 4:31:48 PM

+3 Boost

highest ever?
proof please.

Bill - 11/22/2006 2:03:33 PM

+2 Boost

In the words of 99GS400:

HAHA!

answer - 11/22/2006 2:19:35 PM

+5 Boost

Hey Bill, as has been pointed out this post and the article it references are incorrect.

The tests that the Insurance Intstitute ran are not in question. It is how the results are portrayed that is inaccurate.

The models described as being at the bottom-end of safety are basically in second place.

BMW530i - 11/22/2006 5:34:48 PM

+1 Boost

Nothing funny about this, Bill.

MercBasher - 11/22/2006 3:06:58 PM

+5 Boost

Agent 009 has a history of misleading postings. He or she appears to be lazy, incompetent, or overworked - because items are posted without regard to the complete message. Agent 009 must do speed reading and just miss the nuances.

Hey Agent 009 you should run for the Whitehouse!

Agent009 - 11/22/2006 3:42:06 PM

+1 Boost

Hmmmm…

If you pay attention and read the links provided with every article, you will typically see that you are viewing a teaser to a publicly available news article.

In this case the article was sourced from the Salt Lake Tribune and linked. In another article Subaru was touted for having the highest number of safest vehicles was also linked back to the source.

Actually by looking at the article and reading the actual source, the argument is very valid and not misleading by any stretch. So I really fail to see where you think the viewpoint may be skewed.

Toyota did have 9 of the 16 lowest scores by the data presented by IIHS. Does that mean Toyota is a death trap? No way. It means, as the article states, that they need to work on rear collision safety to the occupants to improve to the level of others. Plain and simple.

Headlines are made to draw you in to the article. Whether you care to read or skim is up to you.

MercBasher - 11/22/2006 4:26:26 PM

-1 Boost

Here's the press release: http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr112106.html

Its quite clear from reading the source material that IIHS is not saying Toyota represent 9 of 16 worst rated vehicles. So Agent 009 you need to change the header of your article, and not make excuses that you're just lifting it from the not-so-esteemed Salt Lake Tribune newspaper. Many vehicles are not included in the report because they don't have Electronic Stability Control, for example last year's winners including the Honda Civic, Ford 500, Mercury Montego and Subaru Impreza don't even get on the 2007 list - How does this make them more safe than the nine Toyotas?

Agent 009, you should run for the White House because you're in denial and can't admit a simple mistake of not researching what you were posting.

Agent009 - 11/22/2006 9:15:47 PM

+2 Boost

We don't typically edit other peoples work. That infringes the copyright.

chewy - 11/22/2006 3:12:50 PM

+4 Boost

The pot i9s stirring.

answer - 11/22/2006 4:19:34 PM

+2 Boost

Agent009 I think you are still wrong.

Those cars not earning best pick are not automatically the worst. The article in its entirity at the Inurance Institutes's website only deals with about 30 cars: the top picks and the runner's up. The poorest testing vehicles are not mentioned in the article at all.

The vehicles not listed as best picks are in second place due to their rear-end testing results. They are certainly not amoung the worst overall performers. Overall performance is what was measured, and what is the focus of the Institutes' article.

MercBasher - 11/22/2006 4:28:09 PM

+2 Boost

Hey "answer" you're right...but Agent 009 doesn't understand nuance. Could you volunteer please to check all of Agent 009's postings before they go public?

answer - 11/22/2006 7:44:43 PM

0 Boost

To sum up:

The Insurance Institutes' press release did not mention who the overall worst performers are, nor did they mention who were the worst in rear collisions.

The Salt Lake article and this story would have been factually accurate if stated:

"Toyota has 9 out of 16 spots on the runner's up category for Insurance Institutes top ranking of 'Best Pick.'"

Agent009 - 11/22/2006 9:16:48 PM

+2 Boost

I agree, however the issue is with them on accuracy

Daceptak0n - 11/22/2006 9:30:48 PM

-3 Boost

Yet Toyota was voted Car of the Year...

S4cabriofoxone - 11/23/2006 1:17:29 AM

+2 Boost

IT WAS A CAMRY.

And don't you go and say the Camry is exciting.

I've lost all respect for Motor Trend.

delan - 11/23/2006 9:57:04 AM

+3 Boost

Huzzah! Utahkid for President!

S4cabriofoxone - 11/23/2006 10:47:36 PM

-3 Boost

Oh, I hate the 3.2L engine. The 2.0T is much better. I've seen the A4 2.0T do 0-60 in 6.3 in Road & Track- faster than the 3.2. The 3.2 V6 just isn't a fun engine, at all. I miss the 2.7T (not compared to my V8, but compared to that).

SupraNeverBack - 11/23/2006 4:27:21 PM

+4 Boost

Rear Crash "test" is a joke.

For example, you find none of BMW from that top pick list either.

Rear Crash "test" is not a real test:
"Rear crash protection is rated according to a two-step procedure. Starting points for the ratings are measurements of head restraint geometry — the height of a restraint and its horizontal distance behind the back of the head of an average-size man. Seats with good or acceptable restraint geometry are tested dynamically using a dummy that measures forces on the neck. This test simulates a collision in which a stationary vehicle is struck in the rear at 20 mph. Seats without good or acceptable geometry are rated poor overall because they can't be positioned to protect many people."

S4cabriofoxone - 11/23/2006 10:44:36 PM

+3 Boost

Okay, I've come to a conclusion.

Agent009 is VERY biased. He puts tons of pro-Audi articles up (mostly Audi, some other brands too), and a lot of anti-Toyota crap. I don't love Toyota and I certainly don't know why some people love it so much, but I'm still sane and I know a biased soul when I smell one. Interesting that an "Agent" would be this way!

Lexus fans, I'm sticking up for you!

This isn't even that bad. Toyota just came in second place- there was really no "Poor" rating for any of them.

S4cabriofoxone - 11/23/2006 10:46:26 PM

+2 Boost

Oh, and I have a feeling that he definitely drives an Audi now. Probably a 1997 A4 2.8 FWD... the most boring A4 ever built.

S4cabriofoxone - 11/25/2006 12:32:20 AM

+2 Boost

I didn't say WORST, I said MOST BORING. Audi V6s (besides the 2.7T) have always been SO boring- and in recent memory, 2.8L was the worst of the worst.

S4cabriofoxone - 11/25/2006 12:35:42 AM

0 Boost

Oh, wouldn't it be nice if BMW and Audi could trade engineering? The cars would be standard with BMW's RWD and optional with Audi's next-gen quattro. They would be standard with BMW's manual transmissions and optional with Audi's DSG seven-speed. They would use Audi's 2.0T as standard engines, BMW's 3.0 and 3.0TT as optional engines. They would have Audi interiors, of course. They would combine styling, to create the ultimate expression of refined, contemporary, retrained elegance.

S4cabriofoxone - 11/25/2006 12:37:03 AM

0 Boost

I forgot- they'd also use Audi's 4.2L V8 AND BMW's 4.8L V8, pumped up to 420hp on their flagship sedans, and they'd use both Lambo V10s for sportscars and BMW V10s for über sedans.

XYZZ - 11/24/2006 3:38:28 AM

+1 Boost

not rating as highly is Rear end crashes is no big deal for most toyota/lexus owners.

1) their vehicles are the LEAST likely to stall and become vulnerable to being rammed from the rear.

2) generally of average and ABOVE average intelligence, they are not likely to stop for no reason in traffic.

3) for the same reason, neither are they likely to do anything else that would have them more vulnerable to being hit from behind.

Onyx - 11/27/2006 11:11:09 AM

0 Boost

This is great news for the owners of those vehicles who are involved in rear-end crashes. This basically ensures a higher payout from the insurance company of the person who hit you because now you have scientific evidence supporting a worse than average neck injury thus a higher payout to you. Excuse me while I go stop on the freeway for no reason.