Official: IIHS launching first new frontal crash test since 1995
08-14-12, 07:47 PM
#31
Yeesh, I hope that the ISC performs better than this since it's newer. I'm sure my sister would cringe if I showed this to her as convertibles likely perform worse than their 4-door counterparts. I do wish they conducted this test 6-9 months ago, so that Lexus' IS development team could be concretely sure on how to improve on this. I say that as I'm sure the XE30 is currently going through the last rounds of crash-worthiness testing in Japan or possibly finished that months ago. I'm glad to know though that the G37 performed better, as at least I can continue to feel safe against all these crazy drivers I have to deal with everyday. Looking forward to both the 2014 IS and G3? next year as a replacement for my '08.
08-14-12, 08:11 PM
#32
Lexus Champion
That has nothing to do with it and you are really reaching. The C-class is even softer than an IS. Did it occur to ANYONE that the IS is 180 inches long and the TL in this test for example is 194 inches long, that is a HUGE difference. Look at the design between the two, the IS has a very low hood whereas the TL has a near SUV like front end. Clearly they will crash differently. Ever see a sporty car crash with a SUV? The SUV walks away and the sporty car takes the punishment.
The goalposts changed on existing cars not designed to test well here. Look at how ****ing ugly cars and vehicles are getting due to safety and crash standards and pedestrian laws in Europe. What are we going to do next attach bull horns in front of cars?
All the cars are safe to me and I don't fear riding/driving any of them.
The goalposts changed on existing cars not designed to test well here. Look at how ****ing ugly cars and vehicles are getting due to safety and crash standards and pedestrian laws in Europe. What are we going to do next attach bull horns in front of cars?
All the cars are safe to me and I don't fear riding/driving any of them.
Sorry bud but Toyota has had a lot of time to stiffen up their cars, and in Lexus models it's mandatory. But they don't give four ****s about it, volume and cost is their name of the game these days. For example, it doesn't matter that the exchange rate with the yen and dollar make it more expensive to make Lexus cars in Japan, let's make the new ES actually cheaper than its predecessor. Let's not make the best ES we can make and charge for it accordingly, instead let's build the car to a cost and a price so that we can move as many as possible.
Build a premium product and charge for it accordingly.
Having said all this, there's the A4:
So who knows what's really going on.
Last edited by Mr. Burns; 08-14-12 at 08:17 PM.
08-14-12, 11:07 PM
#33
Driver
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: CA
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08-14-12, 11:18 PM
#34
Lexus Champion
What's really sad about all of this is that we have spent tens of billions of dollars making safer cars and safer roads (passive safety) but have done nothing in better training for our drivers. We still allow any 16 yo with minimum training to get a license and then keep that license until he dies in his 80's with no retest or continued driver training. So we allow drinking, texting, poor road craft, and other dangerous behaviour with nothing more than a slap on the wrist if they occasionally get caught. As any industrial safety expert will tell you the way to make the workplace safer is to get the worker to take control for his own safety, IF IT'S NOT SAFE, DON'T DO IT mentality. But car manufacturers have successfully lobbied to maintain low standards for drivers in order to expand the market. A shame but an angle no one will ever take on.
08-15-12, 01:23 AM
#35
What's really sad about all of this is that we have spent tens of billions of dollars making safer cars and safer roads (passive safety) but have done nothing in better training for our drivers. We still allow any 16 yo with minimum training to get a license and then keep that license until he dies in his 80's with no retest or continued driver training. So we allow drinking, texting, poor road craft, and other dangerous behaviour with nothing more than a slap on the wrist if they occasionally get caught. As any industrial safety expert will tell you the way to make the workplace safer is to get the worker to take control for his own safety, IF IT'S NOT SAFE, DON'T DO IT mentality. But car manufacturers have successfully lobbied to maintain low standards for drivers in order to expand the market. A shame but an angle no one will ever take on.
08-15-12, 04:14 AM
#36
while IS and ES are indeed the oldest car here (and among some of the worst performer), what you said is simply not true.
rank from top to bottom : first model year
TL: 2009
S60: 2010
4th G: 2007
TSX: 2009
BMW 3: 2012
MKZ:2010
CC: 2008
C : 2007
IS:2005
A4: 2008
ES350: 2006
rank from top to bottom : first model year
TL: 2009
S60: 2010
4th G: 2007
TSX: 2009
BMW 3: 2012
MKZ:2010
CC: 2008
C : 2007
IS:2005
A4: 2008
ES350: 2006
Other than that, both Toyota and Lexus have always done great in safety tests as long as they were current models.
If we check Volvo S60 for instance in Euroncap, their 2001 model was significantly less safe than 2006 Lexus IS, and those are exactly the same tests actually, with no change.
So what now Lexus was leader in safety in 2006 and Volvo sucked? No - safety improves with every vehicle and when new tests are announced, then old cars will do bad. It happens every time when new tests are done.
08-15-12, 04:42 AM
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
how is it not true when it comes to Lexus? It is exactly true. Volvo designed their new for 2010 S60 specifically with these extra strength side member supports that previous model did not have for instance.
Other than that, both Toyota and Lexus have always done great in safety tests as long as they were current models.
If we check Volvo S60 for instance in Euroncap, their 2001 model was significantly less safe than 2006 Lexus IS, and those are exactly the same tests actually, with no change.
So what now Lexus was leader in safety in 2006 and Volvo sucked? No - safety improves with every vehicle and when new tests are announced, then old cars will do bad. It happens every time when new tests are done.
Other than that, both Toyota and Lexus have always done great in safety tests as long as they were current models.
If we check Volvo S60 for instance in Euroncap, their 2001 model was significantly less safe than 2006 Lexus IS, and those are exactly the same tests actually, with no change.
So what now Lexus was leader in safety in 2006 and Volvo sucked? No - safety improves with every vehicle and when new tests are announced, then old cars will do bad. It happens every time when new tests are done.
Here is another recent test for the TL.
http://www.examiner.com/article/vw-p...al-crash-score
VW Passat earns five-star NHTSA rating; Acura TL nets low frontal crash score
Scores from the 2012 Acura TL entry-luxury sedan, however, are more disappointing -- and more unusual. It's one of just four 2012s to earn an overall rating below four out of five stars, joining the subcompact Fiat 500 and two models that will soon be discontinued or replaced. The TL was hurt most by a score of two out of five stars for front-passenger protection in the NHTSA frontal crash test.
Scores from the 2012 Acura TL entry-luxury sedan, however, are more disappointing -- and more unusual. It's one of just four 2012s to earn an overall rating below four out of five stars, joining the subcompact Fiat 500 and two models that will soon be discontinued or replaced. The TL was hurt most by a score of two out of five stars for front-passenger protection in the NHTSA frontal crash test.
08-15-12, 06:28 AM
#38
Lexus Champion
Honda's bodies are very strong and stiff, which is something I've noticed of late.
Toyota/Lexus not so much, and you can tell by the way that IS crumbles. If you compare it with the Mercedes C-class (Mercedes having a reputation for solidity), you will notice how little the C-class passenger compartment crumples.
The theory also is that softly sprung cars like Toyota/Lexuses don't need as stiff a body as sportier cars (Hondas, Nissans, etc...) and this has probably made Toyota complacent in this area.
BUT it's also important to note that many things can contribute to how much that passenger compartment crumples, and it might not all be about solidity. A correctly placed crumple beam could have prevented much of the carnage for example. Also while the IS looks like one of the newest cars in its segment from those videos, it is the oldest, and therefore has the oldest engineered body.
Toyota/Lexus not so much, and you can tell by the way that IS crumbles. If you compare it with the Mercedes C-class (Mercedes having a reputation for solidity), you will notice how little the C-class passenger compartment crumples.
The theory also is that softly sprung cars like Toyota/Lexuses don't need as stiff a body as sportier cars (Hondas, Nissans, etc...) and this has probably made Toyota complacent in this area.
BUT it's also important to note that many things can contribute to how much that passenger compartment crumples, and it might not all be about solidity. A correctly placed crumple beam could have prevented much of the carnage for example. Also while the IS looks like one of the newest cars in its segment from those videos, it is the oldest, and therefore has the oldest engineered body.
In a collision, the solid car is going to stop very, very suddenly, or even bounce off the object it hit; deceleration from full speed down to zero (or deceleration to zero and then acceleration in the opposite direction because of a bounce) is extremely quick for the car body but the occupants inside decelerate slower than the car (and remain moving in the original direction of the car until the bouncing car very forcefully changes their direction). The car with well-designed crumple zones (ironically, invented by a Mercedes-Benz engineer), however, will decelerate more slowly as the various engineered crumple zones compress and absorb the forces of the collision.
If the decelerating bodies inside the car hit some structure that stopped much more quickly (or is bouncing off in another direction), there is a greater chance for injury; in a car with well-designed crumple zones, it is more likely that car and occupants decelerate at the same rate. Secondary collisions, when bodies inside the car hit something in the car, are shown to be less severe when deceleration is well-controlled with crumple zones.
If you were caught decelerating in the original direction of travel in a car that stopped very suddenly (or is bouncing off in an opposing direction), your chances of hitting something solid in the car and your force when hitting that object, are much greater, so your risk of injury is much greater than if you were decelerating at the same rate and same direction as the colliding car. And remember, when decelerating from high speed, even a secondary collision into a seatbelt or airbag is hard and may lead to injury.
Toyota/Lexus vehicles have well-designed crumple zones and have consistently offered collision protection equal to the European makes for a number of years now, with a history better than General Motors, Chrysler, Honda and other Japanese makes. Ford has also consistently done well and also has a better and longer good collision protection history than GM or Chrysler.
Could Toyota/Lexus do better? Of course it can. Their floorpans/lower body structure have been known to offer a greater risk of leg injury in past IIHS offset collision tests. One easy fix may be to increase side airbag protection to cover the A-pillar (the results from these new front-offset-into-pole tests seem to indicate that side airbags in cars that did not do so well may not cover the A-pillar). Front bumper beams (rear bumper beams as well) also do not typically wrap around to the side of the vehicle, extending only straight forward (or straight back); bumper beams tend to be "I"-shaped rather than "U"-shaped.
08-15-12, 10:59 AM
#39
Driver
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: CA
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how is it not true when it comes to Lexus? It is exactly true. Volvo designed their new for 2010 S60 specifically with these extra strength side member supports that previous model did not have for instance.
Other than that, both Toyota and Lexus have always done great in safety tests as long as they were current models.
If we check Volvo S60 for instance in Euroncap, their 2001 model was significantly less safe than 2006 Lexus IS, and those are exactly the same tests actually, with no change.
So what now Lexus was leader in safety in 2006 and Volvo sucked? No - safety improves with every vehicle and when new tests are announced, then old cars will do bad. It happens every time when new tests are done.
Other than that, both Toyota and Lexus have always done great in safety tests as long as they were current models.
If we check Volvo S60 for instance in Euroncap, their 2001 model was significantly less safe than 2006 Lexus IS, and those are exactly the same tests actually, with no change.
So what now Lexus was leader in safety in 2006 and Volvo sucked? No - safety improves with every vehicle and when new tests are announced, then old cars will do bad. It happens every time when new tests are done.
08-15-12, 11:04 AM
#40
Driver
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: CA
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm curious why CamryPhil has just joined here beating up Lexus in this thread and seanlee is doing the same here. Why?
Here is another recent test for the TL.
http://www.examiner.com/article/vw-p...al-crash-score
Lexus already made their statement they will try to do better with new models, not 7 year old ones.
Here is another recent test for the TL.
http://www.examiner.com/article/vw-p...al-crash-score
Lexus already made their statement they will try to do better with new models, not 7 year old ones.
what i was going to say yesterday, and i deleted to avoid being called out by you, was that there are two kind of people who pass test: one that actually know the stuff, and one that study only to pass the exam. in a sudden, unprecedented, yet realistic crash test like this, only one kind of people can pass. just saying.
Last edited by seanlee; 08-15-12 at 11:08 AM.
08-15-12, 11:13 AM
#41
oh ya? what did i say to make you think i am beating up lexus? as i recall, the only thing i said is Lexus here two of the oldest model year car among all cars tested.
what i was going to say yesterday, and i deleted to avoid being called out by you, was that there are two kind of people who pass test: one that actually know the stuff, and one that study only to pass the exam. in a sudden, unprecedented, yet realistic crash test like this, only one kind of people can pass. just saying.
what i was going to say yesterday, and i deleted to avoid being called out by you, was that there are two kind of people who pass test: one that actually know the stuff, and one that study only to pass the exam. in a sudden, unprecedented, yet realistic crash test like this, only one kind of people can pass. just saying.
Or for instance, C30 scoring less than CTh, despite being lighter car. So who is studying to pass the test now? :P
08-15-12, 11:26 AM
#42
Driver
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: CA
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but i do like to point out that i have absolutely unbiased opinion when it comes to cars, part of reason is.. i don't own a car right now. as someone who travels 90% of time and expense all the traveling cost, i just drove whatever AVIS/Budget has and i have pretty much drove them all. so before you pass the fan boy hat to me, please understand it would be quite silly to think i have a personal preference to any brand.
08-15-12, 05:16 PM
#43
Lexus Champion
Don't be so quick to put down crumpling cars. In a collision, the "solid" cars may seem to do better for their structure compared to the crumpling cars, but the crumpling cars may prove to be better for their occupants (like the driver). It is called crumple zones -- engineered crumpling leading to controlled deceleration.
In a collision, the solid car is going to stop very, very suddenly, or even bounce off the object it hit; deceleration from full speed down to zero (or deceleration to zero and then acceleration in the opposite direction because of a bounce) is extremely quick for the car body but the occupants inside decelerate slower than the car (and remain moving in the original direction of the car until the bouncing car very forcefully changes their direction). The car with well-designed crumple zones (ironically, invented by a Mercedes-Benz engineer), however, will decelerate more slowly as the various engineered crumple zones compress and absorb the forces of the collision.
If the decelerating bodies inside the car hit some structure that stopped much more quickly (or is bouncing off in another direction), there is a greater chance for injury; in a car with well-designed crumple zones, it is more likely that car and occupants decelerate at the same rate. Secondary collisions, when bodies inside the car hit something in the car, are shown to be less severe when deceleration is well-controlled with crumple zones.
If you were caught decelerating in the original direction of travel in a car that stopped very suddenly (or is bouncing off in an opposing direction), your chances of hitting something solid in the car and your force when hitting that object, are much greater, so your risk of injury is much greater than if you were decelerating at the same rate and same direction as the colliding car. And remember, when decelerating from high speed, even a secondary collision into a seatbelt or airbag is hard and may lead to injury.
Toyota/Lexus vehicles have well-designed crumple zones and have consistently offered collision protection equal to the European makes for a number of years now, with a history better than General Motors, Chrysler, Honda and other Japanese makes. Ford has also consistently done well and also has a better and longer good collision protection history than GM or Chrysler.
Could Toyota/Lexus do better? Of course it can. Their floorpans/lower body structure have been known to offer a greater risk of leg injury in past IIHS offset collision tests. One easy fix may be to increase side airbag protection to cover the A-pillar (the results from these new front-offset-into-pole tests seem to indicate that side airbags in cars that did not do so well may not cover the A-pillar). Front bumper beams (rear bumper beams as well) also do not typically wrap around to the side of the vehicle, extending only straight forward (or straight back); bumper beams tend to be "I"-shaped rather than "U"-shaped.
In a collision, the solid car is going to stop very, very suddenly, or even bounce off the object it hit; deceleration from full speed down to zero (or deceleration to zero and then acceleration in the opposite direction because of a bounce) is extremely quick for the car body but the occupants inside decelerate slower than the car (and remain moving in the original direction of the car until the bouncing car very forcefully changes their direction). The car with well-designed crumple zones (ironically, invented by a Mercedes-Benz engineer), however, will decelerate more slowly as the various engineered crumple zones compress and absorb the forces of the collision.
If the decelerating bodies inside the car hit some structure that stopped much more quickly (or is bouncing off in another direction), there is a greater chance for injury; in a car with well-designed crumple zones, it is more likely that car and occupants decelerate at the same rate. Secondary collisions, when bodies inside the car hit something in the car, are shown to be less severe when deceleration is well-controlled with crumple zones.
If you were caught decelerating in the original direction of travel in a car that stopped very suddenly (or is bouncing off in an opposing direction), your chances of hitting something solid in the car and your force when hitting that object, are much greater, so your risk of injury is much greater than if you were decelerating at the same rate and same direction as the colliding car. And remember, when decelerating from high speed, even a secondary collision into a seatbelt or airbag is hard and may lead to injury.
Toyota/Lexus vehicles have well-designed crumple zones and have consistently offered collision protection equal to the European makes for a number of years now, with a history better than General Motors, Chrysler, Honda and other Japanese makes. Ford has also consistently done well and also has a better and longer good collision protection history than GM or Chrysler.
Could Toyota/Lexus do better? Of course it can. Their floorpans/lower body structure have been known to offer a greater risk of leg injury in past IIHS offset collision tests. One easy fix may be to increase side airbag protection to cover the A-pillar (the results from these new front-offset-into-pole tests seem to indicate that side airbags in cars that did not do so well may not cover the A-pillar). Front bumper beams (rear bumper beams as well) also do not typically wrap around to the side of the vehicle, extending only straight forward (or straight back); bumper beams tend to be "I"-shaped rather than "U"-shaped.
The A-pillar should not bend like a twig, the door frame should not be crumpled far enough to reduce occupant space. It's not just this test either, here is the frontal offset test for the IS:
Notice the A-pillar slightly bends. The car is still rated good, but it's a sign of things to come. Here's the old IS300 in the same test, note the A-pillar maintains its structural integrity.
This is all coming from someone who will be owning a current generation IS sometime in the future.
08-20-12, 11:23 AM
#44
Pole Position
Don't be so quick to put down crumpling cars. In a collision, the "solid" cars may seem to do better for their structure compared to the crumpling cars, but the crumpling cars may prove to be better for their occupants (like the driver). It is called crumple zones -- engineered crumpling leading to controlled deceleration.
In a collision, the solid car is going to stop very, very suddenly, or even bounce off the object it hit; deceleration from full speed down to zero (or deceleration to zero and then acceleration in the opposite direction because of a bounce) is extremely quick for the car body but the occupants inside decelerate slower than the car (and remain moving in the original direction of the car until the bouncing car very forcefully changes their direction). The car with well-designed crumple zones (ironically, invented by a Mercedes-Benz engineer), however, will decelerate more slowly as the various engineered crumple zones compress and absorb the forces of the collision.
If the decelerating bodies inside the car hit some structure that stopped much more quickly (or is bouncing off in another direction), there is a greater chance for injury; in a car with well-designed crumple zones, it is more likely that car and occupants decelerate at the same rate. Secondary collisions, when bodies inside the car hit something in the car, are shown to be less severe when deceleration is well-controlled with crumple zones.
If you were caught decelerating in the original direction of travel in a car that stopped very suddenly (or is bouncing off in an opposing direction), your chances of hitting something solid in the car and your force when hitting that object, are much greater, so your risk of injury is much greater than if you were decelerating at the same rate and same direction as the colliding car. And remember, when decelerating from high speed, even a secondary collision into a seatbelt or airbag is hard and may lead to injury.
Toyota/Lexus vehicles have well-designed crumple zones and have consistently offered collision protection equal to the European makes for a number of years now, with a history better than General Motors, Chrysler, Honda and other Japanese makes. Ford has also consistently done well and also has a better and longer good collision protection history than GM or Chrysler.
Could Toyota/Lexus do better? Of course it can. Their floorpans/lower body structure have been known to offer a greater risk of leg injury in past IIHS offset collision tests. One easy fix may be to increase side airbag protection to cover the A-pillar (the results from these new front-offset-into-pole tests seem to indicate that side airbags in cars that did not do so well may not cover the A-pillar). Front bumper beams (rear bumper beams as well) also do not typically wrap around to the side of the vehicle, extending only straight forward (or straight back); bumper beams tend to be "I"-shaped rather than "U"-shaped.
In a collision, the solid car is going to stop very, very suddenly, or even bounce off the object it hit; deceleration from full speed down to zero (or deceleration to zero and then acceleration in the opposite direction because of a bounce) is extremely quick for the car body but the occupants inside decelerate slower than the car (and remain moving in the original direction of the car until the bouncing car very forcefully changes their direction). The car with well-designed crumple zones (ironically, invented by a Mercedes-Benz engineer), however, will decelerate more slowly as the various engineered crumple zones compress and absorb the forces of the collision.
If the decelerating bodies inside the car hit some structure that stopped much more quickly (or is bouncing off in another direction), there is a greater chance for injury; in a car with well-designed crumple zones, it is more likely that car and occupants decelerate at the same rate. Secondary collisions, when bodies inside the car hit something in the car, are shown to be less severe when deceleration is well-controlled with crumple zones.
If you were caught decelerating in the original direction of travel in a car that stopped very suddenly (or is bouncing off in an opposing direction), your chances of hitting something solid in the car and your force when hitting that object, are much greater, so your risk of injury is much greater than if you were decelerating at the same rate and same direction as the colliding car. And remember, when decelerating from high speed, even a secondary collision into a seatbelt or airbag is hard and may lead to injury.
Toyota/Lexus vehicles have well-designed crumple zones and have consistently offered collision protection equal to the European makes for a number of years now, with a history better than General Motors, Chrysler, Honda and other Japanese makes. Ford has also consistently done well and also has a better and longer good collision protection history than GM or Chrysler.
Could Toyota/Lexus do better? Of course it can. Their floorpans/lower body structure have been known to offer a greater risk of leg injury in past IIHS offset collision tests. One easy fix may be to increase side airbag protection to cover the A-pillar (the results from these new front-offset-into-pole tests seem to indicate that side airbags in cars that did not do so well may not cover the A-pillar). Front bumper beams (rear bumper beams as well) also do not typically wrap around to the side of the vehicle, extending only straight forward (or straight back); bumper beams tend to be "I"-shaped rather than "U"-shaped.
This post is spot-on. The misconception is that the more rigid the body-shell and less deformable body offers more protection to the occupants when the exact opposite may be true. Toyota/Lexus has its GOA philosophy where they do not just focus on one aspect of safety eg body shell rigidity but focuses on the entire system and overall actual protection for the occupant. Sure the body-shell may deform more than a German car but ultimately absorbs more of the impact and transfers less of the impact to the occupants. Less impact = less injury and the Crash Test Dummy Injury Scores actually reflect that reality.
08-20-12, 11:28 AM
#45
Guest
Posts: n/a
This post is spot-on. The misconception is that the more rigid the body-shell and less deformable body offers more protection to the occupants when the exact opposite may be true. Toyota/Lexus has its GOA philosophy where they do not just focus on one aspect of safety eg body shell rigidity but focuses on the entire system and overall actual protection for the occupant. Sure the body-shell may deform more than a German car but ultimately absorbs more of the impact and transfers less of the impact to the occupants. Less impact = less injury and the Crash Test Dummy Injury Scores actually reflect that reality.
Sounds like a bunch of internet "experts" who don't own cars or have never been in a crash using data that supports their favorite brand as the end all of conclusions.
Again all these cars are safe. There have been no reports of crashes where the vehicle completely failed. If they did surely we would hear about them on the internet and definitely if Lexus/Toyota had an issue (floormat bullcrap).
If we keep these tests up we will all be driving ugly cars that are safe. I'd rather walk or ride a goat. We see how tougher Euro requirements are making cars uglier and uglier to pass these tests.