Surprising but also not surprising at the same time. Pretty sad though. Curious to know how the current 2018/2019 Lexus lineup fares under the same tests.

 

I'm just going with my feeling as you are yours. No biggie, we'll have to wait and see what they come up with. I'd be curious how the Alfa Romeo Stelvio did in this crash test (dunno if they've done it yet), because that's the car the next JGC will be based on. The Explorer will be switching to a RWD platform that underpins the new Aviator concept.

 

Been searching through the IIHS vehicle ratings and it's nice to see a lot of vehicles have already been tested for passenger side performance.

The 2018 Camry scored the highest rating of "G" for both driver and passenger-side small overlap crash tests. Nice to see, being a Toyota product.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/veh...oor-sedan/2018

Edit: Looks like the 2018 RC performed well as well: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/veh...oor-coupe/2018

Toyota is guilty of it as well. 2018 Rav4 scored the lowest "P" rating for the passenger-side small crash over overlap test while scoring the highest of "G" on the driver's side:
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/veh...-door-suv/2018

 

you gotta give props to german cars they may have cheated on diesel fumes but they don't skip out on the safety stuff, i've realize that more than a decade ago when iihs started crash testing cars.

 

If we dig deep enough, we will probably find that most cars sold in the USA that received at least the 2nd place "Acceptable" rating in the (driver-side) IIHS small overlap test did poorly (or were not tested) on the passenger-side test when the IIHS first started conducting the passenger-side small overlap crash test, after they started small overlap crash testing on the driver side.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) conducts these crash tests that go above and beyond what is required by federal standards for vehicle certification. The federal standards do not require small-overlap crash testing so most automakers did very poorly when the IIHS first introduced the small overlap crash test (and only tested the driver side).

To avoid further embarrassment, the automakers were forced to go back to the drawing board and retrofit their cars, even cars that had only just been introduced at the time of the first tests (like the 2012 Toyota Camry) and so were not scheduled for a major engineering redesign for another few years.

This is what happened to the Toyota Camry. A new, 7th generation Camry was introduced for the 2012 model year. Unbeknownst to Toyota, IIHS introduced the small overlap crash test (driver side only) and tested the 2012 Camry; it received the lowest, "Poor" rating in that test. Toyota was forced back to the drawing board to retrofit an engineering change to the front structure of the car and did not receive the higher, "Acceptable" rating until after December 2013, part-way through the 3rd (2014 model) year of the 7Gen Camry. The 2015 Camry received the highest, "Good" rating in this test.

In the meantime, a new Avalon model was introduced for 2013. The 2013 and 2014 Avalons were not tested for the small overlap test (Toyota probably requested that these models of the Avalon not be tested, knowing that they would fail). When the 2015 Avalon was tested, it received the highest, "Good" rating, benefiting from the structural changes Toyota had designed for the Camry.

Toyota, like most other automakers, probably only made structural changes to the driver side but not the passenger side. The passenger side small overlap test was not performed on the Camry until the 8th generation model came out for 2018 (again, Toyota may have asked that the Camry not be tested for the passenger side test), but being a newly-engineered model (and on a brand new platform), the 2018 Camry received the "Good" rating for both driver and passenger side.

The new 4th generation 2013 Toyota RAV4 did poorly on both the driver and passenger side small overlap crash tests. It did not receive a "Good" rating until the 2015 model year (built after November 2014) but the passenger side still failed. The 2016, 2017 and 2018 models continued with the same "Good" (driver side) and "Poor" (passenger side) ratings. The totally new 2019 RAV4 will probably receive "Good" ratings for both driver and passenger side tests.

 

It's things like these that continually keep me at bay with GM, Ford, and Chrysler. One of the most popular SUV's in a dozen years and it fails this test miserably. Don't they think ahead that groups like the IIHS are eventually going to test these things? Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to just add the reinforcements before the whole things turns into a public spectacle? Then we had the massive Explorer "recall" not too long ago for exhaust fumes leaking into the cabin and drivers passing out (and crashing). If you note, nearly half of all police Explorers have now had their stock tailpipes crudely bent down to help direct fumes away from the rear hatch. Civilian Explorers come with extended tailpipes from the factory, so no alterations needed there. Overall, you just don't hear as often about such drastic faults and calamities with the others. It's a sad situation, especially when the public is put at risk.

 

That is why I drive slow or at the speed limit at all times. I never go over even by 1 mile. The faster you go the less your car will be able to protect in a crash.

 

People (including cops) are not supposed to be driving, or having the engine idling, with the rear hatch not securely closed. Shut it like it's supposed to be, instead of doing what so many people do by tying it down or using a bungee cord to keep it partly open while they are carrying bulky loads, and there probably won't be any problem with exhaust fumes. That caution, BTW, is in the Owners' Manuals of most vehicles equipped with a rear hatch (or on a warning-sticker)....all one has to do is either read it or use common sense.

 

This is why a Lexus LS can weigh only 400 lbs. more than a BMW 3 series, when the 3 series has extensive use of forged aluminum. Also why PDR guys have a field day with BMWs, fixing the "impossible."

 

You need to look into how foreign carmakers have fared in these surprise test changes in the past before you throw stones. Was only a few years ago when they brought out the small overlap test that Toyota/Lexus, Honda, BMW, Mercedes and so on all spectacularly failed it and that was in the news.

Its only recently that the IIHS has begun changing up their tests. For decades and decades they just performed the same tests exactly the same way. All this means is that certain carmakers have done a better job building cars that succeed in those rigid tests...not a hard thing to do. The point of this is not to shame automakers, its to move safety forward which is a good thing. You can't fault somebody necessarily for not designing a vehicle to perform well in a rigid test that was never conceived of when it was designed.

Like I said before, put any of the cars made 15 years ago that used to be considered "extremely safe" into these small overlap tests and see how they do...

The Grand Cherokee and Explorer are old designs, the new ones will be better and safer.

Where did you hear this? Its not true. 340i X Drive sedan is 3,820 lbs. An AWD LS500 is 4,905 lbs. So the LS is 1,100 lbs heavier than a 3 series, not 400 lbs.

 

I'm comparing two cars that I own, 2006 LS430 @ 3,990, and a 2007 BMW 335i @ 3571. Huge dimensional difference, only 419 lbs. delta.

The LS seems to have bloated by nearly 1k lbs. (well 915) from 3rd to 4th, curious what a 5th is without looking it up. Would hope it went on a diet...

edit: that number appears to be 5th gen, so it really bloated...

 

In a discussion about modern cars, the curb weights of decade plus old cars have no relevance. Neither your LS or your 3 Series are relevant to what "the example" of the model is today.

Why in one breath are you saying your LS is not built as well or as safe as your BMW because its "only 419 lbs more while being so much bigger", yet also complaining because the new LS is "bloated" and "you hoped it would go on a diet"? In the first breath you're saying that weight = quality & safety, yet why don't you assume the new LS simply has a lot more quality & safety because it weighs a lot more? Your statement makes no sense.

By the logic you used in the last part of your statement you should be wondering how Lexus was able to make your LS so light while your BMW is so bloated.

As for the LS, the LS500 is 10 inches longer than your LS430. The one I quoted is also AWD, your LS430 is RWD. From an equipment perspective and an interior material and content perspective, the LS500 has a ton more...its easy to see where the 800 lbs or so in an apples to apples comparison comes from.

 

Complaining about what?

Every car mfg. wants to reduce weight, my 1998 Maxima isn't even 3,000 lbs., yet there is no weight savings that was really applied to it.

On the E92 BMW, the vehicle has composite fenders to reduce weight, yet it still tipped the scales at nearly 3,600 lbs. 2,900 would be better. Also the composite fenders helps to get closer to 50/50 (something Japanese rarely put in their marketing materials).

Sometimes, imho, you come across as anti-European car. lol And often don't make sense. There is one thread I can remember, that was actually the first time I felt that way. I think we are all entitled to our opinions, and to state them. That's me.

 

Going back to your statement, are we allowed to mention German cars in Car Chat, and give props, be careful my brother!

 

Then I don't understand the point of why you drew a relation between the weight of your LS and the weight of your BMW and your BMW being somehow better built and more safe if thats actually how you feel...

This is what you said:



"The Lexus LS can weigh only 400 lbs more than a BMW 3 Series even when the 3 series has extensive use of forged alumunum" because "the Germans don't skip out on the safety stuff" (what you were replying to)...and by extension Lexus does.

I'm not anti-european car at all, I've never owned one but absolutely would...I just don't think European cars are as "superior" as many people feel that they are, and in this situation I'm pointing out a very clear gap in that logic.

How can you say with a straight face "all carmakers want to reduce weight, "3,900 pounds 2900 pounds would be better", yet also say that the 3 Series is safer than the LS and the evidence of that is that its not much lighter despite being much bigger. That right there comes across as an anti-Japanese car bias, those statements don't come from the same viewpoint.

Why not simply say "wow, Lexus really has done a better job with weight management in the LS430 than BMW did in the 3 Series"? That statement would make sense based on your opinion that having less weight is better, absent an anti-Lexus bias.

Not at all, much discussion in here is about German cars and I've participated in much of it. Just be fair. The statement you made wasn't fair.