Impressive spin on the recent IIHS results on the Tundra
03-21-19, 11:48 AM
#1
Lead Lap
Thread Starter
Impressive spin on the recent IIHS results on the Tundra
Source: Jalopnik https://jalopnik.com/only-three-pick...ion-1833460153
To summarize:
-Recently IIHS tested pickup trucks on crash tests
-Only 3 came up good
-F150 the best
-Some models that were recently launched are in spec, while some are not (wtf moment of course)
-Toyota Tundra:
To summarize:
-Recently IIHS tested pickup trucks on crash tests
-Only 3 came up good
-F150 the best
-Some models that were recently launched are in spec, while some are not (wtf moment of course)
-Toyota Tundra:
- Passenger-side: Poor
- Driver-side: Marginal
We are proud that Toyota and Lexus vehicles perform well in both the IIHS and NHTSA crash testing. To date, IIHS has awarded two Top Safety Pick (TSP) and three TSP+ ratings to Toyota’s 2019 line up and our NHTSA NCAP ratings include 27 Toyota and Lexus models with 5-Star rating in our 2018 line up. We put the needs of our customers first and the quality, safety and reliability of our vehicles is a top priority - and with continuous improvement being at the heart of everything we do - we’ll continue to look for ways to improve in an effort to exceed customers’ expectations – particularly in new testing such as IIHS’ passenger-side front small overlap for pickup trucks.
03-21-19, 12:06 PM
#2
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
The Tundra was found to be “seriously compromised by intruding structure.” It reportedly had 15 inches of maximum intrusion at the rightmost part of the toepan, as well as over a foot of intrusion at the lower door hinge pillar. “The passenger dummy’s head hit the grab handle attached to the A-pillar as the A-pillar intruded into the passenger’s space,” the IIHS wrote.
“Measures taken from the dummy indicate that injuries to the right lower leg would be likely in a crash of this severity, and injuries to the right hip would be possible,” it went on.
“Measures taken from the dummy indicate that injuries to the right lower leg would be likely in a crash of this severity, and injuries to the right hip would be possible,” it went on.
not good, but no doubt toyota will work hard to improve.
03-22-19, 08:40 AM
#5
Lead Lap
Thread Starter
What about the Tacoma, wasnt that just redesigned in 2016?
The Tundra gets the pass of course with the older gen tech. What about the all new Silverado and sibiling mates? How does a new truck design not pass?
The Tundra gets the pass of course with the older gen tech. What about the all new Silverado and sibiling mates? How does a new truck design not pass?
03-22-19, 09:06 AM
#6
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
Trending Topics
03-22-19, 11:04 AM
#8
Lead Lap
Thread Starter
-MY21 is supposedly tundra redesign
-Just for giggles, rehashing Volvo as a leader in safety design here whose 10 year old 1st gen XC90 passed with a GOOD rating on the small overlap test that started in 2012, almost 9 years since the launch of that platform.
While I gave it a pass seeing how the new Tundra is on the horizon, this type of Toyota behavior where things are just enough happened back with the Rav 4 I believe and the driver side small overlap
Last edited by coolsaber; 03-22-19 at 11:08 AM.
03-22-19, 11:47 AM
#9
drives cars
03-22-19, 12:03 PM
#10
Lexus Champion
The IIHS does test vehicles sold in the USA against its own crashworthiness standards but the automakers do not have to legally fix any "problems" the IIHS finds. The automakers usually do fix them but they are under no legal obligation to do so, and can and will do it on their own schedules.
So the new Tundra will likely be designed and engineered taking into consideration any problems that the IIHS found with the current one.
03-22-19, 04:12 PM
#11
-2017, the Institute launched the passenger-side test to make sure occupants on both sides of the vehicle get equal protection.
-MY21 is supposedly tundra redesign
-Just for giggles, rehashing Volvo as a leader in safety design here whose 10 year old 1st gen XC90 passed with a GOOD rating on the small overlap test that started in 2012, almost 9 years since the launch of that platform.
While I gave it a pass seeing how the new Tundra is on the horizon, this type of Toyota behavior where things are just enough happened back with the Rav 4 I believe and the driver side small overlap
-MY21 is supposedly tundra redesign
-Just for giggles, rehashing Volvo as a leader in safety design here whose 10 year old 1st gen XC90 passed with a GOOD rating on the small overlap test that started in 2012, almost 9 years since the launch of that platform.
While I gave it a pass seeing how the new Tundra is on the horizon, this type of Toyota behavior where things are just enough happened back with the Rav 4 I believe and the driver side small overlap
03-23-19, 02:41 PM
#13
Lead Lap
Thread Starter
This is not completely true. The IIHS is an organization funded by American insurance companies. Although it has a lot of influence, it is not a government organization and does not have legal rights to set and enforce American motor vehicle standards; the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration sets and enforces standards.
The IIHS does test vehicles sold in the USA against its own crashworthiness standards but the automakers do not have to legally fix any "problems" the IIHS finds. The automakers usually do fix them but they are under no legal obligation to do so, and can and will do it on their own schedules.
So the new Tundra will likely be designed and engineered taking into consideration any problems that the IIHS found with the current one.
The IIHS does test vehicles sold in the USA against its own crashworthiness standards but the automakers do not have to legally fix any "problems" the IIHS finds. The automakers usually do fix them but they are under no legal obligation to do so, and can and will do it on their own schedules.
So the new Tundra will likely be designed and engineered taking into consideration any problems that the IIHS found with the current one.
While I agree, Toyota had to redesign models to bring them upto to spec on the IIHS tests, why do it for one side only?
03-23-19, 06:37 PM
#14
Lexus Champion
Changes to "fix" small overlap crash problems are structural changes that are very expensive and very disruptive when done mid-cycle, as the fixes to the popular Camry and RAV4 were. Structural changes may very well force changes to other automotive subsystems, components and parts, from one or more outside suppliers; and force changes to production procedures on the assembly line. All of these changes require much pre-planning.
If, however, pre-planning is underway for a mid-cycle facelift or full model change, these structural changes are less expensive to accomplish; being forced to change plans and supplier contracts mid-cycle is expensive and very disruptive to the assembly line.
03-24-19, 04:56 AM
#15
Super Moderator
I don't think coolsaber was talking about the small-overlap test. I think (s)he was talking about the fact that the Tundra did fine on the driver's side "T-bone" test, but failed the same test utterly on the passenger side. Almost like the tests were introduced at different times, and when Toyota saw that the driver's side test was being done, added reinforcement to the driver's door. But when thinking about doing the same to the passenger side, said "eeeeh, they're not testing it, so we'll just do the one side".
Which is exactly why these tests are valuable. They shame manufacturers into doing the right thing, eventually.
Which is exactly why these tests are valuable. They shame manufacturers into doing the right thing, eventually.
