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:

• Passenger-side: Poor
• Driver-side: Marginal

The comment from Toyota PR was:

 

not good, but no doubt toyota will work hard to improve.

 

Tundra is an old platform, dating back to the 2007 model year for the frame and structure. I am sure the next gen model will be up to standards.

 

sad to see toyota cutting corner on their customers safety usually it's gm and chrysler that does this kind of stuff but at this point i am not suprised at all.

 

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?

 

that's inaccurate. they're not cutting corners, the standards changed and they haven't upgraded the platform to meet the new standards.

 

Eh, "the standards changed" doesn't really fly as an excuse when they insist on riding the same old tired platform for 12 years straight with no updates.

 

-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

 

In my mind, as a technology person, not staying up-to-date is the equivalent of cutting corners. Now Toyota may have legitimate reasons for failing to update the crash safety, so it's also unfair to harshly judge them. However, I will reserve my right to buy a truck I feel is safe.

 

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.

 

It is not a "Toyota" behaviour, Toyota generally has highest number of best rated models. Small overlap was a problem with old Camry too when it just came out.

 

i dont even pay attention to offset crash tesitng, read somewhere that offset crashes are much more rare

 

While you are correct, its pains to ask why a platform refreshed to pass the driver side, decided meh the passengers not important?.....

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?

 

Changes to "fix" small overlap crash problems are NOT legally required to continue to sell the vehicle so the fix is being done out of the goodness of the automaker's heart. If it was legally required, there would have been a stop-sale and recall.

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.

 

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.