Not to scare any RX330/350 owners, but IIHS just gave a poor rating on its head restraint. Yet the old RX300 had a good rating.

A rather unpleasant surprise given the "14-point" safety features touted in recent RX commercials.

Full story: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/head_res...nts.aspx?lexus

 

yeh, this was pointed out before.

a few things you have to note. The RX300 was evaluated on an older scale in the late 90s. The expectations were much easier back then than they are now. The RX330 was just evaluated in a test that is meant on new cars, like the MDX etc. Expectations are much higher for safety now than it was in 2004 when the 330 came out. Look out for the next generation to blow those expectations off the roof

 

Not sure why safety improvement must wait for the next generation. Since you mentioned the MDX, did you know that Acura made a running change within a model year (2007)? Why can't Lexus improve head rest and rear bumper, which are modular components that are detached to the rest of the chassis, now?

 

err...cause the 2008s are already rolling out and the 2009 will be a new redesign. They might as well wait for the next year.

 

So you are basically telling 2008 RX350 owners to bite the bullet because it is just not financially profitable for Lexus to fix a safety problem.
OK, note to myself, another reason not to upgrade and stick with RX300. Those who plan to buy RX350 in 2008, I seriously hope those "actively avoidance" Lexus commercials work in real life because I don't think anyone want to find out how his/her neck will do in a rear end collision.

 

Couldn't agree more with TunedRX300. Lexus is capable of designing good headrest, evident in the RX300, why wait until 2009 model year to fix this?

Given that I've been rear-ended 4 times (not in my RX300) and had a close friend with neck whiplash injury in one of the incidents, I don't take this lightly. Nor should anyone else. In fact, I bought the RX300 5 years ago after two rear-end accidents within two months.

 

Everyone is capable of research and improving. But that costs more $$ and time. Most car manufacturers would rather spend the $$ and time on the newer models rather than deal with existing chassis that was tested when first released. It is simply more economical for them anyway.

 

benz and i are on the same page. we arent saying that they shouldnt. they just wont do it because you have to look at it from their standpoint.

as a car manufacturer, if it costs say a few hundred thousdand to redesign and change the factory process just to change that headrest, and say they have to spend that money the next year on the new generation, then they wouldnt spend that few hundred on one year.

in conclusion, its not profitable on their side. if 2004-2007 models, 4 years of production, have this bad headrest, one more year doesnt seem like that big of a difference.

 

I'm not sure if I saw the article in the same magazine or newspaper as HarrierAWD saw it, but one of the things I discovered while reading further on this is: The poor rating was actually given only to the center back head rest. I myself can see why on this. The front rest have good height and adjustment to them, likewise the rear outboard seats have fairly good height and adjustment to them as well. But the center backrest/headrest design has that rather low and the adjustment for the height just doesn't bring it up high enough for most people. It may or may not be fixed in the new design coming out in 2009. Myself I'm not too overly worried about it as I rarely have anyone in the back seat and even less so in the center back seat. I'm sure Lexus designed it to allow for better rear vision for the driver looking back over his or her right shoulder and the rear view mirror. If the seat back and headrest were up higher the view would be more blocked. But then I have the NAV system with the rear camera so usually don't look back over the right shoulder as some would, usually at the screen for rear view, then left and right for side view.

2005 RX330 Thundercloud, Thundercloud Mist, Gray/Black Interior with Black Birdseye Maple Trim, NAV, ML, HID with AFS, 18" Thundercloud rims with Michelin MXV4's.

 

It's a function of the headrests height in reference to head location. The outboard i.e. driver/passanger and back seat passangers location are more than adequate, it's the center rear headrest that got the bad ratings.

 

I checked the IIHS website (www.iihs.org) which is the organization that tested the head restraints and the source of the information. It appears that they are testing the driver seat in all stock photos.

Kindly point out where it references center back head rest.

 

if lexus cared about fixing it then they would do something about all the bad trannys in the RX models. But its obvious they dont care. And they still post those stupid actively safe ads all over so cal.

 

I double-checked IIHS website. They are testing the driver seat head restraint, not the center back headrest which is rarely used in any car. The RX330/350 received the poor rating, whilst the old RX300 was rated good.

 

Here is a thread discussing Acura's change to get a "good" IIHS rear impact rating for the 2007 MDX. There is no mentioning of test only done on the middle rear seat for Acura as well. Acura changed both headset and active restrain system to improve from "marginal". There is no reason Lexus don't do this immediately, considering RX has more volume sales and this could be a source of personal injury litigations for Lexus.
http://www.acuramdx.org/forums/showt...threadid=28567

 

Thanks for the info. I applaud Acura/Honda for making this a priority. This shows that automakers need not wait until a model change to improve safety.