<!-- blog header -->
November 20, 2009

Toyota takes on IIHS Top Safety Picks

<!-- .entry-header -->Just days after its public shouting match with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) over sudden acceleration claims, Toyota is now arguing with the nation’s top private safety organization, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS).

On Wednesday, the IIHS released its list of Top Safety Picks for 2010. This year the Institute added a new roof strength test to its requirements for cars to receive the rating. That demanding criteria dramatically shortened the 2010 list.

In its press release announcing the results, IIHS called out Toyota for having no vehicles that qualified.

In response, yesterday Toyota called IIHS’s new methodology “extreme and misleading.” In a statement, Toyota Vice President of Public Affairs Irv Miller said, “There are 38 Toyota, Lexus, and Scion models, and only three were tested for roof strength by IIHS: Camry, RAV4, and Yaris.” He said all Toyota products meet government standards for roof crush. The new IIHS test for roof strength is much tougher than the government standard, which NHTSA looking to make more stringent.

Later yesterday, Russ Rader, an IIHS spokesman, essentially told Toyota to put up or shut up. He is quoted in the New York Times stating that all automakers were invited to nominate vehicles to be tested (and reimburse IIHS for the test.) “We don’t think there are automakers who would miss the opportunity to have their vehicles tested if they thought they met the criteria. We can only assume the [manufacturer’s other] vehicles would not do well for roof strength.”

While Toyota still has among the most reliable and fuel-efficient car lineups Consumer Reports has tested, the bloom may be coming off the company’s rose. While its cars generally do well in most safety measures, this pattern of blasting the messenger isn’t helping its public image, an image that is increasingly under attack.

Over time, the IIHS is expected to test more vehicles for roof strength. The test is performed by pressing a metal plate against one side of the roof at a constant speed. To earn a Good rating, a vehicle must withstand a force that is four times the vehicle’s weight before compressing five inches. This tough new test adds another dimension to the Top Safety Picks.

For information on how vehicles perform in government and IIHS crash tests, see the safety tabs in the model overview pages, available to online subscribers.






Source: Consumer Reports
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/car...ety-picks.html

 

I tend to agree with Toyota. It's good to include cars that passed (obviously that's the point), it's also important to cite cars that were tested and failed.

But IMO, to imply that cars not tested are somehow "unlikely to pass" or in someway deficient is lying by omission.

How about you tell us what "just missed" means? Did the roof compress 6 inches? Did it withstand 3.99 times the weight of the vehicle?

IMO, this is going to add either weight or cost to the vehicles. Probably both.

 

Wow. What a doofus public relations move by Toyota.

Now they look like they don't give two shits about safety to the masses.

I understand Toyota's argument with IIHS, and it's a reasonable one.....but this could have been handled a different way....

PS: Is anyone dumb enough to actually believe that a stuck carpet has enough force to not only push the accelerator, but simultaneously keep the brake from working? I call big .

 

Oh agree, Toyota must be taking PR lessons from Audi. IMO, the 'stuck carpet' excuse was done to allow all the dufus drivers who stepped on the wrong pedal to 'save face'.

 

I agree, the IIHS is being disingenious.

The IIHS has politicized the awards process and opened it up to undue marketing influence via "pay to play;" i.e., offering manufacturers the opportunity to have their cars tested earlier if they reimburse the IIHS for the tests, including the cars.

A manufacturer of a less popular model may face paying for 3 or 4 tests to have a chance at winning an award, because the IIHS didn't plan on doing any tests - front, rear, side or roof. In contrast, a manufacturer of a popular model may face paying for only one test, or none at all because the IIHS had already completed the tests or had them scheduled before the awards. Manufacturers also have different budget constraints.

That's not a level playing field. Then the IIHS adds insult to injury by claiming that the only possible reason a particular model wasn't tested is because it would have failed.

 

THis new test by the IIHS seems way overboard. It is ridiculous safety standards like this that have made cars heavier and heavier every generation. Face it, the safest car available today is an Abrams tank but do we really want nothing but armored vehicles running around our nations highways?