Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BuddyP

Yaris, Fit - Poor head on crash tests

Recommended Posts

It really depends on the year, and what generation the vehicle happens to be in... and there are really no conclusions to be gained:

In '06, the Civic had a "good" IIHS side rating, as opposed to the Corolla's "poor" or "acceptable."

In '01, the Civic had a "good" IIHS front rating, as opposed to the Corolla's "acceptable.

In '02, the CR-V had a "good" IIHS front rating, as opposed to the RAV4's "acceptable."

In every single year, Honda has more Top Safety Picks than Toyota (in '07, Toyota had none).

So, yeah..

did Honda even offer a single vehicle sold in the 90's rated good in the frontal offset crash?

the LS 400, RX 300, Camry, Sienna, Avalon, and Tundra were.

Toyota was the first Japanese company to offer stability control.

the first company to offer side curtain airbags, knee airbags, adaptive headlamps, a radar-based pre-collision system. exactly what has Honda advanced in terms of safety?

the only thing stopping Toyota from receiving more Top Safety Pick awards is head restraint designs, largely irrelevant to me. However the head restraints in my Camry tilted forward while the previous Accord and my G37's do not and are too far rearward. Almost guarantees whiplash in a rear end collision. The Accords front seat belt was fixed, the Camry did adjust up and down and was much easier to position properly and stayed positioned properly.

Edited by toyoguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It really depends on the year, and what generation the vehicle happens to be in... and there are really no conclusions to be gained:

I compared similar generations.

the 1998-2002 Accord is rated below the 1997-2001 Camry in frontal collisions

the 2003-2007 Accord structure is rated below the 2002-2006 Camry in side impacts

the 2008-present Accord structure is rated below the 2007-present Camry structure in side impacts

the 1996-2004 RL is rated below the 1995-2000 LS 400 in frontal collisions

the 2007-present CRV is rated below the 2006-present RAV4 in roof strength.

In '06, the Civic had a "good" IIHS side rating, as opposed to the Corolla's "poor" or "acceptable."

2006-present Civic vs 2003-2008 Corolla

In '01, the Civic had a "good" IIHS front rating, as opposed to the Corolla's "acceptable.

2001-2005 Civic vs 1998-2002 Corolla

In '02, the CR-V had a "good" IIHS front rating, as opposed to the RAV4's "acceptable."

score one for Honda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I get that.

I was mostly just being a smartass with my earlier post.

It is true that I don't even consider safety ratings, but that doesn't mean that I don't consider safety.

I just evaluate it for myself, and base it on things other than what the IIHS or the government has to say.

No worries Camino, my post was not in reference to yours, but the whole thread made me think about the last accident I was in with the Avalanche, and I thought I'd post how it changed how I shop for cars. You know, sort of a healing process since I still have some anxiety over it when driving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
did Honda even offer a single vehicle sold in the 90's rated good in the frontal offset crash?

the LS 400, RX 300, Camry, Sienna, Avalon, and Tundra were.

Toyota was the first Japanese company to offer stability control.

the first company to offer side curtain airbags, knee airbags, adaptive headlamps, a radar-based pre-collision system. exactly what has Honda advanced in terms of safety?

the only thing stopping Toyota from receiving more Top Safety Pick awards is head restraint designs, largely irrelevant to me. However the head restraints in my Camry tilted forward while the previous Accord and my G37's do not and are too far rearward. Almost guarantees whiplash in a rear end collision. The Accords front seat belt was fixed, the Camry did adjust up and down and was much easier to position properly and stayed positioned properly.

The difference in the crash tests that began this thread is that they are actually crashing two cars of different sizes. In the crash tests that you have listed in your posts in this thread, each crash test was performed with one vehicle hitting a wall, or a vehicle of similar size. This just means that it gets a good rating when involved in crashes with vehicles of similar size and weight. That test becomes useless when cars of different size and weight are involved in a collision. At that point, the ratings mean nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how many of those listed are for CARS and for the passengers, not pedestrians? The pedestrian should have never been in the street in the first place.

Volvo is safety king.

I don't know and don't really care. I'm not looking to compare Honda's safety advances to other's.

Volvo is only king of one thing and that is 50%+ sales declines. Oh snap!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×