2014 Toyota 4Runner Fails Frontal Crash Tests

[4r2014]

I understand why people want to defend the disappointing crash test results. The reality is that the 4R has not fared that well in all tests.

IIHS Results >>> Vehicle details

- On the left side midway down, click on "small overlap front" to see full results. At least the "injury measures" are pretty good which is probably the most important measurement of the test.

- Other vehicles in mid-generation are taking measures to pass this test. 4Runner buyers shouldn't have to wait until a new gen to ace the test. It's too late for us but 2015 buyers deserve better.

Where I'm truly disappointed is in the NHTSA testing (see below link) for the front passenger (driver rating isn't perfect either):

NHTSA Results >>> 2013 Toyota 4Runner SUV 2WD | Safercar -- NHTSA

 

[Titanpat57]

I'll keep the 4Runner, thanks.

Wilson...

 

[FrontRange4Runner]

I understand why people want to defend the disappointing crash test results. The reality is that the 4R has not fared that well in all tests.

Just wondering what other tests you are referring to? I would like to look at them, but it looks like Runner got a "Good" rating in all of the other tests as far as I can tell.

 

[4r2014]

Just wondering what other tests you are referring to? I would like to look at them, but it looks like Runner got a "Good" rating in all of the other tests as far as I can tell.

It did with the IIHS. Take a look at the NHTSA tests in the other link that I provided.

With regards to IIHS, you will notice that in 2012 the 4R bumped up its roof strength to Good. While it is Good, it would be nice to see it score even higher (over 5 or 6) given the higher chance at roll over.

 

[4r2014]

What are the testing methods? It looks like they are doing high speed (above 40mph probably) highly offset impacts that seem very implausible. What I mean by that is typically most accidents seem to be more inline with what the NHTSA is testing for, where as the IIHS is testing for what seems like if the driver decided to drive 60mph and hit a light pole directly inline with the driver's side fender almost to the edge of where the vehicle should conceivably glance off it.

I'm not saying vehicles shouldn't be made safer, but this seems almost like their trying to fail vehicles; I can't conceivably see where such an impact with an immovable object would at such high speeds, result in that clean a "glancing" blow.

IIRC, the IIHS stated that 25% of all fatalities occur because of the small overlap impact. That seems astronomically high to me but if it's even a fraction accurate then this is a very worthwhile test. They claim that cars hit an immovable object at that angle because after an accident or evasive maneuver many drivers loose control.

30-40K people die every year in car accidents throughout the US. Imagine the amount of serious injury. Safer is better. It becomes a cost benefit equation with MPG, cost, driving dynamics, etc.

I think this test is also useful because of the increase of distracted driving because of cell phones causing people to drift out of their lanes.

 

[4r2014]

[MENTION=95578]2013Trail[/MENTION] I thought you said fail? I read your linked article and I saw "marginal" for the 4Runner. Big difference. The only "fail" I see here was your choice of sensationalism thread titles. Here it is in case you didn't read it right:

"The Jeep Grand Cherokee, Toyota 4Runner and Ford Explorer were rated "marginal,"

Now,

"Introduced in 2012, the small overlap frontal crash test simulates a frontal collision on the driver's side that only involves 25 percent of the vehicle's front end. Vehicles crash into a 5-foot-tall rigid barrier at 40 mph, which the IIHS says is a proper indicator of real-world crashes with slim objects, like utility poles or trees, and with other vehicles when a car steps over the lane. The longer-running overlap test involves 40 percent of the car's front end."

The only way a vehicle that a vehicle designed before 2012 passes the test is luck. Wonder if you could take a 4th gen and pass it? Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure the JGC, 4Runner and others will do just fine in the next models.

IIRC, Volvo was building cars on their own for small overlap crashes. At least that's what they are claiming...however it may just be luck.

 

[1engineer]

IIRC, the IIHS stated that 25% of all fatalities occur because of the small overlap impact. That seems astronomically high to me but if it's even a fraction accurate then this is a very worthwhile test. They claim that cars hit an immovable object at that angle because after an accident or evasive maneuver many drivers loose control.

30-40K people die every year in car accidents throughout the US. Imagine the amount of serious injury. Safer is better. It becomes a cost benefit equation with MPG, cost, driving dynamics, etc.

I think this test is also useful because of the increase of distracted driving because of cell phones causing people to drift out of their lanes.

I agree with you it's a worthwhile test but let's look at the data a bit differently shall we?

Your 30-40K deaths/yr turn out to be just a little more than one person PER HUNDRED MILLION VEHICLE MILES DRIVEN per year. It was around 3 PHMVMD in 1980, 2 in 1990, 1.5 in 2000 and now it's just a shade over 1. That sorta puts it in perspective for me at least.

My Dad owned a bodyshop while I was growing up. They (6 guys) fixed about 800-1000 vehicles every year for many years. Now I know that's a small regional sample size but I only saw maybe TWO vehicles with that type of damage. Most front end collisions were dead center, either front corner or if it was straight on, it was offset center but not by much.

I am all for safer vehicles and testing such as this is great. There comes a point though of diminishing returns. I'll take the 4Runner over anything smaller than a 4Runner any day because you can't get around simple physics of F=MA.

 

[Swarty]

IIRC, the IIHS stated that 25% of all fatalities occur because of the small overlap impact. That seems astronomically high to me but if it's even a fraction accurate then this is a very worthwhile test. They claim that cars hit an immovable object at that angle because after an accident or evasive maneuver many drivers loose control.

30-40K people die every year in car accidents throughout the US. Imagine the amount of serious injury. Safer is better. It becomes a cost benefit equation with MPG, cost, driving dynamics, etc.

I think this test is also useful because of the increase of distracted driving because of cell phones causing people to drift out of their lanes.

It only seems astronomically high because they used a percent and have fixed all the things that used to kill people like direct head on, roll over, and side impact. On the high end 10k people out of 313 million died from small overlap? That means it's a .0032% chance. IMO we have sailed past the point of diminishing returns but am sure some senator is hard at work making our cars "safer" even if its not cost effective and causes more deaths.

Right now lowering pollution would save more people than "fixing" this "problem" with overlap. This is a only a simulation so take the findings with a grain of salt but is still a bigger problem than overlap.
Study: Air pollution causes 200,000 early deaths each year in the U.S. | MIT News Office

 

[1engineer]

It only seems astronomically high because they used a percent and have fixed all the things that used to kill people like direct head on, roll over, and side impact. On the high end 10k people out of 313 million died from small overlap? That means it's a .0032% chance. IMO we have sailed past the point of diminishing returns but am sure some senator is hard at work making our cars "safer" even if its not cost effective and causes more deaths.

Right now lowering pollution would save more people than "fixing" this "problem" with overlap. This is a only a simulation so take the findings with a grain of salt but is still a bigger problem than overlap.
Study: Air pollution causes 200,000 early deaths each year in the U.S. | MIT News Office

If we could fix stupid we wouldn't need hardly any safety devices.

 

[Swarty]

If we could fix stupid we wouldn't need hardly any safety devices.

Seriously, I love driving myself but if 95% of driving switched to automated cars I wouldn't cry about it. I just need the ability to take control and hoon a bit when I have the right place to do it.

 

[4r2014]

It only seems astronomically high because they used a percent and have fixed all the things that used to kill people like direct head on, roll over, and side impact. On the high end 10k people out of 313 million died from small overlap? That means it's a .0032% chance. IMO we have sailed past the point of diminishing returns but am sure some senator is hard at work making our cars "safer" even if its not cost effective and causes more deaths.

Right now lowering pollution would save more people than "fixing" this "problem" with overlap. This is a only a simulation so take the findings with a grain of salt but is still a bigger problem than overlap.
Study: Air pollution causes 200,000 early deaths each year in the U.S. | MIT News Office

Those are just deaths. I'm speculating but the number of serious injuries is much higher.

As for air pollution, there is always going to be a bigger boogey man. That doesn't mean that it needn't be addressed.

 

[4r2014]

In many ways I agree with both of you about car safety. In the end we are pretty much on the same page. The IIHS scores are acceptable given the "marginal" score for small overlap especially since injury scores are "good". I do however believe that the 4R NHTSA scores for frontal crash injuries are concerning.

 

[Swarty]

Those are just deaths. I'm speculating but the number of serious injuries is much higher.

As for air pollution, there is always going to be a bigger boogey man. That doesn't mean that it needn't be addressed.

This boogey man is the trade off though. Safety so far has nearly always had a weight and therefore an emissions hit ( The exception being electronic nannies). At some point it comes to a a complete wash. If we save 10000 people from accidents but cause 15000 to die from the emissions, what have we gained?