One Star Crash Rating

[3withmax]

I bought a second generation 1993 4Runner what I thought would be a very safe vehicle for my daughter. I found out afterwards it has a one star rating. The vehicle came with some type of heavy duty grill guard made by Toyota and has hooks underneath the bumper. I'm not sure if this would make difference in terms of safety. Why the one star rating and is the SUV dangerous ?

 

[Iroke17]

I'd rather be in a 4runner than any other car in a crash I hit someone I. The ass in my 86 at 30 MPH only thing damaged was valance I rolled an 01 roof caved 2 inches other than that no issues with structure during roll over

 

[DC runner]

I love Toyota's and I love my runners. Owned every generation but the 3rd, but I have to totally disagree. The 1st and 2nd are incredibly unsafe in an accident. They are tall, narrow and have 0 impact zones. The 2nd gen's before 1992 do not even have roof crash support. They had to add it due to horrid results of roofs collapsing.


They have such low crash ratings because of everything above and some others.... but, understand that many cars of that era have equally horrid results.


A strong steel bumper does everything at 5mph and nothing at 70. Impact crash zones, which have since been added to every major car, don't try to prevent any damage... this is utterly impossible. They work with energy and redirect it. Crash zones, whether in a bumper or door are strategic areas designed to "smush" in, in a controlled fashion, to protect what they refer to as the "cage" or the passenger "zone". Even your cheapest car today is 100 times safer than a car made in the late 80's and early 90's.


That solid bumper has gone the way of the dodoo bird for exactly the reason that at speed, it became a weight to simply crush or kill someone.

I am going to have to agree with the crash ratings.. In relation to even the cheapest KIA made today, a 1990 4runner is not a safe purchase for a new driver. They like to tip over and offer 0 safety.


Also, understand I know this from experience. I was hit by a guy on heroin. I was lucky. he hit and slide down my length of the car, rather than head on. Had he, I would be dead. Those doors have literally 0 protection. Want to see? Take that flimsy door panel off... it is a thin panel of sheet metal with 0 structural support.


Sell the runner, or keep it yourself. Your young driver should be elsewhere.

 

[SilentYoda3]

I bought a second generation 1993 4Runner what I thought would be a very safe vehicle for my daughter. I found out afterwards it has a one star rating. The vehicle came with some type of heavy duty grill guard made by Toyota and has hooks underneath the bumper. I'm not sure if this would make difference in terms of safety. Why the one star rating and is the SUV dangerous ?

Honestly, teach her to drive safe and you wont have to worry about it. Teach her to watch everyone else on the road since 80% of drivers are re****ed it seems and she'll be fine. Now if you want a tank i suggest an H1.... or F-250. Every car will have it's ups and downs but i have to agree, even kia's are safer technically speaking than the 4runner. But i feel safer in my 4runner than a honda, hyundia, kia, etc (and i've driven several) I believe it sits more on the driver personally. Just my .02 man and congrats on your daughter driving.

P.S. if you sell the runner i might buy the bumper/grill guard if you have pics

 

[Thurlo76]

Honestly, teach her to drive safe and you wont have to worry about it. Teach her to watch everyone else on the road since 80% of drivers are re****ed it seems and she'll be fine. Now if you want a tank i suggest an H1.... or F-250. Every car will have it's ups and downs but i have to agree, even kia's are safer technically speaking than the 4runner. But i feel safer in my 4runner than a honda, hyundia, kia, etc (and i've driven several) I believe it sits more on the driver personally. Just my .02 man and congrats on your daughter driving.

P.S. if you sell the runner i might buy the bumper/grill guard if you have pics

it doesnt matter if she is the best driver on the road. it only takes one dumb ass to wreck anyones life up. there is no way to prepare for that other than being in a tank. (literal tank, not a ford) personally if it were my daughter i more than likely wouldnt be getting her a 4runner for her first rig. maybe down the road when she is more used to driving and avoiding stupid people but not the first.

my first rig was a ford ranger, drunk driver came out of nowhere and ****ed my **** up. never even saw it coming. and honestly i think if i were in my 4runner i would be dead because that ford body handled the role over like champ (pretty much the only good thing about it). ive seen 4runners after a role over (ateast 1st and 2nd gens) and they arnt pretty.

get something that is safe for her. doesnt have to be pretty, just do your homework before you get it on crash pictures of the vehicle and such. just my 2 cents

 

[ToyoTech]

safety wasnt a big thing back than. if they kept making small cars we would still have mini trucks and nice ground clearance 4runners. now everything is low and with a billion safety features that weight the vehicle down. expensive air bags that can go off if you hit a bump too hard on the trail

 

[thatoneguy]

Drivers' side has a one-star frontal, however the passenger side has a 4-star frontal. That steering column literally impales the driver in the right crash.

I'm aware of the extreme lack of safety in my 4runner, it's something I had to be comfortable with when i bought the truck. I don't speed, and am extremely aware of other drivers at night, who seem to frequently be drunk. If someone hits me, it means the risk of driving caught up with me.

Being concerned with the safety of a first-time driving teen is perfectly reasonable. There's plenty of affordable cars that offer great safety.

I used to have a 5th generation Honda Accord (model years 1994-1997). It was excellent on gas, had great crash test results, and was cheap to buy and insure. Consider looking at these, Camry's, and other sedans. If you want your teen to have an suv, the next generation of 4runner after yours (1996-2002) are much safer than the one you just bought. More reliable and economical too.

 

[priestsallore]

Dude, i was hit by a guy on my rear of.my 4runner in his moms 07 car doing 50 plus, all i did was remove the back bumper. Had one small ding dent in the corner is all. Its a decently safe vehicle. just install an inner roll bar if you are too uncomfortable.

 

[thatoneguy]

Dude, i was hit by a guy on my rear of.my 4runner in his moms 07 car doing 50 plus, all i did was remove the back bumper. Had one small ding dent in the corner is all. Its a decently safe vehicle. just install an inner roll bar if you are too uncomfortable.

So a low-slung car hit you in the rear bumper, likely nailing a tow-hitch or putting your rear tires on his hood.

That's the not the same as you hitting someone head-on, or you being t-boned at high speed. Those are the two most unsafe areas of 1st and 2nd gens. Next being a rollover. The accident you are describing is essentially a best-case scenario for being hit in a 4runner.

 

[DC runner]

x2.

And this is why Anecdotal evidence is not that same as actual research and why it is important to understand the difference.

Seriously. Other than whiplash, which mind you is still bad, a hit to the rear is about the best case you can get, in particular if a low slung hits a high slung..

But those are not the accidents you need to worry about, as mentioned. Its the drunk driver t-boning you or hitting you head on..those are the ones you don't walk away from if you are in a old school runner.

A young, inexperienced driver, would do much better in a more modern car. Literally ANY. But, Camrys and the like are great choices. Low slung safe.

 

[ToyoTech]

which is why i have an arb front bumper. getting sliders installed soon. need to build a rear bumper but the hitch and a drop down receiver will do for now
tires stick out a little for some cushion

+1 on the 94-97 accord. i dd my 94 and love. awesome on gas

 

[priestsallore]

Actually, wasn't a rear on, was almost a t-bone if he went straight at me.. He smacked me side rear corner.

 

[Bad_Vision]

the reason ON STAR gave it a bad crash rating is because Toyota turned down on star systems in there vehicles and then killed the GM sales when they became the most American made truck in 2005.
if you compare the government test ratings to that of the on stars test ratings you'll notice that all Toyota are 2 stars less then the government tests.

never ever ever believe a crash test rating from a company they can be bought the government believe it or not is not for sale.

as for the 4runner being safe it is very safe for the passengers the vehicle will protect your daughter but can she protect herself from dumb driving skills and habits.
they do roll but she will be safe while she does it and hey she may even learn from her mistakes then.

 

[3withmax]

She is going to be driving 55mph roads and your input has convinced me that I did not make the right car purchase. Thanks for your detailed replies.

 

[DC runner]

That is a wise decision. They were and are great trucks, but it was a different time. In the era of Cell Phones, and an uptick in young driver accidents (every other demo is down), safety for your daughter is paramount.

 

[RonMAIDEN]

Move to a 3rd gen,things greatly improved in '96 and yes,I read alot about the 2nd gens back when they were new and they never had great ratings. 3rd gens added better crumple zones,stronger structural reinfrocment,ABS and airbags.
My friend who does collission repair agrees that Toyota made huge strides after the 2nd gens.

 

[RonMAIDEN]

"Both the first and second generation 4Runners became targeted as unsafe SUVs. 1980s and early-1990s US crash regulations were not very strict for light trucks, and all early model 4Runners were fitted with doors that offered little protection in the event of a side collision. In most areas, there was little more than two pieces of sheetmetal and the window to keep incoming vehicles from impacting passengers. The crash test rating for the second generation 4Runner was one star for the driver's side in a frontal collision although the passenger side got a 4 star rating. Later, more stringent crash regulations mandated doors that offered as much protection as passenger car doors."

 

[the_dingman]

Anyone claiming that a vehicle is safe because it sustained less damage in a minor crash is living in a fantasy land.

While a more solid vehicle will show less damage in minor accidents, newer cars are designed to crumple to absorb impact and protect the drivers.

Look at this video comparing a crash of a 55 Bel Air vs a 09 Malibu. The Bel Air looks better off at first glance, but in reality the passengers of it would likely have died, while the passengers of the Malibu would likely have walked away with minor scratches.

I love my 4Runner, and while the frame of them (especially the 1st gens) would likely protect you in a rollover, there are no impact zones, no air bags and very little in the line of safety to protect you in a major accident. I have no doubt that in a major crash that my seat belts and seats would likely break free.

These are no where near as safe as any 2000+ car on the road. That said, most of us got here riding in and driving vehicles less safe, and we're still here. It's a gamble.

 

[DC runner]

Look at that. That protection zone did exactly what it was designed to do... collapse is such a manner as to leave the passenger zone as protected as possible.

That is an excellent video for anyone who sticks to the old myth that old, steel cars and bumpers are better. They "tank" theory, and I hate it. A heavier car made of steel is just a bigger thing to crush you. Unless you are actually in a tank, you aren't.

Excellent find. Thanks for posting.