USA Today Article: 00 vs. 03 4Runner Rollover

[00FourBanger]

While looking for safety information about my 2000 4Runner, I came across a very intresting article on USA Today. I was very impressed about the 5-star front and side impact rating for my car, considering it was engineered in the mid 90's. However, I find this article less than comforting. It directly places a 2000 4Runner vs. a 2003 4Runner in the governments new rollover tests. It basically states the the 3rd Gen will roll in emergency manuvers at around 30MPH, compared directly with the 2003 which keeps wheels planted even at 50 MPH.

Here's the link...
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2003-10-07-rollover_x.htm

 

[RonMAIDEN]

It basically states the the 3rd Gen will roll in emergency manuvers at around 30MPH, compared directly with the 2003 which keeps wheels planted even at 50 MPH.

Boy,dissin' on the 3rd gen even if it's only by 5mph.

The article did state at 35mph rollover was emminent and the new Runners better be improved since the 4th gens gave up a few off road priorities from the '00 models.

 

[toybox]

Re: Re: USA Today Article: 00 vs. 03 4Runner Rollover

Boy,dissin' on the 3rd gen even if it's only by 5mph.

Seems to me to be a 20mph difference from his post.

 

[00FourBanger]

Re: Re: USA Today Article: 00 vs. 03 4Runner Rollover

Boy,dissin' on the 3rd gen even if it's only by 5mph.

The article did state at 35mph rollover was emminent and the new Runners better be improved since the 4th gens gave up a few off road priorities from the '00 models.

Well, it's a 15 MPH difference, the article actually states...

"NHTSA demonstrated its new test first on a 2000 Toyota 4Runner SUV without a stability system. That showed it would have rolled over in the emergency driving maneuver at 35 miles an hour.

Then it tested the redesigned 2003 4Runner, which is wider and longer than the old model and has a stability system. All four wheels stayed on the ground in swerves up to 50 miles an hour."

You're right, the new 4runner may give up some off road performance. You have to remember the majority of people buying these are going to be using them as a daily driver commuting and running the kids to the soccor game. Don't get me wrong, I've taken my 2wd truck far beyond most people will ever take their 4wd's (when I say most people, I mean the people who who buy the 4wd and used it once when they went skiing). Of couse I've been stuck many times in the process. For me and most drivers, the combination of better on-road handling and the ability to go off road (not bolder climb) is worth the sacriface. I think the thing for me to get used to is that my last car was a BMW 325i with 6-Airbags, ABS, DSC, a strong 'cage' (in case it would flip) and a very low center of gravity.

 

[toybox]

Looks like it's time to trade up to a 4th gen

 

[khaug]

I can no longer find the data on the www, but I recall that a couple of years ago, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety compiled statistics on accident fatality rates for a large group of vehicles spanning a period of five years or so.

The best: The M-B W210 sedan (E300/320/450/500). Next best: Gen 3 Toyota 4 Runners!!!

The worst was the short wheelbase 2-door Chevy Blazers, which fold up like a Japanese lantern in crash tests. Their fatality rate per accident was like 100 times worse than the best vehicles.

When that study was released, we'd just traded our '98 Limited in on our current '03, and I felt badly because I'd let such a paragon of safety go!

Keep the greasy side down, y'all!

 

[RonMAIDEN]

I meant he was dissin' when he stated 30mph in the '00 when it was actually 35mph I wasn't comparing it to the 4th gen.

 

[fireteacher]

Looks like it's time to trade up to a 4th gen

NEVER! would lose several inches of offroading clearance to do so. the 3rds are great when they crash, the few pics i have seen, everything crushed around the cabin...great design.