2006 Prius~leather~smart Key~side Curtain Airbags~camera~warranty~no-reserve on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2013 Toyota RAV4 earns 'poor' rating in IIHS small overlap crash test [w/video]

When the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety tested a batch of SUVs in its small overlap frontal crash test earlier this year, it held off on putting the Toyota RAV4 in the blender because the new, 2013 model was due to arrive shortly after the test. The new crossover might be better than it was before, but it could still only manage a rating of "Poor" in the test that has been a bugbear for a number of manufacturers.
Among other issues, the IIHS noted that the steering column moved seven inches to the right causing the crash test dummy to practically miss the airbag, the dummy's left foot was trapped in deformed sheetmetal and the dummy's head hit the instrument panel.
The 2013 RAV4 earned the Top Safety Pick rating by scoring well in the Institute's four other tests. A good score in this particular test would have earned it the Top Safety Pick+ rating that is so far only claimed by the 2014 Subaru Forester and 2013 Mitsubishi Outlander Sport in the SUV category. There's a press release below with more details and a video of the test.

IIHS: Drivers safer than passengers in frontal crash test

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety introduced a small overlap frontal crash test in 2012 that replicates what happens when the front corner of a car impacts another object. In the test, vehicles travel at a speed of 40 mph toward a five-foot-tall barrier with 25 percent of the total width of the car striking the barrier on the driver side. One would assume that vehicles with good small overlap front ratings would protect the driver and the passenger equally. But a recent study from the IIHS proves that passengers aren't as protected as drivers. The IIHS conducted the test on seven small SUVs with good driver-side small overlap ratings and only one of the vehicles, the 2016 Hyundai Tucson, performed well enough to be given a good rating. The other SUVs performance ranged from poor to acceptable. After reviewing the results of the test, the IIHS is deliberating whether it should institute a passenger-side rating as part of its Top Safety Pick criteria. "This is an important aspect of occupant protection that needs more attention," states Becky Mueller, lead author of the study and an IIHS senior research engineer. "More than 1,600 right-front passengers died in frontal crashes in 2014." Since the small overlap front test was introduced, 13 automakers have made structural changes to 97 vehicles with roughly three-quarters earning a good rating after the adjustments. The IIHS' test for frontal ratings is completed with a dummy in the driver's seat and with a barrier overlapping the driver's side. Which makes sense, as passengers aren't always riding in a vehicle. "It's not surprising that automakers would focus their initial efforts to improve small overlap protection on the side of the vehicle that we conduct the tests on," states David Zuby, IIHS executive vice president and chief research officer. "In fact, we encouraged them to do that in the short term if it mean they could quickly make driver-side improvements to more vehicles. As time goes by, though, we would hope they ensure similar levels of protection on both sides." As the IIHS' test revealed, there's a massive difference in safety between the two front seats. Increase passenger safety, according to Mueller, would require automakers to strengthen the occupant compartment by using a different type of material or by making it thicker.

Automakers not currently promoting EVs are probably doomed

Okay, let's be honest. The sky isn't falling – gas prices are. In fact, some experts say that prices at the pump will remain depressed for the next decade. Consumers have flocked to SUVs and CUVs, reversing the upward trend in US fuel economy seen over the last several years. A sudden push into electric vehicles seems ridiculous when gas guzzlers are selling so well. Make hay while the sun shines, right? A quick glance at some facts and figures provides evidence that the automakers currently doubling down on internal combustion probably have some rocky years ahead of them. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles is a prime example of a volume manufacturer devoted to incremental gains for existing powertrains. Though FCA will kill off some of its more fuel-efficient models, part of its business plan involves replacing four- and five-speed transmissions with eight- and nine-speed units, yielding a fuel efficiency boost in the vicinity of ten percent over the next few years. Recent developments by battery startups have led some to suggest that efficiency and capacity could increase by over 100 percent in the same time. Research and development budgets paint a grim picture for old guard companies like Fiat Chrysler: In 2014, FCA spent about $1,026 per car sold on R&D, compared with about $24,783 per car sold for Tesla. To be fair, FCA can't be expected to match Tesla's efforts when its entry-level cars list for little more than half that much. But even more so than R&D, the area in which newcomers like Tesla have the industry licked is infrastructure. We often forget that our vehicles are mostly useless metal boxes without access to the network of fueling stations that keep them rolling. While EVs can always be plugged in at home, their proliferation depends on a similar network of charging stations that can allow for prolonged travel. Tesla already has 597 of its 480-volt Superchargers installed worldwide, and that figure will continue to rise. Porsche has also proposed a new 800-volt "Turbo Charging Station" to support the production version of its Mission E concept, and perhaps other VW Auto Group vehicles. As EVs grow in popularity, investment in these proprietary networks will pay off — who would buy a Chevy if the gas stations served only Ford owners? If anyone missed the importance of infrastructure, it's Toyota.