Wrapper

"DH" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message
news:459d167e$0$4772$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
[color=blue]
> different - and nice - Toyotas which eke out 40-41mpg. Toyota's
> aggressive moves at the low-end of the market with Yaris and the Scion
> brand are going to steal a whole generation of new buyers from GM and Ford[/color]

So why did sales of Scion models drop 9% (for the tC) to 20% (for the xB)
from December of 2005 to December of 2006? Could it possibly be becasue the
three Scion models have some of the worst safety records of any vehicles
sold in the US?

Dec Dec Chag
Model 2006 2005
SCION xA 2,000 2,392 -13.2
SCION xB 3,330 4,341 -20.3
SCION tC 4,996 5,724 -9.4

IIHS Injury Loss Ratings (lower is better, 100 is average)

Model Rating
SCION xA 178 (worst in its class)
SCION xB 156 (worst in its class)
SCION tC 172 (worst i its class)

The press rarely says anything bad about Toyota. With all the heat on
safety, it seems like the press ougt to call Toyota out for building some of
the most dangerous vehicles sold in this country. Only one Toyota car has a
better than average safety rating - The Avalon. The Camry has a 110 injury
loss rating (worse than average). The Matrix has the next to worst worst
injury loss rating of any vehicle in its class. And here is one for irony -
I am sure everyone remebers the IIHS offset crash test where the 4 Door
Tundra did really well and the 4 door F150 sucked. Well in the real world
the 4 Door F150 has a 59 injury loss rating (much better than average) and
the 4 door Tundra has an 89 rating (better than average). So despite all the
claims that the Tundra is "safer" than the Ford, the real world experience
is the exact opposite.

Ed