The failure of the partial offset crash test is why we don't have a new camry right now. In fact, even after asking to wait for the redesign of the RAV-4 to test it in the new crash test.... the results were the same - FAIL! Their commercials boast of safety, but it appears they have a long way to go.

 

camry never was the safest car in segment or on the road. if someone really worried about his safety he should stay away from toyota product and take a look at subaru, volvo or German cars.

 

^ with more and more idiots on the road, you should want your car to be better at surviving the crash.

just this month, I saw at least 5 road signs that got cream. These signs were all safely on the curve and good visibility all around and yet the idiot drivers still manage to ran it to the ground. One of it is a huge stop sign.

 

agreed. but test is test and in the real world safer cars not always are safer.
when I worked at the body shop I've seen plenty of "unsafe cars" that saved their owners and seen plenty of volvos mercs and BMW's that didn't.
even thought camry never was the safest car in the segment, but they always did very good in real accidents.
not saying that poor crush test results are acceptable or normal, but safety is not the most important thing when people choosing a new car, otherwise every one would be driving volvo and saab never would be sold to Chinese.

 

Only question now is, how will CR's "unrecommendation" affect its sales. Will Toyota crank up some more incentives? I'm sure Toyota is ready to bring the MMC '15 Camry already.

 

I do think it will affect sales somewhat because this is a safety issue and not aesthetics like the Civic. Then again Gen 6 received awful crash test scores and continued selling well albeit with CR recommendations.

I don't expect Toyota to do an emergency mid-cycle redesign for the Camry like Honda did with Civic. Probably have to wait til MY2015 for the ACE-II body and safety improvements.

 

I bought my 2013 Camry SE I4 ten days ago.

I'm a 60 year old retired Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant. I have diabetes, heart disease, lung disease, peripheral artery disease, and Glaucoma. I've had bullets and shrapnel removed from my body, a stroke, 6 coronary by-passes, a carotid endarterectomy, 5 angioplasties, 2 stints installed, and a second hernia operation this past Friday.

Bring on your stupid partial front-end collision!!!

 

:thumbsup:

 

The newly redesigned Corolla didn't fare so well either.

 

even thought camry never been the safest car in the segment, but they always did very good in real accidents.

Truth. My 2003 Camry was T-boned by an oblivious driver in a Highlander (at close to 40 mph) that ran a red light 30 seconds after it turned. I walked away from the scene unharmed aside from seatbelt bruises. Thank goodness it had side airbags, but I'm thankful I was in that car and not my 1988 Honda I'd had before that.

Have you ever seen what happens to 1980's cars in an accident? Eek >_<

but safety is not the most important thing when people choosing a new car, otherwise every one would be driving volvo and saab never would be sold to Chinese.

It's coming up on the list of what most people are looking for in a car, especially because it's being flaunted more than ever in the media.

Volvo and Saab were always too quirky, expensive, and unreliable for most drivers though. And Ford/GM did horrible things to them, stealing their engine technology and forcing them to share platforms with their models. The S60 and 9-3, arguably their most popular models, went on unchanged in a fast-paced "near-luxury" marketplace for many, many years.

 

It's coming up on the list of what most people are looking for in a car, especially because it's being flaunted more than ever in the media.

I agree with this. I chose gen 7 over gen 6 because of safety concerns.

Also chose '13 Civic over '12 due to ACE-II body structure.

 

safety is on my list when deciding to buy a car, but it's somewhere at the bottom of the list.

 

Ok so the Altima, accord v6 ( might as we'll add the i4 cvt in the future, already seeng issues), camry, any ford are not recommended by CR. So I'm to believe I should have bought a Malibu, 6, sonata/optima, legacy when I was looking for a midsize car??!! Doesn't leave many options. The expert's opinions change up every year. Please don't buy a 25+ thousand dollar car you don't really love because of a rating that will change from year to year.

 

+1
any rating is just somebody's opinion and it is not necessarily gonna match yours.
CR is nothing but "research and advertise" organization. according to them passat and accord are two the best cars in class (at least they were last year), but looking at the sales figures CR opinion is pretty far from reality.
so if you value CR's opinion over yours you should buy not what you like or want, but what they like and want you to buy.

 

Its a contrived test to cause as much damage as possible. Slice and dice for dramatic affect and get attention. Real cars would bounce off or slide by of each other and poles break. Its more than a one in a million chance that a car would hit an immovable solid object straight on at ¼ overlap at 40 MPH. What percent of crashes occur with the brakes off and the small radius struck object is unscathed? When most cars pass this test they will up the hit speed to 45 or 50 MPH, or contrive a more devious unrealistic test. Today’s cars are so safe compared to before airbags that safety improvements are reaching the point of diminishing returns. The RAV4 test failed in part because the drivers head went between air bags. What’s next, wrap around airbags like a big donut. I'll take mine rasberry filled.

 

*******************

AMEN
Odds of death in Camry due to contrived toxic test: 1 in 100,000,000
Odds of real world problems and/or poor resale value if you buy something esle: 1 in 2:rofl2:

 

Tests like this do force manufacturers to improve instead of cranking out cheap tin cans. That's why we see MPGs along with stars in ads.

I agree that IIHS came up with the latest, very demanding test to reflect real world collisions. If a buyer narrowed down the choices and one car happens to rank high in this test, then that might just sway the decision.

Yeah I don't know about the Malibu either. I like GM's new engineering no doubt about it, but their design team IMO has a funky sense of "style". What a joke with the Malibu given the competitors. No wonder few buy that car. That said, Camry's dealer incentives are running very high too. Ford's selling the Fusion at a higher price with less incentives, with that Aston Martin Grill.

 

I got ford and chevy dealer within 5 miles of my house and driving by them every day. they both advertizing fusion and malibu for $18.9. and they have bunch of cars on the lots with end "of the year" and "2013 sale" stickers. not sure about original MSRP or trim level, but local toyta dealers run out of 25K LE's and SE's a month + ago and only camry left on the lots are 30-30+K SE's, XLE's and Hybrids and they don't have very many of them iether.

 

It all in perspective, similar to what Jblackburn wrote. The car my Camry replaced was a 2000 Civic DX that at the time of manufacture had decent ratings. The funny thing is it cost the same to insure my 2000 Civic as it does to insure my 14' SE because of safety.

 

Hmmm! This makes me wonder if those pikers in the automobile insurance industry will use Consumer Reports new findings as an excuse to jack up the premiums on Camrys! As we know, they use any excuse that they can.

 

^^So true. Value is not just in what CR tells you it is. By the IIHS 25% ODB standards, very few vehicles are safe. The insurance institute for highway safety-IIHS-is there to make it known the deficiencies of every vehicle. This is the benchmark by which insurance companies base premiums. Of course their not going to give every single car a 5 star rating on every test. The IIHS is their to serve the actuaries, and only by proxy the public. The IIHS claims it has been doing the 40% ODB test since 1993-even though they began officially reporting in 1995. That tells you that they have been in business for a long time, doing this to serve the insurance companies. The NHTSA are the ratings that should be noted, not the IIHS.

Also, something worth noting is that CR did NOT report all the cars that they have previously deemed not recommended because of failing the 25% ODB. They only put the Camry out there because it was previously recommended.

A side note regarding the Consumer Reports recommendation-they pulled the Audi A4 from the rec'd list as well yesterday for the same reason. The 2013 A4 is considered to be one of the very best cars on the road, and receives consistent accolades from NHTSA and IIHS, among others. The only poor is from the 25% ODB. Heck, the 5 year cost of ownership of an A4 at MSRP is only $4000 more than a V6 XLE Camry at MSRP, and only about $4500 more than a Camry based on Truecar.com's common prices paid.

CR is willing to drop anybody because it gets them in the news and sells more subscriptions. With more sites like intellichoice out there, consumer reports is falling out of favor with the auto industry and the auto consumer. The only time I look at CR is when I buy appliances. There are much much better avenues for car buying research.

 

If a collision looks unavoidable, hit with the main part of your car, not the edge

 

So happy we don't live in Brazil. Read this.

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-impact-cars-made-brazil-deadly-180411170.html

 

it's exactly what vw, GM and fiat sell in South America and China: cheap cars make good numbers and profits. in China vw still makes and sells late 80's -early 90's models, pretty sure they would fold in half if tested by modern crash tests standards.

 

A side note regarding the Consumer Reports recommendation-they pulled the Audi A4 from the rec'd list as well yesterday for the same reason. The 2013 A4 is considered to be one of the very best cars on the road, and receives consistent accolades from NHTSA and IIHS, among others. The only poor is from the 25% ODB. Heck, the 5 year cost of ownership of an A4 at MSRP is only $4000 more than a V6 XLE Camry at MSRP, and only about $4500 more than a Camry based on Truecar.com's common prices paid.

seriously, they used to recommend a4? :rofl2:
never seen 2013, but 2012 2.0T is a very overpriced POS.
one of my buddies had a4 for a year or so and after countless problems and contacting Audi AG headquarters they bought his car back. electrical issues, oil burning (car was smoking like semi truck under hard acceleration) poor MPG LED failure.
and by my opinion extra $4500 in 5 years for the glorified euro passat ownership is way too much. audi resale is one of the worst on the market and even if first 5 years of the ownership wouldn't bankrupt you, next 5 sure will.

 

Well a lot of folks are willing to pay 25000 in 10 year maintenance costs. lol. Seriously though, the A4 is highly regarded in its class-even considering its maintenance woes. Although, the v6 doesn't have nearly the issues the turbo 4 does. Going back to the 1.8t is likely the best decision VAG has made in the last 10 years.

I don't agree with the glorified passat thing though. Having owned a B6 A4 and driven my cousin's B6 Passat, they are night and day different. From the drivetrain to the amenities. I'll take quattro over haldex any day of the week. Actually ,I'll take quattro over even ATTESSA-ETS any day of the week. Just a preference. Quattro is made for performance in all conditions, the haldex in the VW is just a junkbox with an output shaft. If you're talking FWD though, there's no reason not to buy a Passat. Its just a better value, although still with the mx woes.

 

Volvo's are safe. The only issue is that you need to buy 2 of them. One will always be in the Shop.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

 

LoL... :lol:

I'll play it safe and stick with my Camry.

 

There might be something to the tests, however I treat CR and the NCAA the same way. When either of them have any news I assume they are lying. Then I go from there.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

 

I've been in a collision similar to this small overlap testing so I know how important and real-life it is.

I was lucky I was travelling at just 20mph when the impact occurred. My car wasn't so lucky as it was completely totaled.

 

last night the TV was on in the background. A news or Business show. The guy was saying " and the Toyota Camry was still the best selling Car in the USA" .......

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

 

I guess toyota didnt pay consumer reports enough and decided to give them a bad rating.

I remember when they ran a bad report about bose products and they got sued so now they never give them bad marks.

Ofcourse im in my opinion they dont really conduct real world tests. And since safety ratings are at the bottom of my list I could really care less.

 

"Safety" is a relative term. Odds of dying in a car made in 2013 are slim, regardless of make/model. This "news" doesn't influence my perception of the Camry at all.

 

just read that CR took off the "recommended" list Accord V-6 and Altima V-6 for "below average" reliability.

 

Consumer reports is pretty much off the deep end on liberalism. Time for me to cancel that rag.

Heck ..... they can't even get washing machines right anymore. Water in most places costs 1 cent a gallon. Yet, they rate washers on how little water they use instead of if they get the clothes clean. If CR extended their washing machine logic to cars the only recommended car would be a Yaris.

As to my V6 camry I love, I'll just keep it until the wheels fall off.

Goodbye forever CR. I am not going to buy a volvo or a 2014 Impala no matter what you say. And yes to Toyota. The most reliable brand ever.

Edit: they do tend to be spot on when it comes to gas mileage I must admit.

 

They shoulda done that years ago

just curious, if CR would take camry, accord and altima off the "recommended list" 1-2 years ago would it boost ford, chevy and vw sales and help them overthrow camry from the 15 years long throne?
anyone seeing conspiracy here?

 

Honda's V6's have never been real reliable, and they destroy their weak transmissions in any Acura/Honda model. Likewise, Nissan's CVT's are (still) problematic.

just curious, if CR would take camry, accord and altima off "recommended list" 1-2 years ago would it boost ford, chevy and vw sales?

Not with the cars they made 2-3 years ago.

I think the only American car I would've bought before they went and re-built their car lineups from the ground up (with lots of European Ford/GM influence, finally)...probably would have been a F150/Silverado. Maybe an Escape - but that's a Mazda (sister's has actually been great...and she doesn't take care of it at all).

Chrysler is still a horrible joke. I checked out the Dart and it was absolutely the worst new car I've ever driven.