http://www.toyotanation.com/forum/3...31380-camry-gets-rating-poor-crash-test-insurance-institute-highway-safety.html

 

I was in an accident last month that totaled my 2003 SE. I was nearly hit head on and missed the "small overlap" scenario by about 6 inches. Despite that I still bought the 2012 Camry even though I'd been looking at the 2013 Ford Fusion which passed the small overlap test with flying colors.

I still feel safe in my Camry despite the test.

 

I also owned my 2003 a few years ago for only 4 months before I was plowed into by a Dodge Ram that ran a stop sign at 35 mph. Walked away without any injuries.

Yes, I trust the 2012 to do the same in a full-on frontal collision or side collision. The small offset test is important, but I'm sure it is something Toyota will fix, and may be a model to trade for 2-3 years down the road.

 

i only trust a tank in a collision. But since it's not practical to drive a tank around (despite it'd be so cool), I'll just have to stick with what I have and try to avoid collision. If there is a collision I'll try go head on.

 

:lol: lets all drive tanks! That'd be so awesome.
But on some real shit, I'm quite happy with the camry. Some guy in an accord rear ended me last month and he took out his bumper but I drove off with just scratches.


Sent from my iPhone using AutoGuide.com Free App

 

makes me kinda nervous lol

is it too late to trade it for accord?

 

Yea i thought the same thing hahahah lol but i do enjoy my car i will just have to be more safe

The offset test and others are staged for their dramatic effect. They will keep devising tests to cause failures just to generate headlines. This test in no way is like anything other than hitting end of a large immovable wall at 40 MPH. The test is suspect since some cars slide by the barrier while others are stopped cold.
The Camry like many other cars are so configured for crashes that you feel like you are in a child’s seat, all tucked down inside and barely able to see out. Only accept these tests for what they are, drama.

I feel there is some truth in what your saying to an extent , i feel that IIHS and other crash testing organizations are doing it for the safety of the occupants as well as to advise and educate you of how well the vehicle your drive or even before purchasing a vehicle will hold up in a head on collision or side and so on .

 

The offset test and others are staged for their dramatic effect. They will keep devising tests to cause failures just to generate headlines. This test in no way is like anything other than hitting end of a large immovable wall at 40 MPH. The test is suspect since some cars slide by the barrier while others are stopped cold.
The Camry like many other cars are so configured for crashes that you feel like you are in a child’s seat, all tucked down inside and barely able to see out. Only accept these tests for what they are, drama.

 

Or not

Problem with small overlap crashes, is that it's far too easy to get into with 'snoozers-and-boozers' on a 2-lane with no shoulders. In my area, a number of roads have sizable trees within a foot or two of travel lanes (the 'city mothers' consider the canopy a good thing) - and an inattentive driver coming at you over the line gives you little choice that won't leave a mark.

As to 'slide by the barrier vs stop cold' - that's a part of the crash energy management strategy the manufacturer engineers in, dealing with strength and shape of the front structure, and how it all ties together. In the test shown here, the Camry front structure deforms because of the lack of strength in the upper part of front structure and then puts too much 'point pressure' energy into the 'A' pillar, causing it to collapse. Root cause is how front frame rails and strut tower engage the barrier and transfer and absorb the crash energy. It's not going to be easy to fix without significant changes in front structure. A band-aid consisting of a diagonal bar to deflect the crash energy outward might work, but it'd be very hard to design one that doesn't compromise other crash performance.

 

First off, japanese cars are built with least amount of metals as possible, thus reduce their weight by a lot and increase mpg compared to thick steel heavy euro/ american cars.

Well with is new tech they put in toyota cars, aka collapsable structure, that are supposed to absorb the force of collision and make the occupant safe and come out with minimal injury and obtain high mpg, i dont trust new toyotas anymore.

Not saying i hate toyota, but i do believe that older toyotas have thicker steel bodies than new ones. Personally i do believe that the chance i get out of a collision in my gen 4 camry with minimal car damage is greater than me being in a new one. Ive lifted the doors and hoods of new and old camrys and the old ones are heavier than that of new one.

Besides, i have a friend who got hit side way in a 08 camry by a bimmer when the bimmer was going at 15 mph. He had to replace the door because its not operable, while the bimmer had just a few scratches. That pushed me away from toyota.

I rather be in an euro or american car that does not collapse in a collision, than be in a collapsable toyota.

Toyotas back then are better than the new ones, and that comes from personal experience. If i were to get a new car, toyota is definitely not in my list


Sent from my iPhone using AutoGuide.com Free App

 

First off, japanese cars are built with least amount of metals as possible, thus reduce their weight by a lot and increase mpg compared to thick steel heavy euro/ american cars.

Well with is new tech they put in toyota cars, aka collapsable structure, that are supposed to absorb the force of collision and make the occupant safe and come out with minimal injury and obtain high mpg, i dont trust new toyotas anymore.

Not saying i hate toyota, but i do believe that older toyotas have thicker steel bodies than new ones. Personally i do believe that the chance i get out of a collision in my gen 4 camry with minimal car damage is greater than me being in a new one. Ive lifted the doors and hoods of new and old camrys and the old ones are heavier than that of new one.

Besides, i have a friend who got hit side way in a 08 camry by a bimmer when the bimmer was going at 15 mph. He had to replace the door because its not operable, while the bimmer had just a few scratches. That pushed me away from toyota.

I rather be in an euro or american car that does not collapse in a collision, than be in a collapsable toyota.

Toyotas back then are better than the new ones, and that comes from personal experience. If i were to get a new car, toyota is definitely not in my list


Sent from my iPhone using AutoGuide.com Free App

:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:...............:facepalm:

 

Guess a Volvo 240 is in your future


Sent from my iPhone using AutoGuide.com App

 

Kinda of makes me think twice about selling my old Volvo. I've also got a 1994 Volvo 960 sedan and a 1990 Volvo 740 Turbo waogn... Those from the looks of the tests and how they're built look like they'd be safer than my 2012 camry... hmmm....

I do love my camry though and have no thoughts of getting rid of it, I'll certainly buy another toyota when my lease is up, I'll just have to drive carefully

 

Duh! Volvo = tank.

I was on a super icy road and slid into a snowplow in mine. Barely dented it. Even the body shop guy was impressed. Said that would have easily been a couple thousand in damage on most cars.