Well, but if you can make it it is better to avoid the crash completely. That's what makes this test so important I guess. Because it happens quite frequently... Trying to avoid a crash, but not completely managing to. And if the cars are designed for this caseiI believe it is to be preferred over a head on collision. After all the car/body doesn't have to absorb the complete crash energy since it keeps on moving in the original direction in the end.

Well to be fair, lots of manufacturers design their cars to pass the standards set forth by IIHS and most probably exceed the safety standards prior to this new test. So it's not just Toyota that performed poorly, even luxury marque didn't fair too well either.

That said, if the US spec Camry with all its safety features loaded performed so poorly, I can't imagine how much worse our Asian spec stripped down Camry will fare in the same test. Now I really feel sorry for those people who paid good money for the new Camry, it's almost as bad as driving a tin can on 4 wheels and a death trap waiting to happen.

It also shows that Japanese cars CAN be safe. Only the models sold in Malaysia aren't. And the consumer is the one to blame.

I also blame the government in not pushing for stricter car safety standards and enforcing them.

Agree, it's more of cabin intrusion due to weak firewall and A-pillar.



Here's the infinity loop GIF.
See how the steering column collapsed and deformed.
Don't forget to count how many times the steering wheel rotated.



This post has been edited by Bubble Ring: Dec 22 2012, 01:06 PM

All,
Please show this to your mum and dad at least to make them understand the truth of Toyota. Dont blindly support Toyota anymore.

I really appreciate TS shared this information.

But why are cars safe in Europe, even without these rules and regulations? Keep in mind the Lada Niva is road legal and on sale in Germany. A russian car, released 1976, and hardly modified since. It comes with seatbelts and ABS. Nothing else. Nada.

The consumer has the power to change this. By demanding safer cars. By not buying cars that aren't. Alternatives are available... the Preve is safer and cheaper than the competition at it's price range, and beats all the C segment cars from Japan, even though they may cost 2x as much. The Fiesta in some specs is probably the safest car below 100k, perhaps even more. It might very well be safer than the Toyota Camry. And obviously, Camry and friends are easily beaten by similarly priced and better equipped Contis. Still, people prefer to buy the cars that are not so safe. I mean... Prius and Prius C are well equipped, and relatively safe cars. And they come from Toyota. But sales aren't strong, even though they are priced much better than other Toyotas. What does this tell car manufacturers? Maybe when Ford rips out all the airbags out of the Mondeo and charge more for it it will be the best selling car in Malaysia?

@Bubble Ring: The Camry, and all the other cars that did poorly, came pretty much to a complete stop and rotated by at least 90°. On the other hand those cars that did well were simply redirected, pushed aside and then moved on. Some did rotate a bit, but over a longer time period.
1. Coming to a full stop in such a short time span puts much more stress on the car, thus causing more damage.
2. Coming to a full stop in such a short time span puts much more stress on the passengers.
3. The rotation makes the driver miss the airbag. Especially in the Camry (whose airbag looks a bit pathetic) the head just pushes past the airbag to colide with the dashboard. In other cars with this rotation the airbag seems to be better pumped up, so that the head is at least slowed down more before crashing into the dashboard.

Yes, the Camry seems to have collapsed much more than other cars that have stopped completely and rotated, and that is very bad. Almost looks like the car was only designed to withstand exactly what the typical crash test scenario would test for, at those speeds. If the forces are a bit higher, the car will crack. Other cars seem to have been designed for faster crashes that exceed the typical EuroNCAP crash test... i.e. they weren't only designed for many stars (a softer car that is just strong enough for EuroNCAP might be cheaper to produce, and it can probably distribute the violent forces more evenly, to keep stress on the passengers lower. At least in exactly this situation. Which means better ratings).
I think this crash should be tougher because only one side of the car is squeezed together, rather than both in more common crash tests.

OMG. Safe and sound choice turns out not safe and sound at all...what a revelation!

Not to defend any car makes here, but as IRC this test has caught many car makes unawares. Many cars have failed this test.

But few as bad as the Camry and Prius V.

I wonder about cars that are not sold in US fare in such test, for example Protons, Peroduas, Pugs.

Peugeot should be as safe as the other contis.

Perodua and Proton... depends. Viva is awful. Rusa too. Myvi and Alza should do as bad/good as the Vios. Which is not very good, but... well, what do you expect. Proton... old ones are awful (Saga, Wira). New Saga and Waja are soso. Gen-2 is comparable with Avanza, but that's not exactly good... might not even be as good as Saga or Waja. Exora should be acceptable, Preve decent. However it always depends on the specs and tests. Frontal crash with 40% offset should be acceptable, 20% offset for P1 and P2 I guess catastrophic. Same for side impact, except for Preve Australian spec, though the CFE is somewhere in between.

Wira:


Saga:


Modern Peugeot (208):

kadajawi,

any idea about the pug 308t and 408t?

Sure.



You can find the detailed results at the EuroNCAP website. There they also list the specs that were tested, so you can see if the Malaysian spec should behave similarly or not. The 408 is a 308 sedan, right? Then it should be more or less comparable.

Hey lunchtime, see that u still want to get to the bottom of Crash test result /safety rating for Peugeot 408...

Well if 308 EUROPE NCAP can be a near rating for 408 and accepted as comparable to IIHS, then as suggested by kadajawi, read below

http://www.euroncap.com/results/peugeot/30...tlaunchmobile=1

And about a lot of cars makes were caught off guard... I believe that is precisely the purpose ? because accident always happen off-guard and IIHS as its name applies must be looking at what sort of insurance premium would be right , so risk management is indeed about that off guard chance of crash case case scenario? I dunno for sure ...just IMHO

This post has been edited by EnergyAnalyst: Dec 26 2012, 08:59 AM

yes i would like to know about the 408 and 308 as i m considering it at the moment.

Unfortunately, the 408 has not been tested to Euro NCAP or IIHS or ANCAP standards. It should be similar to the 308 and particularly the 308cc but remember this is a car that isn't going to be sold in Europe or America and therefore there's a likelihood that the car isn't designed or constructed to meet the strict Euro NCAP or IIHS crash standards. The only available data is the CNCAP and I don't think they are particularly strict at the moment, however, the good news is they are improving with the help of their foreign partners.

I think you should consider the 308 or the Ford Focus instead if you want to buy a car with a proven crash test record.

This post has been edited by zweimmk: Dec 26 2012, 10:33 AM

I prefer the 308t but was told the horrible reliability of the 308t by the SA.

His advice, go for the 408t instead since the ECU has been updated.

Hey lunchtime, check back the thread at Peugeot 408, a link by another fellow P408 owner apart from myself has just posted the link of C-NCAP full report on 408. Check also 308 ANCAP score , again no 408 there at down under.

I think the PUG's in Malaysia will always have horrible reliability ~ could be due to lack of adaptation of the cars for our humid conditions, which eats into electrical gizmos quickly.

The reliability issues are the main reason people are not buying too many of those cars.