I am disappointed that Toyota made structural changes on the 2015 RAV4 for the driver side only. Now I wonder if they left it this way for the 2016 model. :serious
My wife has a 2016. The modification (reinforcement) that Toyota did in late 2013 to improve small overlap score is only done to the left side of the vehicle. Right side is not reinforced. It's clearly visible when you open the hood. I will try to take some pictures later today when I'm back home and post them here.
I suspect that Toyota's reaction will be to implement the modification on the right side as well in few months from now. But it's disappointing to see that they nickle-and-dime on safety-related items. The modification is fairly simple and probably costs less then $100 per car (plus some one-time engineering and tooling expenses). They should have done it right once-and-for-all when they failed the small overlap test for the first time in 2013.
I wonder if any of that heavy corner reinforcement bracket on the driver side, that is highlighted in the video, is visible from under the car. I'm going to take a look under my 2016 and see if I can discern whether they added it to both sides.
You can see it from the top, just open the hood. Look under the left front corner of the battery - you will see a triangular reinforcement bracket. Now look at the passenger side, next to the washer fluid reservoir, and you will see that there is such bracket.
Early 2013 did not have the reinforcement bracket on the driver's side - it was added after IIHS published the small overlap test results.
Not the best pics but the differences are obvious, the first pic is the passenger side and the second is the driver side. I am sure there is more to it than what can be seen but it's part of what is missing structurally to make the passenger side more safe
Hopefully it's different for the Made in Japan Hybrid vehicles but I seriously doubt it.
I got to let my wife know to hit something inanimate head on with the front center of the vehicle just to play safe. Didn't realize this was what the small overlap test is all about.
Why did it take until now for iihs to test the passenger side? I find it hard to believe they didn't know until now that the manufacturers only fixed the drivers side. I just assumed they fixed both sides but i don't work for the iihs. I would hope they didn't just assume both sides were fixed also. Why are they acting surprised by this.
Lets not just bash Toyota here. Yes they did the worst in the test but the others, besides Hyundai, didn't fare much better. I was most surprised by the Forester actually, since Subaru touts themselves about being all about safety.
btw i drive a 2013 so i am screwed on either side :smile
Yeah, it's kinda silly for the IIHS to only test the driver side and assume the passenger side will have a similar crash result. They're probably trying to cover their base now that they realized what the auto makers have been doing.
After going through this thread, I did inform my wife Saturday morning that if she cannot avoid hitting a huge steel or cement support (bridge) enough to only slice the front corners of her car, she might as well take the structures head on. At least there will be little risk of spinning.
Yeah, it's kinda silly for the IIHS to only test the driver side and assume the passenger side will have a similar crash result. They're probably trying to cover their base now that they realized what the auto makers have been doing.
Agreed. I think IIHS is as much to blame as the manufacturers. After watching the video I'd love to ask that lady if the IIHS felt so strongly about the passenger test results then why not test for it the same time the driver side testing was occurring?
so for us 2013 owners, what choice do we have for our beloved Rav4? do we ditch them for the upgraded version (2016) or is there any way TOYOTA can have this improvements done on the first year of 4.4. Primarily for passenger safety, second for brand to regain trust from car buyers and loyal toyota owners?
I thought this small overlap test was something newly developed in 2012, maybe the cars that wanted an A rating in safety didn't require this as of the time the 2013's were being manufactured?
I'm not selling my 2011 Honda Accord and 2016 RAV4 just because they failed the small overlap crash test (passenger side for the RAV4). Armed with knowledge, at least I know that if I had no choice, I should be crashing the car right in the center.
oh Brother!! a new IIHS test to devalue our cars at trade in.
I agree, why wasn't the passenger side tested way back in 2013 when the initial round of "small overlap" was being conducted? Complete failure on the part of IIHS.
So what's next? IIHS Piano drop at two stories crash test?
LOL, Well, I guess the kids won't be calling "shotgun!" once the word is out. (Cue the Top Gun music: "Highway...to...the...crumple zone...")
I have to shake my head at Toyota, almost seems bizarre not to have done both sides. Apparently, they will engineer to pass each test one at a time. After all, why worry about the 'two-story falling piano test' just yet, might be a couple of years before they implement that.
Nevertheless, I'll still take a RAV for safety--probably any generation RAV-- over any subcompact sedan. IIHS pointed to the safety of SUVs some time ago, but for some reason never bother to statistically compare different vehicle types head to head. There is something magical about staying within class I guess.
I guess I'm as good as dead with my 2002 Ford Taurus that has a total of 2 airbags.
What I'm getting at is when I bought the 2002 Taurus, it was considered extremely safe because they added the passenger airbag. The car it replaced didn't have an airbag.
FF to 2013 when I bought my RAV4 - it was a major advance to the truck it replaced with one airbag.
If you're buying a 2016 just for the updated safety features, you'll soon be disappointed when the next wiz-bang safety feature comes out.
The 2015 Toyota RAV4 and the 2014 Nissan Rogue were the only vehicles to appear asymmetrical. In the passenger-side test, the RAV4 was the worst performer. If the Institute issued ratings for passenger-side protection, the RAV4 would earn a poor rating. The Rogue would earn a marginal.
These two vehicles had the highest amount of passenger-side intrusion. Intrusion measures are important because they indicate how well the structure held up; the greater the amount of intrusion, the higher the likelihood of serious injuries.
Maximum intrusion in the passenger-side test was 13 inches more than in the driver-side test for the RAV4 and 10 inches more for the Rogue. The Rogue’s door hinge pillar tore off completely, and the RAV4’s door opened. In a real crash, an open door would leave the occupant at risk for ejection.
In 2012, the IIHS upped the ante by establishing its small-overlap test that impacts only 25 per cent of the vehicle’s frontal width. Many vehicles that do well in the moderate-overlap test do poorly in the small-overlap, as the outboard portions of the vehicle have less crash-absorbing structure. You can see here how much worse the early Mazda CX-9 on top coped with the test than the Chevrolet Equinox (a smaller vehicle) below. However, when some manufacturers beefed up their structures for the small-overlap test, they did so only on the driver’s side. The institute plans some passenger-side tests to “send a warning shot” to the industry.
(Jeremy Sinek)
I totally get that safety is an every changing thing but this just stinks, seems like it would have been so easy to incorporate something to help pax side and proactive for them to do it before they failed a new test. It makes you wonder about the mindset of Toyota.
I came to Toyota after some Honda disappointment. This just reeks of cheapness, like having shorter brakes on the US LE's and removing "Auto Up" from the windows when the previous model year's LE had that feature.
I'd be happy to pay $200 for a fix if they were willing to sell it and they could get to where they need to weld on some sort of reinforcement but I'm sure its a factory thing and will show up in the 2017 or 2018 Rav4s.
I'm back to considering the pax side a death seat, sort of like waiting for pax side airbag recalls on Honda's with known problems but waiting for pax side to rank in priority.
I'm back to considering the pax side a death seat, sort of like waiting for pax side airbag recalls on Honda's with known problems but waiting for pax side to rank in priority.
I was set on a 2016 RAV4 until I came across the recent results of this test. I wonder if Toyota will add reinforcements on the 2017 or likely too late it's already in production? I'm even more surprised it did worst than CRV and CX-5.
Best guess it won't be addressed until the next redesign.
Wait for a couple of years. In the U.S. Consumers Union will lobby for and the NHTSA will mandate that all new cars come equipped with completely vehicle surrounding cushioning material which will totally absorb impacts at speeds up to 45 mph, or with sensor-deployed external airbags which will sense impending crashes and then will automatically deploy the bags. Never mind the added cost. :frown
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Toyota RAV4 Forums
993.1K posts
147.5K members
Since 2004
Rav 4 World is the internet's largest Toyota Rav4 SUV and EV online forum community. Discuss towing, modifications, and more.