Automotive

Safest cars . according to IIHS - Korean, Japanese and German

  • Last Updated:
  • Dec 12th, 2017 2:07 am
Sr. Member
User avatar
Nov 15, 2017
846 posts
643 upvotes
sk1001 wrote: I wonder though do insurance companies use any of this information for rates etc?
Like would someone with all the crash prevention systems get a better rate than a car with nothing.
Psschhh

Too much work for them. Here's their thought process:

"A Civic? Stolen since 1999. Lemme jack up your rates!"

"SUV? Safe soccer mom/dad! Lemme lower your rates!"

If it's ICBC, nothing matters because they'll just jack up your rates.
Sr. Member
User avatar
Nov 4, 2008
626 posts
425 upvotes
GTA
tebore wrote: The only people who should be talking how safe their cars are and how they're paying a premium for hidden safety are Volvo owners.
+1

I'll trust my and my family's life in my new XC90 than any Korean or Japanese car any day!
Deal Expert
Feb 29, 2008
30106 posts
5547 upvotes
Montreal
traderjay wrote: Yep - German cars are expensive for a reason. Not because of the fancy electronics and leather - those only contribute a small percentage of the cost. The real engineering goes into what you can't see such as the safety and structure design down to the unique formulation of the metal used in the body construction. Even the weld, joints, angle, thickness etc all play a critical role at how well the car handles a crash and the energy transfer to the occupant. I grew up around Daimler vehicles and their design philosophy is safety first, then cost. Unlike the other manufacturers where cost is the number one priority. My dad also spent a few decade leading a team on the design and R&D of car body structure for the German Big 3 and the other OEMs so I have a good inside look on the internal processes.

If I am not mistaken when IIHS first introduced the small overlap test (very brutal), Mercedes is the only vehicle that passed with acceptable ratings. Every other car had to go back to the drawing board because they are designed ONLY to pass the older IIHS test to make it look good in marketing.
Ahhh... if only it were true. Let me remind you what happened when the small overlap test first came out:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/14/autos/l ... index.html

It was actually Volvo and Acura that came out on top. MB flunked miserably

I'll remind you what MB said at the time:


As a leader in automotive safety, we have full confidence in the protection that the C-Class affords its occupants -- and less confidence in any test that doesn't reflect that," the German automaker said in a statement.



And here is what Toyota said:

"With this new test, the Institute has raised the bar again and we will respond to this challenge as we design new vehicles," said Brian Lyons, a spokesman for Toyota Motor Sales (TM), USA, which sells Lexus vehicles.
Deal Addict
Nov 28, 2013
1352 posts
511 upvotes
London, ON
brutus99 wrote: +1

I'll trust my and my family's life in my new XC90 than any Korean or Japanese car any day!
can't compete with volvos tank building.. though iihs says they get a M for headlights for the 2017 and 2018 even with the optional equipment.

brand or no brand issues , IIHS test the same test over and over, i am pretty sure they know more than most of us when it comes to safety of these cars. korean, japanese, swedish or what not, they all go through the same test. brand is the least of the worries...

framing, build quality. crunch zones, etc etc all matter , forget the name and badge
Deal Addict
Jan 23, 2017
1221 posts
1347 upvotes
Calgary
mr_raider wrote: Ahhh... if only it were true. Let me remind you what happened when the small overlap test first came out:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/14/autos/l ... index.html

It was actually Volvo and Acura that came out on top. MB flunked miserably

I'll remind you what MB said at the time:


As a leader in automotive safety, we have full confidence in the protection that the C-Class affords its occupants -- and less confidence in any test that doesn't reflect that," the German automaker said in a statement.



And here is what Toyota said:

"With this new test, the Institute has raised the bar again and we will respond to this challenge as we design new vehicles," said Brian Lyons, a spokesman for Toyota Motor Sales (TM), USA, which sells Lexus vehicles.
What frustrates me with Toyota is they tend to not do anything until required.

They receive a fail, and then rectify.

Didn't they recently do this with the Rav4? It was found one side of the bumper was reinforced and not the other specifically to achieve crash test ratings, once the other side was tested it was discovered what they'd done - and they updated it for the next model year.

Pretty sad state of affairs going on at Toyota these days, they've really been resting on their laurels..for far too long.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 23, 2014
1962 posts
677 upvotes
Toronto, ON
mr_raider wrote: Ahhh... if only it were true. Let me remind you what happened when the small overlap test first came out:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/14/autos/l ... index.html

It was actually Volvo and Acura that came out on top. MB flunked miserably

I'll remind you what MB said at the time:


As a leader in automotive safety, we have full confidence in the protection that the C-Class affords its occupants -- and less confidence in any test that doesn't reflect that," the German automaker said in a statement.



And here is what Toyota said:

"With this new test, the Institute has raised the bar again and we will respond to this challenge as we design new vehicles," said Brian Lyons, a spokesman for Toyota Motor Sales (TM), USA, which sells Lexus vehicles.
Thanks for clarifying the result and I might have mixed up the result with another test (side impact?) Either way, Daimler is credited with the invention of many active and passive safety technologies that is now common with all vehicles. To this part, they played an important role at making the roads safer.
Mining & Workstation EPYC 7764 64 Core & Dual 5950x Rigs | ASUS STRIX RTX 3090 OC | 3X NEC PA301W | 64GB DDR4 ECC |5 TB Samsung NVMe Storage
Deal Expert
Feb 29, 2008
30106 posts
5547 upvotes
Montreal
OKSpring wrote: What frustrates me with Toyota is they tend to not do anything until required.

They receive a fail, and then rectify.

Didn't they recently do this with the Rav4? It was found one side of the bumper was reinforced and not the other specifically to achieve crash test ratings, once the other side was tested it was discovered what they'd done - and they updated it for the next model year.

Pretty sad state of affairs going on at Toyota these days, they've really been resting on their laurels..for far too long.
Which is still better than MBs douchey response of "its you not me the problem"
Deal Addict
Jan 23, 2017
1221 posts
1347 upvotes
Calgary
mr_raider wrote: Which is still better than MBs douchey response of "its you not me the problem"
For sure, I think we've all known or worked with someone who's had a similar attitude toward accountability, it's a superiority complex.

I'm thinking from a consumer standpoint, both approaches don't sit well. Mercedes "can't be wrong", and Toyota engineers to the bare minimum required to pass the test and makes changes only when required.

The 4Runner is a good example. It's a large SUV that hasn't been updated, and people purchase it on the false reality that bigger is safer. All crash tests say otherwise, it buckles like a soup can compared to anything that's been updated in the past decade.

It's unfortunate that these massive companies with so much cash they can't even figure out where to allocate it, while their once highly regarded products are bottom of the barrel.
Sr. Member
User avatar
Nov 4, 2008
626 posts
425 upvotes
GTA
OKSpring wrote: The 4Runner is a good example. It's a large SUV that hasn't been updated, and people purchase it on the false reality that bigger is safer. All crash tests say otherwise, it buckles like a soup can compared to anything that's been updated in the past decade.

It's unfortunate that these massive companies with so much cash they can't even figure out where to allocate it, while their once highly regarded products are bottom of the barrel.
Here it is, it's pretty bad :facepalm:

Deal Addict
Jan 23, 2017
1221 posts
1347 upvotes
Calgary
brutus99 wrote: Here it is, it's pretty bad :facepalm:

It's abysmal.

I used to own a '99 4Runner, and absolutely loved it. Felt indestructible.

I'll bet it would have nearly the same crash results as a 2017 model. Toyota is stuck flat on their feet and can't get anything accomplished without input from other partnerships lately.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 9, 2013
2087 posts
2433 upvotes
Ottawa
brutus99 wrote: +1

I'll trust my and my family's life in my new XC90 than any Korean or Japanese car any day!
Lmao, Japanese engineering, heck even Korean, is superior to Chinese engineering. Should've bought a Pilot.



Sr. Member
User avatar
Nov 4, 2008
626 posts
425 upvotes
GTA
iflyplanes wrote: Lmao, Japanese engineering, heck even Korean, is superior to Chinese engineering. Should've bought a Pilot.
You must be smoking something right?!?! :facepalm: :facepalm: BTW Volvo is all Swedish engineering with Chinese $$$ Winking Face And I much prefer the Award Winning design of my XC90, thanks!

Let's see this... Any comments?

Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 9, 2013
2087 posts
2433 upvotes
Ottawa
brutus99 wrote: You must be smoking something right?!?! :facepalm: :facepalm: BTW Volvo is all Swedish engineering with Chinese $$$ Winking Face And I much prefer the Award Winning design of my XC90, thanks!

Let's see this... Any comments?

LMAO, you know the current XC90 didn't fare as well, so you go back a generation. :facepalm: And if it's just Chinese money and muh Swedish engineering, why is the S90 made in China?
Member
Apr 29, 2017
446 posts
541 upvotes
iflyplanes wrote: LMAO, you know the current XC90 didn't fare as well, so you go back a generation. :facepalm: And if it's just Chinese money and muh Swedish engineering, why is the S90 made in China?
If Honda is muh Japanese engineering why is it made in North America.
Sr. Member
User avatar
Nov 4, 2008
626 posts
425 upvotes
GTA
iflyplanes wrote: LMAO, you know the current XC90 didn't fare as well, so you go back a generation. :facepalm:
I don't think it's very funny and a lot of families are driving these 2015 and older Honda Pilots which are a death trap IMO!

I'll be fair and I'll go back a generation, any comments on these excellent results which are the norm for Volvo?

http://m.iihs.org/mobile/ratings/mobile ... r-suv/2014
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 9, 2013
2087 posts
2433 upvotes
Ottawa
prochargedv8 wrote: If Honda is muh Japanese engineering why is it made in North America.
Is Honda owned by and accountable to the Chinese?
brutus99 wrote: I don't think it's very funny and a lot of families are driving these 2015 and older Honda Pilots which are a death trap IMO!

I'll be fair and I'll go back a generation, any comments on these excellent results which are the norm for Volvo?

http://m.iihs.org/mobile/ratings/mobile ... r-suv/2014
You said your NEW XC90 is far safer than anything made by the Japanese or Koreans. I refuted that comment. Since I proved you wrong, you go back to a 2009 design to try and argue me.
Sr. Member
User avatar
Nov 4, 2008
626 posts
425 upvotes
GTA
iflyplanes wrote: Is Honda owned by and accountable to the Chinese?
Just like Tata owns Jaguar and Land Rover, so what?

Regardless who "owns" Volvo, they are and always will be accountable to making safe cars!!!
Sr. Member
User avatar
Nov 4, 2008
626 posts
425 upvotes
GTA
iflyplanes wrote: You said your NEW XC90 is far safer than anything made by the Japanese or Koreans. I refuted that comment. Since I proved you wrong, you go back to a 2009 design to try and argue me.
You proved me wrong lol You mean you're trying to prove that Volvo's crash test results are somehow worse than Japanese or Korean? Good luck with that :)

Yes Japanese cars are now safer than they were before and that's a very good thing for everyone. My point was why wasn't the previous generation of the Pilot safe when the same generation XC90 was?? What's the explanation to that? Where was Japanese safety research then?
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 9, 2013
2087 posts
2433 upvotes
Ottawa
brutus99 wrote: You proved me wrong lol You mean you're trying to prove that Volvo's crash test results are somehow worse than Japanese or Korean? Good luck with that :)

Yes Japanese cars are now safer than they were before and that's a very good thing for everyone. My point was why wasn't the previous generation of the Pilot not safe when the same generation XC90 was?? What's the explanation to that? Where was Japanese safety research then?
The video I linked shows the Pilot clearly has better structural integrity than the XC90. Same thing with the Mazda CX-9. The strength to weight ratios of the three cars do not lie. No need to be upset because other manufacturers are making swift advancements that encroach on or best Volvo's safety. My point is to refute the myth that Volvo cars TODAY are far superior to other manufacturers when it comes to safety.

Did Volvo make safe cars? Yes. Does Volvo make safe cars? Yes. Does Volvo make the safest cars? No.
Last edited by iflyplanes on Dec 9th, 2017 11:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Member
Apr 29, 2017
446 posts
541 upvotes
iflyplanes wrote: Is Honda owned by and accountable to the Chinese
I'd bet Geely is the one appropriating technology and trade secrets from Volvo and not the other way around.

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)