Topic: Marginal Crash Rating for the Toyota Corolla in IIHS Small overlap

[Frontier1]

[dkaz]

2014 Mazda 6 scored Acceptable, Mazda CX-5 scored Marginal. I wonder what the 2014 Mazda 3 will score? They never tested my gen for small overlap. It got me thinking on my way back from Edmonton though along the two lane stretch of the Yellowhead how well our car would fare if someone slightly crossed the yellow line.

[rrocket]

2014 Mazda 6 scored Acceptable, Mazda CX-5 scored Marginal. I wonder what the 2014 Mazda 3 will score? They never tested my gen for small overlap. It got me thinking on my way back from Edmonton though along the two lane stretch of the Yellowhead how well our car would fare if someone slightly crossed the yellow line.

You should be fine and avoid the crash...assuming that you aren't hugging the yellow line.   

Your car would fail the test.  As would most every car.  As I said....doesn't make your car unsafe.

[Ex-airbalancer]

I think this should be an option on some cars , since some forum members want more protection



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free

[Black Hatch]

I think this should be an option on some cars , since some forum members want more protection



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free

For car sex? 

[Black Hatch]

2014 Mazda 6 scored Acceptable, Mazda CX-5 scored Marginal. I wonder what the 2014 Mazda 3 will score? They never tested my gen for small overlap. It got me thinking on my way back from Edmonton though along the two lane stretch of the Yellowhead how well our car would fare if someone slightly crossed the yellow line.

You should be fine and avoid the crash...assuming that you aren't hugging the yellow line.   

Your car would fail the test.  As would most every car.  As I said....doesn't make your car unsafe.

Cars will only improve over time.
Like computers its an expensive/losing proposition to get the "fastest" computer or "safest" car.
You can only do your best cost analysis on safety/expense basis at the time of buying.

The 2014 Corolla here already had benchmarks in the Civic, Focus and Elantra and "failed" to meet them.
As mention previously a big disappointment 
"During the 2014 Toyota Corolla's press launch, the automaker announced it had high expectations for safety test ratings of the redesigned Corolla, since it features a new driver's knee airbag and passenger-seat cushion airbag, which brought the total up to eight airbags. Toyota expected a Top Safety Pick+ rating, an executive said in a speech."
http://m.motortrend.com/wot/2014-toyota-corolla-rated-marginal-in-iihs-small-overlap-test-412863.html

As wing said... Don't crash and you will be fine.
Prevention better than cure.
The focus should be overall safety.

Totally guessing/BSing  here
Your Mazda3 would probably be marginal like the Corolla
The 2014 Mazda3 will be be Good/Acceptable like the Mazda6 (because of its long hood)

[rrocket]

If the CX-5 scored marginal just like the the Corolla, not sure why the 3 will do better.

I wonder how many cars of the same model they subject to the test?  One of the primary negative things is the wheel coming into the driver's compartment or pushing things into there.  I have to wonder if this would happen every time or just once in awhile?  ONE test would certainly be too small of a sample size, wouldn't it?

[KD]

Good one! 

[Black Hatch]

If the CX-5 scored marginal just like the the Corolla, not sure why the 3 will do better.

I wonder how many cars of the same model they subject to the test?  One of the primary negative things is the wheel coming into the driver's compartment or pushing things into there.  I have to wonder if this would happen every time or just once in awhile?  ONE test would certainly be too small of a sample size, wouldn't it?

Hi rrocket, would you like to have an internet wager? 

I'm just following the pattern here.
RAV4 - poor, CX-5 marginal - 1 magnitude better
Camry - poor, Mazda6 - good.
Corolla - marginal, (guessing that Mazda3 (one magnitude higher) - good

But I'll agree that the IIHS testing is ambiguous or at least questionable.
Specifically injury rating
Corolla
head, chest, hip/thigh are good, lower leg are average (3 good, 1 average)
and it gets a marginal rating (like a CX-5 as you said)
yet the
Mazda6
chest and hip/thigh are good, head and lower leg are average (2 good, 2 average)
and it gets a good rating.

And I'll reiterate its not that the "marginal" small offset crash rating that would prevent me from getting a Corolla.
Its the other stuff such as long braking distance, low horsepower, lack of driving aids and overall agility which are at par or less than vehicles in its class.
Toyota bringing a new model should be class leading in one or more of these areas not follow or be below the group.

[Fobroader]

I think this should be an option on some cars , since some forum members want more protection



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free

[rrocket]

And I'll reiterate its not that the "marginal" small offset crash rating that would prevent me from getting a Corolla.

If that's true, then what was the point of starting this thread then...I mean other than just wanting to trash Toyota?

If a marginal crash rating is no big thing to you (and clearly it's not as your purchase of the marginal rated CX-5 proves), what was the point of starting this thread??

[Black Hatch]

And I'll reiterate its not that the "marginal" small offset crash rating that would prevent me from getting a Corolla.

If that's true, then what was the point of starting this thread then...I mean other than just wanting to trash Toyota?

If a marginal crash rating is no big thing to you (and clearly it's not as your purchase of the marginal rated CX-5 proves), what was the point of starting this thread??

Two things.
I posted this thread as news... Is it wrong to post latest news?
(I posted this before autos.ca made a news thread of the Corolla rating)

My personal opinions are my own.

Are we not allow to post threads that we feel are important to share?
You seem to be taking this personally.
I never trashed Toyota. I only said I was disappointed.
Nowhere did I say Toyota sucks.

[rrocket]

Two things.
I posted this thread as news... Is it wrong to post latest news?
(I posted this before autos.ca made a news thread of the Corolla rating)

My personal opinions are my own.

Are we not allow to post threads that we feel are important to share?
You seem to be taking this personally.
I never trashed Toyota. I only said I was disappointed.
Nowhere did I say Toyota sucks.

It's certainly not wrong to post news subjects....though I don't recall you posting any other IIHS topics as cars passed/failed this test. I definitely don't recall you posting the news thread about the CX-5 getting this rating when the test was initially done.  Or is this something new you're doing?  And I don't take it personal as I'm 100% sure the vehicles we currently drive would fail this silly test miserably.  Heck...you could probably fart in the direction of my 911 and it would likely sustain significant damage it's so old and safety outdated.  As I pointed out, this test means nothing to me and ranks way down near the bottom of reasons I'd not buy a certain car. 

And again...I'm not sure why Toyota getting this rating should "disappoint" you or compel you to make a post about it when you bought a vehicle (after researching it) with the exact same rating. 

I'm sure you'd be similarly perplexed if I posted a topic on the failings and unreliability of Mazda rotaries and then a bit later posted a topic that I had bought an RX-7 or RX-8.

[quadzilla]

While I do think making cars safer is a good thing I'm not sweating this test at all.  My thinking is what happens if the car was moved 3cm to the left or right, how would each car do then? In the real world to get in an accident where both cars lined up exactly the same every time is pretty small, different person in the car (short/tall, thin/fat driver) are also going to make a difference.

If I get hit head on while on a hwy I'm thinking I'm in most cases anyway.

[Black Hatch]

Two things.
I posted this thread as news... Is it wrong to post latest news?
(I posted this before autos.ca made a news thread of the Corolla rating)

My personal opinions are my own.

Are we not allow to post threads that we feel are important to share?
You seem to be taking this personally.
I never trashed Toyota. I only said I was disappointed.
Nowhere did I say Toyota sucks.

It's certainly not wrong to post news subjects....though I don't recall you posting any other IIHS topics as cars passed/failed this test. I definitely don't recall you posting the news thread about the CX-5 getting this rating when the test was initially done.  Or is this something new you're doing?  And I don't take it personal as I'm 100% sure the vehicles we currently drive would fail this silly test miserably.  Heck...you could probably fart in the direction of my 911 and it would likely sustain significant damage it's so old and safety outdated.  As I pointed out, this test means nothing to me and ranks way down near the bottom of reasons I'd not buy a certain car. 

And again...I'm not sure why Toyota getting this rating should "disappoint" you or compel you to make a post about it when you bought a vehicle (after researching it) with the exact same rating. 

I'm sure you'd be similarly perplexed if I posted a topic on the failings and unreliability of Mazda rotaries and then a bit later posted a topic that I had bought an RX-7 or RX-8.

Geez you are taking this too personally.
I would have posted about the CX-5 and othe CUVs crash test but Noto beat me to it.
As the Corolla was a stand alone test (the other compact test was done a while back) why can't I bring it up?
The crash rating was already reported in motortrend and other blogs but hadn't been reported here so I figure to let everyone know.
No it would not offend me if you brought a topic on rx-7 or rx-8 reliability if it was news.

As I already pointed out crash ratings are one part of safety and portion of the overall rating of a vehicle.. If it was the main and only reason I would have bought a Subaru Forester.

Again you are taking this too personally.

[dkaz]

It'd be Volvo for me. Swedish tank. Nice interiors. Might handle like a boat but I've never driven one.

[tpl]

After ignoring and then reading this thread I'm with Wing.    Don't crash.

It would just not occur to me to worry about government crash tests and who fails and who passes and by how much.   All crashes are different.    In terms of head on or nearly head on crashes I feel my chances would be greatly improved if all the big body on frame pickups and suvs were off the road...or they be limited to 50 km/h.    

[Black Hatch]

And again...I'm not sure why Toyota getting this rating should "disappoint" you or compel you to make a post about it when you bought a vehicle (after researching it) with the exact same rating. 

That is complete bias, red-herring, irrelevant, POS, etc. comparison.
The Corolla is a compact car and the CX-5 is a compact CUV. They aren't even in the same CLASS.
The closest TOYOTA competitor would be the RAV4 and we know how it did (see Poor)

CX-5, 3 competitors rated higher
RAV4, 9 competitors rated higher including the CX-5
Out of 15
Corolla, 6 competitors rated higher (including the Scion TC)
out of 13.
Toyota is pretty much doing average (or below), CX-5 is at least above average.

The IIHS small overlap isn't completely irrelevant to me and has some weight in safety.

After ignoring and then reading this thread I'm with Wing.    Don't crash.

Completely agree.

But does the Corolla (compared to its competitors) give you a better chance for avoiding the crash?
And of course how much weight you put on those factors (braking distance, acceleration, road-holding, slalom speed, driving aids, etc)

[rrocket]

It would just not occur to me to worry about government crash tests and who fails and who passes and by how much.   

Same here.

[Frontier1]