Toyota RAV4 Wins "Double Best Pick" Safety Rating

But Same Model Gets "Poor" Rating Without Side Airbags

July 25, 2004
The 2004 Toyota RAV4 came up a winner and a loser in the latest Insurance Institute for Highway Safety crash test. The small SUV was the first vehicle to earn good ratings and "best pick" designations for both front and side impact crashes -- but only when it was equipped with optional side airbags.

But without the optional side airbatgs, it tested poor for side impact protection.

"Results for this small SUV show manufacturers can provide good protection for occupants in the two most common kinds of serious crashes," says Institute chief operating officer Adrian Lund. "Unfortunately Toyota hasn't made side airbags standard, and the RAV4 without side airbags is still rated poor for side impact protection."

The Institute also tested the Subaru Legacy, which earned a good rating and a "best pick" designation in the frontal test but a marginal rating in the side impact test. This midsize inexpensive car was redesigned for the 2005 model year.

The RAV4 was tested because of the recent addition of side airbags and because Toyota made some changes to the vehicle's front-end structure to improve frontal crash performance. Both the RAV4 and the Legacy belong to groups of vehicles that the Institute evaluated in earlier front and side crashes.

This is the third version of the RAV4 evaluated in the Institute's frontal test.

"In the first frontal crash test in 1998, the RAV4 was a marginal performer," Lund says. The dummy's head hit the window frame during the crash. Its knee hit a metal flange under the steering column, which punctured the dummy's vinyl "skin." High accelerations were recorded on the dummy's head and chest. There also was a likelihood of injury to the left leg.

The RAV4 was redesigned in 2001, and its performance improved. "But it still was rated only acceptable in the frontal test," Lund says. High accelerations were recorded when the dummy's head struck the steering wheel through the driver airbag, and forces on both legs indicated the possibility of injuries.

For 2004 model RAV4s manufactured after December 2003, Toyota made structural modifications to improve offset test performance.

"RAV4s with the modifications are much improved," Lund says. "The dummy's movement during the crash was well controlled, and injury measures taken from the head, neck, and chest all were low. The new RAV4 is now a good performer and a ‘best pick' in the frontal test."

RAV4's side test results improve with side airbags: In the Institute's first set of side impact tests of small SUVs, the 2003 RAV4 was among seven designs that earned the lowest rating of poor. Only the Subaru Forester with standard side airbags and the 2001-04 Ford Escape with optional side airbags earned good ratings. The Hyundai Santa Fe with standard side airbags was rated acceptable.

Side airbags are reducing risks in real-world crashes, the Institute claims. Its research shows that in vehicles with side airbags to protect the head, the risk of a fatal injury is reduced by 45 percent among drivers of cars struck on the driver side. Side airbags that protect the chest and abdomen, but not the head, also are reducing deaths but are less effective (about a 10 percent reduction in deaths).

Before the availability of head-protecting airbags, there was virtually nothing to prevent people's heads from being struck by intruding vehicles or rigid objects like trees or poles in serious side impacts.

The Institute recently tested 13 midsize car designs, and only the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry with optional side airbags earned good ratings. The Chevrolet Malibu with side airbags was acceptable. The rest were poor.

Back to the top |

Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use

Advertisements on this site are placed and controlled by outside advertising networks. ConsumerAffairs.com does not evaluate or endorse the products and services advertised. See the FAQ for more information.

Company Response Welcome If complaints about your company appear on our site, we welcome your response. Please see the Response Form for more information.

For more information, see the FAQ and privacy policy. The information on this Web site is general in nature and is not intended as a substitute for competent legal advice.  ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. makes no representation as to the accuracy of the information herein provided and assumes no liability for any damages or loss arising from the use thereof. 

Copyright © 2003-2009 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc.  All Rights Reserved.    The contents of this site may not be republished, reprinted, rewritten or recirculated without written permission.