Tundra keeps trying: CrewMax also gets four stars from NHTSA
Toyota swung for the fences when they unveiled the Toyota Tundra in Detroit, with an optional 381 HP V8, 10,500 pound tow rating, and huge proportions. The problem is, ever since the vehicle hit dealer lots, it seems as though one piece of bad news is hitting the pickup after another. First came rebates on the brand new Tundra, which is almost unheard of for any Toyota out of the blocks. Almost immediately after that, we told you about the four star NHTSA crash test rating of both the Regular and Double Cab Tundra. Next the folks from Aichi Japan got a bit of a reprieve when the IIHS gave the Tundra a "Good" rating, which lent some credence to Toyota's claim that the Tundra should have scored better on the NHTSA test.
Now NHTSA is giving the Tundra another four star black eye, this time on the popular CrewMax model. Even worse, the folks over at PickupTruck.com astutely pointed out a 40-percent variation in head injury scores between the regular cab and the CrewMax. With lower scores being better, the Crew Max scored a 677, while the Regular Cab receives a 486. At the same time, the Tundra's competitors are hitting five-star crash test scores, Toyota's biggest truck is now sporting an unenviable trifecta of four-star models, although we can't find any pictures or details of the Double Cab tests, and test data of the Regular and Double Cab are identical.
With Toyota's stellar safety record and the "Good" IIHS test scores, we find the results of the NHTSA scores to be puzzling, but with tests completed on more than one Tundra variant, the four-star bottom line doesn't look good for the all-new Tundra. You can check out the short video of the CrewCab crash after the jump.
[Source: PickupTruck.com]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Avinash machado 8:16AM (5/16/2007)
I guess the big 3 do not have much to worry about when it comes to their truck buying customers.
Reply
Drewboy 8:19AM (5/16/2007)
Nice to see not everything comes easy for Toyota.
Reply
Big Mike Wood 8:30AM (5/16/2007)
Nobody's buying these things anyway so I'm sure Toyota is already working on a better version that will correct this. Third time's a charm?
Reply
MTeator 8:32AM (5/16/2007)
4th time's a charm. T-100 was the first attempt, remember? Not even a V-8 in that one.
Reply
Nellydesign 8:40AM (5/16/2007)
I think this is just a disconnect between two rating systems. 4 out of 5 stars is equivelant to getting an 80% on a test. Would that test score in any other medium be considered "good"? Probably. It just isn't as good as a 95% or 100%.
Reply
Michael 9:02AM (5/16/2007)
First of all, the IIHS tests are different from NHTSA tests. Think of the IIHS tests as tougher and more realistic tests.
Second, it's important to note that while the Tundra did score a "good" overall in the IIHS test, in individual categories, it only scored "acceptable." The IIHS system ranks vehicles Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Poor. The Tundra scored good in three categories, but scored acceptable in the "Head/neck" and "Left leg/foot" categories. Other pickups have done better--notably the F-150 which scored "good" across the board.
Pickups at IIHS: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=70
Tundra at IIHS:
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=800
Reply
steve 9:02AM (5/16/2007)
given that this country and it's government are basically for sale it's not surprising that the results are "puzzling". That being said no self respecting murican would be caught in one.
Reply
rrr 9:04AM (5/16/2007)
This shows why Toyota is a winner and GM and ford are losers. Yes, Toyotas truck maybe inferior, but they are learning and trying to make a better truck, unlike GM and Ford who have exited minivan market because it is "unprofitable" even thou Chrysler, Kia, Honda, Toyota are making a ton of money and VW will be entering that field in few years as well.
Reply
Infinihertz 9:12AM (5/16/2007)
#8, I don't think this shows what you think it shows.
Toyota doing worse than their competitors at something is not indicative of why they're a winner and the others are losers. That makes no sense whatsoever. Sure, they're "learning and trying to make a better truck." But comparing that to the minivan business doesn't make a lot of sense to me - they're totally different markets, with different margins, standards, etc. If Ford or GM left the full size truck segment (F-150/Silverado) to only make heavy duty trucks, then I'd agree that you have a point.
Reply
bmoredlj 9:25AM (5/16/2007)
Minivans? Let's stick with trucks on this post: GM's Silverado/Sierra and their HD models are a vast improvement over their predecessors, and more than a match for the Tundra, as these crash tests indicate.
Let's not confuse people by saying Domestic trucks never change, when they clearly do, for the better. Minivans is a different story altogether, and sidetracking the issue at hand: trucks.
Toyota's trucks still aren't perfect, because there's no such thing as a perfect truck. That's not to say the Tundra is a failure. I think the more foreign competition the Big 2.5 get, the more they need to improve themselves.
I just wish they'd be a little more efficient about it, rather than continually create new models and let old ones die out, like their minivans.
I'll close by reminding everyone that Toyota has abandoned numerous segments in which they felt they were no longer profitable. Had they not, we'd still have the Supra, MR2/Spyder, Celica, Paseo, Camry Wagon, etc.
Reply
Gardiner Westbound 9:38AM (5/16/2007)
Toyota is walking down the road that brought GM down, engineering products after they're in customers' hands.
Reply
Josh 9:43AM (5/16/2007)
Since this is a tiny segment of Toyota's product line and a huge (THE SEGMENT) for GM/FORD/CHY and pickup sales across the board are tanking with rebates across the board on all brands including the new GM trucks too is this really news?
The future is the Toyota RAV4 and Honda CRV. The CRV has pass EXPLODER as the #1 selling SUV in America.
Reply
Rick Lyon 9:50AM (5/16/2007)
I love the Tundra commercial where it's on a platform overlooking a cliff and it has to haul up a huge 10 ton cargo box. Thing us, once the Tundra gets it's over the edge and you see the Tundra stop and no longer is pulling the cargo box- you see the cargo box (all 10 tons of it) magically continue forward. HAHAHA I wonder how many pulleys they had pulling that container forward in that spot.
Reply
Toyota Tundra Forums 9:49AM (5/16/2007)
Somehow I don't believe its that bad. Just like in the doublecab, under Toyotas testing, it proved to be alot better.
http://www.tundratalk.net
Reply
Solo Racer 11:14AM (5/16/2007)
"Had they not, we'd still have the Supra, MR2/Spyder, Celica, Paseo, Camry Wagon, etc."
The Supra followed the RX-7 and 300ZX out of the market because people stopped buying sport coupes and bought SUVs 12 years go. Paseo and, to some extent, the Celica have been replaced by the Scions. Camry Wagon and Accord Wagon: not Volvos or A4 Quattros, so no sale. MR2 Spyder wasn't exactly a failure, Toyota opted not to make more than 25,000 a year; very little in the way of incentives, unlike the Miata.
Out of all of those, the Paseo was the biggest failure. Underpowered, dull styling and marketed with an attitude only slightly hipper than your aunt's canasta game.
Reply
John P. 10:51AM (5/16/2007)
Toyota has one thing on it's side that people are overlooking. the "mainstream" press. the dweebs/non-truck drivers in the new york slimes (my ex-company by the way) will love anything that doesn't have a big-three logo on it.
Don't underestimate that power with the normal lady on the street.
Reply
BGJ 10:54AM (5/16/2007)
"With Toyota's stellar safety record and the "Good" IIHS test scores, we find the results of the NHTSA scores to be puzzling"
For those of us in the auto safety industry it is not at all surprising. IIHS and NCAP frontal requirements quite often lead to competing structural needs. IIHS scores are better with a very stiff body structure, while NCAP typically scores better with a slightly softer body structure.
The thing most people don't understand about the NCAP rating is that the head and chest scores form a combined injury probability rating that the "star" score is derived from.
A 5-star rating corresponds to 10% or less chance of a "serious" injury, while a 4-star rating ranges from 11%-20% chance of a "serious" injury. A "serious" injury example is bone fracture or concussion that usually does not lead to permanent brain damage; this is typically very survivable but fatalities can happen from a "serious" injury.
It's important to note that the minimum legal limit for the same crash condition of Front NCAP is approximately at the bottom end of 4-star, or 20% combined injury probability, but it does not use this % scale. All you need to know is that no car currently in production has a rating under 4 stars, because it would not meet the minimum legal requirements from NHTSA.
Reply
Rob 11:47AM (5/16/2007)
The supra followed the rx7 and 300zx out of the market because they got too expensive and priced themselves out of the market.
Reply
VL 11:54AM (5/16/2007)
Tercel--> Echo --> Yaris?
Cressida--> Avalon?
(their boxy 80's minivan)--> Previa--> Sienna?
What was the deal w/ the Camry Solara?
Reply
thetruth 12:31PM (5/16/2007)
Inferior products. The purchased media has made that company, they are no better than what is made here and more expensive to repair.
Reply