Toyota takes on IIHS Top Safety Picks

Just days after its public shouting match with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) over sudden acceleration claims, Toyota is now arguing with the nation’s top private safety organization, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS).

On Wednesday, the IIHS released its list of Top Safety Picks for 2010. This year the Institute added a new roof strength test to its requirements for cars to receive the rating. That demanding criteria dramatically shortened the 2010 list.

In its press release announcing the results, IIHS called out Toyota for having no vehicles that qualified.

In response, yesterday Toyota called IIHS’s new methodology “extreme and misleading.” In a statement, Toyota Vice President of Public Affairs Irv Miller said, “There are 38 Toyota, Lexus, and Scion models, and only three were tested for roof strength by IIHS: Camry, RAV4, and Yaris.” He said all Toyota products meet government standards for roof crush. The new IIHS test for roof strength is much tougher than the government standard, which NHTSA looking to make more stringent.

Later yesterday, Russ Rader, an IIHS spokesman, essentially told Toyota to put up or shut up. He is quoted in the New York Times stating that all automakers were invited to nominate vehicles to be tested (and reimburse IIHS for the test.) “We don’t think there are automakers who would miss the opportunity to have their vehicles tested if they thought they met the criteria. We can only assume the [manufacturer’s other] vehicles would not do well for roof strength.”

While Toyota still has among the most reliable and fuel-efficient car lineups Consumer Reports has tested, the bloom may be coming off the company’s rose. While its cars generally do well in most safety measures, this pattern of blasting the messenger isn’t helping its public image, an image that is increasingly under attack.

Over time, the IIHS is expected to test more vehicles for roof strength. The test is performed by pressing a metal plate against one side of the roof at a constant speed. To earn a Good rating, a vehicle must withstand a force that is four times the vehicle’s weight before compressing five inches. This tough new test adds another dimension to the Top Safety Picks.

For information on how vehicles perform in government and IIHS crash tests, see the safety tabs in the model overview pages, available to online subscribers.

Watch more than 300 crash tests videos to see how vehicles perform in frontal offset and side-impact tests.

—Eric Evarts

Algae slime makes good “Fuel” for moviegoers

For an alternative perspective on the future of the automobile, it may help to look at an alternative film. “Fuel” by Josh Tickle is a thought-provoking documentary that examines America’s addiction to oil and what we can do about it.
 
Tickle does a good job of keeping the serious subject rather upbeat and hopeful, as he travels the world in his so-called Veggie Van, fueled by used vegetable oil. The film is engaging and friendly, cajoling audiences into sympathy with its message, not browbeating them.
 
Tickle is a fan of biodiesel, and a lot of the movie is focused on that fuel. Biodiesel is a promising alternative that until recently had problems only with scalability. It worked terrifically for the few consumers who made the commitment to use it, but it looked difficult to supply enough to fuel more than a million or so of America’s roughly 240 million cars. (Read “Diesel vs. biodiesel vs. vegetable oil.”)
 
“Fuel” also documents the growth of the algae biofuel movement, which promises to create economies of scale that biofuels have not had before. (We’ll look into this fuel movement and share our own findings later.)
 
Statistics on alternative fuels are notoriously squishy. Different studies show different advantages. But as a student of these studies, Tickle’s numbers are within the range of those cited by neutral sources, unlike those of some other documentaries on the automotive industry.
 
That’s not to say the movie doesn’t occasionally paint a rosy picture. As with other documentaries, its problems are more of omission, rather than commission. Framing the discussion around biofuels results in a myopic exclusion of any discussion of fuel cells, batteries, or the micro-level economics fundamental to most American families.
 
For example, after it spends a significant amount of time interviewing officials and citizens of some European countries moving off of oil, and noting how they may pay less for biodiesel than for petroleum-based fuel, it fails to mention that consumers in the United States almost always pay more.
 
And “Fuel” misses the point that the government is now heavily subsidizing the development and distribution of electric cars and plug-in hybrids to wean the U.S. off of oil. And while it touches on the future of wind and solar power, it never mentions the fact that these alternatives also need advanced batteries that can piggy-back off the development of new batteries for cars.
 
One amazing statistic in the film compares the cost of funding wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (to protect American access to oil, the film posits) with the cost of providing enough solar panels to meet the electricity needs of every household in the United States. Based on our check of government and solar industry figures, the cost would be about $350 billion, or about three years of averaged war funding. (Admittedly, the issue is more complex than pure dollars, but it is an interesting bit of trivia, nonetheless.)
 
Accepting the biodiesel emphasis for what it is, leaves an informative and engaging documentary. It raises interesting questions worth considering, and it’s worth seeing even for those who consider themselves pretty well informed on alternative fuel issues.

—Eric Evarts

Audi, MIT develops dashboard robot AIDA as a mobile assistant

Lots of people talk to their cars—even if few admit it. So far those conversations are pretty one-sided, with the exception being a voice-recognition navigation system. That may one day change. Exploring the potential for future man-machine interaction, Audi has teamed with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to develop an interactive robot that not only talks back, but can also learn your driving habits, help you navigate, and even warn you of danger approaching.
 
Nicknamed AIDA, for Affective Intelligent Driving Agent, this robot  sprouts up from the top of the dashboard, smiles, frowns, and tilts its “head” to convey emotion. It is like having your own in-car Wall-E. So if the MMI isn’t enough of a distraction, here comes AIDA.
 
Researchers at MIT say that within a week of driving AIDA will learn where you live, where you work, and the route you take in between. If that route is congested, it will suggest alternate routes. If the car is low on gas, it will suggest you travel through the cheapest gas station along the route. Within a month, it will learn where you like to shop, and can route you by the grocery store.
 
AIDA can be more than a frivolous companion, though. Using forward radar, electronic stability control and other sensors, AIDA can warn of possible collisions and advise you on how to avoid them. The system’s virtual eyes merge into a cyclops – a single circle of dots surrounding a red warning triangle. And by choosing the shortest routes and avoiding traffic, it can save gas.
 
Having your car look after you, however, strikes some as “nannying.” Further, depending on how well AIDA can keep secrets, there may be a way for others to know where you’ve driven, including a spouse or car thief.
 
Should mobile assistant technology advance, those old jokes about the car knowing its own way on familiar routes may become all too true. However, AIDA is unlikely to appear on production cars any time soon.
 
Would you want AIDA for a copilot? Share your thoughts in the comments.
 
—Eric Evarts

New rollover protection criteria lead to fewer IIHS Top Safety Picks for 2010

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has released a much shorter list of Top Safety Picks for 2010 than in previous years, just 27 models, compared with 94 models in 2009. The Institute has tightened the criteria it uses to name Top Safety Picks for 2010 with the addition of rollover protection, leaving out many vehicles that previously made the list. 

To receive a Top Safety Pick designation for 2010, cars have to receive a Good rating in the IIHS’s new roof crush tests, as well as meet all the earlier criteria: Good scores in front and side crash tests, a Good head restraint design for rear impacts, and the inclusion of Electronic Stability Control. In its crash tests, the IIHS rates cars on a scale of Good, Acceptable, Marginal, and Poor.

The added requirement of a Good rating in the roof strength test eliminated several top-selling models that were on last year’s list, including the Ford Fusion and the Honda Accord. “Honda and Ford would have to make only minor changes to achieve good ratings for roof strength, as the Accord and Fusion just missed the mark,” says IIHS president Adrian Lund.

The Toyota Camry also missed the mark because its head restraints were rated Marginal. Toyota had no cars on the list of Top Safety Picks this year. Other past winners with no vehicles on the list this year included BMW, Mazda, Mitsubishi, and Saab. The Institute praised Subaru as the only automaker to win the award in every category it entered, with five vehicles earning the Top Safety Pick designation. Chrysler, Volkswagen, and Volvo each earned four. No convertibles were included on this year’s list. Two new small cars, the Nissan Cube and the Kia Soul, join the list.

The Volvo XC60, which was introduced this year, had an early safety problem in the side impact test, and only models built after Nov. 1, 2009 qualify for the award. However, IIHS points out that consumers with XC60s built before than can see their Volvo dealer for an update.

2010 IIHS Top Safety Picks

Large cars
Buick LaCrosse
Ford Taurus
Lincoln MKS
Volvo S80

Midsize cars
Audi A3
Chevrolet Malibu built after Oct. 2009
Chrysler Sebring 4-door with optional ESC
Dodge Avenger with optional ESC
Mercedes-Benz C-Class
Subaru Legacy
Subaru Outback
Volkswagen Jetta sedan
Volkswagen Passat sedan
Volvo C30

Small cars
Honda Civic 4-door with optional ESC, except Si
Kia Soul
Nissan Cube
Subaru Impreza, except WRX
Volkswagen Golf 4-door

Midsize SUVs
Dodge Journey
Subaru Tribeca
Volvo XC60
Volvo XC90

Small SUVs
Honda Element
Jeep Patriot with optional side air bags
Subaru Forester
Volkswagen Tiguan

Although fewer models earn the award this year, it is still possible to find models in all categories with good overall safety scores. However, in some categories, few if any models meet both IIHS’s requirements for a Top Safety Pick and Consumer Reports standards for recommendation. To be recommended by Consumer Reports, a vehicle must perform well in our testing, have at least average reliability, and perform adequately in safety tests by both the government and the IIHS, if tested.

The small SUV category illustrates how fewer models now standout as the safest and best models. Last year 10 small SUVs earned Top Safety Pick designations. This year only four did: the Honda Element, Jeep Patriot, Subaru Forester, and Volkswagen Tiguan. Many other small SUVs received sub-par ratings in the IIHS’s new roof-strength test. Of those, only the Forester and the Tiguan meet the criteria to be recommended by Consumer Reports.

Overall, vehicle safety has made significant improvements through the years, as automakers have added stronger front and side structures, head-protecting air bags, and electronic stability control on many more models. (For proof, see “IIHS crash tests 2009 Chevrolet Malibu vs 1959 Bel Air.”) Increasingly stringent safety tests have been a driving force in motivating the auto industry to make progressive improvements, and this revised methodology to selecting Top Safety Picks will likely lead to even safer vehicles. 

There are many considerations when choosing a new vehicle, and this change to how the IIHS spotlights what it considers to be the safest models should help car buyers who prioritize safety.

—Eric Evarts 

For more information on the government tests, see our related reports:
Crash test 101
Rollover 101
Roof-crush standards

Toyota may shorten gas pedals in acceleration recall

Toyota will reportedly offer to shorten gas pedals in up to four million of its vehicles, following the company’s largest recall in history for unintended acceleration. This latest solution, following a recall last month asking owners to remove the floor mats in their vehicles, was reported by the Kyodo News and further covered by Reuters.
 
In a Consumer Reports interview, Toyota Communications Manager for Safety and Quality Brian Lyons called the reports “unsubstantiated.” He said, “We are still developing vehicle-based remedies and still in open discussions with NHTSA, but we’re not ready to announce anything.”

After the floor mat recall, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) insisted that Toyota do more to address the design flaws in the vehicle that were contributing to the problem. Such criticisms included designs that NHTSA says make it difficult for drivers to stop the car in the event of unintended acceleration.
 
In the 1980s, Audi found itself scrutinized for a series of unintended acceleration incidents. Its recall solution was to move the gas and brake pedals farther apart and to install the first brake-shift-interlock, a device that prevents the transmission from being shifted out of park unless the brake pedal is depressed.
 
Toyota has blamed floor mats getting stuck and jamming the accelerator pedals to the floor in some accidents. (Read “Misaligned floor mat may have caused calamity.”) If this is a primary cause for the reported sudden acceleration complaints, raising the gas pedal higher off the floor (up toward the driver’s toes) may help alleviate that problem. However, NHTSA said that the investigation into the cause(s) isn’t over.

—Eric Evarts

Related:
Gas-pedal inspection shows most do not pivot
More than floor mats: NHTSA report gives more details on Lexus crash
Putting a car in Neutral might save your life
Putting stuck floor mat survival strategies to the test
Floor mat survey reveals problem with all-weather mats
Toyota and Lexus floor mat recall is official
Toyota advises 3.8 million Lexus and Toyota owners to remove floor mats
Misaligned floor mat may have caused calamity

Chrysler disbands ENVI electric car group

At last year’s LA and Detroit auto show, back when it was owned by Cerberus Capital Management, Chrysler’s concept cars were all electric, including a battery-powered Town & Country minivan, 200C sedan, Dodge sports car, and Jeep Patriot. The message was clear: electric cars would were to play a key role in the company’s future.
 
Now that the company has been bought by Fiat, it has announced new product plans that  focus on improving its conventional cars. (See "Chrysler’s business plan: The Fiat platforms.") Consumer Reports was not able to recommend a single Chrysler model from 2007 or 2008. For 2009, we were finally able to recommend the redesigned Dodge Ram pickup. (See “Detroit report cards.”)
 
Now Chrysler has emphasized its fresh product plans by disbanding its electric vehicle division, ENVI (short for environmental), announced last year. Chrysler says its electric car development will now be rolled into its standard product development, according to Reuters.

In Chrysler’s future product plan presentation earlier this month, company Chairman Sergio Marchionne said electric cars are expected to account for less than two percent of Chrysler’s sales by 2014, far less than the 300,000 envisioned under ENVI.
 
—Eric Evarts

NHTSA launches investigation of Jeep Grand Cherokee fires

After reports that the Jeep Grand Cherokees may be three to four times as likely to catch fire in a rear-impact collision than other midsized SUVs, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has agreed to open an investigation.

Based on NHTSA data, the Center for Auto Safety (CAS) determined that the Grand Cherokee has a higher fatality rate than the Ford Pinto, which became infamous in the 1970s for bursting into flames in rear impacts.

The plastic gas tank in the Grand Cherokee is mounted behind the rear axle and hangs down below the rear bumper, making it vulnerable in accidents.

In 2005, Jeep redesigned the Grand Cherokee and moved the gas tank in front of the rear axle. This design reduced the likelihood of fires in these later Grand Cherokees, according to the CAS petition.

NHTSA investigations often lead to recalls, although they can take years.

Meanwhile, if you own a Grand Cherokee, the Center for Auto Safety says an optional skid-plate over the gas tank (available on Grand Cherokees with the off-road package) will provide some protection. 

 —Eric Evarts

Flashy muscle cars are recession’s hot ticket

One of the oddest recession statistics involves lipstick: In a twist of economic psychology, lipstick sales invariably rise in recessions. Now it seems the same may apply to Detroit-based V8 muscle cars.

For the month of October, sales of muscle cars were up almost 50 percent compared with last year, according to data from Automotive News. Sales of all sports cars were up almost 24 percent.

Some of that may be because the Chevrolet Camaro came on the market this spring, so it has added to the total. General Motors, which makes the Camaro, says that it has sold 47,000 Camaros so far in 2009.

Counting all types of cars, overall sales were about the same as last October.

Is it possible that these muscle cars reflect glimmers of economic hope among car buyers? While consumers have bought 25 percent fewer cars overall so far in 2009 compared with 2008, muscle-car sales increased by a similar percentage. And a greater proportion of buyers are choosing sports cars overall. Sales of all sports cars declined barely half as much as overall car sales.

We think that most muscle and sports cars are fun to drive, which might account for why they often rank at the top of our owner satisfaction ratings where CR subscribers are asked if they would buy the same car again. This year the top-scoring model was the Dodge Challenger. (Many of us didn’t find the Challenger particularly engaging to drive, but it can be fun in its own way.)

So like lipstick, consumers facing a recession may just want to buy something affordable that makes them stand out and feel a little better about themselves. 

 —Eric Evarts

Sneak peek: Turbocharged 2011 Buick Regal sedan

Buick’s second all-new model since GM emerged from bankruptcy will take a classic name: Regal. The Regal will debut at the LA Auto Show next month.

Smaller than Buick’s other new model, the LaCrosse, the Regal is about the size of the Acura TSX and the Volvo S60. It will have a choice of two four-cylinder engines: a 2.4-liter, making 182 hp, and a turbocharged 2.0-liter version putting out 220 hp. Each will come with a standard six-speed automatic transmission.

Adjustable suspension in the turbocharged model will have three settings: Normal, Touring, and Sport. Supposedly, the Touring mode will soften the suspension for highway drives, while Sport will firm it up for winding roads.

The standard model goes on sale in the spring, with the turbo following next June.

The new Regal is based on the European Opel Insignia and has already been a hit in China. Pricing has not yet been announced. No news yet about resurrecting the grand daddies of all Buick muscle cars: The Grand Sport or Grand National.

—Eric Evarts 

Cadillac Converj plug-in hybrid gets green light

When it comes to talk about GM’s future cars, the Chevrolet Volt gets all the attention. But the Volt isn’t the only extended-range electric vehicle General Motors has on its drawing boards, according to an article this week by the Detroit News.

According to the report, General Motors’s board decided to build the Cadillac Converj, a luxury coupe derived from the Volt. The company showed a concept of the Converj at last year’s Detroit Auto Show. Like the Volt, the Cadillac Converj will have batteries capable of driving 40 miles that will be charged from an electric socket. After that, small-displacement, four-cylinder gas engine will start to enable longer trips. It will undoubtedly offer luxury features unavailable in the Volt and sell at a higher price, allowing GM to accelerate the return on its investment in the Volt. The Volt is expected to sell for $40,000 and is eligible for a $7,500 federal tax rebate. The Converj could be expected to sell for significantly more. There was no target date announced.

A third version of the Volt, the Opel Ampera, is expected to be sold in Europe, starting in 2011.

—Eric Evarts