Rav Safety, No Recall

[vilarav]

And let me say that a difference of 3,22 points in the EURONcap it too high. Because of that I think a recall is needed. And remember that only upgrading the ECU software the safety is enhanced. In the post modified test, the wire are also broken but the airbags fired early due to this software upgrade, protecting more efficiently the occupants. So I can not understand why Toyota doesn't want to do this upgrade.

[rav man]

Strangely enough I'm in complete agreement with Vilarav here, there is a difference in the scores (FACT). This means one car is safer than the other. I WANT THE SAFEST ONE I CAN. (Toyota PR , the large print is me shouting ). Your convoluted argument does actually seem to lead to cost (Which you seem to acknowledge it looks like at one point even from your own conclusions). Its easier to change the wiring during manufacture, Its harder to do it afterwards, I know that thats why you won't issue a recall. Toyota makes a big deal about safety, Its even got a new web site about it .

If you dont agree with the testing methods or results from NCAP , WHY LET THEM TEST YOUR CARS AT ALL.

We could always ask NCAP for 'best out of three'!!!

[chatman]

Strangely enough I'm in complete agreement with Vilarav here, there is a difference in the scores (FACT). This means one car is safer than the other. I WANT THE SAFEST ONE I CAN. (Toyota PR , the large print is me shouting ). Your convoluted argument does actually seem to lead to cost (Which you seem to acknowledge it looks like at one point even from your own conclusions). Its easier to change the wiring during manufacture, Its harder to do it afterwards, I know that thats why you won't issue a recall. Toyota makes a big deal about safety, Its even got a new web site about it .

If you dont agree with the testing methods or results from NCAP , WHY LET THEM TEST YOUR CARS AT ALL.

We could always ask NCAP for 'best out of three'!!!

We could always buy another safer CAR...most other manufactures have SUV's that have 5* safety ratings including...dare I say THE UGLY ONE has a better safety rating....but most on here would need lots of therapy :wacko: but no we Like our RAV's (some love them) and would not defect to another brand...but things of late has severely tarnished Toyota's reputation with owners new and existing...The Run Flats on the flagship T180 :censor: :censor: :censor: the dual Mass Flywheel issues effecting some 4.2 models again :censor: :censor: :censor: and now the Safety issues with the airbags on some 4.3 model RAV's.....I would want mine to deploy as fast as they where designed to and save whoever was driving my RAV.....

[Fujisan]

If you dont agree with the testing methods or results from NCAP , WHY LET THEM TEST YOUR CARS AT ALL.

I'm sure you know the reason why, even while you were writing the above.

Not to take part in NCAP testing would look like they had something to hide. The press would get hold of it and blow it up to read the Toyota cars are that unsafe, that they refuse to have them NCAP tested.

Sales would die instantly. The company would be dead within a year.

So even if Manufacturers don't agree with the exact method used by EuroNcap, they have to be seen to go along with them.

To my mind Volvo has years and years of experience within the field of safety, massive R&D just on crash protection.

But during the early years of EuroNCAP, Renault claimed 5 stars ahead of Volvo. And Renault continue to get 5 stars for their cars.

Did this mean that Renault's were safer than Volvo's or does it mean that Renault very quickly figured out exactly what was required to get 5 stars from a EuroNCAP crash test.

Given the choice between a Renault and Volvo in an accident, I know which one I'd rather be in.

The point being, the EuroNCAP test is a very limited test by the nature of a standard test for everyone. It's impossible to test every crash position, at every speed. Some manufacturers have tuned there cars to do very well in the EuroNCAP test, others will take a different, maybe a more rounded view of passenger crash survival and develop their cars accordingly.

To not take part in EuroNCAP testing or similar anywhere around the world would be corporate suicide.

[rav man]

I agree with your comments Fujisan but would also argue that KNOWING you have a defect or shortcoming in your safety systems (why has the wiring been changed on later models, because its in the wrong place on earlier ones) then you should do something about it (for the vehicles already in existence). Whoever finds the flaws, NCAP, Toyota or real life crash statistics matters not (my opinion) it is the action taken to rectify this that counts, and as so many people are now noticing since coming to the Toyota brand, the Customer service HALO is starting to slip.

[Steve@Aberdeen]

Agree Fujisan - and who's to say that the relocated wiring isn't now more vulnerable in the next real-world crash to a Rav.

I drove Citroens for many years, owning two BX models. These were light but remarkably nimble, even more so for a diesel 15 years ago. I had a serious crash in one - a car pulled across in front of me when I was doing 60mph - both cars written off. The front end of my BX disintegrated and the body ended up quite buckled - my family all stepped out of it with little more than a few bruises. I doubt that car would ever have achieved anything like a respectable score in today's tests yet, in the real world it couldn't have protected us any better.

That's not to say the tests are useless or the results ignored - just remember that they're simulations. Think of the driving test - is somebody who just scraped through a better driver than somebody who failed because on something we all do every day?

[bjw]

Agree Fujisan - and who's to say that the relocated wiring isn't now more vulnerable in the next real-world crash to a Rav.

I drove Citroens for many years, owning two BX models. These were light but remarkably nimble, even more so for a diesel 15 years ago. I had a serious crash in one - a car pulled across in front of me when I was doing 60mph - both cars written off. The front end of my BX disintegrated and the body ended up quite buckled - my family all stepped out of it with little more than a few bruises. I doubt that car would ever have achieved anything like a respectable score in today's tests yet, in the real world it couldn't have protected us any better.

That's not to say the tests are useless or the results ignored - just remember that they're simulations. Think of the driving test - is somebody who just scraped through a better driver than somebody who failed because on something we all do every day?

I owned quite a few BX models before I bought Toyota's they were fantastic cars a classic in fact

[anchorman]

At the end of the day it all depends what type of crash you are going to have and how severe it is.

I have seen cars that are unrecognisable and somebody has walked away and I have seen other cars that look relatively unscathed where the occupants have perished.

The point is that if you are going to have the type that will test the SRS systems to the limit then having it work at the absolute optimum of the design might make the difference between life and death. You can't be over protected.

[Fujisan]

I agree with your comments Fujisan but would also argue that KNOWING you have a defect or shortcoming in your safety systems (why has the wiring been changed on later models, because its in the wrong place on earlier ones) then you should do something about it (for the vehicles already in existence). Whoever finds the flaws, NCAP, Toyota or real life crash statistics matters not (my opinion) it is the action taken to rectify this that counts, and as so many people are now noticing since coming to the Toyota brand, the Customer service HALO is starting to slip.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree with you wholeheartly and will stand shoulder to shoulder with you on this issue. There is a known defect and it should be fixed.

I think has Anchorman pointed out, I personally wouldn't be to happy with my local dealer, however skillful, trying to re-route wiring.

But at the very least, has Vilarav point's out there were mods made to the ECU, surely it can't be to hard to copy over these mods to the ECU, which I guess trigger the airbags early in the event of a wire breaking.

Surely that cannot cost to much and cannot be that hard to do. I think this at least is the minimum Toyota could do that for it's customers.

[vilarav]

Exactly, that is what I want.

I think that goint to the dealer to rerouting the wire harness it may be a risk greater that let the original routing.

But, I think that reprogramming the ECU is not very expensive and can be done in a regular service.

[Fujisan]

Exactly, that is what I want.

I think that goint to the dealer to rerouting the wire harness it may be a risk greater that let the original routing.

But, I think that reprogramming the ECU is not very expensive and can be done in a regular service.

[anchorman]

We don't know the full facts but my feeling is that the fundamental change is to the routing of the air bag harness and there for any re-mapping of the ECU would not be effective if the harness was severed.

These vehicles are subject to identical crashes which are offset frontal impact and it may be that the harness is only vulnerable under these conditions. Who knows, if the vehicle was subject to a full head on crash then the modded vehicles might be more vulnerable but this is what I am trying to get Toyota to understand. They think it is over our heads but the absense of knowledge leads to speculation and mistrust.

Come on Toyota make a decent statement.

[Nightstalker]

Guys,

I think the sad news is that MR T WONT do owt about this....my local MR T did'nt even know about this issue...

Also when reading all the remarks from Toyota PR they all point to..."thanks for your money now get out of my shop" attitude (Nothing personal Toyota PR)...

The read from anchorman is quite shocking and I hope none of us who have the pre mod Ravs will ever experience the late deployment of the aribag....I know one thing...I am tied in to this Rav for about a year and a half...then its GONE! And I might have to go to the ......hhhhhooooonnnn - cant say it....

Will see what else is on the market in that time...until then I just hope I DONT HAVE A FULL FRONTAL!!!

(PS Took some pics of my rav whilst in Dorset...they didnt turn out to well...but I'll post them anyway once I've shrunk them a little...)

regards

Rob

Good luck to you fellow premod Ravvers..

[Steve@Aberdeen]

Well I, for one, am quite happy with my Rav. Mind you, if I had a 4.1 or 4.2 I might be insisting Mr T replace it with a 4.3 as they're safer.

If manufacturers are trying to look after their customers, each car off the production line will be that little better than the one before (most improvements won't be noticeable but a good company strives for continuous improvement). Even setting that aside, there will be improvements in performance, reliability and safety throughout the production life of a vehicle - I don't want my car to be recalled every week because of something that will probably never affect me.

I know we're talking about safety but we also need to be reasonable. No company, even under UK health and safety law, has to make their workplace totally safe for employees. They have to take all reasonable steps to manage risk but not at any cost. The consequence, the probability of it happening and the cost all come into the equation - the law doesn't specify levels of each but the courts will judge each "failure" on merit. If I though a head-on crash in my Rav was likely, I would certainly want as much protection as possible - in fact, 9 airbags wouldn't be enough; however, whilst I could have such an accident on my way home from work tonight, it is statistically unlikely. If we didn't take this view, we should be taking all current cars off the road.

I don't know all the details of the test - I don't even know if they tested a right-hand or left-hand drive model - but my knowledge of Toyota is such that I bought one (no, two - one for myself and one for my wife) cars off them - if they consider no recall is necessary, I'll accept their judgement.

Of course, if you don't trust them and feel your Rav is not safe, then you should take it off the road today. Remember, if you feel your car is not safe, you would feel responsible if a passenger in your car was injured, even if the accident was not your fault. In fact, if your Rav is a company car, continuing to drive it could be construed an offence under PUWER.

[anchorman]

I have resigned myself to living with this car for a very long time and I can't imagine what would make me change that view. I don't feel at all worried about the car, it is considerably safer than my old Corolla and it will certainly fair better than most other saloon cars in the unfortunate event of an accident.

Throughout this thread I have tried to maintain a balanced opinion and would not suggest for one minute that anyone ought to consider changing their vehicle because of it. You have to consider that even pre modded vehicles are rated better than many other manufacturers vehicles that are in current production.

However, I don't think that Toyota handled this very well and in leaving the NCAP result unanswered they left themselves open to speculation and doubt. It is not fair of them to leave this to a well meaning member from their UK PR department to answer these concerns of his own volition especially when this subject can be so easily misunderstood.

I make no apologies for outlining what might happen during a serious accident - we should all be aware of how vulnerable we are but I never intended to give the impression that some of us are riding around in unsafe vehicles. My comments were in reply to suggestions to the effect of "we have managed for years without any air bags so what is the fuss about".

As Steve tried to explain earlier, the effect of an impact is often lessened by deflection and countless other variables and you could have the smartest, well functioning system with many airbags but sods law says you will hit something solid like a tree, wall or Scania and in that case they may not do you any good in any case as the body is not compliant enough to withstand severe deceleration.

The best option is to try not to get into such a situation.

[Nightstalker]

I agree with anchorman...

However it is always in the back of your mind when you drive along narrow lanes what the impact would be of a full frontal....That kinda spoils the fun for me of driving the Rav, however I might have been a bit hasty in saying the rav will go, before this should happen I would like to try and find out what the exact consequence would be if you'd have a full frontal - as previously mentioned by someone....it would be good to see the actuall test where the airbag deployed late just to see what the impact damage would be on one...