When NHTSA began their 35-mph full frontal crash test program in 1979, Japanese cars' performance were pretty much universally poor. If you average together the average driver and passenger severe injury risks for Japanese 1979-1980 models tested by NHTSA, it's 71%, (63% for drivers and 79% for passengers). Domestic models averaged 34% (33% and 35% respectively) and European models 53% (58% and 48% respectively). The fleetwide average was 48% (46% for drivers, 50% for passengers).
For context, 1 star starts at 46% risk, 2 stars is 36-45%, 3 stars is 21-35%, 4 stars is 11-20%, and 5 stars is 10% or less. Although this rating scale was not formally introduced until 1994, it can be applied to any vehicle NHTSA tested in this mode since 1979.
This means that effectively, American cars were averaging at a 2/3 star borderline level, like a C-minus. European cars were averaging at the upper end of a 1 star level, or an F. And Japanese cars were firmly in the 1 star range on average.
In fact, of the 13 Japanese cars tested in 1979 and 1980, all but one earned 1 star for either driver or passenger; 9 scored 1 star on both sides.
Toyota, being one of the largest Japanese car companies (both then and now), had a poor safety record in this era, too, albeit slightly better than the others from Japan. 5 Toyota models were tested from 1979-1981, and they had a severe injury risk of 54%, 55% for the drivers and 52% for the passengers. (1981 Toyotas were included because their designs were finalized just before the NHTSA test was well-known, and their performance was similar to the 1979-1980 Toyotas tested).
This also means that if we exclude the 3 Toyotas and take the average of the other 10 Japanese cars tested in 1979-1980, the severe injury risk climbs to 77% (71% drivers, 82% passengers)!
When the NHTSA crash test launched, Japanese carmakers began to improve their cars, catching up to or even surpassing American manufacturers. For some, it was like a light switch flipped, with immediate massive improvements. For others, it was a more gradual process that stretched into the 1990s.
Toyota fell firmly into the "light switch" category. All of their passenger cars redesigned in the 1982-1985 cycle provided good protection for the time. Of the 9 redesigned Toyota passenger cars tested in these years, the average severe injury risk plummeted to 14% (15% for drivers and 12% for passengers). In fact, every Toyota passenger car redesigned during this period got at least 3 stars, with 7 of them getting at least 4 stars for both occupants. In fact, Volvo's average risk for 1982-1985 models tested was 10%, which meant that Toyota was far more akin to Volvo on safety in this crash mode during this era then they were to the rest of the fleet.
(SUVs, vans, and pickups were not tested in the 1979-1981 period, and were held to lower safety standards in the 1980s, so a comparison including them would be impossible)
For comparison, 1982-1985 American cars had a 25% overall risk (29% for drivers, 21% for passengers), European cars averaged 37% (42% for drivers and 33% for passengers), and non-Toyota Japanese cars averaged 39% (42% for drivers, 37% for passengers). The fleetwide passenger car average was 30% (34% for drivers, 27% for passengers).
This means that, relatively speaking, American cars' risks dropped 26% (34% -> 25%). European cars improved by 30% (53% -> 37%). Non-Toyota Japanese cars improved by 49% (77% -> 39%). But Toyota improved by a massive 74% (54% -> 14%).
The fleetwide average improvement was 37% (48% - > 30%)
Now let's look at Toyota's individual models and see how redesigns completely turned their safety around. Links to the NHTSA test pages are provided.
The first Toyota that NHTSA tested was the 1979 Celica. It had a 3-star driver rating and a 1-star passenger rating, with severe injury risks of 30% for the driver and 86% for the passenger (57% average). The all-new 1982 Celica had a high-end 4 star rating for both occupants with risks of 11% for driver and 13% for passenger (12% average). Notice how the 1979's occupant compartment buckles like a tin can, while the 1982's crumple zone absorbs the energy before it reaches the occupant compartment. The driver and passenger of the 1982 really could open the doors and walk away.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/research-testing-databases/#/vehicle/454
The 1979 Corolla was the next Toyota that NHTSA tested, and once again, the passenger got the worst of it. It earned 2 stars for the driver and just 1 for the passenger, with severe injury risks of 39% and 78%. The 1984 redesign earned 5 stars for the driver and 4 for the passenger in the coupe, with risks of 7% and 13% (average 10%); the sedan was a high-end 4 stars teetering on the edge of 5, with 11% risks for each occupant. While no videos are available, the reasons for the scores are obvious from the photos; a weak occupant compartment in the 1979, and a well-designed structure and restraint system in the '84. In fact, while passenger dummies avoiding dashboard contact even without airbags was commonplace with well-designed restraint systems, it was extremely rare for a driver dummy to not hit the steering wheel without an airbag. And one of these rare vehicles was the 1984 Toyota Corolla coupe.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/research-testing-databases/#/vehicle/99
The 1980 Tercel was the third Toyota that NHTSA tested, and was the only 1979-1980 model Japanese car that NHTSA tested that escaped a 1-star rating for either occupant; the driver earned 3 stars and the passenger 2, with risks of 32% and 38% (average 35%). The redesigned 1983 Tercel improved this to 4 and 5 stars, with 16% and 9% risks (average 13%); the 1984 maintained the same star rating, but improved risks slightly to 13% and 9% (average 11%). It's harder to see in this set of photos, but the 1980 Tercel's occupant compartment is buckling (look closely at the steering wheel through the side windows), while the 1984's has, once again, remained intact.
Comments
Post a Comment