In what surely will turn into marketing fodder for the domestics, the new Toyota Tundra garnered only a 4-star crash rating by the NHTSA. While 4-stars is nothing to sneeze at, the also all-new Chevy Silverado and Ford F-150 (and Titan too) scored 5 stars in the same tests. It looks like this Tundra product launch is becoming tougher than Toyota had planned.
Full story here ...
ateixeira says:
10:54 AM, 03/19/07
I dunno, it beats the Ford in 2 out of those 3 tests, and Ford keep touting their tough structure.
carlisimo says:
12:03 PM, 03/19/07
It'd be nice if they made the graphs consistent regarding whether high or low is better.
billt9 says:
12:24 PM, 03/19/07
Um, it's consistent LOW is BETTER.
Read the title of the graphs.
LOW head injury is good.
LOW getting smacked in the chest is good (g is a unit of acceleration).
LOW getting your legs rammed is good (lb is a unit of force).
Unless you find pleasure in any of those things...
carlisimo says:
03:25 PM, 03/19/07
I dunno, the first graph doesn't have units on the vertical axis - all it says is Head Injury Criterion Score, and I always think of high scores as better.
The Tundra does seem to be behind overall, and the worst in chest deceleration, but I don't see anything drastic in those numbers. I've never heard of safety being a priority in large pick-up marketing, so nothing short of a truly bad showing would sway me either way.
iancar says:
04:30 PM, 03/20/07
No small towns pickup truck buyers want to ditch their "home made" & "family friends run dealers" trucks unless it is absolutely necessary. So far, Toyota isn't that good yet.
gdog6 says:
11:51 AM, 03/24/07
So let me get this right. the lower the bar the better?