When IIHS released their upgraded or new tests, they find someway to "kick sand" in the face of Toyota. They did it with changes to the roof crush, small offset, and the accident avoidance tests. But the second and subsequent years, they release dispashonate reports like this: Crash Prevention Systems In Vehicles Improving Rapidly, IIHS Finds Better still, their web reported results actually have useful engineering data. Just their initial press releases about a change recalls the Don Henley lyrics about the 'bubble headed bleach blond, Is the head dead yet?' I would have more respect if they would cut out the cute and put in more engineering data in their initial press releases. The MUCK gets in the way of their message. Bob Wilson
The "Forward Collision Warning" . . . . now available (2014) on a Caddy . . . . The Advanced Prius pack had that option in 2010. Let's welcome GM ... only 4 years behind the lowly Toyota. All that to say that 'The Car Connection' has never seemed to be very much on top of things IMO. for instance - they rate the Tesla 8.6 and rate the BMW 7 at a 9.2 - apparently allocating little consideration to what a slow mover the 7 is at the dealer - where the BMW may languish for months prior to being purchased. One would think the Car Connection's choice for greatness might have a little more nexus between how quick the merchandise is being snapped up - or not. Apparently not, because some Toyota/Lexus models move in a couple weeks average - whereas BMW models will still be there for months & months. Car Connection versus buying public - there seems to be a disconnect. .
What if the muck is the message. I mean the goal is to make insurance companies the most money. You don't do that by putting forth straight forward engineering data.
^^^ What he said. The insurance organization is trying to reduce the amount of dollars they pay-out to fix broken drivers/passengers. They don't care if they embarrass the carmakers. In fact it's probably the goal (to gain more influence over car design).
