2007 Toyota Tundra Crewmax Limited.4x4 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

10 of 18 midsize SUVs earn 'good' IIHS side impact safety rating

It's not terribly surprising that midsize SUVs earned better safety ratings than small SUVs in the latest side-impact tests performed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). Just how much better they scored, on the other hand, certainly raises an eyebrow. Ten out of 18 midsize SUVs earned the highest rating of 'good' in the stringent new test, altered for vehicles starting with the 2020 model year with a heavier barrier (4,200 pounds) that moves at a higher speed (37 miles per hour) and is fitted with a hard honeycomb frontal structure. By way of contrast, just one out of of 20 small SUVs earned a 'good' score.  SUVs that receiving 'good' scores were the Ford Explorer, Infiniti QX60, Lincoln Aviator, Mazda CX-9, Nissan Pathfinder, Subaru Ascent, Toyota Highlander, Volkswagen Atlas, Volkswagen Atlas Cross Sport and Volkswagen ID.4. For EV fans, it's worth noting the ID.4 was the only electric vehicle included in the test. The Buick Enclave and Chevrolet Traverse scraped away with 'acceptable' ratings while the Honda Passport, Honda Pilot, Hyundai Palisade, Jeep Wrangler 4-door, Kia Telluride and Nissan Murano were deemed merely 'marginal' in the tough new test. Only two models — the Mazda CX-9 and Volkswagen ID.4 — earned a "Good" rating in every test category.  Interestingly, the Jeep Wrangler would have scored a 'good' rating if it were equipped with side airbags for the rear seating positions. It would likely be an engineering challenge to equip its removable top and/or doors with airbags, but the lack of that safety feature allowed the head of the rear passenger dummy to hit the vertical support of the top. Otherwise, the Wrangler scored good ratings across the board. The new Ford Bronco, which makes more allowances for side-impact safety, has not yet been tested.  The popular Hyundai Palisade and Kia Telluride SUVs stand out in the test with 'poor' ratings for driver pelvis injuries. The Nissan Murano, a vehicle last redesigned for the 2015 model year, was the only vehicle tested that received a 'poor' rating for its structure and safety cage. Videos of the tests of 12 of these 18 SUVs can be found on the IIHS' YouTube page. Related video: Green Buick Chevrolet Ford Honda Hyundai Infiniti Jeep Kia Mazda Nissan Subaru Toyota Volkswagen Safety Crossover SUV IIHS Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

NHTSA investigating 30,000 Toyota Camry Hybrids for brake assist problems

Older model Toyota Camry Hybrids are under investigation by the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for potential braking problems. Enough complaints have poured into the NHTSA website that the agency is now taking a look at the problem, which could affect around 30,000 vehicles from the 2007 and 2008 model years. According to Reuters, 59 complaints have been submitted revolving around an "intermittent loss of assisted braking" which means the car takes longer to stop. Interestingly, the rate of complaints is increasing. Toyota is reportedly cooperating with NHTSA and there has not yet been an official recall on the Camry Hybrids. In 2006, Toyota said Brake Assist was "an electronic function that senses an emergency stop and applies increased braking power once the driver touches the brake pedal." When Toyota unveiled the 2007 Camry Hybrid, it proudly stated that the new Brake Assist function would be standard. Other Toyota hybrids have had problems with their brakes in the past, including the 2010 Prius and Lexus HS 250h hybrid. You can read some of the complaints about Brake Assist in the Camry Hybrids to the NHTSA here. People are saying that the "Check VSC" lights can come on before the brakes loose some of their power and a lot of them are being quoted repair costs of over $3,000 by Toyota dealers. Featured Gallery 2007 Toyota Camry Hybrid View 38 Photos News Source: Reuters Green Toyota Hybrid brakes

Senator pushes for up to life sentence for auto execs found to delay recalls

Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill (shown above) has had it with automotive execs stalling when it comes to recalls. The Missiourian has proposed a new bill, the Motor Vehicle and Highway Safety Enhancement Act, which aims to improve the automotive safety following the high-profile fiascos involving General Motors and Toyota. Aside from a doubling of the budget for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration over the next six years and the removal of the $35-million limit for fining automakers, the plan includes a provision that would punish auto executives if it's discovered they knowingly delayed recalls. How will it punish them, you ask? Oh, you know, just life in prison. The bill "gives federal prosecutors greater discretion to bring criminal prosecutions for auto safety violations and increases the possible penalties, including up to life in prison for violations that result in death," McCaskill's office told The Detroit News. If a delayed recall led to serious injuries, meanwhile, execs could still face a 15-year stint behind bars. As for that change in the fine structure for automakers, the removal of the limit is complemented by a hefty increase in the per-vehicle fine, from $5,000 to $25,000. With this change, GM could have been on the hook for $55 billion (with a "b") in fines for its bumbling of the ignition switch recall, rather than just $35 million. The News says, though, that NHTSA has "wide discretion" in handing out the fines. Considering a $55-billion fine is enough to sink any automaker, it is unlikely that such a monumental sum would be handed out. Still, the potential threat of such a death sentence should be enough for any automaker to sit up and take notice. "With millions of Americans behind the wheel every day, and more than 33,000 killed on our roads each year, we've got to do more to keep our cars and the roads we drive them on safe," McCaskill said, according to The News. "Painful recent examples at Toyota and GM have shown us we also must make it easier to hold accountable those who jeopardize consumers' safety. For too long, auto safety resources have remained virtually stagnant while cars and the safety challenges they present have become more complex." What do you think? Do you agree with McCaskill's proposed bill? Should the punishments for automakers and execs be more or less harsh? Have your say in Comments. News Source: The Detroit NewsImage Credit: J.