Ask the Car People.SM


Toyota RAV4 Accident Tests

11 messages,  Last post on Mar 15, 2009 at 6:32 PM

You are in the Toyota RAV4 Forum.

What is this discussion about? Toyota RAV4, SUV

Messages Page 1 of 1

  • All Messages Displayed

#1 of 11 RAV Accident Tests by gracejoan

Jun 29, 2006 (9:03 am)

I was shocked when a friend with a 2005 RAV was in a rather minor accident..front and rear.. but,with over $3000 in repairs. His insurance agent..it was either State Farm or Allstate..I am pretty sure it was State Farm..told him to get rid of the RAV as they were poorly made and not safe to drive!!
 
I have my 4th RAV..now a Limited 2006..love it!
 
I would certainly like to hear what those of you who are "more in the know" have to say about this.
 
Thanks,
Joan

#2 of 11 Re: RAV Accident Tests [gracejoan] by gracejoan

Jun 29, 2006 (9:13 am)

Replying to: gracejoan (Jun 29, 2006 9:03 am)
I have just found out that it ws NOT the insurance agent, but was the collision shop manager who made that statement.
 
Quite a statement to make.
 
Anxious for input..
 
Joan

#3 of 11 Re: RAV Accident Tests [gracejoan] by tidester

Jun 29, 2006 (11:15 am)

Replying to: gracejoan (Jun 29, 2006 9:13 am)
If you're looking for feedback from other RAV4 owners you're more likely to get it in the main Toyota RAV4 discussion.
 
tidester, host

#4 of 11 RAV accident damage by philiplee

Jan 30, 2007 (11:56 am)

RAV has a crumple zone build-in in the front and rear. I have a 2004 RAV4 base Auto got totaled in a 25 to 30 mile per hour front collision. The design is aimed to allow the front end to take the most damage while preventing the impact to intrude to the cabin. The airbag did not even deploy in this case. The driver is O.K.. However the two main frame posts (where the bumper attached to) in front were bent. The dealer shop estimated at $14000 for repair (while book value is at $17000 excluding TTL). That is the major reason my insurance offered me a total compensation.

#5 of 11 Re: RAV Accident Tests [gracejoan] by carnivore

Jan 31, 2007 (10:58 am)

Replying to: gracejoan (Jun 29, 2006 9:13 am)
Would you rather have your fender crumple or your head go through the windshield? The Rav4 is well made, it did exactly what it was supposed to do, it crumpled, absorbing the impact. Of course that means it's expensive to repair, but then the whole body shop industry is a racket anyway with the rates they charge insurance companies.
 
Here's the US government safety rating:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/4039.html
 
And the IIHS (Insurance Industry) safety rating:
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=654

#6 of 11 Re: RAV accident damage [philiplee] by leeharvey418

Jun 21, 2007 (10:09 am)

Replying to: philiplee (Jan 30, 2007 11:56 am)
Interesting... I'd be curious to see how many vehicles could take a frontal impact at 25-30 mph and not experience high enough passenger cell acceleration to deploy the airbags.
 
Most people don't realize that an impact at that speed is enough to total 95% or better of vehicles on the road today. No, I'm not just talking about new vehicles either. Body-on-frame trucks (and the dinosaur cars that are out there) might look okay on the outside, but the term 'frame damage' exists for a reason, along with what it does to the value of a vehicle once that label has been applied.

#7 of 11 Re: RAV Accident Tests [gracejoan] by sidious6688

Jun 21, 2007 (2:08 pm)

Replying to: gracejoan (Jun 29, 2006 9:03 am)
More and more cars today are designed to absorb energy and spares their passengers. This is done but slowing the deceleration of the passengers. To accomplish this, the car must crumple in stages so then when the fron end of the impact occurs and is stopped instantly, the rest of the car follows suit. The reason you dont feel an impact if you land on a tramboline is that you are slowed over a distant instead of a hard surface. The heavy damage to the vehicle is the pruce paid for the greater survivability of the occupents. Your odds of surviving a crash today are vastly superior to years ago. This is one of the key reasons. If you remember the Knight Industries Two thousand (KITT) from Knight Rider, such an indestructible car might be imjmune to annoying scratches, but would condemn you death in crash, not save you.

#8 of 11 Re: RAV Accident Tests [gracejoan] by dtown40

Jun 21, 2007 (2:35 pm)

Replying to: gracejoan (Jun 29, 2006 9:03 am)
Am I the crazy one here? If my Rav 4 was totaled in a low speed accident, and I got out and walked away, I think that whatever the cost would be, would be a bargain if it saved my life. Just my opinion.

#9 of 11 Re: RAV Accident Tests [dtown40] by maww

Jul 20, 2007 (8:22 am)

Replying to: dtown40 (Jun 21, 2007 2:35 pm)
I agree with dtown40 - I was in an accident with my '97 RAV4 just a few weeks ago. The other driver T-boned me (hit my passenger side which was empty thankfully); he was going about 40 mph.
 
I walked away with very sore muscles but only a couple of scratches. I'm thankful every day that my RAV4 was built to protect me.
 
My car was a total loss but I'm overjoyed that I was safe.
 
I'm seriously considering buying another RAV4 based on that accident and 5.5 years of problem-free ownership. She was a fantastic car and will be missed!

Messages Page 1 of 1

  • All Messages Displayed
To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement