Explorer vs Camry

[01FOCI]

Police say that at approximately 3:55 p.m. Sunday, a 1998 Toyota Camry with four occupants was westbound on Highway 20 near milepost 75 negotiating a left hand curve when, for an unknown reason, it lost control and slid broadside across the centerline into the two oncoming eastbound lanes.

 

An eastbound 2003 Ford Explorer driven by Grant Hall, 58, from Bend, crashed into the passenger side of the Toyota.

 

Oregon State Police troopers believe the impact was in the right hand eastbound lane.

 

The four occupants of the Toyota included one adult male, two adult females, and one teenage male.

 

The adult male driver, an adult female passenger, and the teenage male passenger died in the crash.

 

The other adult female passenger was critically injured and transported to St. Charles Medical Center in Bend by ambulance.

 

They were all using safety restraints.

 

The driver of the Toyota was identified as Patrick Horton, age 51, from Beaverton. His wife, Julianne Horton, age 51, was seated in the right front seat and was also pronounced deceased at the scene. Their son, Ryan Horton, age 15, was in the right rear seat.

 

Ryan Horton reportedly was pronounced deceased while being transported by AirLife to St. Charles Medical Center.

 

The lone survivor who was critically injured in the Toyota is identified as Laura Beyer, age 75, from Keizer. She was in the left rear seat and is reported to be the mother of Julianne Horton.

 

Hall, the driver of the minivan, was using safety restraints and received minor injuries. He was transported by ambulance to St. Charles Medical Center for treatment.

[Aqeel Mahesri]

It's hard to survive a side impact at those speeds in any car. Nonetheless, it does illustrate the importance of improving SUV-car crash compatibility. New SUVs should be much less of a danger than the ones out there now.

[RichardJensen]

It's hard to survive a side impact at those speeds in any car. Nonetheless, it does illustrate the importance of improving SUV-car crash compatibility. New SUVs should be much less of a danger than the ones out there now.

That's not so much the Explorer's ride height as it is the nature of the impact. Side impacts are brutal, and the '98 Camry was not really engineered to do much except collapse in a side impact.

 

Since then door beams and "B" pillar reinforcement have reduced the likelihood of serious injury--

 

 

This image does not show the door structure. Passenger cars now typically have a beam that runs from one of the hinges to a reinforced socket on the door frame, to further protect passengers in the event of a side impact.

 

However, at 60-70mph a broadside from a vehicle 1000lbs heavier than yours is going to be serious. Best you can say is that with a newer Camry (or Ford, or anything) there might've been more survivors.

 

...

Edited February 21, 2006 by RichardJensen

[range]

The standard 2006 Camry gets a Poor side impact rating from IIHS.

 

This fact is something the media seems to overlook when discussing the best selling car in the US.

[slider71]

The standard 2006 Camry gets a Poor side impact rating from IIHS.

 

As did every other midsize sedan without side airbags....

Kinda makes the point that they should be standard in order to have a better chance in situations like this.

So, if Ford really wants to play up the safety angle with Volvo, its time to step up and make 'em standard in the Fusion and Five Hundred.

[Michael Reynolds]

As did every other midsize sedan without side airbags....

Kinda makes the point that they should be standard in order to have a better chance in situations like this.

So, if Ford really wants to play up the safety angle with Volvo, its time to step up and make 'em standard in the Fusion and Five Hundred.

 

Good point.

 

My concern with all of this is not so much airbag offerings, but engineering the car to withstand as much force as possible. That's where the safety engineering needs to start, because by 2010 torso/curtain airbags will be standard equipement on almost all cars anyhow (I think it might even be mandated).

[PoorBob]

Good point.

 

My concern with all of this is not so much airbag offerings, but engineering the car to withstand as much force as possible. That's where the safety engineering needs to start, because by 2010 torso/curtain airbags will be standard equipement on almost all cars anyhow (I think it might even be mandated).

 

I had a friend who died a few years ago in a high-speed side-impact crash like this one. When you're dealing with speeds this high and a decent amount of mass on both vehicles, chances are someone's going to die, and the most likely candidate is the one hit on the side. If the Camry had hit the Explorer in the driver's side at those speeds, the SUV driver could have been seriously hurt or killed.

 

There's only one kind of sedan built to handle those crash forces, and they only drive in circles around race tracks. NASCAR vehicles are built to withstand those pressures, and each NASCAR body costs more than a fleet of Camries.

 

Bob

[fllcobra]

Strong sides and super strong B-pillars are a needed start to protect the torso and hips of the occupant. But stonger sides won't stop the occupant's head from striking the side glass or hood/bumper of the striking vehicle.

 

Side airbags really should be made standard. Period.

[Extreme4x4]

As did every other midsize sedan without side airbags....

Kinda makes the point that they should be standard in order to have a better chance in situations like this.

So, if Ford really wants to play up the safety angle with Volvo, its time to step up and make 'em standard in the Fusion and Five Hundred.

 

Actually, didn't the Five Hundred receive a top rating for side impact, even without the side airbags???

[slider71]

Actually, didn't the Five Hundred receive a top rating for side impact, even without the side airbags???

No, it was with the SAB and the Structure was rated Average.

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=601

 

The Audi actually had a higher rating for Structure, but they deducted it for seat/head restraint.

[ford-boy]

The five Hundred rec'd FIVE star rating in ALL impact tests from NHTSA WITHOUT side curtains. That is front for both driver and passenger, then rear side impact for BOTH front and rear . The Camry was rated five star in frontal for both driver and passenger, 4 star in side impact for front seat and 3 star in rear side impact.

[slider71]

The five Hundred rec'd FIVE star rating in ALL impact tests from NHTSA WITHOUT side curtains. That is front for both driver and passenger, then rear side impact for BOTH front and rear . The Camry was rated five star in frontal for both driver and passenger, 4 star in side impact for front seat and 3 star in rear side impact.

 

True, I was going by the IIHS test, which uses a SUV/Pickup frontend, which seemed more pertinent to this particular discussion.

[630land]

It was a 1988 camry, which is much much smaller than a 2006 one.

[kevinb120]

True, I was going by the IIHS test, which uses a SUV/Pickup frontend, which seemed more pertinent to this particular discussion.

 

 

The IIHS test is a bogus one(the insurance institute definately has financial interests in trying to raise the rates on small and mid sized vehicles). It is now using a 'suv' test with a bumper height no SUV has anymore. The Expedition meets exactly square with a Taurus front bumper. The new test is like a 1989 bronco with a lift kit. Not to say that any smaller car really has that much of a chance in that instance. But Toyota and Honda products are only built to withstand the test impacts, nothing more. The new toyota is camry is finally getting most the features the Taurus had. They still use little thin doors with tack on window frames though. A 500 shown naked has shotgun and front impact beam braces about 4 times the size of the camrys, and multiple across car actual beams in the dash, between the struts, and under the front seats, on top of more structrue then that camry cutaway to start with. They still dont bother to make the unitbody strong enough on japanese cars to not require the large rear bulkhead to pass the tests. I did see another explorer hit an altima the other day in the rear(not even a fast impact) and the Altima crumpled up like a tin can more then halfway into the trunk and crushing the rear wheels, the E taking hardly any damage.

 

BTW that cutaway of the Camry is laughable next to a 500, its not even close.

Edited February 22, 2006 by kevinb120

[range]

The IIHS test is a bogus one(the insurance institute definately has financial interests in trying to raise the rates on small and mid sized vehicles). It is now using a 'suv' test with a bumper height no SUV has anymore. The Expedition meets exactly square with a Taurus front bumper. The new test is like a 1989 bronco with a lift kit. Not to say that any smaller car really has that much of a chance in that instance. But Toyota and Honda products are only built to withstand the test impacts, nothing more. The new toyota is camry is finally getting most the features the Taurus had. They still use little thin doors with tack on window frames though. A 500 shown naked has shotgun and front impact beam braces about 4 times the size of the camrys, and multiple across car actual beams in the dash, between the struts, and under the front seats, on top of more structrue then that camry cutaway to start with. They still dont bother to make the unitbody strong enough on japanese cars to not require the large rear bulkhead to pass the tests. I did see another explorer hit an altima the other day in the rear(not even a fast impact) and the Altima crumpled up like a tin can more then halfway into the trunk and crushing the rear wheels, the E taking hardly any damage.

 

BTW that cutaway of the Camry is laughable next to a 500, its not even close.

 

 

 

===> "But Toyota and Honda products are only built to withstand the test impacts, nothing more. "

 

 

You are absolutely correct and I wish this information was more widely covered in the media.

[RichardJensen]

BTW that cutaway of the Camry is laughable next to a 500, its not even close.

That's a Fusion.

 

...

[01FOCI]

BTW that cutaway of the Camry is laughable next to a 500, its not even close.

 

 

Anyone have the picture of this? I would LOVE to see it so i can print it and wave it in front of all my import driving friends!

[kevinb120]

That's a Fusion.

 

...

 

Yea I see it, single piece side stampings, rear passthrough, and the underseat brace. I just glanced at it after being around enough camry's to be honest :wacko: . I should of known it in 2 sec just from the rocker panels(the fusion actually has them :P )The camry has some multisegmented areas and little underfloor bracing, and still relies on the rear bulkhead(no pass through) to support the thinner metals. If you look in the engine bay of one you can see how small the engine mount rails are too. The 500 is incredibly massive with huge shotgun braces and is actually the only car made with 3 layers of metal in the B pillar.

 

Jeeze you cant find a naked pic of the camry anywhere :shrug: It has a very small joint at the top of the b pillar. Every pic even close to a safety cage drawing/phot has the doors and roof skinned, no surprise there. Damn 65 pages of Wieck images and not one of any unitbody, nothing.

 

heres a 500(still doesn't show the 2 1/2" strut tower brace or how large the wheel intrusion braces really are):

Edited February 25, 2006 by kevinb120

[2005Explorer]

These kinds of things always bother me. I feel for the surviving family members, it is tough to loose that many people so fast. Terrible. With that said, I'm glad to hear the Explorer protected the man and he did not have any major injuries. Instead of showing how many people have died in Explorers how about we start to show people who have been saved in them. Of course, this 98 Camry was no match for the Explorer, but things like this always make me feel safe about my choice of a vehicle and if I was going to choose a passenger car for nothing more then safety, the only one I would consider is the Five-Hundred. There is no doubt in my mind if those people had been in a Five-Hundred they would be alive today. My cousin actually came across a high speed head-on out in California on a side road. A Five-Hundred and a late 1990's model Camry had collided at high speed. The driver was killed in the Camry. The driver and passenger were actually able to get out of the Five-Hundred and with some help were able to walk away from it.

Edited February 25, 2006 by 2005Explorer

[RussianCommie]

Hi...I know this is old but I happen to be the son of Patrick Horton. I haven't really read all of the posts, but I can tell you that side impact in any car collision with a big weight ratio between each car will result in the same thing my family suffered. Someone mentioned side impact and how making the sides stronger doesn't prevent the person from hitting the car. I will always remember the night I arrived at the hospital and seeing my brother who was int he rear seat on the impact side. I dont know how he managed to hold on for 90 mins, but his face was so badly damaged from him hitting the car that I lost it. Even I was not strong enough to stop my self from collapsing.

[ANTAUS]

I have seen an '05 Accord, hit the side of an '04 Explorer...it happened to a friend of mine. The Accord was traveling at 65 MPH when the driver failed to stop at a red light, and Yes the Accord driver died instantly. At the speed of impact, the Accord hit the firewall (considering the Explorer is still moving), made it's hardest impact on the B-pillar, and the crashing stopped at the rear driver fendr. The Explorer did end up being pushed (specifically the tail end) where it looped around and both cars were face to face. My friend in the Explorer suffered no real injury, cept the airbag detonation smoke on her face. Damage wise, the side frame rails took the majority of the hit. The driver door could be opened if you pulled it hard enough, but she just exited on the passenger door.

 

While the Explorer does have lower frontal beam so it doesn't overide the vehicle it hits in front of it, it doesn't have it on the side other than just the frame itself. Therefore, regular vehicles are hitting the frame rails, moreso than B-pillars. Actually the B-pillar was only detented towards the bottom where it met with the lower frame, it was perfectyly fine from the window to the roof.

 

From what the investigators pointed out, the Accord collapsed and wedged itself under the Explorer, which is what caused the Explorer to twirl it's tail around. Again, this was 65MPH.

[RussianCommie]

Yes this is another valid point. If you notice on the new Dodge Charger, Chrysler 300, etc...they are raising the height of the doors for this very reason. SUVs are taller and therefore hit high on a door...so even if there are beams they wont do as much as they would against a sedan.

[05fordgt]

So, if Ford really wants to play up the safety angle with Volvo, its time to step up and make 'em standard in the Fusion and Five Hundred.

 

Actually Slider, Both cars have them standard now.

[igor]

Actually Slider, Both cars have them standard now.

to be fair to Slider - that post was written LAST February ... then it was not standard .. but yeah since 07 MY they have them standard on Edge, FH/Freestyle, and Fusion (and of course all the relevant counterparts from L/M)

 

Igor

[NickF1011]

Yes this is another valid point. If you notice on the new Dodge Charger, Chrysler 300, etc...they are raising the height of the doors for this very reason. SUVs are taller and therefore hit high on a door...so even if there are beams they wont do as much as they would against a sedan.

 

Well, I don't think they raised the beltline to make them safer. It simply looks cooler (from outside anyway). The added safety protection offered is just a bonus.