NHTSA Complaint #11121136 — 2017 TOYOTA RAV4

FROM THE IIHS WEBSITE: "THE TOYOTA RAV4 WAS REDESIGNED FOR THE 2013 MODEL YEAR. ALTHOUGH TOYOTA REINFORCED THE STRUCTURE IN LATER MODEL YEARS ON THE DRIVER SIDE TO IMPROVE OCCUPANT PROTECTION IN SMALL OVERLAP FRONTAL CRASHES, NO SUCH CHANGES WERE MADE ON THE PASSENGER SIDE." FOR THE 2013 REDESIGN, TOYOTA KNEW ENOUGH TO CORRECT THE STRUCTURE ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE TO REMEDY THE IIHS'S RATING OF POOR; HOWEVER, THIS CORRECTION WAS NOT MADE BILATERALLY AND THE PASSENGER SIDE IS STILL COMPROMISED. AT THE TIME I PURCHASED THE RAV4, THE PASSENGER SIDE SMALL FRONT OVERLAP TEST WAS NOT BEING CONDUCTED BY IIHS, AND IT WAS NOT DISCLOSED THAT THE CHANGE WAS MADE ONLY TO THE DRIVER SIDE. THE SALES GM AT THE DEALERSHIP ASSURED ME THAT MY CAR IS STILL SAFE AND REMAINS AN IIHS TOP SAFETY PICK. I OPENED A CASE WITH TOYOTA AND RECEIVED A CALL FROM A CASE MANAGER WHO SAID THE CAR MEETS FEDERAL SAFETY GUIDELINES AND HAS A FIVE-STAR SAFETY RATING WITH NHTSA. HE CALLED THE SMALL OVERLAP FRONT CRASH TEST SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF "OVERLY AGGRESSIVE" AND "VERY SPECIALIZED." HE STATED THAT BECAUSE THERE IS NOT A "CHRONIC PRODUCT DEFECT" TO MY SPECIFIC VEHICLE AND THAT MY "COMPLAINT IS WITH THE PRODUCT DESIGN" THAT THERE IS "NOTHING FOR TOYOTA TO DO." IF THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF CRASH TEST WERE SO SPECIALIZED AND UNIMPORTANT TO TOYOTA, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE MADE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE DRIVER SIDE, WHICH AT THE TIME WAS THE ONLY SIDE BEING TESTED. I AM EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED IN TOYOTA FOR FAILING TO MAKE THE ADJUSTMENT BILATERALLY, IN MY OPINION, PUT ME IN A POSITION WHERE I PURCHASED THE CAR UNDER FALSE PRETENSES. I CHOSE THE RAV4 BECAUSE AT THE TIME, IT RECEIVED ALL GOOD RATINGS IN THE VARIOUS CRASHES WHICH HAD BEEN CONDUCTED. THE FACT THAT TOYOTA IS UNWILLING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS MISREPRESENTATION IS STARTLING FOR A COMPANY THAT HAS USED SAFETY AS THE FOUNDATION FOR ITS REPUTATION.