Confirmed: Toyota only reinforced one side of the Prius (photos inside)

I would think that there should be a part number for this part if it is removable as stated above. Great thread, again..

 

If it was not for Toyota's money and Mercedes Benz's money, Tesla may not be the company it is today!

 

While all this is arguably true.
I'm still disappointed.

I think it's a cop out to deflect criticism with the statement of "Everyone Else Does It" or the Red Herring of you can buy a safer car but it won't get 50 mpg. I didn't buy a different car, I bought this one. And I think it's quite possible to make a safer Prius.

All though it's perfectly arguable that this is Standard Operating Procedure, when it comes to safety I'd like to think Toyota is striving to set standards not just follow them.
I can't imagine when reinforcing the one side, that somebody, somewhere didn't mention reinforcing BOTH sides. And the only reason for NOT doing so, would appear to me to be financial. One less part to produce, one less part to assemble.

It "appears" the priority was with passing the test, and getting the marketable higher safety rating, but not actually with making the vehicle as safe as it could be....which IMO is disappointing.

But my guess is it wouldn't impact the cost of the vehicle greatly, and I doubt the extra weight of one brace would impact the MPG either. Speaking for myself, I'd gladly pay a few hundred more for my Prius, with the idea that it's safer in front end collision for both myself as driver and any occupant also riding upfront.

 

every time automakers improve safety, government responds with stricter standards. it's the chicken and egg. your car is very safe compared to a 1970 vega. even a car designed for safety won't pass a test designed out smart the engineers.

 

It may be a false assumption that the right side of the car is less safe just because it does not have a unique object contained on the left side of the car. Both sides of car are not symmetrical.

 

The claim that the current safety systems don't add a lot of weight is just plain wrong. Take a 1970s Datsun 510. It weighted about 2000 lbs. - and it was rear wheel drive, which adds weight. You WON'T find a "modern" car of similar size much under 3000 lbs. The Datsun was "safe" for its time, with "crush zones" etc.

The safer the car the heavier.

 

If Consumer Reports, Motor Trends or some other bona fide consumer advocate says this was an unacceptable short-cut, it could have merit as a disappointment. But right now I am just happy Toyota moved to pass the test.

 

IMO that's not a fair reason for being OK with this either.

Still build safer cars.- Let the government continue to raise standards. Who cares? The end result is better safety for everyone.
Plus the fact that in 2015 cars are safer than in 1970 isn't a valid reason for discounting or ignoring improvements that can or IMO should be made today.

IMO Automotive safety is a race that as an automaker you NEVER stop running. You don't go "Well we're a whole lot safer than a 1970 Vega, so we don't need to improve".

And if there is an adversarial nature between automakers and those designing tests to determine safety? That's not an excuse for not striving for improvement either.

Bottom line to me, is I think with little to no impact on efficiency, nor little impact on overall price of the vehicle, the addition of a passenger side reinforcement brace WOULD make the vehicle safer.
Every thing else justifying NOT doing it, are just chimerical excuses that could result in injuries and perhaps deaths that could be avoided.

 

Mitsubishi Mirage with 5MT is 1970lbs. FWD but more space inside too.

 

Let's cut to the chase: is anyone like Priuschat willing to arrange a group buy of this piece for those of us with the 2010-2013 hatchbacks?

Problem: I cannot locate a parts diagram for a 2015 that will distinctly show me this part and give me an official Toyota part number. (There are all kinds of after market braces being sold that mount every which way on the car, but I could not successfully drill down to the correct Toyota bumper-to-chassis brace or whatever you would properly call it.)

 

well of course, you have a right to your opinion, and a few people here share it with you. but obviously, toyota, and most other car companies don't. we can only vote with our wallets.

 

2015 Mitsubishi Mirage with all mandated safety equipment. Sorry for not being clear.

 

1. How are you sure that this structural amendment came with no costs to the rest of crash performance? It is completely likely that a bolt-on amendment (much like an aftermarket mod) can modify (or even outright compromise) other aspects of crash performance (eg. increases energy transfer). It is entirely possible that what was decided on was the best compromise in terms of maximizing protection to cover the most likely of accidents.

2. Crash performance is never symmetrical. You have a steering column in your face; the passenger doesn't. The engine bay has all sorts of non-compressible structures in there in an asymmetrical layout, mounted to (and possibly stiffening) asymmetrical mounting points. If the IIHS does not test for the moderate overlap nor small-overlap on the passenger side, how is anybody sure that the passenger side behaves the same way? So why is anybody so sure the passenger side is now relatively deficient?

There are way too many assumptions being made without justification. We only know what has been tested. Anything else is just weak conjecture.

 

From a frame and body standpoint they are symmetrical. I'd be very surprised if the reason only one side was reinforced had anything to do with adding the brace would make it "less safe".

Of course the only way to really prove this would be to run tests with and without braces on the right side.

You'd have to prove to me my admitted assumption is wrong.

You are right though, it is ultimately an untested assumption.

 

i can picture soeone talking on the phone, veering off to the right, slamming into a light pole and...ouch! double whammy.

 

Sorry to be late to the party, but there are other improvements that were made to the vehicle in order to improve the small-overlap collision performance. This was not a bolt-on fix.
In addition to the reinforcement found by the OP, the left A-pillar and floor rail have been reinforced, and the thickness of the floor padding has been increased.
Considering the platform had already been in production for about 4 years, making changes to improve one aspect of collision performance without unintended degradation of others was surely challenging.

 

The 2016 is built on a new platform, Toyota New Global Architecture, that had weight reduction as one of its development goals. So, it's likely the next Prius will be lighter than the current version, not heavier.

 

sure, but why couldn't they do the right corner too? don't they care?

 

""Doing the right corner" would cost far more overall (development costs+manufacturing costs+added fuel consumption, etc.) per life saved.