This week, the idea of Brazil’s cars being “unsafe” due to inferior construction has been gaining a lot of currency on the blogosphere after the Associated Press published a report on this topic. Very few outlets have anyone posted in Brazil to do any deeper digging, but TTAC does. Unfortunately, our man Marcelo de Vasconcellos is currently in exams right now (good luck, Senhor!) and was unable to write up an article refuting these claims. Still, Marcelo took the time out to talk to TTAC about the problems behind the article.

The various articles floating around the web allege that Brazilian cars are doomed to be “unsafe” due to poor workmanship, excessive cost-cutting and poor grades of steel. Marcelo was able to speak to people at Fiat Brazil, as well as some engineering professors, and found out that the truth is that road fatalities are up, but not for the reasons people think they are.

A report by the Associated Press cites electricty savings on welding and shoddy workmanship as a key culprit behind the poor crash safety of Brazil’s cars

“If you save on electricity, you save on cost. One way to save electricity is either reducing the number of spot welds or using less energy for each spot weld made. This affects structural performance in the event of a crash.”

Marcelo asserts that since most of the cars sold in Brazil are unibody subcompacts, this argument holds little weight. Welds are done via robot, and the process is highly standardized, with little variation. Furthermore, many Brazilian made cars are exported. Fiats are sent back to Italy, while Volkswagens are exported to Argentina, the Middle East, Russia and other locations. Any cars sold in Europe must meet strict Euro NCAP standards, and the European magazines publish the results in great detail.

Brazilian steel is also blamed due to its apparently poor quality. Marcelo asserts this is false as well. Brazil’s iron ore is a sought after commodity on the world market as well (especially in places like Australia and Brazil), and Brazil is home to ValeInco, one of the world’s leading steel producers. This is far from the Eastern European sheetmetal that was notorious for causing Fiats to rust within minutes of coming into contact with road salt. We are dealing with a globally marketed commodity that must be competitive.

Marcelo instead places the blame on the increasing number of cars on the road, piloted by first-time drivers on poorly maintained road infastructure

The professor [Marcelo's friend who is an engineering professor] also commented that while the article showed an increase of 70% in fatalities (I think that’s what the article said, I have not read it) it did not say that the market has grown more than 150% over the last 15 years. Many, many of these buyers are first time drivers. Due to credit, many people don’t have the money to buy a used car (still more expensive here than in America) but they do have credit to buy said car in 60 months.

So, first time buyer, many times the first car in the family, many times young people, a disaster is waiting to happen. The other ingredient is of course the government. Badly maintained roads, almost no police presence on streets – an over-reliance on radars, just recently a crack down on drunk driving (the limit in Brazil is now 0, yes zero), lack of signs, roads designed and engineered and built in the 60s. Plus traffic conditions lots and lots of very old, decrepit really, buses and trucks…

Of course small cars are involved in more accidents. 70% of the market in Brazil is Palio, Uno, Gol, Fox, Celta, Classic, Sandero, Logan, 208, Ka, Fiesta and derivatives. All considered subcompacts in America. Of course they are in the majority of accidents. Of course most people get killed or maimed in them. A Gol sells 30k a month, a Corolla is lucky to get 3k…

As far as crash testing goes, Marcelo admits that Brazil does have a long way to go with both crash testing standards and mandatory safety features, but notes that the country is improving.

For you to have an idea, a Renault Sandero recently crash tested did better than a Chinese JAC 3. Detail: the Sandero was not equipped with airbags or ABS and the JAC was. Brazilian built Corollas got the same results as American Corollas. Now, airbags and ABS become mandatory next year. Look for Brazilian cars to then get the same results as their first world brethren. Take an American Fusion, strip it of its airbags and it’ll get the same 1, 2 or 3 stars Brazilian cars have been getting in such tests.

Brazilian cars are sort of middle of the road. They are not deathtraps but they are not first world because they don’t have lots of active safety systems. But they do have a lot of passive systems, collapsible steering wheel columns, collapsible brake peddles, fuel cut off systems in case of accidents, crumple zones, 3 point seat belts, they are all there.

While it would be irresponsible to ignore the AP’s report out of hand, it’s worth highlighting some of the non-car related factors in Marcelo’s interview. The lack of any drunk driving regulations, the substantial amount of inexperienced drivers on poorly maintained roads with scant traffic laws and the lack of any real enforcement of the rules of the road is clearly a recipe for disaster. Whether these locally-built subcompacts are in fact death traps is another debate that I’m not comfortable wading into.

One point that nobody has raised yet is the obscene prices that Brazilian consumers pay for cars. Often times they are 2-3 times more expensive than in America. Brazilian consumers could potentially be driving inferior cars and paying through the nose for them.

SUVs are usually regarded as safer than small cars. However, “most of the small SUVs tested for safety in crashes did not fare well in more stringent tests” performed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), Reuters says.

“US small SUVs scored badly,” writes the wire. Top honors took a trucklet that, according to the Urban Dictionary, is “driven by post-menopausal lesbians:” The Subaru Forester.

The Forester is the only small SUV that received a “good” rating in the newly added Small Front Overlap Test. The Mitsubishi Outlander Sport received an “acceptable” rating on the overlap test, and made second. The Forester and the Outlander were the only small SUVs to be awarded the IHS “Top Safety Pick+.”

The best-rated Detroit trucklet is the Buick Encore on place 6 with a poor Small Overlap rating. The Jeep Wrangler brings up the rear with a truly mediocre showing. Boo, hiss, Detroit – pussy-whipped by a Japanese transgender crossover that is also known as a “vag-wag?”

PS: Before you start to tar and feather me for Detroit bashing LGBT discrimination, please be notified that according to the all-knowing Wikipedia, the term “dyke” originated “as a derogatory label for a masculine woman, and this usage still exists.” Shame on them. “However, some persons attempt to use it in a manner that they see as positive, or as a neutral synonym for lesbian,” and those persons include the Schmitts.

Badge engineering: Kangoo, Dokker, Citan

Condition red at Daimler: Germany’s influential auto club ADAC gave the Mercedes Citan only three out of five stars in the Euro-NCAP-Crashtest. The loss of stars means “a meltdown” for the starred brand, says Automobilwoche [sub], “after all, the vehicle is supposed to excel with supreme safety.”

The Mercedes Citan is based on the Renault Kangoo, and is the product of an alliance between Daimler and Renault.  Daimler should have known better, says the ADAC: “The weak result is surprising due to the fact that the Renault Kangoo did not show convincing results during the crash test back in 2008.” The ADAC expected Mercedes to do better, after all, the Citan had been launched with a campaign that focused on safety and quality, Automobilwoche says.

The Citan, launched by Mercedes in late 2012, was its re-entry into the small city van segment, which Mercedes had not serviced for seven years. Before the devastating test, the Renault-made Citan turned Daimler into a target for derision. The Citan is not just a rebadged Kangoo, the same van is also available as the Dokker of Renault’s discount-brand Dacia. In the business, the rumor goes that the Citan actually improved the sales of the Kangoo and the Dokker. Smart shoppers take the cheaper brands, and enjoy the feeling that they drive a Mercedes without ;paying for it.

Daimler is dead set against using the new refrigerant HFO-1234yf, even if it is forced down it throat. The EU makes it a must in all news cars, but Daimler says it can fry and kill you. Now, Daimler can get burned big-time. Without HFO-1234yf, its new S-Class will be illegal, but “using HFO-1234yf is out of the question,” a Daimler spokesman told Automobilwoche [sub].

The new S-Class will be launched this summer in Europe. Germany’s Kraftfahrtbundesamt has given type approval only with the EU-mandated HFO-1234yf. Without the explosive refrigerant, the car would be illegal anywhere in Europe.

In 2012, the refrigerant ignited during a crash test at Daimler. Daimler recalled all B-Class and A-Class cars sold with the refrigerant, and converted the air conditioner.

Dope is legal in Washington State. To find out when reefer madness turns into vehicular mayhem, KIRO 7 Eyewitness News passed out marijuana to volunteers and put them behind the wheel to see how they are doing.

Even at four times over the legal limit, the unscientifically picked lab rats drove O.K. After additional bongs, their driving suffered a bit.

Nissan showed technology that protects both walls from cars, and drivers from their own stupidity lack of judgment. Sonar devices in the front and rear of the car detect hard obstacles. If the system decides that the driver is about to hit the wall, the computer cuts the gas and applies the brake.

Yesterday, Nissan was confident enough in its system to load journalists into a car, which then was driven into a wall erected in the parking lot of a Yokohama soccer stadium. The computer prevented harm to car, wall and fourth estate. The system also should prevent low speed collisions in garages and during traffic jams.

The system will first be optionally available in the new Elgrand minivan, which will go on sale in Japan on December 13.

Yesterday, we showed you how Toyota is going to help protect its customers from fender benders and more serious accidents, while it is at least trying to protect itself from people and lawyers who look for a deep-pocketed company to blame for their own shortcomings. Yesterday, I risked life and limb to personally test these systems on behalf of TTAC’s readers. Today, we bring you the pictures.

The systems seem to be ready for prime time. I walked away with my life, but only with one picture. As chronicled yesterday, more picture-taking was foiled by a representative of another automotive website – he swears it was an accident.

Toyota graciously offered (thank you, KC) the exclusive services of their Toyotashi-based in-house photographer Naoki Sumino. What follows is original Sumino artwork.

In the parking lot

This is supposed to be a mock-up parking lot of a Seven-11. While ogling pretty ladies, I am about to back into a wall.

Sonar becomes aware of my stupidity. The system notices that I am distracted by the fairer sex, and stops the car.

Now for the more harrowing part: I want to drive out of the parking lot, but accidentally, I am in reverse. I hit an obstacle. I freak …

… and I throw the shift lever into drive, with my foot still on the gas. The car lurches forward. The system detects the anomaly, and slows the car. Phew.

Everything but pedestrian

Open season for pedestrians, BS is on the prowl! “Officer, I could not see the guy, he walked right in front of my car!”

The system detects him, and brakes the car much faster than I could react. Should personal contact become unavoidable, a pop-up hood would cushion the impact.

The dummy will live another day.

A blind date with death

En-route to my next adventure, I sit in a blind spot. Go, or no go?

The system sees what I can’t see: Another car is coming. Thataways.

Good call! No T-bone today. (Note: This system requires on-site support, a pole and a few cameras. Recycled red light camera’s anyone?)

High speed pursuit and happiness

Car chase! A game that everybody loves. I barrel down the road, intent on rear-ending an Auris.

Actually, it’s a clever decoy.

As hard as I may try to hump the car in front of me, the system won’t let me. Getting perilously close to the Auris, the system slams the brakes …

… and the Auris remains unharmed. Close, but good call.

Mountainview, Japan

This is the Mount Fuji picture we promised you yesterday. The mountain grows right in the back yard of Toyota’s tech center. Toyota handily beats all other tech centers in the most scenic view department. Among other things.

TTAC expresses its gratitude to Sumino-san and all the people at Toyota for making this, and especially the pictures, possible.

The night before had been short, but interesting. I find myself in a 7-Eleven parking lot, high on energy drinks. Backing up, I bump into something. A wall? A dog? A person? I panic, my car lurches forward, wheels spin, gravel imbeds in anybody and anything within range, I push harder on the brakes, but the car accelerates right into a convenience store filled with school children. They live, because an invisible hand cuts the engine, and my car comes to a bloodless halt.

I collect my glasses and my wits. I turn to the smiling man in the passenger seat, and say: “You want me to try again?”

We are at Toyota’s R&D Center in Higashifuji, and I turned into a lab rat for a series of in vitro experiments that show new safety technology by Toyota.

Toyota agrees with the NHTSA that pedal misapplication is THE cause of unintended acceleration. The convenience store scenario repeats itself with regularity, says Toyota:

Someone wants to get out of a parking lot, but absent-mindedly shifts into reverse instead of drive. Pushes on the gas, bumps into something in the back. Driver panics, reflexively shifts from reverse into drive, keeps foot on gas, shoots forward and crashes into something else, calls his lawyer. With the new system, a sonar in the back measures the distance to an obstacle, and if the driver won’t brake, the system will. Another system detects abnormal shifting, such as reverse to drive with foot on gas, and cuts engine output when that happens. Peace be upon all parking lots.

By the way, do you know who the NHTSA says is most prone to pedal misapplication? Women. Japan’s Institute for Traffic Accident Research and Data Analysis (ITARDA) is less sexist (they don’t have to , a lot of women don’t drive in Japan, or are “paper drivers) and comes to these graphic conclusions:

With that out of the way, Toyota asks me to run over a pedestrian. Hidden behind parked cars, he runs across the street.

I aim, I keep my foot on the gas – but my car foils vehicular murder (in this case of a dummy) with a g-force inducing brake maneuver.

Now that I am a trained killer, they ask me to kill myself. First, I am supposed to accelerate to inner-city speed. When I see a stationary car in front of me, I am instructed to keep driving. Being German, I follow orders. The car in front of me becomes very fast very big in the windshield. Then suddenly, I am thrown into the seat belts. A computer cheated death again.

With that ordeal behind me, and a sip of water down my throat, they make me accelerate to 45 mph, and aim at a car dawdling along in front of me. When an alarm sounds, I am supposed to tap the brakes only lightly. Again, the system takes over, slams the brakes for me, and avoids rear-ending the car in front and causing fatal trauma all around. Why the second scenario? Toyota says studies show that drivers often don’t slam hard enough on the brakes, or even “pump” them to keep brakes from locking up. With ABS, nothing locks up. Just stomp the brakes, or let Toyota’s system do the stomping for you.

This system may sound like what others have. Not so, says Toyota. Theirs works at real-world high speeds, and up to a speed differential of 60 km/h (37.2 mph). It works with millimeter RADAR.

All of these systems, possibly paired with some more, like see-in-the dark near infrared lights, automatic high-beam systems, and stuff I missed during an extended bathroom visit, is ready to go and will be available in an ominous “new sedan” that should appear “soon” in Japan, they say today, while refusing to say more. There are rumors floating around in Tokyo of a new big Crown car to come in December. We’ll see. If successful, the technology is sure to filter down to most new Toyotas, Lexi et al.

Should plaintiff lawyers be worried about this technology that may cut into their take? They are a clever bunch and will probably sue “because Toyota’s system should have prevented my client from killing the deceased, and it did not!”

PS: Why not more pictures? As much as we may have tried, Toyota’s black boxes kept us from running over pedestrians, cars, and hard obstacles. However, they utterly failed to prevent a pedestrian accident: My former friend and previously esteemed colleague Roger Schreffler of Ward’s Auto walked backwards into me with all his considerable heft, knocked me off my feet, which left a pricey Canon camera and a long lens in pieces. This either proves that humans are the weak link. Or that the competition between on-line sites is getting personal. Toyota graciously donated one of their photographers. I expect the pictures tomorrow. One will have a beautiful Mount Fuji. 

Was your airbag replaced within the past three years? Did you buy a used car that sustained air bag deployment before you bought it? Did you buy a car with a salvage, rebuilt, or reconstructed title? Did you get a great deal on an air bag? In that case, be suspicious of your airbag, because it could kill you.

Gadzillions of cars could be driving around with airbags that fail to inflate during an accident, or that throw shrapnel at you when they do deploy, says the NHTSA.

The agency says ”the full scope and scale of the problem of counterfeit air bags is uncertain from currently available data,” but it “believes this issue affects less than 0.1 percent of the U.S. vehicle fleet.” At 250 million registered vehicles on the road, that would be around (or less than …) 250,000 cars with possibly lethal airbags lurking in the dash.

It also could be a big boon to new car dealerships. The NHTSA says that airbags replaced by new car dealerships are safe, but you should worry if and independent workshop did it.

Airbags are hidden away and cannot be checked by amateurs. The NHTSA recommends that possibly affected customers call their manufacturer and “have their vehicle inspected at their own expense and their air bag replaced if necessary.“

A dealer inspection likely will cost $100 or more. Replacing an airbag could go into the thousands.

The NHTSA released a list of nearly 100 vehicles that could have counterfeit air bags. Most popular brands and makes are on it.

The NHTSA does not say where the counterfeit airbags are from, but the Detroit News already fingered the usual suspects: “Most, if not all, of the replacement safety devices were made in China.”

Fake airbags are not the only problem. “Crooked body shops are stealing airbags from vehicles to make a quick dollar at your expense,” warns a website by the Coalition Against . Insurance Fraud. “Mechanics can easily remove your airbag without your knowing it.” They could even bill you $2,000 or more for “replacing” a good one with a fake one or none at all.

Four 2013 models, the Lexus ES, the Hyundai Santa Fe, the Subaru XV Crosstrek, and the Dodge Dart received the coveted  “Top Safety Pick” award by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

For the new Lexus ES models, the award is a relief. The outgoing ES 350 model had earned only a marginal rating in the rear test.

For the Santa Fe, the award is a tradition: The previous generation model was also a “Top Safety Pick” award winner.

Subaru’s XV Crosstrek is new for 2013 and a twin to the Subaru Impreza, also a “Top Safety Pick”.

The Dodge Dart is a new model introduced for 2013, jointly developed by Fiat and Chrysler..

Getting to the top of IIHS pile is not hard:  Of the 180 vehicles IIHS tested for the 2012 model year, 132 were awarded the Top Safety Pick designation, Reuters writes.

Starting next year, a new front crash tests will evaluate a vehicle’s safety in a crash that impacts the front corners. Most manufacturers optimize cars for middle-front collisions, expect a series of fails until the new test specifications have found their way into the CADCAM stations.

In a recent test of 11 luxury midsize cars by using the new corner-front crash evaluation, only two models earned the top safety ranking, the IIHS said.

16,290 people were killed in road accidents from January through June, says the NHTSA. For the first time since 2006, deaths are up. The NHTSA does not know why fatalities are up, but the usual suspects have already been rounded up.

Said Barbara Harsha, executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Association, to Reuters:

“Clearly there’s room for improvement in distracted driving – we would like all 50 states to pass texting bans. We’d practically eliminate alcohol impaired driving if we could get all offenders to use an ignition interlock.”

In the meantime, even the NHTSA warns that one should not jump to conclusions:

“It should be noted that the historic downward trend in traffic fatalities in the past several years —a pattern which has continued through the early estimates for 2011 released recently that show deaths at a 60-year low — means any comparison will be to an unprecedented low baseline figure. In fact, fatalities during the first half of the year have declined by about 27 percent from the recent high in 2006 to the low during the first half of 2011 (from 20,500 fatalities in 2006 to a projected 14,950 fatalities in 2011 during the first six months of the year).”

Apparently, Ms. Harsha did not read that part. Instead she says that “We may just be going back to the way it was before.”

They say the third time is always a charm.

I don’t think this was what they meant.

As first reported by The Associated Press, a third recall has been issued for the Louisville, Kentucky-built Ford Escape, and the second to involve those with the 1.6L four-pot under the hood. Instead of fuel lines, however, improperly installed coolant plugs will turn your chariot of great escapes into a chariot of fire, the result of coolant leaking onto said engine after the plug falls out onto the highway.

The issue, according to Ford spokesperson Marcey Zweibel, first came about at one of their dealerships, where an employee driving an Escape experienced the conflagration first-hand; the fire was extinguished with no injuries reported.

In all, 7,600 Escapes with the English-built 1.6L engine fall under the recall, where owners can take their crossover into the nearest dealership for a free service appointment to correct the potentially fatal error.

Security experts told Reuters that car computers “are vulnerable to hacks by attackers looking to steal cars, eavesdrop on conversations, or even harm passengers by causing vehicles to crash” and that automakers have failed to protect these systems.

“You can definitely kill people,” said John Bumgarner, chief technology officer of the U.S. Cyber Consequences Unit told the wire service.

Two years ago, a group of U.S. computer scientists made waves by showing how viruses could damage cars when they were moving at high speeds. Last year, the same group issued a report that showed how computer worms and Trojans could be delivered to automobiles: Via onboard diagnostics systems, wireless connections and even tainted CDs.

Bruce Snell, a McAfee executive, said automakers are fairly concerned about the potential cyber attacks because of the frightening repercussions:

“If your laptop crashes you’ll have a bad day, but if your car crashes that could be life threatening. I don’t think people need to panic now. But the future is really scary.”

Ford is pointing fingers at supplier TI Automotive who is to blame for last week’s surprise recall of about 11,500 Escape SUVs. The trucks were deemed a fire risk because of a flaw in its fuel lines. Ford told the NHTSA that some of the fuel lines were “mechanically scored” at TI Automotive’s plant in Ashley, Indiana.

The documents say that a fuel line with a cut on the surface could split open and leak. Ford took the extreme step of telling its customers to stop driving the 2013 Escape with the 1.6 liter engine, and to contact their local Ford dealer, whereupon a loaner vehicle would be delivered and the Escape brought to the dealership for repairs.

Ford spokeswoman Marcey Zwiebel told Reuters that the affected vehicles were made at Ford’s Louisville Assembly Plant from October 8, 2011 to July 11. TI Automotive has repaired the manufacturing flaw and is still making fuel lines for the 2013 Escape, Reuters says. Production of the Escape was not halted as a result of the recall.

The documents name three engine fires, two experienced by Ford employees. The supplier is, well, hosed.

It now caught Chrysler’s propaganda arm committing a deadly sin in the hoopla business, violating the first commandment of flackery: When you stepped in the shit, don’t walk around the house.

After  “the Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland 3.0 CRD V6 tipped up on two wheels and was close to rolling over in the Teknikens Värld moose test, despite having packed the car in accordance to Jeep’s specifications,”  Chrysler lashed out against the magazine, calling the report “definitely “set up,” which is nothing short of criminal.” Chrysler says the vehicle was overloaded by 110 lbs, a claim many overworked and underpaid web editor swallowed and printed.

Not true, says Teknikens Värld. In a spirited retort that may get more traffic than the original story, and Chrysler in trouble with the authorities, Teknikens Värld editor Mattias Rabe writes:

“Prior to the moose test we packed the car with four passengers and sandbags with a combined weight of 602 kilos (1 327 lbs) which is the maximum amount according to the cars certificate of registration that has been provided by Jeep/Chrysler to the Swedish Transport Agency, Transportstyrelsen. We proceeded to our test track to conduct the moose test. We immediately noticed that there was something strange about the car’s behavior – it tended to tip over on two wheels even at low speeds. We accordingly unloaded 100 kilos (220 lbs) out of the car so that the total cargo weight now registered at 502 kilos (1 106 lbs), 100 kilos under Jeep/Chryslers own registered maximum cargo weight. When we hit the track once again – now at the, for the type of vehicle, low speed of 63.5 km/h (39.5 mph) – the car went up on to two wheels and nearly rolled over.”

How the test is conducted: Standard evasive maneuver, no moose needed

Not enough that the Grand Cherokee failed the moose test, something that can seriously impede a car’s career in Europe (ask Daimler about the A-class.) Not enough that Chrysler’s public remarks will have attracted the attention of even the laziest lawyer. Spurned  Teknikens Värld now alleges that Chrysler supplied wrong information to the Swedish government, saying that the car weighs “a full 158 kilos (348 lbs) more than what Jeep/Chrysler claims the car to weigh in the official documentation provided to Swedish authorities.”

Sweden is a member of the EU, the EU has Whole Vehicle Type Approval (a car legal in one EU state is legal in all,) and providing wrong information to one government quickly can turn into a pan-European mess.

Chrysler’s reaction, including the recommendation that Teknikens Värld editors take “phosphorous tablets, “a well-known supplement to support brain and memory” is mean spirited , and it is guaranteed to produce lots of bad PR.

Some may notice that the tires are in a perilous state on that picture. Teknikens Värld says the moose test was “conducted with the correct tire pressure for maximum load according to the recommendations provided by Jeep/Chrysler via a sticker on the car’s B-pillar.”

The blogosphere has been buzzing for the past two days over a test conducted by Swedish auto rag Teknikens Varld, in which a new Jeep Grand Cherokee nearly rolled over. The so-called “moose test”, which purports to simulate a 40mph swerve-avoidance maneuver, made Teknikens Varld world-famous in 1997 when it caused the then-new Mercedes A-Class to roll over. Although the magazine was able to coax some pretty acrobatic behavior out of a Toyota truck in 2007, the news that compact pickups can roll over in certain situations didn’t exactly shock the globe.

When a Grand Cherokee loaded with five passengers and luggage failed the test, however, it propelled the magazine back into the spotlight once more. (Our piece on the “moose test” was in progress over the past twenty-four hours, as I wanted to go a little further into the reasons and dynamics behind rollovers and it was taking longer to write than a quick link. Sorry for the delay!)

TTAC readers familiar with the way American car companies do business no doubt
expected Chrysler to issue a blanket but not particularly convincing denial while they huddled with their attorneys and applied pressure behind the scenes. It’s what GM would do. Maybe even what Ford would do. But Chrysler is Italian now, so they came out swinging… and yes, they actually used the word “criminal”. Che casino!

The full response from Gualberto Ranieri can be found here, but I’ll excerpt the entertaining and relevant parts below.

the vehicle was definitely “set up,” which is nothing short of criminal… the vehicle used to perform the extreme maneuver was overloaded by 110 lbs.

Chrysler Group sent engineers to Sweden to witness the magazine again perform the aggressive maneuver, even though it is not used by any regulatory agency to establish safety ratings.

This time the Grand Cherokee was loaded properly. (Because we were watching, perhaps?) And the atypical outcome observed previously could not be repeated. Despite numerous attempts.

Expect the magazine to maintain its innocence, even though its editors have been caught red-handed. Because the truth doesn’t just hurt. It stings.

Italians use the courts like a bludgeon — many TTAC readers who are also race fans will recall that Frank Williams faced criminal charges after the death of Ayrton Senna on an Italian course — and so the use of “criminal” is more than simply bluster. It may mean that Fiat will pursue legal action.

In the mind of your humble author, there are two probable scenarios:

Scenario 1: Due to weather, tire/road interactions, and other factors too numerous to understand but which have all combined to make every racing driver’s life a living hell at some point, the Grand Cherokee was quite easy to roll over during the magazine’s initial tests but simply refused to cooperate under Chrysler’s investigation. Everything was done in good faith and the whole thing was simply unfortunate. Also, it would be a bad idea to drive the Grand Cherokee, with those tires, anywhere one might encounter a moose, or deer, or feral child.

Scenario 2: The editors decided the magazine needed some headlines, what with the dismal economy, advertising market, and whatnot. They chose a sacrifical lamb — a Grand Cherokee, which barely has any European market presence and therefore could be easily used for such purpose without raising too many hackles or losing any full-page ad buys. They loaded the car up and fussed with inflation pressures until they had a genuinely spectacular photo. Then they sat back and prepared to reap the rewards of ten million international visitors. Unfortunately for them, Chrysler is part of Fiat now, and Chrysler didn’t just sit in Auburn Hills and chuckle at the Swedes. They demanded confirmation. And under legitimate test conditions, Teknikens couldn’t make the car come up on two wheels. They will be utterly crucified in court, Fiat will end up owning the magazine and turning it into a lifestyle publication called “Grand Cherokee Luxury Monthly”, and if you are shopping for a Grand Cherokee you can forget the whole thing because it was truly a set-up, a scam, a sting, a criminal enterprise.

The truth is likely somewhere between the two, but I bet you it’s closer to the second scenario than the first. This kind of test-rigging has an illustrious history. Remember the Dateline-rigged gas tanks? How about the Consumer Reports robot that rolled the Trooper. (Wait a minute: it’s pronounced THE TROOOPARRRRR!) It’s easy to rank the following headlines in order of revenue potential:

• Odd-Looking American SUV Doesn’t Do Anything Odd In Moose Test. Well, what good is that?
• Odd-Looking American SUV Not Exactly A Caterham Seven With deDion Rear Suspension Option When It Comes To the Swerving And Whatnot. Additional clicks: Zero!
• Evil Descendant Of The Vehicle Which Was Callously Driven Through Your Grandmother’s Flowerbed By Two Chaps Who Later On Punched Your Grandfather Repeatedly For Talking Back Suddently Rolls Over, Bursts Into Flames, Poisons The Groundwater When Its Adaptive Headlights Spot Small Fauna. Now we’re cooking with gas!

In the click-land of the Internet, there’s no such thing as bad publicity, so unless FIAT actually does sue them into the ground, this “moose test” continues to be a big win for Teknikens Varld. You hadn’t heard of them before, had you? Of course not. It’s a brave new world out there. In the so-called “New World”, however, in a world where full-sized trucks on lift kits are used to take kids to school and the Ford Expedition can be seen on every freeway, the Grand Cherokee is likely to continue to be a solid choice… even if you live in a moose-rich area.

GM is recalling 475,418 Chevrolet Cruze models built in the USA as a preventative measure against possible engine fires.

The recall affects all U.S. manufactured Cruzes, which includes all Cruzes sold in the United States, Canada and Israel. The defect is related to an engine heat shield that could cause improperly changed engine oil or hydraulic fluid to heat up via the shield, leading to an engine fire. Recall notices will go out starting July 11th, and should take only 30 minutes at a dealership. A further 61,000 cars will be inspected due to the possibility of improper welds on the fuel tank.

Only two engine fires have been reported so far, but the Cruze has had numerous recalls in its relatively short life. In May 2011, GM recalled all 154,000 Cruzes on the road in the United States and Canada to check for an improperly installed steering shaft, while a recall that same month was issued regarding the shift linkage.

Most dangerous: Dodge Ram 1500

By now, you probably have heard (enough) of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) top safety picks. The IIHS provides an Academy Award worthy number of different categories, which assure that anybody can be a winner. But what are America’s most unsafe cars? This remained a secret until 24/7 Wall Street started digging.

Second most dangerous: Chevrolet Colorado Crew Cab

They took the seven current-generation models that received a “marginal” or “poor” rating in two of the four categories. Then, 24/7 Wall St. combined the data  with records from Consumer Reports, NHTSA crash safety ratings, and JD Power’s  Initial Quality Study, to arrive on a list of “The Most Dangerous Cars in America.”

Third most dangerous: Mazda CX 7

In analyzing the data, it appears that the thumbs downs are pretty much consistent. Models that rated badly in the IIHS rankings usually received similarly poor reviews elsewhere.

Customers appear blasé about the shoddy safety of these cars. Says 24/7 Wall Street:

“The poor ratings of these models do not appear to have affected their sales. In fact, sales of all models are up from last year. In all but one case, according to data provided by Edmunds.com, sales grew at least 19% last year. And while most of these models’ sales are still below 2007 levels, sales the Jeep Wrangler not only increased the most but also jumped 50% since then.”

Now wait: Aren’t these big trucks supposed to be the epitomes of safety, whereas compacts get “I won’t put my kids in those” comments?

A driver from Scotland became involved in a six car pileup. The airbag deployed, the man escaped uninjured. Then, the airbag slowly killed him.

The airbag broke a window and got cut. Chemicals from the ruptured airbag of Ronald Smith’s Vauxhall Insignia’s airbag triggered chest and breathing problems, the Daily Record says. Two months after the crash, the driver was taken to a hospital with an infected lung. After 21 days on a respirator, Smith died. Coroner Carney said:

“I accept the death was attributed to bronchial pneumonia and pulmonary fibrosis and that it was developed after this incident in November, and the deceased’s exposure to noxious substances. This man died as a result of this incident and more pointedly because of the explosion of his airbag.”

Vauxhall did not want to comment.

The investigation into a Texas house fire that apparently started in a 2 month old Fisker Karma continues, with an EV expert weighing in with his opinion that the packaging of the combustion engine that drives the Fisker’s generator was likely the cause of the fire, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration saying it is looking into the incident, and the car’s owner and his attorneys firing back after Fisker initially implied there might be fraud or foul play.

Automotive News asked Jon Bereisa, CEO of Auto Lectrification, an EV consulting firm, for his opinion. Bereisa is perhaps singularly qualified to discuss electric vehicles, having been both the chief engineer of General Motors’ EV1 project and also the systems architect for the Chevy Volt. Bereisa told AN that based on a test drive and his examination of the Karma’s layout, he thinks the cramped engine compartment and excess heat most likely caused the fire, not the car’s battery pack.

“That engine is shoehorned into that bay, because they had to use a larger engine, because it was too heavy a car. As a result, there’s no room for exhaust routing and heat shielding to route the heat away… [the Karma is] using the hell out of that motor-generator.”

Bereisa also noted how tightly packed the exhaust system is. In those circumstances, a fuel, oil or even coolant (glycol is flammable) leak could ignite from heat or a hot surface. The consultant also pointed to the burned Karma’s owner’s remarks. Jeremy Gutierrez, the owner of the burned Fisker Karma, and CEO of iEnergy, an electrical power marketer, said that he smelled burning rubber just before the fire broke out.

Bereisa pointed out that, “You don’t smell rubber with batteries, but you will if it’s something on the engine.” Bereisa also said that since the car had just been driven on errands, the battery pack was likely drained and no longer contained enough energy or waste heat hot enough to ignite. “If the [battery] pack were to burn down the car, you would see where it started and reached the [battery] case… There’s more odds that it’s a conventional, heat-related problem in packaging and heat-related leaks.”

Fisker is agreeing that the battery pack, which uses cells manufactured by A123, wasn’t the cause of the fire, though it has sent a team of engineers to pore over the charred Karma’s hulk. That team is beginning to annoy Gutierrez, already a bit miffed that Fisker cast aspersions on his character, raising the possibility of “fraud or malicious intent”.

Gutierrez is so annoyed that he’s gotten his attorneys involved:

Mr. Guitterez fully accommodated the precise and somewhat peculiar demands of Fisker Automotive, who sent their self-proclaimed SWAT Team of engineers and inspectors (that included their own forensic cause and origin investigator) to the Guitterez home within 24 hours of the fire. They descended upon the Guitterez home in alarming numbers and immediately demanded a 24-hour lockdown of his home, including the remains of the Fisker Karma vehicle. They also cordoned off portions of the Guitterez home with non-transparent tarps to block the view from the public. Fisker even had access to eyewitnesses, who were interviewed by Fisker investigators and those investigators were shown video footage of the Fisker vehicle on fire before any other part of the garage.

Guitterez’s lawyers have demanded that Fisker to end its probe “immediately.”

For its part, Fisker still considers the cause of the fire as “yet to be ascertained.” A company spokesman said,

“There are myriad combustible materials that could be in the garage, in the wheel arch, or picked up on the roadside. They think the source is around the Karma, but they have not determined any cause yet. We have investigative teams, three insurance companies and the local fire chief all with their opinions. There are some question marks.”

When asked about Bereisa’s theories, the spokesman said, “The Karma has been through all regulatory and certification checks.”

Meanwhile, though Robert Baker, the chief fire inspector for Fort Bend County, Texas, continues to say that the Karma started the fire, his investigation is still incomplete, and NHTSA is started to show some interest.

“Yes, the Karma was the origin of the fire,” Baker said. “But what exactly caused that we don’t know at this time.” The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said in a statement that it “is aware of the incident and in contact with local authorities. The agency will continue to monitor the situation and take appropriate action as warranted,” though no formal NHTSA probe has been launched.

Ronnie Schreiber edits Cars In Depth, a realistic perspective on cars & car culture and the original 3D car site. If you found this post worthwhile, you can dig deeper at Cars In Depth. If the 3D thing freaks you out, don’t worry, all the photo and video players in use at the site have mono options. Thanks for reading – RJS

Toyota says that a group of trial lawyers that sue Toyota for money “manufacture controversy where none exists and use media outlets like CNN as tools to serve their narrow, self-interested agenda.” Toyota thinks that “CNN is party of and party to an attempt by lawyers suing Toyota for money to manufacture doubt about the safety of Toyota’s vehicles in the absence of any scientific evidence whatsoever.”

Toyota makes noises that it may sue CNN. What happened?

Yesterday evening, CNN aired a “Keeping Them Honest” segment with Anderson Cooper. That report made the infamous Brian Ross & David Gilbert experiment look like responsible journalism in comparison. The segment is about an internal Toyota memo. The memo is in Japanese, and the segment documents in excruciating length the problems of getting an exact translation from Japanese to English. In the first translation, an Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) system turned on during stress testing. In the second translation, “sudden unintended acceleration” occurred. In the third translation, the vehicle did “accelerate on its own.” For good measure, CNN uses both translations 2 and 3 in its report. TTAC’s in-house Japanese linguist, Frau Schmitto-san, gives version 1 the thumbs up.

Because discussions of nuances of the Japanese language in an internal memo from one Japanese software engineer to the other does not provide good video, CNN spiced up the program with Tanya Spotts. Last year, Ms. Spotts bought a Lexus ES 350. Seven months later, she drove it into a wall in a shopping mall. She swears she had been on the brakes at all times. The electronic data recorder says she was on the gas until 0.4 seconds before impact. On CNN, Scotts vows “I won’ t drive this car again.” She has not lost her confidence in Toyota: As she swears off the Lexus, CNN shows her carefully exiting her garage in a Toyota SUV (1:43 in this video.) In the end, Ms. Scott, who looks like a member of the pedal misapplication demographic, admits that she cannot prove SUA.

After eight excruciating minutes, the only accusation CNN can make halfway stick is that Toyota did not make this document available to NHTSA. Toyota did not, but it obviously made the memo available to the opposing lawyers. Nobody says outright  where the memo came from. However, in a comment to the CNN story, Toyota says that the document was  “produced in litigation,” hinting strongly that CNN received it from  the other side.

CNN thinks that the document is the smoking gun. Toyota thinks the document is proof that the company is doing its job. The memo documents a stress test process. Not on production cars. On prototypes. The memo documents a condition where deliberately wrong signals would cause an adaptive cruise control in a prototype to release its brakes from a stopped condition, only to re-apply the brake after a few milliseconds and to set an error code. As a result of this testing, the system was changed. The system described in the memo never made it into production. Toyota spokesman John Hanson called the document “evidence of Toyota’s robust design process.”

What’s more, neither the Lexus model, nor the Adaptive Cruise Control were ever sold in the U.S. A.

To me, the only interesting takeaway is that Toyota no longer presents the other cheek when dealing with the media. Toyota was very subdued during the Brian Ross ABC carhacking story. Now, Toyota comes out swinging.  It calls CNN’s report “misleading” and “inaccurate.” Toyta says CNN is “a patsy” and “journalistically irresponsible.” In a memo to CNN, Toyota “reserves the right to take any and every appropriate step to protect and defend the reputation of our company.”

Which in the business translates to “we may sue.”

Citing New York’s leadership in banning hand-held cell phone use in cars, NTSB Vice Chairman Christopher Hart urged the Empire State to become the first to ban all use of personal electronic devices while driving. Though careful to call it a state issue, Hart did hint that state compliance with forthcoming NTSB recommendations could be tied to federal highway funds (he has separately called for a national ban).

And indeed, New York’s legislators seemed to see the issue of distraction as an issue for federal action (but then, why not make the feds pay for it?). At the same time, everyone understands that the problem is near-ubiquitous and any full ban on personal device use in cars would be near-impossible to enforce (short of Assemblyman McDonough’s suggestion that automakers equip cars with cell-phone signal blockers)… which raises huge questions about federal-level action.

Hart says enforcement will be a major topic of an NTSB forum, scheduled for March 27 (note: the forum is not yet listed on the NTSB’s events page). With the NTSB pushing hard on what was once largely a rhetorical issue, goading the notoriously-nannying New York government towards a full ban on in-car device use, this forum should be a good measure of the feds’ resolve.

After all, everyone knows that distracted driving is wrong (with the possible exception of automakers, who load ever more distractions into their cars)… it’s just a question of how much government intrusion would be necessary to stop it. If Ray LaHood’s minions go for broke and pursue an enforcement rather than an education approach at their forum (as they did with their NY pilot program), this debate could blow up into pitched political warfare overnight.

 When we talked about a four door version of Volkswagen’s hot-selling (in Europe, not available stateside) small car, the Up!, one commenter in particular equaled the car to a happy meal container and its owners to baby killers. A small car can be very safe – if its engineers know what they are doing. It just so happens that that little happy meal container is proof of it. It  was elected one of Europe’s safest cars.

Volkswagen’s Up! has been awarded five stars by Euro NCAP, the highest rating the independent European consumer protection organization can bestow.  Wait, it can do one better: Euro NCAP also gave the Up! the 2012 Advanced Award, for the UP!’s City Emergency Braking function. According to Euro NCAP, the Up! is the safest cars in its class.

As a small car, you need to be a little smarter than a dumb tank that simply barges through. The City Emergency Braking function for instance is automatically activated at speeds between 5 and 30 km/ h, and it uses a laser sensor (integrated in the upper area of the windscreen) to scan a space up to 10 meters (33 feet) in front of the Up! According to Volkswagen, the Up! is the only car in its segment that can be equipped with a City Emergency Braking function.

Distracted driving is very much in the news, and so far, cellphones were fingered as the culprits. Now, there is a study that finally identifies the biggest distraction: Passengers. A study by State Farm, published in the Journal of Adolescent Health goes to the bottom of what experts have known for long: Peer passengers increase driver crash risk, especially amongst adolescent drivers. 

The study analyzed a nationally-representative sample of 677 teen drivers involved in serious crashes. Says study author Allison Curry, PhD, director of epidemiology at the Center for Injury Research and Prevention.:

“Both male and female teen drivers with peer passengers were more likely to be distracted just before a crash as compared to teens who crashed while driving alone. Among the teens who said they were distracted by something inside the vehicle before they crashed, 71 percent of males and 47 percent of females said they were distracted directly by the actions of their passengers.”

The researchers found males with passengers were almost six times more likely to perform an illegal maneuver and more than twice as likely to drive aggressively just before a crash, as compared to males driving alone. Females rarely drove aggressively prior to a crash, regardless of whether they had passengers in the car.

Obama! Socialism! Taxes! Jesus! Faith! Guns! Now that you’re paying attention, it’s time for our regularly scheduled programming. A Detroit News article claims that NHTSA is denying any interference on the part of the White House with respect to the Chevrolet Volt fires that resulted from government crash test procedures.

News of the fires only came to light in November, despite the fires occurring in June. NHTSA head David Strickland claims that the White House wasn’t informed until September. A letter sent to three Republican congressmen states that

“shortly thereafter informed the Executive Office of the President regarding the June fire and NHTSA’s test plans to determine if the fire indicated that there is a risk of post-crash fires in Chevrolet Volts. No one from the Executive Office of the President requested or in any way suggested that NHTSA delay public release of information related to the Volt fire,” 

GM previously announced a fix for the Volt’s battery pack and leaky coolant, which is said to have caused the fires. GM has yet to restart production of the Volt since the line went idle in December, and won’t be able to apply the new safety measures to the Volt until some time in February of this year.