By on December 20, 2012

Kizashi Beats Camry! No, it’s not a reprise of Dewey Beats Truman, but the Suzuki Kizashi landed a parting shot against mid-size kingpin the Toyota Camry, soundly beating it in the latest round of IIHS crash testing.

The Kizashi, along with the Honda Accord, were the only two cars to receive a “Good” rating in the 40 mph front offset crash test. The Toyota Camry, along with the Prius V receieved a “Poor” rating, with Automotive News reporting

In both of Toyota’s vehicles, the crash caused significant intrusion into the occupant compartment — in the case of the Camry, the front wheel was forced sharply backward toward the driver’s feet. The driver-side airbags also failed to fully prevent a blow to the test dummy’s head in both crashes.

Too little, too late for Suzuki. But it must be nice to know that it beat the Camry at least once.


Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

14 Comments on “Suzuki Death Watch 15: Kizashi Bests Camry In A Bittersweet Final Victory...”

  • avatar

    This looks like a true fact, but yes it’s much too late for any Suzuki in the USA or elsewhere in North America.

    Its best not to get involved in this type of accident in the first place, a few years back I was visiting Germany where everyone drives “fast” in walking around the small Town I was staying at, I never saw one “banged” up Vehicle, all drivers need to take care, all the time!

    • 0 avatar
      el scotto

      Americans would be marching with torches and pitchforks if they had to take German drivers training. Vehicles are also more expensive in Europe. Also not well explained to me German law about driving beater cars. Wanna do 160mph on the autobahn? You gotta learn to how to first.

  • avatar
    Carl in NH

    Replaced my wife’s beloved old (1997) Camry with a 2012 Kizashi last year.

    She was skeptical at first, but has grown to love it. I am impressed with the build and other quality, for such a low cost car.

    And, 100k/7 year warranty, which Suzuki will continue to honor (by law, I believe)

    So far, so good, and we are in no way regretting our purchase decision. (Although I am wondering how the CVT will hold up when the car gets north of 100k, and what the heck my options are for fixing it if it goes…)

    • 0 avatar

      CVT transmissions aren’t serviceable so once its worn out it has to be replaced with a new unit. Some things are serviceable like some of the solenoids but other than that if it breaks it must be replaced with a new one.

  • avatar

    What shocks me is that the Camry and Prius v did so poorly. What’s up with that?

    • 0 avatar

      On the Camry, at least, Toyota spent no time or effort on the styling or on preventing the interior from looking cheap, so I guess safety was also part of their cost cutting.

    • 0 avatar

      Well, it just goes to show you that we can’t all be great all the time. It leaves a lot of room for paradigms to shifts and underdogs to come out on top; too bad, then, that Suzuki can’t take advantage of this. And why was it the Prius V, but not the regular Prius hatchback?

    • 0 avatar

      The spokesman added that Toyota leads all automakers in the number of models named “Top Safety Picks” for 2012 by IIHS. Those 19 models from Toyota, Lexus and Scion include the Camry and Prius v.

      Read more:

      This is a new test. Cars are built to perform in expected tests. Toyota is as good at it as anyone, so expect their new models to perform well on the narrow offset, 40mph test. Were the same cars safer last year, when this test didn’t exist?

  • avatar

    >>5. My little econobox came from the factory stiff enough to not need a shock tower brace. Why can’t Honda figure that one out?<<

    Because Honda is obtuse. Just got a 2013 Accord Sport 6 speed. Superlative machine.

  • avatar

    I’m a bit surprised by the Camry performance in these tests. Back in 2009 the IIHS did this crash test but instead of with a solid barrier, with a Toyota Yaris. They did similar crashes with a Honda Accord and Honda Fit, and a Mercedes E-Class and a smartfortwo.

    Despite the thin skinned who will now scream, APaGttH is BIASED and won’t talk about American cars. The IIHS did not do a similar crash test with a Ford, GM or Chrysler corp product. Only GM had a B-segment offering in the Aveo at the time. There was no Ford Fiesta there was no Fiat 500. Why the IIHS did not slam an Aveo into a Malibu or Impala I cannot answer. I guess they are biased too!

    So after that disclaimer…the purpose of these tests was to show the differentiation between vehicles even from the same manufacturer. In all three cases, even though the Yaris, smartfortwo, and Fit had done well in being crashed into an offset wall by the IIHS by themselves. All three of them would result in severe to fatal injuries when crashed into a car from the same manufacturer of larger size in a real world offset crash. The Toyota video I find very interesting and this is why I’m surprised the Camry got a “poor” rating in the 2012 crash testing.

    Of the larger cars in these test, only the Camry did not get a “good” rating (the Mercedes did as did the Accord)

    Let me add some Euro bashing here. The 2009 Mercedes E-class was a steaming pile. The E-class continues to be a steaming pile. Euro “quality” is defined as signing a four year lease with 12K miles a year and turning it back in just before the 4 year / 50K mile warranty expires and you’re left holding the bag on endless repairs.

    Watch the Toyota video:

    On the Camry it’s a bit harder to tell because the attention of the test was on the Yaris – but you can see the safety cage has reached its limit. It’s not fully compromised, it doesn’t collapse, but you can see the dashboard shift inward on the impact clearly – showing the Camry is right at the point of failure. This isn’t to declare the Camry UNSAFE (will you thin skinned people get over it). I didn’t give the Camry the “Acceptable” rating after the test, the IIHS did. And “acceptable” isn’t bad, but it isn’t good. And the Honda and the Mercedes got good.

    Also lets remember, that was an impact with a Yaris – that the Camry cut through like hot butter. Notice in the slow motion the driver’s head in the Yaris slams onto the hood of the Camry and from another angle you can actually see the instrument cluster go flying out of the cabin and skitter across the floor (toward the end of the video) as the safety cage of the Yaris has completely failed. Now the Yaris is no death trap Chevy Tahoe. It’s a small light car.

    Toyota KNEW in 2009 that the safety cage on the Camry could use some improving. They had “free” data from the IIHS to show it. I would have ASS-U-ME(D) that Toyota, would have taken that data and made improvements to do better in that kind of crash.

    The evidence of these crash test results doesn’t bear it out.

    Don’t shoot the observer – further complaints can be submitted to the IIHS for their biased testing.

    Oh ya, and the 2009 Aveo – steaming pile of crap.

    • 0 avatar

      The Camry is a top safety pick for 2012 according to the IIHS. Live with it.

      • 0 avatar

        The IIHS just gave it a poor rating – did you actually read the story or just my post? I’m flattered if it was just my post. But since you have a reading comp issue…

        …in the latest round of IIHS crash testing…

        …the Toyota Camry, along with the Prius V receieved a “Poor” rating, with Automotive News reporting…

        It won’t be a top pick in 2013. Live with it.

    • 0 avatar

      “…and from another angle you can actually see the instrument cluster go flying out of the cabin and skitter across the floor (toward the end of the video)…”

      Looks that way at first if you don’t pay close attention, but you’re actually seeing the backside of the Camry’s front, right headlamp unit.

      Most of what comes out of the Yaris are white chunks that are probably foam blocks from somewhere inside the IP.

  • avatar

    The headline is correct, but the photo is misleading. The recent test is a new one, in which only 25% of the front end, outside the main frame rails, makes contact with a rigid 5-foot tall barrier. It simulates a near-sideswipe with an opposing vehicle or a stationary object like a pole or a tree. The crash forces bypass the main structural members of the crush zone and are directed into the front wheel, suspension, shock tower, and ultimately, the firewall and door hinge pillar.

    Both Toyotas tested did badly, a pity in my view. The Prius v, not the “regular” Prius, was chosen because only the former is large and heavy enough to be classified by the IIHS as a midsize car, like all the other ones tested this time around.

    The 2013 Honda Accord was designed to do well in this test, and the sedan earned a good rating, the coupe acceptable. The Kizashi was designed for the 2010 model year and hasn’t changed since then, so Suzuki earns credit for engineering a car that structurally performed as well as the Volvo S60 in the previous round of tests.

    For now, cars scoring well in the IIHS’s four older test modes can still earn Top Safety Pick. But to earn the new Top Safety Pick PLUS award, the car must score a good or acceptable rating in this new test.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • 28-Cars-Later: “Electric anything should offend everybody.” Well the electric company certainly offends...
  • Luke42: @pmirp1: “I wonder what type car people who don’t like Challengers and Chargers like?” Me....
  • Lou_BC: “An electric Challenger will offend everybody.” But an electric Charger would be hilarious;)
  • Lou_BC: @pmirp1 – On the subject of weak, looks like @Dal20402 struck a nerve.
  • TCowner: I didn’t know they bumped the rear axle ratio and change the torque converter to compensate for the...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber