FJ Cruiser - any feedback on this vehicle

With room for a 140L long range tank & at $15K cheaper I'm not convinced the diesel is necessarly better for touring?
Cheers Craig......

Hi

Thats not a "fail" ..its just a "result". They wouldnt be able to sell them if it was a "fail".

Out of curiosity do you have a link/reference to this info?

Cheers
Greg

While Im waiting

...these guys seem to have ignored the "failed" stability test..maybe nobody told then - so sad ....really? I dont think so.

People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

They're having a great time.

Cheers
Greg

Its buyer beware as always Greg.

Just think how many people brought ford Pinto's.

Try Goggle - you'll come up with the info as I did - or get the full FJ cruiser Toyota document

Note - The info is deleted from Aussie brochure - maybe you should askToyota why !

Hi

Sorry ..the 41° figure is believable, I was more interested to know why it’s a "fail". Clearly there are many (hundreds of thousands) of people out an about having the times of their lives in vehicles which also "fail the stability tilt table test" (assume it’s some figure higher that 41°) going places you and I would never consider going. Is this particular “fail” just based on your own opinion on what people should be driving or is it a recognised industry standard? I think you should make this clear when you make these statements.

I know we have discussed this before and it’s fine to point out that the tilt angle is lower than other vehicles but if it was somehow significantly dangerous the vehicles would not be allowed to be sold. They are allowed to be sold so suspect they must pass some RM unapproved tilt test:)

Obviously if you buy a vehicle with a lower tilt angle than another, all things being equal, the vehicle will under certain circumstances be more likely to tip over…but what is the real risk of this actually happening? Vehicles that fail your “test” won’t spontaneously flip over, my car never has:)

If people adopted your philosophy for everything they would not, for example get into planes – if a plane gets into a situation and crashes you are more or less stuffed. But what is the probability of this happening? Very low, so people happily jump into planes despite the fact that if it crashes they are very likely to be killed or best case scenario, seriously injured (sorry a bit gruesome).

So what is the probability of someone getting into an FJ Cruiser and the 41° tilt angle becoming an issue that wouldn’t have occurred if they had jumped into a vehicle that passes your “ tilt angle test”. Can this risk be managed (even without thinking about it) to the point of it being insignificant or are they doomed to rollover? A look around the streets and in the bush suggests it’s well and truly manageable to the point of not being considered by most people, mainly because they never come anywhere close to getting into a situation where its a problem.

Sure, accidents will happen but probability for most people is very low and given there are so many other factors the contribution possibly made by a 41°/42° tilt angle is not really worth the beat up.

Cheers
Greg

Greg if you follow the forum posts you will see that this individual regularly bags Prados on the issue of tipping and he hasn't missed the opportunity this time.
Bit petty really and I'm not sure if it is based on any personal experience.
In a pure technical sense the higher roll over angle is the lower the risk of tipping. However in a practical sense the tests are conducted on flat surfaces and this has little relevance to actually driving on a track where rocks, washaways, logs or other surface features are likely to bounce the vehicle into rollover conditions well short of the tilt angle achieved in the test.
It would be a brave [and pretty foolish] person that tried to drive on a 41 degree side slope and if a vehicle say slipped off the road at this sort of angle the dynamics mentioned above would more than trigger a rollover.

As for the selection of this vehicle it comes down to what you want it to do. It is actually a Prado in drag so its performance on or off road would be pretty good. If you want to make a statement it does that too but in my view it is a hideous looking thing which adds little to the Toyota image !

Ken

FJ Cruiser at more than 50 degrees without falling over :-)

Hilarious...

Cheers
Greg

Hello Ken

Yes I am well aware of the “tip over” phobia some respondents appear to have and as I have stated before it’s, in my opinion, an over the top beat up. I am not sure of the exact motivation behind the repeated comments but fact of the matter it is not a significant issue in my mind and accident research seems to support my view…

An analysis of Transport Accident Commission (TAC) injury compensation data by Monash University Accident Research Centre in 1991 showed rollovers to be the least likely type of accident to occur.

“Amongst TAC claimants, frontal impacts were most prevalent (47%), followed by side collisions (25%), rear enders (23%) and rollovers (5%).” (Note: these are crashes were an injury was sustained).

Monash Report 95 - summary and download

If you delved into the data you would probably find that SUVs (i.e. 4WDs) had a higher incidence of rollovers but it would need to be a significant difference to even come close to the other accident types.

No doubt Prado and Fjs will tip over easier than Patrol, this fact can not be argued.. but likelihood of it occurring is very small under normal circumstances and you are more lilely to have some other sort of crash....which brings us to this...

Even more interesting is a more recent report from the Monash University Accident Research Centre titled “Vehicle safety ratings estimated from police reported crash data: 2010 update Australian and New Zealand crashes during 1987-2009”.

This analysis of huge amounts of crash data from all states and NZ shows one interesting FACT – you are less likely to sustain a serious injury in a Prado (03-09 model) if you crash than a Nissan Patrol (98-09 model) i.e. This data suggests that the Prado can be regarded as a safer vehicle so if you purchased a Patrol thinking you are safer than those in a Prado….you are wrong. "Buyer beware" :)

Monash University Accident Research Centre - Report #304, 2011

So in future we should see comments from safety crusaders along these lines…

“The Toyota Prado “failed” the tilt table test at 42° while the Nissan Patrol passed with flying colours at 48°. Unfortunately the Nissan has a range of other significant inherent safety issues and you are more likely to sustain a serious injury if you crash one compared to a Prado (rollover or not) so the Prado is overall a safer vehicle to own.”…or something like that:)

Cheers
Greg

Hey Ken

You don't bag a car buy stating a correct piece of data.

Bagging someone for stating a correct piece of data is called shooting the messenger, but I don't take offence, in the research I have to do, we often have to make reports which include negative data, and so shooting the messenger is pretty common.


Greg - we have had this discussion before, you should re-read your own post after I posted the muarc graphs recently showing that the cars as reffered to have a massive increase in the likelyhood of rollover.


I note Greg that above you keep use the words "Your Tilt Test" seemingly like an attempt to label it as my invention (I would be proud if it was).

The static stability test was manadated by federal governments as a means to rein in rollovers.

The Monash rollover test report singles out rollover tests for a very specfic reason.
That is because while there are many types of accidents this is the one with over whelming the highest incidence of death.

I.E. They target the main issue.

It shows that -

The rollover accident type is the most lethal.

The static stability test is the best measure of rollover propensity.

The ratio of increased rollover probabilty as measured by the test between 42 to 48 is around 300%

Forwarned is forearmed and not trying to hide the negative aspects of any product allows consumers to make better choices , so let get with program guys.

Hi

Sorry, by "your test" I meant your analysis of a vehicles published tilt angle figures which seems to be a simple process of you applying a “fail” to anything under 47.9°. The actual tilt test maybe something to be proud of but I’m not so sure your analysis techniques are, but give it a go :)

I don’t think anyone has ever argued against the point that a rollover isn’t pretty, but it’s just not that high on peoples “to do” list and based on publish statistics from real accidents doesn’t appear to happen that often, even with cars that fail your complex, fool proof, tilt test analysis.

We are not shooting the messenger because of the information delivered …it’s because the messenger appears to have lost or is withholding, on purpose, the whole message…(and under normal circumstances would be sacked or at least retrained:)

So ..again..The main gripe here Robin is that I and a few others don’t think you should be assessing this single vehicle characteristic on its own and putting forum posts on here in the style of Chicken Little

Fine, “forewarn and forearm” people – but why aren’t you also informing them of the vehicles good characteristics (with respect to overall safety) which appear, based on publish serious injury rates, to be far more important than the relative likelihood of a car rolling over? What exactly is the point of informing people of a single thing and ignoring other more important factors?

If a vehicle had a tilt angle of 90° but exploded in a ball of flames every time you had a frontal impact (most likely type of crash) would you buy one? Would it be clever for someone to run around proclaiming the virtues of a 90° tilt angle but deliberately ignoring more important safety features (or lack thereof)?

Also keep in mind that while Car A may be more likely to rollover than Car B, Car A may actually be significantly safer in a rollover because of certain inbuilt design features than Car B (e.g. stronger structural integrity of roof/pillars)….so in isolation just proclaiming the “negative aspects” of “low” tilt angles could be misleading with respect to overall safety. The angle by itself is not the total defining factor of the degree of safety.

We all know you are very proud of your decision making process and your final choice of the Patrol but the scary thing about it is that while you are theoretically far less likely to roll it over (not sure if you are less likely to be seriously injured as you haven’t disclosed rollover safety features relative to other cars), this appears to be offset with some significant safety flaws that override this single good characteristic to the point of making it less safe to drive than other cars of a similar type – overall it's less safe than certain model Prados (and a range of other cars) and this is shown in real crash statistics…so sad really:) . Are you aware of what these safety flaws are?

Its free forum (to a certain extent:) so nothing stopping you from expressing your opinion but unless you “get with the program” expect further discussion on the matter…though surely you see where we are coming from...surely (head banging wall) :)

Cheers
Greg

Hi Robin,

I love reading all your posts, warts and all, but even I must admit your phobia of the Prado tilt angle has almost become a passion. You put out so much great info on all sorts of things, but the negativity of the Prado is not balanced by the outcomes.

The Monash stats above prove the Prado is, overall, a safer vehicle to drive than a Patrol - statistically. Does that mean all Patrol drivers should convert to Prados?

The point being is that everything needs balance. Yes, the Prado does have a slightly lower roll angle than most SUV's, more so the older 90 series than the later 120's or 150's, but the other safety features, both passive and active, in the Prado IMHO more than makeup for this single lower result.

Basing a vehicle's safety cannot be done on a single factor, there is a multitude of items that give an overall rating. And the facts prove that the Prado is as safe, or safer, than most.

Balance is the key, the Prado may have a slightly worse tilt angle, but it has much better safety factors in other areas to give a great overall, safe, package.

Cheers

Captain

Changes have been made to the crumple zone on the front guards to minimise the issue which they had in the US. Time will tell if it's been fixed.
Cheers Craig........

Resale Ross is quite the opposite. People have already sold them 2nd hand for more than they paid new with some dealers charging as much as $8K over retail price. The price of the FJ would have to make it Toyota's best value vehicle.
Cheers Craig.....

Cackles,there are people out there who are such intense consumer junkies they will do anything to get something they believe they must have.
(Ever visited an Ikea store when a sale is on?)
Anyone who pays $8k over the new price because they cant wait for the next shipload deserves to be reamed out.

When people realise there is nothing special about an FJ,except for the (fading) cute looks,it will become the mainstay of the 2nd and 3rd rate used car lots surrounded by 80s and early 90s model landcruisers and patrols with 3 times the mileage.

There is a perception by those that know little about the car that "there is nothing special about an FJ" but like the testers in the 4wdoty found it's a surprising package far more capable than most give credit. Almost all Toyota's have a good resale & I can't see the FJ being any different.
Cheers Craig.......

In practice my kids have no issue getting in & out of the back & to be honest these days are unkiley to even look out the window with their phones, computers & ipods. I'm 6'2" & have no issue getting in the rear even when the front seat is back. It's nothing like the space in a Ranger which really is just for baggage.
Cheers Craig.............

One of our bussiness members has one which do's a lot of offroad work, Send him a message and ask how it's going. http://www.exploroz.com/Customers/Great_Divide_Tours.aspx

Cheers Dave.