Toyota Corolla 1999 Defective Driver Seatback

See #21....

"

#21 - Seats problem of the 1999 Toyota Corolla

The vehicle is a 1999 Toyota Corolla. The car had a crash. The VIN of this vehicle is 2T1BR12E1X_. Consumer was hit from rear which caused driver's seat to collapse. Consumer has experienced headaches, neck pain, and upper back pain ever since the accident. This seats issue occurred Wed., Nov. 1, 2000. "

http://www.carproblemzoo.com/toyota/corolla/seats-problems.php

I saw a special several years ago that stated that the only vehicle that had a seat that would not collapse after the vehicle was hit from the year at any appreciable speed was the Mercedes (all models). In 2008, Corolla, and many other vehicles were rated poor for their headrest design--the device was far too low to be effective. (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=2650293n). The headrest is supposed to be situated so that the back of the head hits the center of the headrest--not the neck.

The Insurance Institute of America said in 2008 that only 60% of vehicles had proper headrest design. I venture, that if the headrests were of poor design, that the seats themselves were not much better. In searching "seat collapse in Toyota corolla in rear end collisions" I found many references to to failures in Toyota seats, and also an ad saying that seat design was improved in 2013 in the Corolla model.

I saw the program about the Mercedes (only) having the proper seat design about 8-10 years ago, so I would assume by all this info that 1999 Corolla would not be in the same class in safety. Car makers are obviously dragging their feet in engineering front seats that will withstand rear end collisions.

The whole seat should perhaps be on a track and would have to have impact absorbing technology. so that it will initially move straight backwards and then, over time, slow to a halt using either springs, hydraulics, or a combination of both. But there would be distance involved, for the seat to travel, and this would require a greater distance between the front and back seats, to protect the rear passengers' legs. Or, should vehicles should have a greater impact absorbing ability when struck from the rear?

I once owned a 1981 Corolla Tercel, and was coasting up to a Traffic Light where traffic was stopped, and was hoping that the light would go to green, and the traffic would regain speed so I would not have to completely stop (a habit of mine--to decrease clutch wear and increase economy). I noticed, in my rear view mirror, a car coming up fast behind, and realized that the vehicle was not going to stop, and had a very short time to decide that it would be better, because I had a lot of space between my vehicle and the stopped traffic in front of me, to NOT hold the brake. The vehicle ran into me while travelling 10-20 MPH, and my vehicle lurched forward, but I had plenty of time to stop. There was noticeable damage to the front of the vehicle that hit me, but none to mine that I could detect. The young man apologized profusely, and pleaded to me not to report the accident, and so I advised him to be more careful, and went on my way. Later, in taking a second look for damage, I noticed that the Tercel had a spring mechanism in both bumper mounting bracket tubes, which had taken the shock out of the impact, and absorbed the energy, so that my seat had not broken, and the rest of the car had not been damaged. "Intelligent design", I thought. Being generally very pleased with the small car, I kept driving Tercels, but was disappointed in the mid 80's models that they had done away with this great bumper design, and were now using a weaker bumper that employed foam as an impact absorber. The little 1981 Tercel (in low gear with parking brake on) had also taken a major corner hit in a parking lot from a 1980's full size Chevy wagon, without taking any visible damage, again because of this intelligent bumper design.

Many car manufacturers, in the 1990's, went one step further in making small impacts more damaging, with their doing away with a protruding bumper entirely, and employing an integral design. I have talked to many vehicle owners who have had major damage to their vehicles from very low-speed collisions because of these poorly designed bumpers--replacing the assembly is usually around $2000.00.

There are many ways to protect a vehicle from minor impacts so that it remains damage-free, but the consumer expects sleek styling instead--and it would be almost impossible to have both. Nevertheless, the little Tercel showed me that a car could be designed to survive smaller impacts without damage, or the expense associated. If we were not so concerned with appearances, vehicles could be made to absorb impacts from any direction--but perhaps the whole driving experience would be more like the "Dodge'ems" or "Bumper Cars" like the carnivals used to have.

We should remember, however, that we pay through our insurance fees for fancy styling, and that more and more vehicles are being written off, even in minor accidents, and that the insurance companies are going to "get theirs" no matter what we have to pay for insurance.

Toyota would. Give 'em a calll?

if there was ever a big issue with it warranting a recall or something along that line, it will be on the NHTSA website.