How about those pickup crash test results???????

toddstock

Where does it say anything about getting a broken leg.. Thanks for providing the link that states that.... preciate it in advance...

baker16

You're welcome.

No matter which large pickup truck you guys are driving you're gonna cause serious harm to me in my Honda Accord. Please drive careful.

IMHO you guys should be appalled at Ford's offset score. Did you see the PICTURES compared to the Tundra? Just because you may own a F-150 doesn't mean you have to blindly defend Ford. Instead of defending Ford here on this board you should be writting a letter to Ford Motor Company letting them know you're disappointed in their offset crash scores. If Toyota can get a good score than Ford should be able to do it too. Putting the Tundra down will not make the F-150 a better truck in the future. Tell Ford you want to be a proud F-150 owner and that means Ford needs to improve their structural integrity. That's my 2 cents.

By the way, the first and last Ford I owned was a 1971 Pinto. I was just a kid and it was my first car. First impressions sure stick with ya. That car was a piece of #$%#. There are lots of car companies out there so given the Pinto experience why would I buy another Ford product? I've got nothing against you Ford lovin' guys but there is no need for your love to be blind. Let Ford know you love their truck but the offset crash score stinks and you think improvements are called for. That's the only way Ford is going to clean up their act. Opps, I think I'm up to 4-cents. I don't even want to talk about Chrysler products.

Keep the greasy side down!

quadrunner500

>However, forces on the right tibia indicate the possibility of lower leg injury.<

Tibia is the *bone* in your lower leg.

You can parse out the word "possibility," you can parse out the word "marginal," you can micro-analyse it any way you want. I don't care. It all comes down to the bottom line, where the IIHS report has to make its summary conclusion, that in spite of all the parsings, the tundra driver compartment did better, the *dummy* did worse. Simple as that.

ryanbab

dont think there is a ford owner in here.

We are discussing chevy vs tundra

baker16

Sorry, I thought the topic was Pickup Crash Tests not Chevy vs Tundra. I'm going back to Sedans.

ryanbab

it is but there are no ford owners in here yet just wanted to point that out

Ryan

redsilverado

what kind of "sedan" do you presently own?
and you can discuss anything in here, us pickup guys will argue where each one should have the gas tank filler mounted if it makes you feel any better. LOL

eagle63

I'm a ford owner...

eagle63

My point is, as "apalling" as this 1 crash test is, if it isn't causing real world problems then who cares? Sorry if I sound like a ford fanatic trying to blindly defend its products. I've just grown very distrustful of the media in recent years. to me, the whole dateline segment was focused around some rep spitting out a couple of catchy sound bites. If people were getting killed or maimed in Ram's and F150's left and right then I'd think differently.

quadrunner500

Your point is valid. The point being made by the Tundra owners, is look...we have nothing else to crow about, we drive small trucks, have brake problems, can't really tow anything. They feel their pain.

But your mistrust of Dateline is shared. Remember on those exploding side saddle fuel tanks on GM trucks of the '80's? They tried several times to get one to burn. Finally, they resorted to overfilling the tank, removing the filler cap and inserting a rag, then using model rocketry engines to cause ignition. It was after examining the footage frame by frame, they determined ignition occurred before the actual impact. GM sued NBC and won a retraction.

Seems to me Dateline was guilty of this another time, on a story about contaminated food being sold by a supermarket chain called Food Lion. Even went so far as to plant some of their own employees in the Food Lion store, and perform acts of sabotage.

Bottom line, all manufacturers and safety experts alike know the best way to have survivable crashes is to require 5 point harness, roll cage and helmet. Anything less is just an acceptable degree of compromise.

baker16

Yes, death and distruction is not happening right and left to F-150 drivers but if I had to choose between being the crash test dummy in the Tundra or the F-150 which do you think I would choose? Ford sells millions of these trucks. Did Ford run this test? If they didn't that says a lot. If they did that also says a lot

eagle63

tell you what, once the gov't starts putting 7 ton conrete blocks on the highways, I'll buy a tundra.

baker16

IIHS has nothing to do with Dateline. Dateline shows what the IIHS does just like your local new station. If you want to find out about IIHS, how it works, what it does, etc:

http://www.hwysafety.org

The scams done in the past are a Dateline exclusive and has nothing to do with the IIHS. Being skeptical is fine but don't let it be an excuse for not seeing reality.

baker16

I'm not suggesting you buy a Tundra. I'm suggesting you (as a F-150 owner) let Ford know you're disappointed in their offset crash results.

ripinrocket

Amazing how *Some* of the pick-up driver's don't read the full IIHS report. Whiplash section anyone?

" restraints/Dummy Kinematics" anyone? I see a big red POOR for the Silverado.

And good luck getting out of that Silverado in a major accident. Doesn't look like you may make it out! Since the whole structure is contorted! You think a chance of that door jamming?

quadrunner500

I made NOOOO such connection between Dateline and IIHS.

I was solely referring to this statement by Eagle, "I've just grown very distrustful of the media in recent years. to me, the whole dateline segment was focused around some rep spitting out a couple of catchy sound bites."

That's the context of my statement, to Eagle. You need to read the entire thread before signing any checks.

lbthedog

Doesn't matter who's truck did the best. NBC wanted some sensationalism There was absolutely no journalism in their "report". Think for a minute, would they have gotten any ratings if all the trucks "got four stars" or whatever ranking this group sells. Sorry to see all the postings on this subject, you're being made suckers. The barrier they used was designed to do exactly what it did, cut underneath and put force in directions that the auto makers do not and have no reason to test at. This test is a farce. Also notice if you are so inclined to have tapes of this trash, that there are no reference clocks, no reference markings on the vehicles, virtually no standards to compare tests. So who's to say that the vehicles were all at the same speed? NBC? Trust them? If nothing else I think I have found my method to make a million. I'll just run around taking pictures of smashed up cars and trucks. Make up a few captions and sell subscriptions. None of the captions have to be truthful. Some of you will gladly pay to look.

baker16

The topic of this board is the test results of the IIHS on large trucks. I believe you implied a distrust of the tests aired on Dateline (which are the tests performed by the IIHS on large trucks). What am I missing?

quadrunner500

I did NOT see the IIHS tests on large trucks on Dateline. I do not watch the show. I don't get my information from DATELINE, PERIOD! I read the article online from this link, http://www.hwysafety.org/news_releases/2001/pr060401.htm

dwasson

NBC didn't do the tests the IIHS did. I think it was worthy information considering Ford sells 875,000 Ford F-150's a year. All you Toyota bashers does above average reliablity mean anything to you? Toyota trucks all have above average reliablity. Chevy and Ford trucks are just average. Dodge have below average.

baker16

Okey dokey.

ryanbab

Yep people who drive fords,dodges and chevys are just dying left and right when they get into a crash.

Ryan

redsilverado

i'd still like to know what kind of truck do you have?

zircon

They are so concerned with having the right gender, racial and age mix on the white-collar staff, they haven't the time or inclination to design safe vehicles (optics is everything to Nasser). First the Bronco II, then the Exploder, now the F150 with the truck side that opens like a can of beer when crashed in an offset. They have truly lost the big picture and Toyota and others will continue to eat their lunch. What a tragedy.

This has ZERO to do with the Dateline scam and everything to do with second-rate engineering.

ryanbab

The f150 has been out how long? Since 97 that is 4 yrs. There has been no outcries before this test of problems in crashes.

Im not a big ford guy but jeez chill out

powercat

Crash tests. Just one more reason to buy a Tundra. Like you need another one. I don't think I even want to ride in one of the crappy three after these results, let alone have to look at them. Except as a reminder of what poor engineering, workmanship, and design looks like.

dweezil

When has The Insurance Industry EVER been a friend of the consumer??? Ever tried to be reimbursed on a claim? follow the money trail.
Here are a few points you might want to consider:
Lab test; barrier crash, no braking resistance[and subsequent drag]steering away from collision,dummy restrained and simply bouncing around within the belts, no factoring in kinetic resistance by the driver, no allowance being made for road conditions,and a million other factors someone will encounter on a real road, among real vehicles of different sizes,weights and mechanical condition.
Lazy "journalists" of the newsmagazine "ambush" school only want a convenient sound bite. Nowhere in that silly piece did the reporter ask:"How would this apply in the real world on the road?".
How many trillions of miles did we drive over the past 100 years, how many billions of cars did we buy that were never tested by self serving cartels and government bureaucracies? Yet death rates for vehicle accidents have been trending down for decades[better brakes, steering,tires, suspensions] and were doing so even before the first government regulations became law in the mid 60's.
This sort of static controlled test under the parameters it was conducted is as likely to actually happen to any of us as being abducted by aliens: Statistically ZERO.Sort of like using computer models to "predict" global warming in 50 years.For all it's validity and 2.99 a minute you can call me Miss Cleo and I'LL tell your fortune and give you a weather report.
Given the fact that if it doesn't meet Government standards [for better or worse], a vehicle cannot be sold in this country, these Insurance industry tests are more for making a case to raise rates or deny claims based on the outcome of these ridiculous carnival sideshows.
No, you'd be statistically more likely to be killed by your air bag going off than you will ramming into a solid barrier at 45 mph without hitting the brake not bracing yourself behind your seat belt and steering away to avoid the impact.Air bag deaths HAVE happened in real life.
Sorry, these hit pieces are worth no more than 5 minutes conversation at a cocktail party or at the water cooler at work.Take it with a pound of salt.Drive on;all!!!

ryanbab

Finally a man who has some sense.

Very well stated

Honestly do you think this test is going to help toyota sell more tundras? I dont see this happening sorry. Im sure itll sway some people but the majority nah.

Ryan

tbrown_4

Ryan, you're dead wrong in saying that safety won't have an impact. Look how much companies advertise safety nowadays. Ford with the Windstar, BMW with the X5, Toyota with the Sienna...the list goes on and on. They even feature the IIHS crash test footage in the commercials! While the Tundra probably won't be as much of a family hauler as a minivan or SUV, safety sells and you can bet that this will have an impact.

Chrysler recently admitted that if they had known how much good safety ratings would make for sales, they would've designed their new minivans to be safer to get a better score. So they could design something safer but chose not to because of profits. Um how much does Ford or GM make on one of these trucks again? $5000? $10000 each, from the factory? Hmm...profits again.

Sounds to me like Ford/Chrysler/GM is hoping that someone like you will buy their "company responses" to Dateline...to try to demean the test rather than to try to improve on it. Toyota went from a poor scoring minivan, the Previa, to a top scoring minivan, the Sienna, in just one year. Shows that they care, rather than to try to make excuses.

And no, I don't own a Tundra either...or a Toyota.

ryanbab

So contractors and people who need a truck that will do a job a truck is supposed to do will look at safety first? Nah i highly doubt that. Maybe the business man that drives to work and home everyday and never hauls anything but groceries and an occasional passenger might consider safety an important factor. There are many more people out there who buy a truck for other reasons than safety.

Ryan

ryanbab

at these sales figures as of may this yr.

Ford F-Series
345,310-10.9% YTD
May 2001: 75,952
May 2000: 85,506

Chevrolet Silverado
291,987+2.7% YTD
May2001: 70,324
May 2000: 59,160

Dodge Ram
141,412-12% YTD
May 2001: 28,256
May 2000: 32,704

GMC Sierra
80,720 -4.9% YTD
May 2001: 19,933
May 2000: 17,846

Toyota Tundra
38,736 -3.2% YTD
May 2001: 8,755
May 2000: 9,016

redsilverado

you may be talkin to a wall.
-
bottom line......insurance companies will provide info that they can benefit from.
-
but to be honest, Toddstocks link to the pictures of the ford and tundra clearly make you think.

lbthedog

The government (whatever that means) crash test results ranked the Toyota last among the models tested by the IIHS. Now a different test format is used and last has become best. This is beginning to look like Gore in Florida. Some people are going to use the results of whatever test they want to get results in any direction they want. I don't care what the tests "show". I do not think it was fair of NBC or their affiliates to frighten consumers of these vehicles. In my area, there were the "man on the street" interviews that basically shoved a microphone in the face of a mom and kids as they parked their Ford truck. Of course they asked "how do you feel about putting your kids at risk". And all on "data" that NBC generated. I may not trust my government completely. But I don't look for more ways to distrust them. Trust an insurance company funded agency? Considering what I pay in taxes versus what I pay in premiums and considering what I get. I'll side with the feds.
Maybe we need a third part to do some testing. Best two out of three. Sorry to say that the only way to make a fair judgment is to wait. Two or three years from now the losses can be tabulated, if one if these vehicles has abnormal amounts of claims, we'll know about it. Considering that American vehicles have been out in the real world for a couple years and have not gained a bad reputation, time will tell how the Toyota will do.

whatsachevy

I have come up with a new test. Let's get four volunteers (dummies) - one a Chevy owner, one a Toyota owner, one a Ford owner and one a Dodge owner. We'll line 'em up in a cross-hair pattern, o say 1,000 feet apart, aimed at a center target. When the shotgun sounds, let 'em rip and see what happens when all four trucks come together. That should be a pretty conclusive test!

Update - Actual test results: Toyota, Ford and Dodge totally destroyed. Chevy was so quick off the line that it blew through the center target area before the other three trucks got there.

quadrunner500

I'll always been a risk taker then. I've ridden in taxicabs in New York, Mexico and Europe. My 90 S10 Blazer with 126,000 miles has no air bag. My Zx-11 Ninja was never a favorite of the insurance industry either. I doubt my ATV or dirt bike would fare well at 45 mph into an offset barrier either. And piling gasoline cans and propane and tools and motorcycles in the bed behind me is probably not the safest thing to do. Neither is carrying a lot of money in my pockets in Baja, or San Felipe.

But all this extra emphasis on safety makes me want to puke, because we all do things that aren't safe, take chances. Benjamin Franklin felt the same way. He said, "For those who would choose safety over liberty, deserve neither safety, nor liberty."

I live for each day. Not the other way around. You can run from fear, but there's no guarantee you won't just die tired.

ryanbab

my dad drives a truck without an airbag everyday.

When i drive it i feel pretty safe.

Ryan

toddstock

We didn't get to witness the government test.. HMMMMMMM, we did get to witness the insurance test with our own eyes.. Stop the excuses, and walk away... Those pictures don't make me go hmmmmm Red.. I saw the crashes, and that is what happened buddy ole pal of mine... The Redsilverado did crappolia... That's the bottom line.. And as in stocks, the bottom line is all that counts, since last year that is... :-)

ryanbab

i am not saying the tests were rigged or anything this is a general question

you trust insurance companies? You give them a check each month and when you are supposed to get a check from them how easy is that?

Not a very consumer friendly business

PF_Flyer

I have to say that I'm amused by the reaction to these test results. Seems if you don't like them, then there are all kinds of reasons why the test MUST be invalid... not the "real world", different vehicle weights, etc...

But think about it for a minute... you HAVE to have a standard test where you do XYZ to each vehicle. How else can you make a valid comparison? Pick something to hit, pick a speed to hit it at, and see what happens. Where's the bias in that? You can compare a pickup truck to a motorcycle that way as far as making a "safety" determination. The motorcycle lover will get all upset that the test wasn't fair to compare his vehicle of choice to a pickup truck, but that doesn't change the fact that his vehicle of choice WILL fare worse in a collision than a pickup.
There are no sides to choose in this fight. The test results are what they are... a way to COMPARE vehicles. NOT an absolute judgement about which is "best".

PF Flyer

Host

Pickups & News & Views Message Boards

redsilverado

i'm glad that you at least saw that vehicle weight had something to do with this one sided test. also, it's Gore who taught us not to except the obvious.

redsilverado

thanks guy, that test of yours really made me laugh. facts are facts right?

obyone

For the sake of edmund's posters....they should have crashed a 'rado into a Tundra. Now that would have been the crash of the century......

PF_Flyer

My point was that vehicle weight doesn't have much to do with the "validity" of the test. Vehicles have different weights. Suggesting that you should load one up to make it the same weight as another to make the test "fair" is kind of silly if you ask me. Same for the arguement about it not being the "real world". If you want to compare things in the real world, then you have to look for crashes that were as similar as possible, don't you? You can't compare a rollover in an ABC pickup to an XYZ pickup hitting a telephone poll. Lab testing isn't trying to duplicate the real world, it's trying to simulate a crash using a standard set of circumstances so you CAN make a comparison.

Are you viewing the tests as "one sided" because of the methodology of the tests or the results? What I seem to be seing here is that some people don't like the test results, so they take the position that the tests must be bad.

They were simply tests to see what happens. Nothing more or less.

PF Flyer

Host

Pickups & News & Views Message Boards

redsilverado

i rode street bikes(you know, the ones that could exceed the speed limit at least 2 1/2 times) and for me, real world driving and safety concerns involves one basic thing, defensive driving. with motorcycle experience one learns to drive like all others are not seeing you, or you may not survive. so for me, i believe your not safe in any vehicle no matter how safe the manufacturer makes it. there's always that one oddball point of contact that can deliver totally different results than some staged wreck as we witnessed on TV. to me(hypothetical here) if someone is involved in an accident that involves the exact same conditions as seen on TV happens to them, and the end results are worse than what the TV test provided, is there a chance of a law suit?

ripinrocket

Here's a good one on the SUV/truck market:

http://www.fortune.com/indexw.jhtml?channel=artcol.jhtml&doc_id=202790

PF_Flyer

These tests are NOT absolutes... they're just comparisons. Of course, in a world where people spill coffee on themselves and then successfully sue the place that sold them the coffee, it wouldn't surprise me to see some lawyer try to use these tests as a way to sue... and that's VERY sad

PF Flyer

Host

Pickups & News & Views Message Boards

ripinrocket

Here's a good one on the SUV/truck market:

http://www.fortune.com/indexw.jhtml?channel=artcol.jhtml&doc_id=202790

ryanbab

the smoker who sued and won $3 billion dollars

Thats ridiculous

maybe my dad can do the same shoot also my grandpa, uncle, friends. We will all be rich

redsilverado

in case you don't answer right away, here is my point. if the end results of a real live accident occur in the exact same way as the test, and the results under the same conditions are worse for any of the vehicles, but there was at least 500lbs. of cargo in the bed, do you believe that the cargo won't have an effect on a settlement? i'll bet that any insurance company or manufacturer would say that the weight contributed to the results being worse than the test.

dweezil

to consider:where do you think the Insurance Institute got the money to do these tests in the first place? Right out of the working slob's pocket by denying claims, redlining entire neighborhoods, raising rates when you DO have an accident,or dropping a person altogether, cutting corners on repairs by allowing substandard parts, low balling settlements and grinding down a consumer who fights them until he or she gives up.
Yet brain dead journalists think they're doing the public a favor by running with this psuedo-science as a lead story and think they're doing "good".The real story is the sham insurance companies pretending to care about the public and funding it's assault with the customer's own money!!Brilliant PR maneuver!!! Now try convincing those people here in CA who are still waiting to be paid off for earthquake damage to their homes how trust worthy and caring insurance companies are.Follow the money trail, there's more to the story than you'll EVER get on dateline.