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

edwardh5edwardh5 Member Posts: 130
edited April 2014 in Toyota
look at

http://www.hwysafety.org/news_releases/2001/pr060401.htm

for some insurance institute photos of trucks crashing. Look like Ford must have never tested their truck. If they did, they ignored the results - either way an ethics problem. Toyota did it right.
Tagged:
«13456

Comments

  • btate2002btate2002 Member Posts: 64
    Wow, I have been telling people I know that bought Fords that they were crap and these crash test results just further prove my point. The folks over at GM are still not satisfied with the structure of their 4 door truck, and the dealer I use was up front about that, even though they are better than the Ford and Dodge. The Tundra would be the PERFECT truck, only if it was a little bigger, like the size of the Sierra/Silverado. Wow Ford, your 2 for 2 in the last 2 weeks, first Firestone and Explorer and now the F-150 is a death trap in a head on crash. Built Ford tough to kill you!!
  • ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/longterm/articles/44039/page014.html
  • tkenny53tkenny53 Member Posts: 41
    It does make you think, or does the F150 allow the truck asorb more g-force impact by break-away doors and panels. It would be intesting to see the difference of g-force between all 4 trucks and which one had the least. Just like the cars do in open wheel racing. I wonder how the f150 "s-crew" did or does the name mean something
  • edwardh5edwardh5 Member Posts: 130
    they are posted on the institute web site.
    They are lower for the Toyota, even tho you might thing the crumbling ford would absorb the impact.
  • ratboy3ratboy3 Member Posts: 324
    IMHO I think anything that crumbles within the passenger area would not be a good thing...

    I think other body types (of a pickup truck) would have different results (4 full size doors) because they have pillars in the middle of the cab...
  • f1julesf1jules Member Posts: 288
    Real world crash is great if you never crash into anything but small cars. Unfortunately, seldom do you have the luxury of choosing the type of vehicle you have an accident with.

    I would have to assume that I'm going to be involved in a crash with a large vehicle if I'm considering safety in my purchase. Obviously, a larger heavier vehicle will do better in a crash with a smaller one-that's just common sense.

    You could make the comparison that the GMC Behemoth did very well in a crash test with a motorcycle but how safe does that really make you feel?
  • jaijayjaijay Member Posts: 162
    that the Chevy was one of the heavier vehicles tested.
  • toddstocktoddstock Member Posts: 268
    You would think the heaviest one would do the best, guess not... It all comes down to whos engineers did the better job.... The results speak for themselves...
  • rm13rm13 Member Posts: 46
    because the test simulate impact with fixed object (or same vehicle). Relative size and weight would be a factor in a crash with a different vehicle or other object.
    This type of test does not predict which vehicle would "win" in an off-set collision between two different vehicles. It is a much better test of a vehicles structural integrity than the governments head-on tests, and should replace or supplement that test conducted by the gov. Leaving this test to the insurance institute allows long delays before a particular vehicle is tested. In this case, F150 has been enjoying a 4-Star rating from the government for years and may be(probably is) the least safe vehicle in frontal crashes.
  • lake5lake5 Member Posts: 56
    that if the tundra was brought up to weight to match any of the big3, that it would have had worse results. i also like a machine to crumble more on impact to absorb energy. kinda like the way indy cars fly apart on impact to absorb the punch. and besides, who needs a broken leg?
  • jaijayjaijay Member Posts: 162
    An increase in MASS (weight) or speed (velocity) and the vehicle will be required to absorb more energy during a crash. Therefore for the heavy chevy to have an out come as mentioned in the test indicates that the hydroformed frame and body structure is doing its job absorbing the energy in the crash.
  • ratboy3ratboy3 Member Posts: 324
    Indy cars crumble to absorb energy.. hell yeah.. keeps them safe! (as safe as possible anyway) Driver cocoon virtually intact.

    So the trucks we drive.. where is the 'passengers' cocoon?

    Back to the test.. was there anything in there that was closely related to the cocoon thing?!
  • jaijayjaijay Member Posts: 162
    An increase in MASS (weight) or speed (velocity) and the vehicle will be required to absorb more energy during a crash. Therefore for the heavy chevy to have an out come as mentioned in the test indicates that the hydroformed frame and body structure is doing its job absorbing the energy in the crash.
  • toddstocktoddstock Member Posts: 268
    but the dummies head in the Chevy looked like he would of snapped his neck... Regarding the weight issue.. The chevy only weighs like 250 more lbs... That is just an excuse as usual...
  • redsilveradoredsilverado Member Posts: 1,000
    but who cares, i don't think you see or hear of many people slammin their vehicles into a wall.
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAAA
  • toddstocktoddstock Member Posts: 268
    And your right, they don't slam into walls.. They slam into moving vehicles head on.. Even worse... BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA
  • markbuckmarkbuck Member Posts: 1,021
    Look at both the Govt tests and the Insurance Inst tests. Also look at the average weight of the vehicle being tested. For running into other folks, then you should assume the vehicle you hit is likely to be about average wt (3,000lbs?!). So if you run head on into that average wt. vehicle with a lighter vehicle, the crash will be relatively more severe. Conversely, a heavier vehicle into a lighter one will decelerate less, and have less energy to absorb.

    I congratulate Toyota on a good test result for the Tundra. The Tacoma is still horrible.... And the Tundra is still a poorer performer than the F150 or the Silverado in the Govt DOT crash tests.

    Hopefully, the tests will encourge all designers to improve crashworthiness.

    Also, remember that 4doors with center pilliars almost always outperform their brethern.

    So for max safety, buy real crew cabs, real full sized SUV's and full sized 4 doors.
  • drew_drew_ Member Posts: 3,382
    Actually the Tacoma did better than all of the other tested small pickup trucks in the IIHS test.

    http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/summary_smpickup.htm


    As Brian O'Neil said: "The government’s test does not really test the structural design of the vehicle because the whole front end takes the load. In this (offset) test, only part of the front end’s taking the load and then you see structural failure.”

    Transcript of the Dateline segment with video clips of the tests: http://www.msnbc.com/news/580811.asp


    Drew
    Host
    Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
  • toddstocktoddstock Member Posts: 268
    I will go with the test that I saw with my own 2 eyes...
  • steve234steve234 Member Posts: 460
    Look at the age of the vehicles. The Ford and Dodge were designed in the late 80's, early 90's, long before this test was conceived. The Chevy and Toyota were designed a decade later with the knowledge of the testing. Since it is impossible to design for all crashes, the manufacturers do the best they can and design for the crashes that they are tested for. The remark by the insurance institute rep was the biggest load I have ever heard. The insurance people are not interested in making trucks safer, they just are looking for excuses to jack up rates. Do an almost impossible test, then rate everything poorly and add 40% to the rate for having an unsafe vehicle.
  • drew_drew_ Member Posts: 3,382
    The current Ford F-series pickup debut for 1997 and the current Dodge Ram for 1994. Since then, both have undergone structural revisions to add the two rear doors. The Chevy made its debut for 1999 and the Toyota for 2000. Don't forget that the 1995 Ford Windstar, as well as the Taurus both did well in the IIHS tests.


    Drew
    Host
    Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
  • markbuckmarkbuck Member Posts: 1,021
    You were there watching the tests? Cool, howdya get an invite?

    Oh, you saw it on TV.....
  • tkenny53tkenny53 Member Posts: 41
    With every purchase of any "F" truck comes a Handford Device!!!!
  • lake5lake5 Member Posts: 56
    TV is just like being there right?
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAA
  • redsilveradoredsilverado Member Posts: 1,000
    you think that they should test by using two vehicles slamming into each head on? that might just prove alot more than just hitting a wall though. still though, the tundra did come out on top, but then again it's a lot lighter than the big3 trucks that it tested against.
  • quadrunner500quadrunner500 Member Posts: 2,721
    The Tundra truck did the best. That you can still open its door is completely irrelevant, if only to limp over to the stretcher. While the truck did good, it's still a total write off. (Unless you want to repair it) If not, the difference is moot. For whatever reasons, it's more than luck that no injuries occur to the Silverado driver. All the brands subjected to the same test conditions.
  • redsilveradoredsilverado Member Posts: 1,000
    but that doesn't excuse the fact that the tundra is smaller and lighter, so therefore it shouldn't have been included in this test. should have been tested with the ranger,dakota, and s10 class.
  • toddstocktoddstock Member Posts: 268
    The difference in weight is like the weight of a grown man... Whewwwwwwwwwwwww... That sure is alot of weight... Excuses Excuses Excuses Excuses Excuses Excuses Excuses Excuses Excuses Excuses ROTFLMMFAO at you chevy owners... If the Chevy did good on the test, ya'll would be praising the test and your trucks... This is the absolute funniest thing I have ever witnessed in my entire life... They lost big time, and that is the bottom line and they don't like it one bit... AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, poor little chevy owners... Gettin a taste of their own medicine...
    What's the matter guys??? Don't like FACTS or PICTURES?????
  • jaguar0027jaguar0027 Member Posts: 387
    we did not get a POOR rating like the Ford F-150. I'll take a "marginal" rating any day over "poor."

    Absolutely... I wish my Rado was number 1 in the crash test and kudos to Toyota for having the safest one. Im sure in the coming years that Ford and GM will do better with these crash tests.

    Anyway... still LOVE my Rado..

    My 2 cents anyways.

    Jim
  • quadrunner500quadrunner500 Member Posts: 2,721
    Toyota truck best, Silverado driver best.
    All the things supposed to make a truck safer, like non-intrusions into the safety cage, structural integrity of the safety cage went wrong on the Silverado, BUT THE DRIVER came out good, better than Tundra driver who had lower leg injuries. So what counts? The photos, or the measured forces? Just ask the dummies. Lowest recorded forces on the Silverado dummy. Silverado driver ain't no dummy! LOL!

    Anyway to answer a question about weights, here are the listed weights from the insurance institute tests:

    Tundra 4363
    F150 4475
    Silverado 4709
    Ram 4930
  • redsilveradoredsilverado Member Posts: 1,000
    between the Ram and the Tundra?.....yeah that's real close there...i'd take a crumpled truck over broken legs anyday. but to be fair, looks like the toyota is repairable, which is something insurance companies just love. still, i'd rather recieve the good ol totalled report, rather than have something that's repairable. just never the same.
  • toddstocktoddstock Member Posts: 268
    I am not sure what crash you were watching, but the Silverado dumby looked like his neck would of been snapped in half... Just my 2 cents...
  • quadrunner500quadrunner500 Member Posts: 2,721
    Text from report:

    Silverado: INJURY MEASURES: GOOD Measures taken from the head, chest, and both legs indicate low risk of injury. Head acceleration from the shoulder belt housing contact was low.

    Tundra: INJURY MEASURES: RIGHT LEG/FOOT MARGINAL Measures taken from the head and chest indicate low risk of injury. However, forces on the right tibia indicate the possibility of lower leg injury.

    By the way, I didn't *watch* any crashes. Just read the report. It's right there, from the experts.
  • tomh12tomh12 Member Posts: 240
    That is what I got from READING the results of the test, as opposed to looking at the pictures only. I'll accept no injuries over a broken leg in an intact TUNA can, any day!
    Tom
  • baker16baker16 Member Posts: 45
    I bet the F-150 would have scored better if it had Michelin or Goodyear tires on it!!! %#&*$% Firestones are causing all kinds of problems for Ford .

    I'll go back to the Sedan Board now.
  • eagle63eagle63 Member Posts: 599
    think about this: there are thousands and thousands of F150's and Rams on the road today. If these trucks were really that unsafe, don't you think we would have heard something by now? I guess what I'm wondering is this: has this poor crash test rating translated into higher deaths in accidents? Doesn't someone keep data on this sort of thing?
  • baker16baker16 Member Posts: 45
    Eagle63,

    Here's some real world data for you:


    http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ictl/ictl.htm


    Just select 'Pickup' under category
  • quadrunner500quadrunner500 Member Posts: 2,721
    ...where I read it, (so much discussion) but someone made the point about normalizing real world accident data over the number of trucks in service, ie if there was a problem with F150 or Ram it should show up in higher injury rates. I agree with you.
  • abc246abc246 Member Posts: 305
    The insurance institute is completely wrong stating that their offset test is more real world. When was the last time you saw a F150 or Dodge Ram looking like those photos?

    You can make numbers say anything you want. Would you want the F150 to hit your family sedan or the Tundra? The F150 obviously would transmit less crash force on the other vehicle because of its weaker structure.

    I have seen head-on crashes that were not offset. Rear end collisions can be on center using both frame rails just like the govs test.

    I think the best compromise might be the Silverado. This truck had the best personal protection in the offset and did well on the gov test too.
  • bnosytbnosyt Member Posts: 23
    Look at the NHTSA crash rating for the same vehicles. See how the Tundra has the lowest overall rating of the four!


    http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ncap/cars/2001Pkup.html

  • chevytruck_fanchevytruck_fan Member Posts: 432
    I noticed that when the government did a test and the tundra did really bad that noone was causing a big comotion, but the pro japanese crowd gets one little thing their way and they start a big comotion, I guess when there isn't one area your truck beats a domestic in you have to find some scrap and make a big comotion about it.
  • redsilveradoredsilverado Member Posts: 1,000
    a big joke. who cares if the vehicle is in good shape after a crash. i would rather have one that's mangeled and be able to walk away from. i'm a lot happier if the thing becomes a total loss as well, don't care for a bent machine that can be repaired. i'm sure insurance compamies just love the tundra though. hey look, here's one we won't have to pay much for to fix.
    -
    as far as firestones being a big problem to ford is concerned, well that's a big joke too. seems it's been proven that the geometry on the explorer's front end sucks and is even further proved to be bad by ford's sudden redesign of it. you also don't take a tire that's design to be inflated to a specified air pressure and then tell customers to only inflate to a lower pressure, all to enhance the ride.
  • toddstocktoddstock Member Posts: 268
    Who cares what the truck looks like... I am just worried about not getting any bulging discs... Trust me, you should be too.. Not a pretty surgery or recovery time or pain...


    Discussing the merits of the crash tests without looking at the specifics is getting only part of the picture.

    http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/grey_lgpickup.htm


    You will clearly see that the reason why the IIHS rated the Tundra "good" is because its intrusion and injury measures are very significantly less than the other vehicles in the majority of the categories. For example, despite the Tundra and Silverado both scoring "good" in the head/neck category, the Silverado had more than 5 times greater neck bending forces (13 Nm vs. 66 Nm). :


    I hope this helps to shed more light on the specifics of the tests.

  • eagle63eagle63 Member Posts: 599
    thanks, your link proved my point!
  • eagle63eagle63 Member Posts: 599
    "seems it's been proven that the geometry on the explorer's front end sucks and is even further proved to be bad by ford's sudden redesign of it."

    -it has? who proved that? how come the explorers with good year tires didn't have a problem?
  • redsilveradoredsilverado Member Posts: 1,000
    apparently you haven't kept up with the industry and redesign of the explorer. keep in mind that while firestone admitted to a tire design flaw, that it was also proven that if the tires had been properly inflated, there wouldn't have been any failings.
  • ripinrocketripinrocket Member Posts: 157
    Did someone miss the big "P" in the Chevy Silverado column under "restraints/Dummy Kinematics"?

    And how about head restraint ratings?

    Seems no matter which way you cut it, the Tundra still comes out on top.

    And remember a good safety cage is very important. Think about a person driving the Silverado 10mph more and how much more of a pancake that cabin would turn into!
  • ripinrocketripinrocket Member Posts: 157
    www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/grey_lgpickup.htm
  • ripinrocketripinrocket Member Posts: 157
    www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/summary_lgpickup.htm
  • redsilveradoredsilverado Member Posts: 1,000
    seems no matter how you cut it, the tundra comes out on top? a broken leg is being on top? seems more like no one loses, but everyone gains in the fact the safety R&D for all the vehicles should result in a safer vehicle of choice for all of us. and at least toyota will stop breaking peoples legs.
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles