This is not the kind of publicity Ford needs, while they are trying to turn things around.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041027/ap_on_bi_ge/crash_tests

WASHINGTON - Two 2005 Ford vehicles, the two-door Focus and the Ranger 4x4 pickup, were the worst performers in new government crash and rollover tests, according to results released Tuesday

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (news - web sites) said the rear passenger was at risk of serious head injury when the Focus was hit in the side in a 38.5 mph test. The Focus was tested without side air bags, which a Ford Motor Co. Web site lists as a $350 option on the vehicle.

NHTSA gave the Focus three out of five stars for driver's side protection and four out of five stars for rear passenger protection, the lowest ratings among cars tested. Those ratings didn't reflect the potential for head injury because NHTSA's side-impact ratings consider only chest injuries. A five-star rating means the likelihood of serious injury in a similar crash is 5 percent or less; three stars means the likelihood is 11 to 20 percent.

The Ranger 4x4 and its corporate twin, the Mazda B-Series 4x4, earned two stars in NHTSA's rollover ratings, the lowest of the 10 2005 pickups tested. NHTSA said the Ranger and the B-Series have a 30.6 percent chance of rolling over in a crash. The ratings consider the vehicle's height and weight and its performance in a 35 to 50 mph test with a sharp turn.

Ford spokeswoman Carolyn Brown said Ford plans to study the new data but believes the Focus and the Ranger are safe and perform similarly to comparable vehicles. Brown added that Ford thinks NHTSA is using faulty methods to predict chance of rollover.

"The calculation that NHTSA is using is based on a model that includes outdated information and is not capable of producing real-world results," she said.

NHTSA released crash test results for seven passenger cars, one pickup and one sport utility vehicle and rollover ratings for one crossover vehicle and 10 pickups. The agency chooses vehicles to test based on popularity and other factors.

The 2005 Subaru Outback, which NHTSA classifies as an SUV, was the only vehicle that earned five stars on all front and side-impact tests. The Outback was tested with its side air bags since they are standard.

The 2005 Chrysler 300 and its corporate twin, the Dodge Magnum, also were high performers, earning five stars on the 35 mph frontal crash test and the rear passenger side-impact test. Neither vehicle was tested with side air bags, which are a $590 option on the Chrysler 300 and a $390 option on the Dodge Magnum.

Two-wheel and four-wheel-drive versions of the Chevrolet Colorado, GMC Canyon and Dodge Ram pickups each earned four stars in the rollover tests. NHTSA said their percent chance of rollover was between 17.9 and 19.8 percent. The Ford Ranger 4x2 and Mazda B-Series 4x2 fared better than the four-wheel-drive version, earning three stars and a 21.9 percent chance of rolling over.

The Ford Freestar crossover earned four stars and has a 14.7 percent chance of rolling over.

 

Well, these are some of the older vehicles in Ford's lineup. They would not be expected to perform well in newer crash tests. Their replacements should do much better, like the new F150 performs much better in these tests than the old one. I wouldn't make too much of it, unless a newly designed vehicle performs poorly, then there is something to worry about.

 

As of now there is no replacement for the Ranger, and the Focus is not that old.

 

There might not be a replacement but there is an upgrade-Dakota w/ a 4.7 ( i hate rangers and s-10's)

 

Hey Budly pretty much nobody on here cares what you think about anything. You just like to get on here and run your mouth. So if youd like to bash the Ranger, start your own thread. Back to my original thread.

 

Whether or not the vehicles are based on old models-these tests are meant to imitate real crashes. A rollover or hit from the side is not a "new" type of car accident. Although its weird that this is coming out now-the ranger is still based off of the old model dating back to 93 or so. You'd think they would've known this back then.

 

Yea bigbluebronco, thats what I thought about the Ranger. Did the cab's on the new ones maybe get taller? And I thought it was crazy that the Focus did poor in roll-over, as low as they sit to the ground.

 

another bad bit of news for Ford that has not made too many waves yet was a recently published JD Powers article regarding reliability of diesel vs gas motors. If anyone really wants, I will try to find the link. The graphics made it look worse than it maybe is. Who knows, maybe Ford's gassers are just that good and the other's gassers break down all of the time. Either way, the 6.0 did not fare so well in comparison.

 

Just a little correction on a post...this wasn't a roll-over test for the Focus...Heck for the Focus to get 3 stars for Roll-over is nuts..I drive one lol and i don't fore-see any chance of that baby rollin. As Far as the Ranger goes I couldn't tell ya bout the 4x4 but the 4x2 ext cab I know would do very well in roll-over. I had a 2000 Ext. Cab 4x2 3.0L Auto...was hit at someone of an angle in the front end by a larger Van...all she did was spin a few times lol...

 

"The 2005 Chrysler 300 and its corporate twin, the Dodge Magnum, also were high performers, earning five stars on the 35 mph frontal crash test and the rear passenger side-impact test. Neither vehicle was tested with side air bags, which are a $590 option on the Chrysler 300 and a $390 option on the Dodge Magnum."
As usual I am confused. You quote test results on one of Fords smallest compacts "The 2 door Focus". Then quote crash results from Chrysler's newest and biggest sedans?? The Ford Crown Vic. and it's twin the Mercury Grand Marquis get 5 stars in all tests except "hit by large meteor".. Let's compare apples to apples....

 

I just put the whole story in, I just put everything they had in so yall could read it.

 

I agree with you there. As the prior owner of a crown vic and a current Grand Marquis owner, I can attest personally to the safety of those cars. Along with the Town Car, they were the FIRST VEHICLES EVER to recieve a five star safety rating in all 5 categories (driver frontal impact, passenger frontal impact, front-seat side impact, rear-seat side impact, and rollover resistance rating). The crown vic is dead now thanks to a crash and the only damage I had came FROM the airbag (to my hand).

 

Gee, how did the world ever get along with real 4X4's with high centers of gravity all these years?

The current Ranger design, with the exception of the IFS, is a 1993 design. It's 11 years old. All the sudden this is such a big issue?

15 years ago, if you weaved in out of traffic in a 4X4 in a high rate of speed and wiped out, it wasn't considered the vehicles fault, it was the driver's fault for being the DUMB *** that didn't know the handling characteristics of a truck.

People who can't drive trucks shouldn't own them. Point blank. The Ranger is part of a dying breed. It's a small truck that is just that... a small, more or less basic pickup that is very capable and can be had for a good price.

I LIKE the ground clearance. For those of us that sometimes really do take our truck through a field, its really nice not to be scraping the ground. I understand that its top heavy. It's supposed to be. IT'S A 4X4 TRUCK!!!!!!!

I hate to say it, but if in a few years Ford builds a "lifestyle vehicle" like the Colorado to replace the Ranger, I might just have to go with the Tacoma if it stays true to it's roots. I never thought I would say that, but if I'm still in a position where 5600 lbs of towing capacity is enough, what other real "small"truck will be there? I always liked the Dakota, but the fact is it's bulkier and heavier, to the point where a V-8 is needed to push it around at about the same rate as my 4.0L Ranger. If I wanted something bigger and only wanted to get 14 MPG I would have got a full size.

The Ranger suits lots of people like myself who don't need a full size, but still arent afraid to use their truck as a truck. I hope Ford realizes this.

 

You know your kinda silly if you really think a focus is a great car to be involved in an accident with. I mean, how safe do the expect them to be? HELLO! We're talking tinker toys here. The Ranger should do a little better, but come on, it's the last of its kind - true mini truck. The Crown Vic is awesome! One hell of a car - period.

 

no one said the Focus was a good car to be in an accident with. As for the Ranger I know it aint the worst to be in an accident with. I was hit by Chevy Astro utility van doin 60mph....how many tests test that speed? lol. Anyways the Trucks integrity wasn't an issue in my case...but rather the poor little truck bein tossed about and my seat-belt doin too good a job...Also as Far as the Crown-Vics go...i thought i heard something about a suit against Ford on those because a bunch of police units were catching fire in accidents...