is it just me or are new trucks getting ugly?

[THE KING]

Conspriacy theorys aside, crumple zones do save lives. From an engineering stand point,

Not just the engineering side, take monster trucks for example, AKA Average every day persons terms... When a monster comes down from a jump straight on the front end or rear end, and hits that frame, It doesnt look like a hard hit but usually every time they are hauled away on streachers. Wheres the crumple zone?

[Aberdale Farm]

The crumple zones are mandated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. FMVSS 208 requires that during frontal impact the body structure provides a deceleration mode which absorbs and dissipates impact energy rather than transmitting the full impact force to the driver and/or occupants. The human body (essentially the brain, neck, and spine) can only take a certain G load before causing death. On 30mph impacts or less, FMVSS 208 dictates a deceleration rate that keeps the g forces to the body low enough to survive.

For a long time, FMVSS standards were only applicable to passenger cars. Trucks were exempt. With the proliferation of SUVs on truck chassis, the standards were expanded to include light trucks.

Dale

[dwo]

I think the proliferation of crumple zones on new trucks is to reduce the damage done to a smaller vehicle upon impact. How often does a 1 ton head-on into a brick will anyway? Now all those little death-trap cars that won the “Top Safety Pick” awards will stand a chance being t-boned.

[alchymist]

Originally Posted by dwo

I think the proliferation of crumple zones on new trucks is to reduce the damage done to a smaller vehicle upon impact. How often does a 1 ton head-on into a brick will anyway? Now all those little death-trap cars that won the “Top Safety Pick” awards will stand a chance being t-boned.

I don't think that the crumple zones in a truck will reduce the force transmitted to a smaller vehicle. It takes a given force to crumple a chassis a fixed distance. Granted, the force is absorbed in the frame, or whatever is designated to be crumpled, and not transmitted to the occupants, but where did the force to crumple it come from? Yep, from the other vehicle. If the other vehicle doesn't have crumple zones, or it is not struck where the crumple zones can absorb the impact, the force will be transmitted to the occupants.
Not to mention that the larger vehicle will have more potential energy to be absorbed, and may exceed what the crumple zone was designed to absorb in the smaller vehicle. You can only crush a tin can so far......

[THE KING]

I would think that the smaller vehicle would be the crumple zone lol

[Aberdale Farm]

Originally Posted by dwo

I think the proliferation of crumple zones on new trucks is to reduce the damage done to a smaller vehicle upon impact. How often does a 1 ton head-on into a brick will anyway? Now all those little death-trap cars that won the “Top Safety Pick” awards will stand a chance being t-boned.

Crumple zones were never designed nor intended to minimize impact damage to another vehicle or to the object that was impacted. They are there solely to reduce the G-forces to the driver and/or occupants.

The other vehicle will see the same amount of force regardless of whether there are crumple zones or not. Newton's Law. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Dale

[alchymist]

Originally Posted by Aberdale Farm

Crumple zones were never designed nor intended to minimize impact damage to another vehicle or to the object that was impacted. They are there solely to reduce the G-forces to the driver and/or occupants.

The other vehicle will see the same amount of force regardless of whether there are crumple zones or not. Newton's Law. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Dale

Humnnn..thought I just said that .....

[Lead Head]

Are 3/4 and 1 ton trucks counted in that though? I can never seem to find crash raitings for those trucks from any manufacture. i did notice that around 2000-2001, Dodge, Ford and GMs truck all shot up from around 2-3 star crash raiting to around a 4-5

[TwoX]

i was flipping through the hot rod mag, and i must say i saw a very good looking 08 ford F-150, but ill stick to my older 70's model fords, to me they just seem to have more power, and i like the body style on them.

[FordSavage250]

They just don't look "Built Ford Tough" anymore. It seems that they lost that look in 97.

[rangerfan]

I'm waiting for the 09 to come to my local dealer just so maybe I can get an 08 at a really good price. I'm hopeing Ford will slash prices to get rid of the old inventory.

[FTE Ken]

Ford brought back the tough look in 2004. They stressed when it came out that they were going back to a "bolder" look, and I feel they succeeded. The 2009... I think takes it too far, going to boxy.

[khadma]

Originally Posted by FTE Ken

Ford brought back the tough look in 2004. They stressed when it came out that they were going back to a "bolder" look, and I feel they succeeded. The 2009... I think takes it too far, going to boxy.

Old is new again. Remember in 1987? The very boxy looking F series.
A change from the 80-86 front end then back to the early 80s roundness in 92? to 96 and the to the "catfish" in 97.

Anyway the 09 looks like the 87, just more Ford "Edgey" now.

[Dieselguy89]

I hate the looks of the newer f150's also, But I gotta agree with BLK94F150 the 08's superdutys loook way better.

Personaly I think ford made the best trucks from 70-79's and 92-97 superdutys. with a mean looking frontend

[khadma]

79 F150 4x4s with a Flareside bed it the best looking truck, period.

add a 4 inch lift, 36s, lockers and your good to go.