Not a flame biohazard but that is a real world test to be sure. I see it once in a while when I drive by a concrete barrier on the highway or a tree or ditch. Yeah the tree or ditch might move a little but not much. 35-40 mph is a normal speed on many roads. All I'm saying is that picture is damn scary...Ford or not. I have been in some off-road and on-road wrecks before in older trucks (late 70's and even early 80's) and I'll tell you it is scary but not "boy I'm only going 30, am I going to live" scary. That is plain bad engineering for that new and expensive of a truck. My truck is 23 years old and built 10 times better (my own opinion)than this new stuff. Technology is supposed to improve products, not make them worse.

 

I think this test is more to simulate a head on collision between two moving vehichles.

In my opinion the article was another piece of frivolous, incomplete piece of journalism which is so common today. They say the test is performed by crashing the vehicle OFF-CENTER into a concrete wall, right? Well, then they talk about how the Ford collapsed more on one side. Wouldn't that be obvious? Crash something off center then the damage will probably be off centered as well right? They seem to say the Ford's are weaker to one side of the front end. So what would happen if you crashed it on the other side? What about the other makes of trucks? What if they are hit on the other side?

And what makes this type of crash the definitive test of saftey anyway? Is this type of crash the most common among half ton pickups in America? If so what kind of ratios are there between this and other types of wrecks? The article did nothing to address these types of questions. Why not??? I'd say it is because the answers do nothing to help prove their point.

I'm not denying the fact that the Ford performed poorly in this particular test. I'm just saying that if I were in the market for a new pickup I would look for much more accurate, detailed information than what was provided in the article. I would read every article, from as many sources as I could get my hands on.

 

78f250:
No offense taken at all. After seeing the pics of what my cousin did to her Sonoma, I don't think anything could have protected her outside of an act of god. She crossed 3 lanes on the express way, clipped the front of a car, turned sideways, and hit the concrete wall of the offramp sideways tearing the bed off, and sending the cab skidding up the ramp over 50 feet. I don't think even a well built truck like yours (god willing I will eventually find one like that ) would live through that.

But hitting a LARGE concrete block like that one is not a common thing. especially not at 40mph. Curbs, okay, I've hit them pretty hard, cars and other trucks, okay. Telephone poles, yeah, I can see that. As far as offroading, lets face it, 99.9% of all trucks with 4x4 or AWD NEVER go offroad.

BTW Ford IS aware of the large dislike of the current F150, and is working out the issuse to get back to the truck it used to be (ie NO IFS, heavy frame, better engine, METAL, less plastic).

 

Guys I don't mean to be a PITA, but I seems to me alot of us here are making excuses as to why the F150 failed this test or why the test is invalid. The basic premise here is the F150 crumpled like a tin can when it hit the concrete block. Now I know if any one of you watches the news, there are at least two occurrences a week about car collisions on highways. In conjunction to these collisions you will notice that almost all of them are the results of head on collisions from someone crossing the lane and hitting someone headon at speeds over 60mpg. Also if you are keen eyed you will see that most of these accidents had a shearing type of collision, just like the test performed on the 2001 trucks, except replace the concrete block with a vehicle.

The basic problem here is we now have wounded Ford pride. It scares me that American automotive makers can't make a truck capable of withstanding these forces. It can be done, Toyota has plain outstanding proof that building a 'real' truck can be done. Just watch the videos! Ford, Chevy and Dodge bit the dust on this test. I don't know what you guys think but I want to drive a truck that can withstand this type of collision and not kill or injure me severely because it crumples like a POS!
Now I know we all would be gloating about Ford if the F150 passed the test with a good rating. Suffice it to say Ford, Chevy and Dodge truck makers are slacking off and need a real kick in the #####! You guys should be pissed off at Ford not the engineers who performed this test! They did this test to show us, the American citizen, that domestin automakers are *******s for not building safety into their vehicles. Ford stated it would take a few years to implement changes to stiffen the chassis and make things stiffer. BS Ford needs to get on this now!!!! If not then the American public needs to buy foreign vehicles. Hey my family's safety is on the line! If Ford can't cut it then put them out of business!!!!! Don't buy their crappy 2001 F150 trucks!


1994 Ford F150
300-6
Highly Modified and more to come!

 

Hey!
I know this ####### guy now!!!!
You know me also.I thought you was a certain PUTC member and now i finally figured it out!
BTW,
I didn't read all the posts on the New Chevy thread,but "#######" is not a bad guy at all,he does own that white truck and loves GM's but he also aint afraid to plug a Ford if it meets his approval.I like ol Mike

He battled to the wire with a Ford guy on PUTC and kept a realness to his arguements regardless of brand.

See ya Mike
...blue




1970 F250 Sport Custom 4x4.351W,DuraSpark,N.P.435,Dana24,Dana diffs,4.10:1's,36x9.00 CordovonPower Kings,Blue/white.---oleblue---
1966 F-250 4x2,390,4spd,Custom Cab,Blue/white---bessie---
1979 F-150 Ranger 4x2,302,C4,cold A/C,thumpin' stereo,brown/tan---tany---

 

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 06-Jun-01 AT 07:35 PM (EST)[/font][p]The difference is this is a NOT an all brand site. Clatter's here to push people's buttons, not to be a positive contributor to the community.

Ken Payne
Ford Truck Enthusiasts Admin

 

Get out that trusty 55 gallon drum of filler and lots of duct tape! We can rebuild 'er! Ha!

 

hey Clatter, i've got to keep laughing at your comment that you keep bragging that chevy's finally in the lead of truck sales. one month big deal!!! here's the real stats. and the big 3 go by quarterly reports and not monthly. from jan thru april is as follows ::: Ford F- SERIES 269,358--- and CHEVROLET Silverado is 222,364. and those numbers are from the Ford World news paper. printed from the ford motor company. 1) ford f-series,, 2)chevrolet silverado,, 3)ford explorer 117,530... 4)dodge ram 113,156... 5)ford ranger 96,471... 6)dodge caravan 84,916... 7)jeep grand cherokee 75,215... 8)chevrolet blazer 69,586... 9)gmc sierra 62,322... 10) chevrolet tahoe 61,615... those are the top 10 truck sellers from that period..... guess us ford lovers get the last laugh............................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................... ....

 

>[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 06-Jun-01
>AT 07:35 PM (EST)[/font]
>
>The difference is this is a
>NOT an all brand site.
> Clatter's here to push
>people's buttons, not to be
>a positive contributor to the
>community.
>
>Ken Payne
>Ford Truck Enthusiasts Admin

Yeah,you are right.I like the guy but i guess that has nothin to do with this.
...blue

1970 F250 Sport Custom 4x4.351W,DuraSpark,N.P.435,Dana24,Dana diffs,4.10:1's,36x9.00 CordovonPower Kings,Blue/white.---oleblue---
1966 F-250 4x2,390,4spd,Custom Cab,Blue/white---bessie---
1979 F-150 Ranger 4x2,302,C4,cold A/C,thumpin' stereo,brown/tan---tany---

 

Hey Guy's, Here is a question. I am not sure if it has been covered in any of the previous posts but here goes.
What is the GVW of the Toyota pickup vs. the Ford? That goes for any of the new pickup trucks out there.
There has to be a correlation there. The ratio of vehicle weight vs. the damage done at the same speed vs. the way a truck is built, (of course).
IE: A soda can thrown at a concrete wall will have more damage to it if it is full, (and un-opened), vs. if you were to throw a similar but empty can against the same wall.
Think about it.
Hey, the Toyota may have done better in the test but it is my belief that it is a lighter vehicle by weight. Who know's, it could be built better but this is food for thought! Jake.

Jakegypsum // Ford fleet, soup to nuts.

 

Clatter, it is a FORD website. Not a Chev, or GM or general automotive website. Are you truly suprised that we are always chev bashing? We love to bash chevs, (as they deserve it, owned by a bunch of sissy choirboys), much the same as you love to bash Fords. However, since it is a Ford site, we won't put up with too many positive chev comments. Now the first 1 or 200 times you did it, it was ok, but enough is enough, alright?

Plain and simple, you can take your overpriced, underpowered, overweight, CLATTERING, one daytime light, don't know how many we sold this year, cause we can't add, designed by a 5yr old in kindergarden, poor excuse for a truck, and go to a chev site for some sympathy and a hug from the rest of the below average population.

But, here is a positive chev comment. They make nice pet rocks on the side of the road!!!

 

>How many blocks of cement like
>that do you know of?
> If you know of
>any and are stupid enough
>to run into them, you
>deserve to be hurt.
>
>A fair test would be to
>slam into the back of
>a parked car like a
>neon or focus at 40mph.
> The car has some
>give, and will MOVE when
>hit, dampening the impact.
>Even if the car was
>coming head on with the
>truck, I'm sure it would
>be knocked backwards due to
>the weight difference. Then
>they should smack two vehicles
>of the same size together.
>
>
>I dunno, I'm just babbling here,
>but I don't think that's
>a real world test at
>all.

Maybe they sould have used a semi-trailer. A pole/tree.
Dump truck. Beleive it or not, there are things out there that are bigger than pickups. Things that when you hit them they knock you back.

Daywalker
92' F-250HD 351 4x4 xlt 4.10 ZF 5speed supercab longbed

 

How did his name get changed to ####### ? and who is clatter 2 and clatter 4 ?

 

Geez boys, what a mess. I'm a GM fan true and true, and normally won't post to a Ford board after the way Ford boys come to my boards and show their jealousy. But after seeing that pic...

I've never liked Fords, but their products have usually been worthwhile as basic transportation. But if that's what happens at 40MPH, those trucks are just unsafe. I want to point out to those who say that is not a real world test, it very well is. You can replace that concrete barrier with overhead pass support, and suddenly that test becomes all too real a possibility out in the real world.

The last body style Ford was a stout little truck, and competition on who had the best was more of a friendly competition than a true fact. Now it's a true fact, GM makes a better, tougher, more powerful truck than Ford.

No need to deny this, you all know that for a fact because you've run Chevy trucks before. As a Chevy driver, I've had Ford boys start races just to get their little hind ends kicked even though they got the jump. But even though I always knew that Ford power is almost nonexistant, I figured that their vehicles would at least let you live through an accident.

For those who say, try the same test with a Focus or a Neon, not only are they much lighter vehicles, but I beleive they make it through the concrete barrier test more or less intact. If they actually did do the test with a Focus (another Ford) you may be even more disgusted with the results.

Ford Tough? Only if a paper cup is tough!

 

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 10-Jun-01 AT 11:49 PM (EST)[/font][p][font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 10-Jun-01 AT 11:46 PM (EST)[/font]

The weight of the tundra(the best rated one in that test) and the f150 were about the same for the models tested.

If they did that test with a focus and a cavalier/sunfire, the focus would almost certainly come out better. I'm assuming you already know that, and you wouldn't want to bring up the cavalier because you know how bad it is.

Lets compare what the iihs got for the too:

Redesigned for the 1995 model year, the Chevrolet Cavalier and Pontiac Sunfire have front airbags. Antilock brakes are standard, and daytime running lights are standard beginning with 1996 models.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has evaluated the crashworthiness of the Cavalier in a 40 mph frontal offset crash test into a deformable barrier. Head restraint and bumper designs are evaluated separately.
OVERALL EVALUATION: POOR The driver space wasn't maintained well in the frontal offset crash test. The dummy hit the window sill and B-pillar hard enough to cause concern. Forces on the left leg indicate the likelihood of injury.
STRUCTURE/SAFETY CAGE: POOR There was moderate to major intrusion into the driver footwell area and moderate to major rearward movement of the instrument panel. It was difficult to free the dummy's feet because its legs finished trapped by the footwell intrusion.
RESTRAINTS/DUMMY KINEMATICS: POOR Dummy movement wasn't well controlled. The dummy rotated around the left side of the airbag and, during rebound, the right rear of the dummy's head hit the window sill, denting it. Then the dummy's head contacted the B-pillar.
INJURY MEASURES: LEFT LEG POOR Measures taken from the neck and chest indicate low risk of injury to these body regions. Head acceleration from hitting the window sill was high. A lower head acceleration occurred from the B-pillar contact. Forces on the left leg indicate the likelihood of injury to the lower leg and foot.



The Ford Focus was introduced in the 2000 model year. Special safety features The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has evaluated the crashworthiness of the Focus in a 40 mph frontal offset crash test into a deformable barrier. Head restraint and bumper designs are evaluated separately. OVERALL EVALUATION: GOOD WITH SIDE AIRBAG HEAD PROTECTION The driver space was maintained reasonably well in the frontal offset crash test. However, intrusion into the footwell area contributed to the possibility of leg injury. Advanced safety belt systems, optional side airbags with head protection, and new-design child restraint anchorages are pluses. The overall evaluation of models without side airbags would be acceptable. STRUCTURE/SAFETY CAGE: ACCEPTABLE There was moderate intrusion into the driver footwell area and minimal rearward movement of the instrument panel. RESTRAINTS/DUMMY KINEMATICS: ACCEPTABLE Dummy movement was reasonably well controlled. However, the dummy's head bottomed out the airbag and contacted the steering wheel. During rebound, the dummy moved toward the driver door, and its head contacted the B-pillar. INJURY MEASURES: LEFT LEG/FOOT ACCEPTABLE Measures taken from the head, neck, and chest indicate low risk of injury to these body regions. Head accelerations from the steering wheel and B-pillar contacts were low, but forces on the left tibia indicate the possibility of lower leg injury. SPECIAL SAFETY FEATURES: Side airbags: for drivers' and front passengers' heads and chests (optional) Safety belts: crash tensioners prevent slack in front belts from allowing excessive forward movement in a crash; devices on front belts limit belt forces on occupants Anchorages in rear seats for use with new child restraint designs Antilock brakes (optional)

Point is, both chevy and ford make crap once in awhile(at least). If you weren't so damn biased you might actually see that. Oh yeah, the reason they usually crash into barriers with less damage is because they're doing it with less force(and less weight). Someone already mentioned that here I think.