is it just me or are new trucks getting ugly?
#91
02-17-2008, 12:57 AM
#92
02-17-2008, 10:36 AM
I don't think all trucks are getting uglier. I think they are actually looking better. I like the looks of the 09 F150 better than my 83,85 and 87 F150's.
Now if Ford could only build a decent engine and tranny combo that had some longevity to it they might have something.
The only truck getting uglier is the Tundra. That thing got beat with an ugly stick.
Now if Ford could only build a decent engine and tranny combo that had some longevity to it they might have something.
The only truck getting uglier is the Tundra. That thing got beat with an ugly stick.
#93
02-18-2008, 01:40 PM
Originally Posted by excaliber551
I don't think all trucks are getting uglier. I think they are actually looking better. I like the looks of the 09 F150 better than my 83,85 and 87 F150's.
Now if Ford could only build a decent engine and tranny combo that had some longevity to it they might have something.
The only truck getting uglier is the Tundra. That thing got beat with an ugly stick.
Now if Ford could only build a decent engine and tranny combo that had some longevity to it they might have something.
The only truck getting uglier is the Tundra. That thing got beat with an ugly stick.
#94
02-18-2008, 03:34 PM
Posting Guru
lets face the facts, a new truck would lose in so many ways when involved in a accident with a older crumple zone free ford truck, and so would the occupants at above 30 MPH.. how often do you go below 30mph? school zones and parkinglots only.. so the crumple zones are a waste of time.
Ray
Ray
#95
02-18-2008, 04:39 PM
#96
02-18-2008, 04:42 PM
Posting Guru
#98
02-18-2008, 05:05 PM
#99
02-18-2008, 05:07 PM
Posting Guru
Originally Posted by 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
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
Ray
#100
02-18-2008, 05:14 PM
#101
02-18-2008, 05:20 PM
Posting Guru
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Leamington, Ontario
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup, I looked up FMVSS 208 it says that the ocupant must surive under 30mph, but it didn't say the car will kill the passenger above that speed. Which is exactly what your saying it will do greythorn3.
I agree with Tim, I'd rather crash into something in a vehicle that has crumple zones rather than something that doesn't. Ever seen crashes of race cars before they made saftey standards (i.e crumple zones) mandaotry? In case you haven't, more often than not the driver broke his legs and often died. Today they crash and walk away, so yeah crumple zones really do kill
I agree with Tim, I'd rather crash into something in a vehicle that has crumple zones rather than something that doesn't. Ever seen crashes of race cars before they made saftey standards (i.e crumple zones) mandaotry? In case you haven't, more often than not the driver broke his legs and often died. Today they crash and walk away, so yeah crumple zones really do kill
#102
02-18-2008, 05:23 PM
Posting Guru
#103
02-18-2008, 05:32 PM
Posting Guru
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Leamington, Ontario
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You've never crashed a newer car have you? They're a heck of a lot safer than you think. I do think that they are making cars to be thrown away after a crash, and I don't like that, but even though they crush, crumple and shatter into a million little pieces they're not death traps and they do protect the ocupants.
It's like Tim said, at 30MPH with out crumple zones your pretty much absorbing the amount of energy from the crash with your body. In a car with crumple zones the car abosrbes that energy. Think about coming to a dead stop from 30MPH in 0.7 seconds, it'd probably hurt. And that's basically what would happen in a bad enough crash without crumple zones to absorb that energy.
It's like Tim said, at 30MPH with out crumple zones your pretty much absorbing the amount of energy from the crash with your body. In a car with crumple zones the car abosrbes that energy. Think about coming to a dead stop from 30MPH in 0.7 seconds, it'd probably hurt. And that's basically what would happen in a bad enough crash without crumple zones to absorb that energy.
#104
02-18-2008, 05:59 PM
#105
02-18-2008, 06:07 PM
Posting Guru