2016 Truck Crash Test

[sdef]

In the end, I am glad to see the aluminum bodied F150 do well in this test and hope other manufacturers follow Ford's lead for increases in fuel economy and capacities. I almost purchased one with the ecoboost when I thought I wanted a heavy duty 1/2 ton. Then almost purchased a GM. Thankfully the dealers wanted too much for them and I purchased my diesel Ram 2500 instead with it greater capacities and am very satisfied. I would have been right at the upper limits with the HD half tons.

The other day I had an ~ 1 ton load of rock in the bed and the truck rode extremely well even with a higher percentage of the load behind the rear axle. And over this short 35 mile trip, the computer said I got the same fuel mileage as with an empty bed. With an aluminum body I would have even better mileage and carrying capacity.

 

[dodge man]

Here is my take on this, and I'm going by information in my memory, which may or may not be correct. All Cars and light trucks have to pass a barrier crash test at 30 mph. Not an offset barrier but a flat one. They also test a lot of cars at 35 mph which is more severe. This kind of testing favors vehicles that are somewhat "soft in front" to absorb the impact. I can remember when Mercedes performed pretty poor in these tests but they said in a real world test, there cars perform good. At that time they weren't doing offset tests but I bet those Mercedes would have done better than a lot of other cars since they had a stiffer front end.

Now several years latter people and testers are starting to realize cars don't often crash into flat walls, so along comes the offset tests. All the sudden a car or truck that does well in the barrier tests does poor in the offset tests. Image that, engineers design a vehicle to test well in barrier tests but it doesn't do well in offset tests. Of course ideally a vehicle would do well in both.

 

[ovrszd]

My philosophy is just lift it high enough so it 'clears most cars'. That way, you go over top. My Ford is 8 over stock on 31-10.50's Clears 90 percent of cars on the road today....:laughing:

Why did you need 8" lift to run donut spares?

 

[Fordman1981]

Why did you need 8" lift to run donut spares?

My thoughts too when I read that. My 2013 Power wagon runs 35's and it's only a factory 2" lift from the standard ram 2500. You can run 37's on a Power Wagon but you need to upgrade to crooked control arms which I have but don't have a desire to run 37's.

 

[Egon]

Wondering what the insurance companies records show for collisions?

 

[5030]

Why did you need 8" lift to run donut spares?

So my wife cannot get in and complain about the poor ride...... and , a skinny (er) tire handles off road (farm fields) better that wide tires. The truck gers used as a fuel caddy in the summer for replenishing thirsty tractors.

 

[KennyG]

I have mixed reactions to the IIHS testing. To some extent they are self serving - pushing for car designs that reduce insurance claims without looking at the cost benefit ratio. The best example of this is the 5 mph bumpers.

They look for test situations that Federal crash standards don't address which is probably overall a good thing for safety. However, they approach it from a "gotcha" process - they try to find a weakness and then test for a specific situation and widely publicized the results. When the crash standards were based on head on collisions, they started doing side impact. When side impact designs improved, they started the offset collisions. Now that that's been addressed, they came up with a smaller overlap offset. It will be something new next year. What seems to be missing is some quantified balance between protection for the various types of accidents to optimize the safety design.

 

[sdef]

I have mixed reactions to the IIHS testing. To some extent they are self serving - pushing for car designs that reduce insurance claims without looking at the cost benefit ratio. The best example of this is the 5 mph bumpers.

They look for test situations that Federal crash standards don't address which is probably overall a good thing for safety. However, they approach it from a "gotcha" process - they try to find a weakness and then test for a specific situation and widely publicized the results. When the crash standards were based on head on collisions, they started doing side impact. When side impact designs improved, they started the offset collisions. Now that that's been addressed, they came up with a smaller overlap offset. It will be something new next year. What seems to be missing is some quantified balance between protection for the various types of accidents to optimize the safety design.

Excellent analysis. The same thing can be applied to almost any group on any side of almost any subject.

 

[fordmantpw]

I have mixed reactions to the IIHS testing. To some extent they are self serving - pushing for car designs that reduce insurance claims without looking at the cost benefit ratio. The best example of this is the 5 mph bumpers.

They look for test situations that Federal crash standards don't address which is probably overall a good thing for safety. However, they approach it from a "gotcha" process - they try to find a weakness and then test for a specific situation and widely publicized the results. When the crash standards were based on head on collisions, they started doing side impact. When side impact designs improved, they started the offset collisions. Now that that's been addressed, they came up with a smaller overlap offset. It will be something new next year. What seems to be missing is some quantified balance between protection for the various types of accidents to optimize the safety design.

Very well said. I think we are reaching the point of diminishing returns for safety advancements. You can see a big different between the Ram and the Ford in the pics, but overall, there is generally very little difference between a 3 or 4 star vehicle and a 5 star vehicle now.

 

[rankrank1]

Sorry guys the IIHS small overlap test test mode is not as self serving as you think (although it does admittingly benefit the the insurance companies financially it also benefits the end user too from a safety perspective). That said, The National Highway Traffic Safety Admin (aka NHTSA) simply views statistics. Once cars get safer in certain crash modes they look at next biggest statistical injury type and then look to eliminate it. Most any type of company has a form of continuous improvement - no different in the world of auto safety.

NHTSA has already launched a new round of New Car Assessement Tests(aka NCAP) that will take effect starting for cars to be sold in the 2019 model year. These tests require much more expensive dummy types (much more expensive than the current already expensive ones) and more test modes.

And there is a huge difference between 3 stars and 5 stars. Unless you like to gamble with the safety of your loved ones. Personally, I could care less what happens to the vehicle even if its is totally unrepairable as long as my family remains relatively uninjured and can walk away unscathed. I would rather the vehicle be the energy absorber instead of my family members. In a crash all that energy has to go somewhere. Good engineering absorbs it and while keeping the occupant compartment in tact.