rsegall

I'm not trying to say that smaller cars are safer in all instances, but...

http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/Cra...operVsFordF150

This shows the results of the two impacting the same stationary object at 40 mph. Which would you rather be in?



Of course, things would be quite different if they hit each other head on. I'd have to think that a Dodge would fare better than the Ford did...factor in that big mass of Cummins and the Mini would be in even more trouble. Which would you rather be driving in a Mini v. Cummins Ram head on? I'd pick my Dodge every time.

Regards.

Of course an environmentally sound Prius is the safest car available today. However, the impetus behind the persecution of the Truck/SUV goes beyond the environment. The theory being that "poor" people will be in the smaller econo-car and the "evil rich" will be driving their expensive SUV's...out to kill the "less fortunate."

West Coast

What is does not show is how you can not compare apples to oranges. At 40 miles per hour I would expect a 8400 lb truck to crush much more than a 2200 lb car when hitting a stationary object.

Why don't they run those two autos into each other at 40 MPH and see what happens....????

Dave

bnold

Inertia... Nuf Said..

4x4dually

You really got to watch those concrete barriers in a college town like this one. They will pull right out in front of you and not even signal!!! Especially after a night on the town!!!

Good post though.

Jeff in TD

Though the 8000 pound truck does have more inertia to deal with than a Mini Cooper, it also has a bunch more steel and a longer hood for crumple zone.

If the Mini can hit a solid object at 40 and maintain the integrity of its passenger compartment, there is no reason a full size pickup couldn’t be designed to perform just as well if not better, but more of that 8000 pounds of steel would need to be invested in the safety cage around the occupant compartment.

In this case, I think it may be more of a matter of priorities, and marketing.

The makers of mini cars probably realize that if they can brag about their crash test performance, it might bring them more customers who like their cars but were concerned about safety. Marketing for pickups, on the other hand, seems to center around horsepower, torque and towing capacity…

Yeah, the pickup would probably come out looking OK if you bashed the two together, but not all pickup crashes involve small cars. Lots of them hit utility poles, rocks, ditches, trees, and bigger vehicles.

Personally, I think there is a lot of room for safety improvements in big pickups, but crash worthiness isn’t usually big on the list of the average pickup buyer’s priorities, so it isn’t huge on the list of builder’s priorities either.

tomm

Those pictures indicate F*** integrated the passengers legs into the crumple zone.
That's different.

Jeff in TD

Yeah, that's what I mean. The mini's front crumple zone is totally smushed, but the passenger area looks perfect. The pickup appears to have crumpled as much in the passenger area as it did in the area in front of the passenger compartment.

Looking at the chart in the article that goes with that photo, it shows Toyota Avalon having 40 driver fatalities and 20 other fatialites (60 total) per million cars.

It shows the F150 having 238 total per million... The Suburban lists 105, and has just as much inertia.

Interesting article.

Oilguy

That right there is why I never bought the extended cab with the doors that open backward... They take out the structural integrety when they remove the post... And Tomm is right... its a F***!

OIiguy

BigDan

I would'nt change a thing about my 99. Going from my pictures it doesnt look like the rear doors had any ill effects on the truck staying together. But I know what you mean about it being weaker then a post model like on the 3rd gens. Emerengcy crews had to take both front doors off so I dont know if the rears stayed intact.

Are Ford F-150 knowen for being unsafe or something. I just saw a ad in a magazine about how this F-150 was still able to drive his truck after being "Sandwiched between a cement truck and bus or something in a 50 car pileup in NV? My figures may be off a bit but its close. The pic of ine in this post doesnt look good for Ford and the figures.

I wonder if I could send my pics to Dodge and get an ad campaine out of it like that f-150 guy. While im at it I should also write to Atkins and send them some before and after pics I lost 140lbs.

As far as my recovery Im about 80% and dont think I can get the 20% back. It's only in my endurance and agility, everything is ok

pet05

Dodge engineers were well aware that model-year 2006 marked a new frontal crash-test requirement for trucks and that new rear-impact crash regulations would be coming soon after. They knew one solution would be to tack on enough parts to pass muster; however, the answer that made more sense was to put a new frame under the Ram 1500 and, while they were at it, keep the truck competitive by giving it a huge list of improvements. By the time they were done, the refreshed Ram was nearly all-new, only four years after the Ram was completely redone.

While its new frame is still hydroformed, it now has replaceable rail tips, like the Dakota's frame. The new frame also creates a larger crush zone in front, for increased safety. Bending stiffness increased by 17 percent, and torsional stiffness is up 5.5 percent, improving ride and handling and decreasing cabin noise. The suspension has been changed as well, further improving how the truck handles on the road.

SOhappy

I wasn't going to bring this one up because it hit close to home (no pun intended).

Last month a Saturn sedan and an '04 CTD Ram QC 3500 dually w/flatbed had a head-on in a 60mph zone a couple of miles from my house. Totalled the Ram. Although the owner is suffering some back and neck pain, he went home that night to eat dinner with his family and was back at work within a couple of days.

The two souls in the Saturn won't see their families again in this life. There just wasn't anything left of the car.

I'll always put my bet on the vehicle with the greater number of lug nuts.

gerry

Gordon Grahm is a great speaker isn't he... Every time I go to extended training I always make sure to sign up for his Classes....

A few years back while driving a Chevy 1500 4X4 with 38.5" tires and a nice push guard I had a Honda civic run a stop sign in front of me... I "T" boned the car and stopped in the intersection.. The local Police showed up adn started yelling at me for parking in an intersection.. I told him I had just had an accident.. He asked where the other car was.. We looked down the street and it was almost 200 feet on the other side of the intersection, up on the sidewalk against a building..

I hit it right at the fire wall and the passenger side of the vehicle was completly crushed to the Driverside. The officer and Fire department both said she was lucky she didn't have any passengers..

Mine... New fender, bumper and push bar...

Tests by the PD showed speed of impact was between 35 and 40 mph.. only 10 feet of skid marks...

DWG05

Next time you are reading the newspaper and there are stories about accidents, make a mental note of what the vehicles involved were and the injuries the respective passengers sustained. Kind of unscientific, but over time, the trend is pretty obvious.

SSweeney

The ford f 150 is one of most dangerous vehicles to wreck in. Also many large suvs such as expedition etc use truck bodys because its cheaper than unibody. The unibody design helps absorb impact/shock. THe truck body design takes alot out on the passenger. I would rather wreck in a unibody vehecle than my truck even if smaller. Just my opinion but I read some stats on this a while back.

SOhappy

https://www.dieseltruckresource.com/...3&postcount=26

I realize that this is just one data point, but if you had been there and seen the carnage, you'd change your mind.