spots

Not what you'd expect

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

jaconst

not able to get it

Shovelhead

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Same barrier, same speed for both experiments.

The Mini-Cooper............

Shovelhead

........And the Ford F-150

Which one would YOU rather be driving at that moment?

joel

Without checking a little first.

That was an OLD F-150 design, the F-150 Heritage. The NEW, redesigned F-150 did much better, rating a GOOD in all areas of the crash test. In fact, I saw a whole news show on how the first try resulted in really poor crash tests, so they redesigned the whole thing!

You can check out the information at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety website: http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0328.htm

Ram04

The f150 without the pillar between the 2 doors is a pos. I have a friend who owned one. Whenever he parked it on uneven surfaces at job sites he was unable to close the doors because there was so much flex in the frame and cab.

spots

Agreed that crash test was the old design. Which is still being sold today. And many many still on the road. The article showed how a small vehicle can be engineered to withstand a hit and a larger one can cave in. I was rather surprised when I read it. Good to see the new design holds up better.

Shovelhead

I still wouldn't want to be driving the F-150 in the 1st picture.............

wannadiesel

If I'm not driving into a bridge abutment, I still want to be in the biggest heaviest vehicle possible. Things work differently when you're hitting other vehicles instead of immovable objects. As a kid I came through a 40 mph head-on with nothing more than a goose egg on my forehead, unbelted in the front passenger seat of a Checker Marathon. We hit a 1 ton Chevy with a dump body towing a skid steer. In a smaller, lighter car with crumple zones the impact would have been worse and the crumple zone probably would have included me and my older sister who was driving, also unbelted. She was a little sore from hitting the wheel but no serious injuries. We put a hurtin' on the front of the Chevy, but the driver was OK. The Checker was a loss. Mass beats crumple zones in the real world, and I'm living proof.

FiverBob

Compare the Dodge 1500 to the Chev - - interesting.

Commatoze

Those things are a death trap!.....the F-150 I mean.

Srigs

mV2 rules the road. Single car crash the car takes all of the load of itself but duel car crash lighter car usually looses. That is why when I'm pulling at full weight of 15k lbs people should not mess with the rig because they would loose.

However the 150's performance is way to bad.

Makes me glad my club cab does not have doors (much stronger)!

BigBlue

Bigger is always better. Period.

welder27

It's sad that a corporation is willing to release something to the public KNOWING that somebody could have some serious injuries or even die because they wanted to make their money fast. I'd bet they'd all think differently if the CEO's and Chairmen's relatives all bought those trucks and crashed them and nearly died. It's all fun and games till somebody loses an eye...or a life.

spots

Uhhh no.I'll take my 102 lb wife over your 632 lb girlfriend thanks.


I'll also take good engineering over mass also.

See this article:

http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html

Drivers of the tiny Jetta die at a rate of just forty-seven per million, which is in the same range as drivers of the five-thousand-pound Chevrolet Suburban and almost half that of popular S.U.V. models like the Ford Explorer or the GMC Jimmy. In a head-on crash, an Explorer or a Suburban would crush a Jetta or a Camry. But, clearly, the drivers of Camrys and Jettas are finding a way to avoid head-on crashes with Explorers and Suburbans. The benefits of being nimble--of being in an automobile that's capable of staying out of trouble--are in many cases greater than the benefits of being big.