VIDEO: Silverado & Sierra Can’t Match F-150 Crash Test Result

[Gorehamj]

John Goreham
Contributing Writer, GM-Trucks.com
4/12/2016

The Insurance Institute For Highway Safety released the findings of large pickup truck crash testing today. The Ford F-150 was the only large truck to score “Good” on the important small frontal overlap test. This is the test that simulates hitting a telephone pole or tree with just the front corner of the truck. The Chevy Silverado scored only “Acceptable” in double cab trim, and “Marginal” in crew cab.

The Silverado and Sierra models did much better on the roof crush test. Both scored Good along with the Toyota Tundra and Ford F-150. Rollover crashes account for 44% of the deaths in pickups, so this test is important in this vehicle type.

 

The Ram had the worst day of the bunch. It performed worst of the bunch on the IIHS small frontal overlap test and only Marginal on the roof test.

[newdude]

So I see most still have bad foot protection. If I recall, Ford had to go back and fix stuff when they tested the 2015 as most of the cabs did not do well. Some trucks were built with a different reinforcement somewhere and then they added it to trucks built past a certain time frame. GM probably still lacks some sort of frame rail structure for the fenders. When Ford redid F150 for 2004 they touted the structural beams the fenders hang on. GM had fenders bolted to the body and the front core support but no structure.

 

Also watching that super cab F150 with the suicide doors, you can see why everyone else has gone double cab.

[SnakeEyeSS]

(Edit, yeah, either I saw the wrong year or the video disappeared from youtube....)

[Gorehamj]

Hey SnakeEyes. Not sure why, but if you are interested check out this link.

. When I clicked the vid in the story above it worked properly.

[darkfox1]

Looks like the difference is that the tire folded in and held air and acted as a buffer on the F-150. That could be the tire though? still concerning about the leg though.

[Rock1500]

I'm not please that they rated poor for the foot well. I do like to walk. Considering how much mass and size trucks are , I am amazed they do more poorly on tests than cars.

 

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

['01LS1]

I'm not please that they rated poor for the foot well. I do like to walk. Considering how much mass and size trucks are , I am amazed they do more poorly on tests than cars.

 

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

Unless I am missing something, this test specifically is on the outer 20% of the truck. So the frame is not taking the initial energy, just the outer bumper, fender/hood, outer suspension/tire. So the mass is not much.

Further, I cannot see much difference on the foot well between the Ford & GM trucks in terms of how the foot/leg is positioned. I think the GM trucks got knocked as much for the roof buckling?(photos at link). As in if the speeds were increased, the cab structure surrounding the occupants may not hold up quite as well. Maybe I am thinking wrong?

 

Now the Toyota & Ram looked pretty bad in terms of how your legs may end up in a similar crash.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2016/04/2016-ford-f-150-named-iihs-top-safety-pick.html

['01LS1]

The crew cab photos make more sense in terms of how things were rated.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2016/04/iihs-testing-has-truckmakers-scrambling-to-respond.html

[publicalias]

The crew cab photos make more sense in terms of how things were rated.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2016/04/iihs-testing-has-truckmakers-scrambling-to-respond.html

Reading the article and it doesn't seem to indicate parameters of the test. I'm looking for details on seat position and hoping I can take some comfort in having my seat moved all the way back...I'm really just grasping here.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[Rock1500]

 

Unless I am missing something, this test specifically is on the outer 20% of the truck. So the frame is not taking the initial energy, just the outer bumper, fender/hood, outer suspension/tire. So the mass is not much.

Further, I cannot see much difference on the foot well between the Ford & GM trucks in terms of how the foot/leg is positioned. I think the GM trucks got knocked as much for the roof buckling?(photos at link). As in if the speeds were increased, the cab structure surrounding the occupants may not hold up quite as well. Maybe I am thinking wrong?

 

Now the Toyota & Ram looked pretty bad in terms of how your legs may end up in a similar crash.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2016/04/2016-ford-f-150-named-iihs-top-safety-pick.html

Probably, I just am partial with my legs. Lol

 

 

It reinforces the idea that if your going to get into an accident then go head long into it.

 

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[barry G]

peculiar, the ups and downs of the tests and years.

 

a 1986 ford f350 four door mutilated my foot for life... axle came through the floor at a 35 mph culvert.

dead stop.

 

35 to 0. The front end of the truck bent up higher than the roof.

 

freakish slow motion pile of squashy bouncy mush.

 

 

Now in a 1996 GMC extended cab, with no third doors.. self proclaimed as the toughest truck ever to see any crash.

 

I did have to upgrade to poly cab mounts and select spots for class 12 (120000 psi) bolts.. but that goes with tough. It is quite obvious.
Revealed itself over some years.

 

I ponder they are still playing with shears and collapsing for "comforts" in a crash.

[redwngr]

 

Unless I am missing something, this test specifically is on the outer 20% of the truck. So the frame is not taking the initial energy, just the outer bumper, fender/hood, outer suspension/tire. So the mass is not much.

Further, I cannot see much difference on the foot well between the Ford & GM trucks in terms of how the foot/leg is positioned. I think the GM trucks got knocked as much for the roof buckling?(photos at link). As in if the speeds were increased, the cab structure surrounding the occupants may not hold up quite as well. Maybe I am thinking wrong?

 

Now the Toyota & Ram looked pretty bad in terms of how your legs may end up in a similar crash.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2016/04/2016-ford-f-150-named-iihs-top-safety-pick.html

Yes, it's intentional.

 

It's the 'small overlap' test they are discussing.

 

 

Notice in the vids that the f150 front wheel turns 90* and the side of wheel then pushes against the firewall - compared to the GM which has the edge of rim/tire pushing into firewall. Perhaps spreading the load across a wider area contributes to lesser intrusion into the footwell -- and led to the higher rating.

[RVJ]

I suppose if I could choose how I was going to be hit or what I was going to hit they all would do well enough but, In a glancing blow as demonstrated here I would rather be in a F150 and walk away.

[Alliance00]

I thought I also remembered reading that the SuperCab was a death trap last year. It had one less cross-member then the SuperCrew and it made a huge difference. No mention of the SuperCrew on the chart above?

[Nargg]

15HDriver, on 12 Apr 2016 - 09:35 AM, said:15HDriver, on 12 Apr 2016 - 09:35 AM, said:

 

Also watching that super cab F150 with the suicide doors, you can see why everyone else has gone double cab.

 

Um, no. I prefer the suicide rear doors. A LOT. GM f'd the pooch on that one.

 

As far as the test, I call shenanigans. The variables are far too extreme on a large vehicle to measure this properly. These test are 100% worthless unless they crash test 100 trucks. They'll never do that. Statistically, they are B.S. (Statistics 101 from college. The fewer the number of items, the more wrong the result.)