Jump to content

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

Gorehamj

Recommended Posts

Gorehamj Senior Enthusiast

Gorehamj

Posted
Posted

post-139450-0-97998600-1460469675_thumb.jpg

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.

post-139450-0-37342700-1460469705_thumb.png
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.

post-139450-0-97998600-1460469675_thumb.jpg

post-139450-0-37342700-1460469705_thumb.png

post-139450-0-97998600-1460469675_thumb.jpg

post-139450-0-37342700-1460469705_thumb.png

post-139450-0-97998600-1460469675_thumb.jpg

post-139450-0-37342700-1460469705_thumb.png

newdude Senior Enthusiast

newdude

Posted
Posted

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.

Gorehamj Senior Enthusiast

Gorehamj

Posted
  • Author
Posted

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 Senior Enthusiast

darkfox1

Posted
Posted

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 Senior Enthusiast

Rock1500

Posted
Posted

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 Senior Enthusiast

'01LS1

Posted
Posted

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

publicalias Enthusiast

publicalias

Posted
Posted

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 Senior Enthusiast

Rock1500

Posted
Posted

 

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 Senior Enthusiast

barry G

Posted
Posted

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 Senior Enthusiast

redwngr

Posted
Posted

 

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 Enthusiast

RVJ

Posted
Posted

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 Enthusiast

Alliance00

Posted
Posted

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 Enthusiast

Nargg

Posted
Posted
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.)

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  
    • Another JR
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By Another JR · Posted

      Have considered installing a DC to DC charger in your camper to replace your isolator?  
    • newdude
      Gas fill door

      By newdude · Posted

      Common failure.  You need to replace the fuel door housing.   The painted cover transfers over to the new housing.  To remove the old one there is 4 spots where you poke the plastic to release it.  
    • newdude
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By newdude · Posted

      No such thing as regenerative braking on a pure ICE vehicle.     Regenerative braking is the re-capture of energy from electric motors and stores it in the battery pack.  So hybrids, PHEV and EVs have regenerative braking.     What you are seeing is the charging system changing modes is all.  Its likely entering charge mode for some sort of reason is all.  All of the charging modes will be listed below.   As for L10 vs D.  L10 turns off automatic grade braking.  L10 puts you in control of grade downshifts where in D it will automatically do it based on brake pedal position and other factors.  Otherwise L10 and D drive exactly the same aside from that one aspect.    Battery Sulfation Mode The BCM will enter this mode when the interpreted Generator output voltage is less than 13.2 V for 45 minutes. When this condition exists the BCM will enter Charge Mode for 2–3 minutes. The BCM will then determine which mode to enter depending on voltage requirements.   Charge Mode The BCM will enter Charge Mode when ever one of the following conditions are met:   Windshield wipers are ON for more than 3 s. Climate Control Voltage Boost Mode Request is true, as sensed by the HVAC control module via serial data. High speed cooling fan, rear defogger, and HVAC high speed blower operation can cause the BCM to enter the Charge Mode. The estimated battery temperature is less than 0°C (32°F). Battery State of Charge is less than 80%. Vehicle speed is greater than 145 km/h (90 mph) A current sensor malfunction exists. System voltage is determined to be below 12.56 V When any one of these conditions is met, the system will set targeted generator output voltage to a charging voltage between 13.9–15.5 V, depending on the battery state of charge and estimated battery temperature.   Fuel Economy Mode The BCM will enter Fuel Economy Mode when the estimated battery temperature is at least 0°C (32°F) but less than or equal to 80°C (176°F), the calculated battery current is less than 15 A and greater than −8 A, and the battery state-of-charge is greater than or equal to 80%. Its targeted generator output voltage is the open circuit voltage of the battery and can be between 12.5–13.1 V. When fuel economy mode is active, the generator is not charging, only maintaining open circuit battery voltage. The BCM will exit this mode and enter Charge Mode when any of the conditions described above are present.   Headlamp Mode The BCM will enter Headlamp Mode when ever the head lamps are ON (high or low beams). Voltage will be regulated between 13.9–14.5 V.   Start Up Mode When the engine is started the BCM sets a targeted generator output voltage of 14.5 V for 30 s.   Tow/Haul Mode (if applicable) Pressing the Tow/Haul Mode button located on the center stack, the vehicle system voltage is raised and the remote (non-vehicle) battery will be charged. Having the headlamps on will raise the system voltage and if the Tow/Haul button is applied it will not serve any purpose. The voltage is regulated between 13.9-14.5 V.      
    • jaszr2
      Active Grille Delete

      By jaszr2 · Posted

      Hello from Australia Just sharing that there is now a way to delete the active shutters entirely with just a plug in module. Opens up tons of room to light bars etc.

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...