Dangerous Fords and Dodges

[Joe G.]

I just saw this one on the news:





http://www0.mercurycenter.com/breaking/docs/006949.htm

 

[RATTLINRAM]

Just wondering?

I guess they tested regular cab trucks and not Quad cabs. I wonder if the Quad is weaker? It seems to me that I read an article somewhere concerning the Dodge air bags were getting a lot of complaints about not opening like they should.

I also wonder if the 2500's would do any better in the intrusion aspect?

 

[SmokinJoe]

"In government tests, the entire front of a vehicle is run into a barrier at 35 miles per hour. "



I do not know many things I could RAM with the mighty Cummins that would not yield to my truck. A real world test is not running into a concrete wall head on at 35 mph!

 

[RATTLINRAM]

I got an idea.....

Do ya reckon we can get them test fellas to put one of those Toy Tunduh wanta-be trucks up against a CTD Ram @ 35-40mph?

Which one would you rather be in??

 

[Cummnzpowr]

I wonder what a mighty first gen ram would do to a tundra!

 

[Thunderball]

This was on dateline monday night, it did not look good for the ford or the dodge. I am not sure if changeing the bumper would help in this type of crash, The Dodge was a 1500 QC short bed, all the trucks were short beds. I hate the fact we pay so much for these trucks, and there making them softer, if you will, so cars don't get hurt so bad.

 

[Champane Flight]

Dodge is advertising its1500 has the best (five star)frontal crash rating... ... Just saw it on the tube last night... . Wazzup with that?

 

[Straight6Jeff]

I saw the dateline blurb last night. The Ram QC folded up like a pretzel! It was a 1500 short bed. I can attest that the front bumpers are COMPLETELY useless in a 5mph crash with a VW Jetta. No damage to the rear of the Jetta. The Reunel bumper should fair better. The factory bumper i took off weighed 27#. pathetic... .

 

[Steve St.Laurent]

I watched the dateline thing too. I thought the Dodge did pretty well compared to the F150! The Ford's cab totally collapsed in the impact. I believe they said in the government crash test they got 4 out of 5 stars on both trucks. The reason for the different results are this - the govt crash test is a frontal 35 mph crash into a barrier that is wider than the truck, the IIHS test was a frontal 40 mph crash into a barrier that only hits one half of the front (the drivers side). What you have to ask yourself is what are the chances you are going to be in a crash like this? The difference in energy that needs to be disappated between 35 mph and 40 mph is huge. Also, how many crashes are into a totally immovable barrier? Just from the accident vehicles I've seen being towed down the road and in junk yards I'd bet that less than 1% of accidents are at 35 mph+ speeds into an immovable barrier that hit only the drivers side front. JMHO

 

[Straight6Jeff]

Teh Ford by far was the worst. i have the show taped and watched the ford clip over and over. The bed moved forward by about 10 inches, the driveshaft bucked and bent down, back seat came forward. The Dodge was mangled, but the Toyota could still open it's doors. I wonder how a standard cab would fair. The qc has a large opening that is not supported with a "B" pillar. having spent a decent amount of time laying under my truck this weekend, i did notice that there is not much floor support under there.

Dateline made it seem like in any offset accident, this would be the outcome. however, 5500# against a 3500# minivan would be quite different.

 

[willyslover]

I WAS the crash test dummy... I'd take our mighty Cummins / Dodge over most all else on the road, except a Mercedes [my other car]. .

my 3500 crashed at 40++ into a tree at 4. 5/5 feet in the air and the cab did not break up. . but the motor and 4x4 front made a for a great protector and I am here to tell ya about it !!!

 

[Crash_AF]

IIHS Website

Yea, the results on the trucks is pretty pathetic. Here is the website for the institute doing the testing. The actual page is the results from the testing.



http://www.highwaysafety.org/news_releases/2001/pr060401.htm



Here is the aftermath of the F-150

#ad


Here is the aftermath of the Dodge

#ad


Here is the aftermath of the Chevy

#ad


And here is the aftermath of the Toyota

#ad




Later,

Joe

 

[Power Wagon]

Well DUUUUUHHHHH!!!!!!

Well... DUHHH!!!!!!



Sheesh, that toyota is light! Hasn't it ever occurred to these people that if you ran a train into an immoveable barrier at 40 MPH, there would be INCREDIBLE damage. I've seen a wreck between a locomotive and a loaded cement truck... . and the cement truck got mangled... big time. The locomotive had some slightly bent railing...



On the other hand, if you run something light, like the toyota and plastic chevy into the solid object, both will survive better than something that weighs a bunch more. However, the lighter rig will thrash the occupant harder than the heavier one.



So, if you're going to crash into me with your Minivan... do I wanna be in the toyota, the F150 or the Dodge? you KNOW which one I want to be in -- mass makes right. Or, at least, mass makes energy... let THEM dissipate it, not you.



I guess the message (and the ONLY meaningful information to be produced) is that running into an immoveable obstruction that's only 2-3 feet wide is really gonna tear things up, up to and including YOU. This is... ummm... shall we say, common sense?





And, for some real-world info... . Let's talk to Papa Joe, who got nailed at 60 by an oncoming Chevy. I seem to recall he came out of that almost miraculously well.

 

[JKing]

What scared me the most was the way the dummy in the quad cab seat was thrown around. It just doesn't make sense to me for a seat belt to be part of the seat in which you are sitting. It may be an inconvenience for the back seat passengers to get in or out, but, anchoring the seat belt to the truck structure makes more safety sense.



Watching the truck crash test videos made my wife change her mind about wanting that Sebring convertible with the same kind of seat belts attached to the seats for the driver and front passenger.

 

[Ted Constantine]

I rearended a 325 BWM in my last truck (98. 5 gasser). The truck was fine, just tiped the bumper up, but the BMW was about eight inches shorter. Against anything short of another pickup or a big rig the dodge will win. The mass and height along. In a head on you would probably go over a lot of cars. But up against a truck the mass of the trucks would work against you. Any way you look at it you do want to hit an immovable object in any vehicle, the odds are just not in your favor.

 

[COBRAJET]

I believe the Tundra is a unibody not a frame built truck. It would do a lot better in a collision like this. It is a lot better at absorbing an impact than a frame built vehicle. . . CJ

 

[Joe G.]

I talked to a CHP cop once and he said that the partial front collision is a lot more common than a full front. I was the first car on the scene at one of them and the car I had been following was facing me when I came around the corner. So after I finished my statement I asked him about it. That's the way it happens most of the time. The cars in the collision end up facing the way they came from. From that I would consider this test a lot more real world than the complete head on into a barrier. The two dead guys in the car had suffered a lot of damage to the sides of their heads that I could see. No seat belts and the passenger was jammed between his seat and the side of the car. NOT a nice thing to drive up to!