I'm not an engineer so I won't begin to pontificate upon the validity of these test. I will say, however, that it is interesting how quick a manufacturer is to tout outstanding results in these tests and how quick they are to question their validity. Take for example Volvo. Volvo is now owned in part by Ford and all they do is talk about the safety of their cars and they use these studies and others like to to back up their claims. Ford has done the very same thing when introducing new models like the re-designed Taurus.

Now that a vehicle bombs, guess what happens?

At the end of the day, I am just glad that I sold all my Ford stock long ago. Between this, the conintuing Firestone Saga, and the looming lawsuits from the Explorer, Ford is going to take a beating.

 

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. It will take a lot more than 2000 to explain how these photos and a 5/5 safety rating relate.

These are from the offset 40MPH test I presume. So this is what happen when someone who is not paying attention drifts into on coming traffic in rush hour and collides with a brand new F150 with everyone driving at 20MPH. Nice.

Here's a real world test, 120MPH front offset crash. That's two cars travelling at 60MPH in opposite directions and crashing head on. That sounds like a much more realistic "real world driving scenario" to me. I presume Ford found that their truck faired better in these tests than the unrealistic 40MPH versions of the test.

 

The "offset barrier" crash simulated in the photo's represents less than 2% of fatal accidents. Real world data is what counts.

[Edited by ElTianti on 06-05-2001 at 01:56 PM]

 

Exactly, Cthree... this is why I'm selling my F150 (hopefully to someone who hasn't read that article) and buying a Toyota Tundra. All those miles towing to races each year I want to be safe. My friend sent me the article yesterday and I immediately decided to sell. Ford's response to the tests was deplorable... To defend their product with such hard evidence against them is sickening. I think there are going to be a heck of allot of F150's on the market. Sure hope I can get rid of it. Check out these pics:

My old truck:


My new truck (should be picking it up within weeks):


They even said that both doors worked normally. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that this is a safe vehicle. Does it have to towing power of the Ford? No. Who cares! It's my hide we're talking about, and the hide of my teammates (who are very important to me).

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ElTianti
[B]The "offset barrier" crash simulated in the photo's repersents less than 2% of fatal accidents.

 

I hate to say that I told you so, but:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ncap/cars/2001Pkup.html
The Tundra gets 3 stars for front impact, its unrated for side impact, compared to 4.5/5 stars for the Ford.

Regarding the comments to my post above: if you know that a test will be done at 40mph at an angle of 31 degrees, it is very easy for an engineer to ensure that you get a perfect rating. That doesn't mean that the design will work worth a d*mn at 44mph at a 36 degree angle, though. It also means that you are using your available weight and energy absorbtion volume to make one type of accident safe, possibly at the cost of other types of accidents.

There are many cases of head-on accidente...if someone runs a redlight and runs into your car, that is head-on and side impact. If someone makes a left turn in front of you, that is a front impact. If someone stops in front of you unexpectedly, that is front impact. IMHO, if you want to know what is safe, check the deaths and injuries that have occurred per mile in those vehicles.

FYI: I don't care a bit about Ford, Toyota, or pickups. I do think it is dangerous to take one particular test and say that you have found the safe and unsafe vehicles.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tanqueray
[B]IMHO, if you want to know what is safe, check the deaths and injuries that have occurred per mile in those vehicles.

FYI: I don't care a bit about Ford, Toyota, or pickups.