Jump to content
Wings4Life(BANNED)

2015 Ford F-150 Leads Light-Duty Truck Segment in Safety Ratings

Recommended Posts

DEARBORN, Mich., – Ford’s all-new F-150, the toughest, smartest, most capable and safest F-150 ever is the first pickup in America to earn an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Top Safety Pick for its SuperCrew model.

The new Ford F-150 is also the only full-size, light-duty truck in the industry to earn the government’s highest possible 5-star rating for the driver and passenger for all crash test modes and cab configurations – SuperCrew, SuperCab and Regular Cab.

The excellent crash test performance of the new Ford F-150 is enabled by its up to 700-pound weight savings through the use of high-strength steel in the frame; high-strength, military-grade, aluminum alloy in the body; and smart engineering.

A cross-functional group comprised of Ford truck product development veterans and researchers worked to optimize vehicle weight savings and manufacturing design to deliver improved durability, capability, fuel economy and crashworthiness. The team created 31 safety-related innovations including new structures, materials and joining methods that were tested virtually with supercomputer simulations, then retested in Ford’s advanced laboratories to engineer the safest F-150 ever.

Breakthrough innovation also applies to the reparability of the new F-150, thanks to its innovative modular structure that simplifies repairs.

Ford does not agree with the reparability costs and findings by IIHS and other stunts.  Ford’s view is based on real-world accident repair data. In fact, real-world repair costs on the new 2015 Ford F-150 average $869 less than last year’s F-150 model, http://DEARBORN, Mich., – Ford’s all-new F-150, the toughest, smartest, most capable and safest F-150 ever is the first pickup in America to earn an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Top Safety Pick for its SuperCrew model.

 

Below is an interesting PDF on collision repair cost facts:

https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North%20America/US/2015/07/30/f150-factsheet-repairability.pdf

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll I'll be. CR also said that the new truck also should have comparable insurance rates and repair costs to the previous model.

 

I've always thought that malleability of a metal would determine how easy it is to bend back and repair, but it appears Ford did sweat the details on this issue.

 

I've worked with different grades of Aluminum before, from 3003 used for making consumer food trays to 6000 series and up commonly used in bicycles, cars and Aircraft. Fatigue thresholds are always an issue with aluminum, but with the right fasteners and attention taken to dissipate lateral and in-line forces acting upon stressed members, Aluminum is just as resilient in service life as steel. 

 

To be honest, if the Silverado with an Aluminum body does weigh less than the F150, I'd have to imagine they must atleast be using a slightly thinner guage for the body panels.

 

If that's the case, Insurance costs and susceptibility for damage will only be higher for that truck. But again, all we know so far is that GM has bought a few F150s for bench-marking purposes. They're going to strip the truck for every component to see how Ford did it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points on Aluminum properties needed suave. Of course, body panels experience relatively small amounts of extreme loading, and in very infrequent intervals.  So fatiguing is of little concern. The bed itself may see big loads, of course spread out over a large area, and again, less of a concern.  And yes, load dispersion through combining fasteners with adhesives, and significant CAE analysis was the torturous path they needed to follow, and it appears to have paid off with these safety ratings.

 

And Ford’s choice to go this path does not make their truck better simply because of the material choice, of course.  But it did allow small gains/benefits throughout, of which there are plenty.  My guess, had Ford instead went with the latest steel available, while focusing on a major diet from a way-too-heavy previous gen truck, we would be looking at a truck that lost about 300-350lbs.  Also respectable, and more in line with what GM has done.  So no winners and losers based on material choice, and there are certainly advantages and disadvantages to both paths.  And I think any objective view will conclude that one path will have more pro’s than the other, plain and simple.  In time, we will all know which path that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link in the other thread, cap.  This really looks great for Ford, and pathetic for GM trucks. Wow. I hope they get a bit more serious with safety, when they too align to Aluminum one day.

 

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/v/class-summary/large-pickups

 

 

And regarding the one marginal rating for the Ford, at least for some models, looking at this pic below it is easy to see how so much deformation can happen in this unique type of offset crash, because it completely misses the frame.  There is nothing there but a bumper and sheet metal, before hitting the cab.  

 

http://cars.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451b3c669e201b8d140e370970c-800wi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when the result is bad, blame the testing methodology that you design your truck's crash structure on in the first place.

The logical conclusion to that thought process is that it doesn't matter if the final rating is good or bad, since the tester is not above question, which in turn renders this thread meaningless.

That is a horrible thought process.

Edited by El Kabong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when the result is bad, blame the testing methodology that you design your truck's crash structure on in the first place.

The logical conclusion to that thought process is that it doesn't matter if the final rating is good or bad, since the tester is not above question, which in turn renders this thread meaningless.

That is a horrible thought process.

 

Nice try bong, but I was speaking in generalities of all offset crashes, in this new test.

 

oy vey

 

 

And the results were not 'bad' in this case, far from it.

It must be difficult living with so much bitterness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were using it to justify your product's poor results in the test.

Same old wings-able to post articles, able to say stuff about them, can't defend what you say about them.

Sad sad sad that you would even think of defending this result by blaming the tester. This isn't NHTSA-they haven't been caught sitting on info. If anything, they went the extra mile in uncovering this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. They just mad it "painfully" obvious that not all F-150s are built the same.

Love how some can justify the one type of crash that would get your knees crushed. 

 

Crushed knees huh, if you say so.

How hard do you think the competition will have to work, just to get that level?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No. They just mad it "painfully" obvious that not all F-150s are built the same.

Love how some can justify the one type of crash that would get your knees crushed. 

 

Crushed knees huh, if you say so.

How hard do you think the competition will have to work, just to get that level?

 

Keep deflecting Wings. You (being Ford in this case) are the kid in class who got caught acting up and tries to tell the teacher "Well GM and RAM were acting up worse than I was". It didn't work in 3rd grade and it doesn't work here. Oh and you're right about the knees. It's just this.

"leading IIHS to conclude there would be moderate risks of injuries to the driver's right thigh, lower left leg, and left foot in a similar real-world crash."

 

My bad. It's just the rest of your legs that you have to worry about. Silly me.

Edited by surreal1272

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, 'moderate RISK of injury' went from "crushed knees" to "crushed legs"

 

 

Give it up surreal.

 

Back on topic, Ford has a huge advantage over the competition in truck safety, regardless of model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, 'moderate RISK of injury' went from "crushed knees" to "crushed legs"

 

 

Give it up surreal.

 

Back on topic, Ford has a huge advantage over the competition in truck safety, regardless of model.

Like I said, didn't work in 3rd grade. 

 

Silly fanboys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

635738559211179232-CEN1539-20.jpg

 

Yeah. No worries on those legs AND knees. Silly me for expecting a car company to build their best selling model to the same crash spec, and not just on their most expensive models. Silly, silly me </sarcasm>.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

635738559211179232-CEN1539-20.jpg

 

Yeah. No worries on those legs AND knees. Silly me for expecting a car company to build their best selling model to the same crash spec, and not just on their most expensive models. Silly, silly me </sarcasm>.

And it's still safer than any other truck in its class.. Imaging what the drivers' legs look like in the other trucks.. Well minus the Tundra. That scored very well as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

635738559211179232-CEN1539-20.jpg

 

Yeah. No worries on those legs AND knees. Silly me for expecting a car company to build their best selling model to the same crash spec, and not just on their most expensive models. Silly, silly me </sarcasm>.

And it's still safer than any other truck in its class.. Imaging what the drivers' legs look like in the other trucks.. Well minus the Tundra. That scored very well as well.

 

And where are those crash tests for the competitions extended cab models?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

635738559211179232-CEN1539-20.jpg

 

Yeah. No worries on those legs AND knees. Silly me for expecting a car company to build their best selling model to the same crash spec, and not just on their most expensive models. Silly, silly me </sarcasm>.

And it's still safer than any other truck in its class.. Imaging what the drivers' legs look like in the other trucks.. Well minus the Tundra. That scored very well as well.

And where are those crash tests for the competitions extended cab models?
They don't even have them public. At least IIHS doesn't have any for Chevy, ram, Toyota, or Nissan past 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were using it to justify your product's poor results in the test.

Same old wings-able to post articles, able to say stuff about them, can't defend what you say about them.

Sad sad sad that you would even think of defending this result by blaming the tester. This isn't NHTSA-they haven't been caught sitting on info. If anything, they went the extra mile in uncovering this.

Because it bears repeating, obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were using it to justify your product's poor results in the test.

Same old wings-able to post articles, able to say stuff about them, can't defend what you say about them.

Sad sad sad that you would even think of defending this result by blaming the tester. This isn't NHTSA-they haven't been caught sitting on info. If anything, they went the extra mile in uncovering this.

Because it bears repeating, obviously.

They aren't "poor" results though.. They are still very good. Class leading still.. With all the information that we have at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry cap, but it's still a big faux-pas by Ford. Unlike wings I'm not going to stick my fingers in my ears and hold my breath until I turn blue.

Also unlike wings of course, I was also quite critical of GM's recent recall issues and accepted the judgements against them without question.

It's the difference between being opinionated and a troll.

Edited by El Kabong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry cap, but it's still a big faux-pas by Ford. Unlike wings I'm not going to stick my fingers in my ears and hold my breath until I turn blue.

Also unlike wings of course, I was also quite critical of GM's recent recall issues and accepted the judgements against them without question.

It's the difference between being opinionated and a troll.

 

Also unlike wings, you are seriously over-dramatizing and crucifying a company for a correction that is needed and already in place, and where certainly nobody was hurt and which was hardly an issue in the first place and certainly not to the extent you keep trying to make it.  This is fractions of margins in an unlikely scenario, in the first place.  Hardly in the same universe as the criminal cover up GM undertook, killing and injuring hundreds.  

 

So I can care less how many times you want to bring this up, I have no reason to be anywhere near as critical as YOU obviously are, given the impressive safety record achieved in these tests.  And unlike you, I actually question the real problem here, GM's horrible IIHS safety ratings.

 

But I doubt you will even acknowledge that, as you are too focused on Ford.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sorry cap, but it's still a big faux-pas by Ford. Unlike wings I'm not going to stick my fingers in my ears and hold my breath until I turn blue.

Also unlike wings of course, I was also quite critical of GM's recent recall issues and accepted the judgements against them without question.

It's the difference between being opinionated and a troll.

 

Also unlike wings, you are seriously over-dramatizing and crucifying a company for a correction that is needed and already in place, and where certainly nobody was hurt and which was hardly an issue in the first place and certainly not to the extent you keep trying to make it.  This is fractions of margins in an unlikely scenario, in the first place.  Hardly in the same universe as the criminal cover up GM undertook, killing and injuring hundreds.  

 

So I can care less how many times you want to bring this up, I have no reason to be anywhere near as critical as YOU obviously are, given the impressive safety record achieved in these tests.  And unlike you, I actually question the real problem here, GM's horrible IIHS safety ratings.

 

But I doubt you will even acknowledge that, as you are too focused on Ford.

 

You haven't answered squat. You just sat here and made excuses for Ford's issues and are now (once again) trying to point the finger at GM when this is about Ford, not GM. Remember?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We  Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×