J.D. Power Identifies Top Two Safest Pickups

2012 JD Power Safest pickups TruckBuckle-72dpi II

In announcing the Safest Pickups for 2012, J.D. Power and Associates recently noted that only two half-ton pickup trucks on the market — the 2012 Ford F-150 and 2012 Toyota Tundra — have earned an overall crash-test score of four out of five stars from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and been named a Top Safety Pick by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. 

J.D. Power said the 2012 F-150 "is equipped with six standard airbags, four-wheel ventilated disc antilock brakes, traction control, stability control, trailer-sway control, hill start assist and roll stability control. All versions except for the base XL model have MyKey programmable safety features. A Sync smartphone pairing system includes 911 Assist service, which automatically contacts a 911 operator for help in the event of an airbag deployment. Optional safety equipment includes rear park-assist sensors, reversing camera and rain-sensing wipers."

2012 Ford F-150 II

For the 2012 Tundra, J.D. Power said every CrewMax "is equipped with eight airbags, including knee airbags for the driver and front passenger. Additionally, the Tundra comes standard with four-wheel-disc antilock brakes with brake assist, traction control, stability control, trailer-sway control and a Smart Stop system designed to prevent the truck from accelerating if the brake pedal is pressed. A reversing camera and front and rear park-assist sensors are optional."

2012 Toyota Tundra Endeavour II

 

Comments

Now there needs to be a tow-off to break the tie.
Up Davis Dam, 9500 lb trailer, Tundra vs EcoBoost.

The future of trucks will be Ford #1 as usual, Dodge and Toyota fighting it out for #2 and Nissan as a solid #3. Kudos to Ford and Toyota here.

look at that ugly pos chevy at the top in red. what a disgrace to chevy trucks that model was. an ugly ass cheap pile of junk. just like the current truck. no wonder chevy can't make any list worth mentioning that's good. what the hell happened to chevy?

No surprise--the two currently best built pickups are also the safest... .

Congrats to Ford, I really like the F150, they are great trucks.

@potter Happens to be one of my favorite style trucks. I owned 2500 of the model before that was one of my best tucks ever. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I can agree that the color of that truck is awful though.

Good job Ford !

" Smart Stop system designed to prevent the truck from accelerating if the brake pedal is pressed."

Is this standard on all Toyota's?

Guts
Glory
Oh wait your dead

@LJC
I want to see that tow-off as well. I want to see if the Tundra can pull the upset as the Ecoboost has the best torque band in a 1/2 ton.

Unreliable
Unsafe
Un-American

RAM

Congrats to both manufacturers. Great trucks. Although the Tundra was built with many of the F-150's technologies.

I love the F-150, the new RAM and the Tundra.
RIP GM

Here is a Ford promotional video, filmed with a potato. The Tundra and the Ecoboost are the two best towing engines hands down in a half-ton pickup. The Tundra was sitting at 3650 RPMs; which is where it makes it's 401 torque.
While the ecoboost sits at 3400RPMs before it shifted into 4th. Since it makes 420 at 2500 RPMs, I'll assume the Ecoboost is making roughly ~405-410 torque at 3400 RPMs.

You can tell this is a Ford video because the blurred out the Tundra's scangauge except for the RPMs. And it has that annoying angry man as the commentator.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01KXWXoYf2A&list=FLMpYtvuE2TjxEd3BsMRVzaw&index=17&feature=plpp_video

Wait a minute...Ford made the safest pickup WITHOUT the bailout money.
Imagine that.

Never been in a wreck with my 2009 Tundra CrewMax, but this is nice to know.

No problems in over 60k miles. Never had to go back to the dealership for anything since I drove it off the lot.

Kinda makes you feel nice about buying a Tundra. A great ownership experience.

Makes me want to buy another Tundra when I trade my 2009 for a 2014 model.

this video posted is FUNNY john as you said it. the Ecoboost is the REASON Ford WONT adhere to the J2807 towing method. The Tundra will DOG this truck out in towing. The fact that it wont shift to 4th is simply the programming of the trans and his throttle pressure. Its funny that this little Ford propaganda video says that the Tundra has nothing left when it will run over 80 MPH up davis dam with the MAX LOAD it is CERTIFIED to tow by the J2807 method! Just one more reason for people to pour out the Ford Kool-Aid they have been drinkin for years now...... LOL LOL That video made my day!

simply put if a THIRD PARTY company would do a test between the ecoboost and the 5.7 Tundra it would be OBVIOUS to everyone at that point just how superior the Tundra REALLY is to the other half tons

Guts
Glory
Safer then a Tundra or F-150 in a head on. What kind of accidents occur most?

Tundra crash tested a Double Cab, not a crew max in their side collision. Why would they not test a crew max? Becuase maybe they knew the closer the C pillar and door jam was to the point of impact, the safer it would be?

The Ram lost out in years past because of no torso airbag in the drivers seat. They added that for 2013.

It's all well and good to look at vehicle safety, but what also needs addressing is driver behaviour.

Regulations are needed for young drivers and theses regulations must be enforced.

Vehicle engine size should be regulated for younger drivers also. Number of passengers should be limited etc for them as well and hours at which they can drive.

Vehicle safety has to go hand in hand with sound regulations that are enforced.

I know on the Garden State Parkway my mother continually exceeds the posted speed limit by 20mph. A speed radar should be set up to enforce driver behaviour.

In Las Vegas and San Diego I was driving at the 65mph speed limit and I was continually be passed by people driving quite above the speed limit.

It's not speed that kills its the difference in speeds.

ford safe just shut the door and the truck vibrate..lolllllllford safelllolllll wow some media so funy maybe toyo but ford llloooolllllll they have hard time just to keep the truck on one peace..ford safe llollllllll

Hmmm...Ford borrowed 6 billion from the tax payers in 2009 to reconfigure their plants and build more efficient cars and trucks. To date they have not paid a penny of that back. So much for "doint it on your own"

Big Al from OZ,
With younger drivers its not just engine size that should be inforced , its more dependent on vheicle type, if you go off displacement than a 2011 5.0 mustang is safer than an old 7.3l powerstroke supper duty. Im pretty sure that the supper duty is going to get kids into less trouble. going off of engine size will affect farm kids in remote areas who drive work trucks around. If you go off of horse power your going to run into the same problem a kid is probably going to get into more trouble with a civic than a ridgeline. Many states have past laws regulating the numbers of passengers that one could transport in the car, and in every case they have exempted siblings. When i turrned 16 i got to drive my parents 99 Chevy Suburban, and 04 Jetta TDI manual to school depending on what my mom needed (rarely took my dads car to school). The suburban was a 9 pax model and id drive freinds around in it, however the worst passengers where my five brothers and sisters. having them in the much faster and more powerful suburban ment that they where not sitting asclose and hitting eachother. in the jetta driving with them was un bareable. Even after i graduated from colledge i was driving in my 05 suburban with my mom , littleest sister and 2 dogs coming back from a trip to the pacific northwest and my little sister threw a tantrum and stated kicking my seat on I5 in trafic. I have seen more stupid stuff with cell phones than anything else ban texting while driving and the world will be a better place. i think if they required all vehicles under 4000lbs to be manulas than you would get rid of alot of texting while driving.

THAT LOSER FORD MOTOR COMPANY DON'T EVEN PAY TAXES WHAT A DUMP OF A COMPANY!!

Ford, which hasn’t paid U.S. taxes since 2005, may not pay federal taxes until the end of the decade because it still would have tax-loss benefits on its books from $31.4 billion in operating losses sustained from 2005 to 2009, said Brian Johnson, a Chicago-based analyst with Barclays Capital Management. http://www.techimo.com/forum/debateimo-politics-religion-controversy/257234-ford-may-not-pay-taxes-until-end-decade.html

@ford don't pay taxes what losers!

Please sir. You're just making a fool of yourself. Tax loopholes? Big deal. As if every company in the US doesn't use every one of them they can. You know who else isn't paying taxes because the Goverment protected them? Government Motors.

And how about this one.- "Ford borrowed 6 billion from the tax payers in 2009 to reconfigure their plants and build more efficient cars and trucks."

The Government mandates standards which are nearly impossible to follow. Particularly the left wing. They made money available so all auto manufacturers could update their plants to comply with new regulations. Hardly the situation you make it out to be. Go back to your GovtMoCo Sierra truck.

@Edward,

Don't waste your time on Bob the TROLL!

@Edward or anyone
I am not trying to change aybodies opion on regulations I would like to better understand your point. The way I look at it is the people who complain about the govt. regulations are the people who dont have to go into the factories, work on the oil rig or in the coal mine because all those places probaby have a sign that says so many days without an injury or incident. Some people don't care about govt. regulations on cleanliness because they don't live near the plant or factory so what if they dump chemicals in a lake or bury it and it gets into somebodies water supply they don't live near there. I just think when I hear people complain about regulations its because they don't care how someone else may be negatively affected by not having regulations as long as they can save a buck and get what they want the cheapest. I am pretty sure most regualtions will go to far but are you better off with too much or not enough? Once again I am not trying to change anybodies opinion I would like to know why you guys say that.

@Carilloski
Here is our licencing laws for drivers. V8s and most turbo vehicles are a no go, unless you live in the country and you need to drive and have no other alternative.

The left hand column has the differing stages of licencing.

The licencing system seems to work quite well.

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/licensing/gettingalicence/car/p1p2_conditions.html

Unions Could Kill Off Twinkies, Wonder Bread

http://fox8.com/2012/11/13/labor-fight-could-kill-off-twinkies-wonder-bread/

@ trx4 tom

UM the ram is only 4 star front as well. FYI, Toyota tested the crew max internally and it fairs just as well as the double cab bub. Toyota's crash test dummies are so advanced that they collect 106-109 data points. NHTSA and the IIHS only collect data from between 9-20 data points. so who do you think has more accurate results? Here is PROOF just how bad the ram 1500 is.

1. Ram 1500
http://www.cars.com/ram/1500/2012/safety-ratings/

2. Ford F-150
http://www.cars.com/ford/f150/2012/safety-ratings/

3. Toyota Tundra
http://www.cars.com/toyota/tundra/2012/safety-ratings/

and there you have it Tom.

@ I Force lol, oops, I mean hemi lol:

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/datatables.aspx?class=70&type=f

Here you go. I don't need you to tell me about Toyotas safety test dummies. Why don't you look a little further at what is actually published stuff, instead of rumors passed around the shop?

The Ram gets all greens, the Tundra gets a yellow (acceptable, right foot) as part of it's good rating, as does the Ford. The Ford before 2009 had all green. Not bad, but not as good as a Ram, like I said.

Take a look at the link. You will find the Tundra steering wheel going downward about 10 cm. You want that to pin you in it? While the Tundra floorboards are better on the far left, on the right, the Ram is better.

You guys still turning away the Tacoma owners with rusty frames because they had over 15 years of service? I just looked at my 83 Dodge W-150, the frame's not rusted yet.

Another thing to ask on the Toyota & maybe even comparable Ram (almost type Dodge) is what grade of fuel is called out for those? Asking , don't know. That to me plays a bigger role like what fuel cost I'll have and less worried about what gov fuel chart did they follow. Pretty sure Ford 150 is running on 87 octane. I know a lot of folks that bought Honda's & Toyota's but have to run them on 93 octane.

NOW IF THEY CAN JUST GET THOSE FORDS TO STOP CATCHING ON FIRE AND KILLING THEIR SLEEPING OWNERS!!!

The Tundra has a reccomended 87 octane as anything above that won't do anything http://www.tundraheadquarters.com/blog/2007/08/02/toyota-tundra-tips-premium-gas-vs-regular/ and Ram 1500 can use 87 octane but 89 is reccomended http://dodgeforum.com/forum/4th-gen-ram-general-discussion/317287-can-the-hemi-run-on-87-octane.html.

@ Big Al from Oz--or should I call you Comrade Al?!

I hope that you are being sarcastic, but those laws are ridiculous and opitimize the nanny state--even for adults up to 25 years old?!

What a killjoy controlling mindset... . But, its for... the children... .

@Dav
I'm actually a conservative. And yes I do support those regulations. Regulations and enforcing them is what supports the difference between societies and cultures.

Have a look at our accident rate, which is nearly half of the US's. Safer vehicles help, but safer and better driving (prevention) is much better than the cure.

So, some pimply kid doesn't have a V8 for a couple of years until he knows how to drive or he can't take a car load of friends around. How many kids are still alive today. In Australia each vehicle death costs billions. Its a win-win for everyone.

My vehicle is insured for $51k and it only costs me $550 per year, why because one of the reason is we have less to pay out as a country due to accidents.

Accident often involve more than one vehicle. I might be alive today because of those regulations.

You guys will be heading that way. The same goes for those funny front ends we have, which by the way saves lives.

@Dav - I'd have to agree with Big Al. Parents seen to be very poor at enforcing control/driving habits on their children. When I was a kid we didn't have learner and beginner drivers licences with restrictions on time of day, number of passengers etc but my dad enforced similar rules on my brother and I. We never went to driver's ed. He taught us. Considering the fact that he drove trucks for a living, he did a better job than any instructor.
Unfortunately many people pass the buck when it comes to parental and personal responsibility.
Insurance companies and governments (read taxes) have to pay for increased medical costs associated with poor driving habits/skills,and poor use of safety devices. Look at the proliferation of safety devices on vehicles. If people weren't so inept, we wouldn't need them.
33% of the motoring public should not have a driver's licence.
Young men 16-25 IIRC are a very dangerous group. A combination of raging hormones and a sense of imortality are not a good combination.

Trucks only a girl or gay boy would own. Real men drive a Chevy, sissies own fords and tonga's.

@supercrew 02: The Hemi does not need 89 when not hauling a heavy load. Straight from the book: " The 5.7L engine is designed to meet all emissions regulations and provide satisfactory fuel economy and performance when using high quality unleaded gasoline having an octane range of 87 to 89. The manufacturer recommends the use of 89 octane for optimum performance. The use of premium gasoline is not recommended, as it will not provide any benefit over regular gasoline in these engines."

My take? If I know I will haul a heavy trailer in hilly area, I run 89 octane. If it's just a load in the bed, forget about it! In Missouri at the Casey's General Stores, the 89 is their minimum grade, with 90 and 91. Here in Arkansas we have some Casey's but most stations are 87 min. With a max of 93/94.

I have heard the Ecoboost 3.5 requires a higher octane for towing heavy, I have not seen the manual myself. The Fushion with 1.6L Ecoboost IS recommended premium in the Motor Trend Battle of the Best Sellers. It barely missed getting it's city mileage by .1 mpg, the Accord was the the most off of it's 27 MPG rating, at 25.8. It seems when they make a Honda to not need to rev high to make torque, they suck fuel. And of course the Chevy 6.2 requires premium. Might run on whatever. I had an 06 Chevy 5.3 and it would ping alot. No ping in my Hemi, and I run alot of Murphy USA (Wal Mart) gas, 87 octane.

@ TRX4 Tom

Those crash test dummies from Toyota i told you about. I have seen them personally at Toyota's second Largest R&D facility in world which wouldnt you know it it happens to be in Yipsilanti Michigan right outside of DETROIT where the TUNDRA, TACOMA and many other Toyota vehicles are designed and Engineered. So the data you posted from the IIHS is a SLIVER of the data Toyota collects which is why in EVERY test overall the Tundra does better than your beloved Italian Ram truck.

And about those Tacoma frames... At least Toyota stepped up and bought back about every one of those trucks OR sprayed the frames or replaced them. For the umteenth time it was DANA corp. who screwed that up and it just so happens that the frames from under rangers and S-10's and Dakotas were ALSO made by them but guess which manufacturer is stepping up to fix it... Toyota of course. the rear diff among many other things on your Ram are made by Dana as well so be careful throwing stones in a glass house.

OH, and from your last comment MY Tundra only needs 87 octane to tow 10,100lbs and will outrun EVERY version of your Ram while its burning 89 octane AND get better fuel economy while doing it! again i understand you like your ram truck that the bed rusts off of within 10 years AND DODGE WONT FIX IT FOR YOU but thanks i'll stick to a truck that outperforms your truck loaded, unloaded, fuel economy (real world not fake epa tests) towing, dependability, reliability, AND safety.

Yeah, that's why you Tundra sucked the most gas in the 30 K shootout! Real world enough for you? On the little narrow tires Tundras use. My Ram is not needed to haul 10,000 pounds! I will enjoy lots of miles of a much better ride in an interior that is by far ahead of your old school truck. Not bouncing around. No bed bounce either.

My Dana rear axle is holding up fine in my A. 38,000 mile truck. B. My 151,000 + mile RV with a Dana 60. C. All of the above! If you chose C, you are right, for once! I change the oil, and I don't constant burnouts, or any for that matter. Take care of stuff, it lasts.

I didn't know Dakota's had a frame issue? They replaced all of them Taco frames? Yeah, right!

Your truck will outperform mine? Maybe cause it's better gear ratio in the past, now, the Ram 8 speed will run circles around yours. Cornering? The Tundra didn't do so hot in the 30 K shootout, once you actually addd weight. Hype, hype, and more hype! Funny, think, the 3.55 geared Ram was catching that 4.3 geared truck in their 7% hillclimb, was da I-force high tech 32 valve engine laying down some??? Brakes, wow. 2nd best empty to a lighweight single cab Ford, then it was the second biggest distance gainer once you put weight in it. Almost took as much more space loaded as the Chevy! That's funny, I don't care who you are!

My 83 Ram has some rust. I kinda expect it on a vehicle that was driven in Colorado. Salt.

Like I said, the Ram does better in head on accidents, as much as you won't admitt it. The Tundra has done better in side collision due to the Ram not having the torso seat mounted airbag, and the fact they chose to test a double cab while Ford, Chevy, and Ram tested crew cabs. Of course, Ford and Chevy would have totally lost had they tested their suicide doors. But now Ram has a seat mounted torso airbag. So, pretty much, the Tundra has a stiffer roof. See, I am being real while you are being an arrogant Toyota fanboi.

Your Tundra's have issues. I can dig and find out more, but brakes wearing out is one. You pretend like they are SO PERFECT!

Don't you have a sticky gas pedal to work on somewhere?

hemilol: if the frames under the S-10 and Dakotas are the same, (made by the same co, dana) then why have all my friends with tacos that run on the beach with me and my Dakota having to have all their frames replaced, and mine is fine? not to mention all the salt on our roads?

THE NINETIES CALLED AND WANT THEIR C CHANNEL FRAME BACK.LOL

IF THIS REPORT IS ACCURATE, THEN HOW IS IT THAT SAFERCAR.GOV RATES THE GM SIBLINGS BETTER THAN FORD OR TOYOTA? FOR EXAMPLE, ACCORDING TO SAFERCAR THE F150 AND TUNDRA RATE 2 OR 3 STAR IN FRONTAL CRASH(PASSENGER),F150 GETS 3 STARS FOR OVERALL FRONTAL CRASH (GM AND TUNDRA GET 4 STARS), IN ROLLOVER THE F150 SCORES 3 OR 4 STARS SAME AS TUNDRA WHILE GM GET 4 STARS. ALL THREE BRANDS GET OVERALL SCORES OF 4 STARS BUT CLEARLY THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES DEPENDING ON THE NATURE OF THE COLLISION.
THE DODGE RAM HAS THE DISTINCTION OF BEING THE MOST DANGEROUS TRUCK ACCORDING TO SAFERCAR AS OF MAY 30, 2012. THESE RESULTS ARE A COMBINATION OF iNSURANCE iNSTITUTE FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY, CONSUMER REPORTS, NHTSA AND JD POWERS INTIAL QUALITY STUDY RESULTS. WHICH STUDIES ARE YOU TO BELIEVE?

By the way, JD Powers- you fluff up the f150 with its wonderful 911 assist, but UNLESS you have your cell phone with you in the truck AND paired up to the system AND charged up AND the cell phone is within reach after a crash occurs ( ie. the cell phone hasn't sailed out an open door or window or isn't jammed under a rear seat where the occupants can't reach it), AND the occupants are still concious so they can place a call then 911 assist won't work. It also cannot locate your f150 closer than a 2 square kilometre radius. Toyota doesn't even offer this type of assistance, as limited as 911 assist is, at all as far as I am aware.
So why no mention that GM offers ONSTAR Automatic Crash Response that doesn't rely on you having your cell phone with you, that can send help regardless if the crash victims are conscious or not and can locate them within one metre of their location? Okay, so you have to have a valid OnStar subscription but seems to me something that actually can make a difference in saving lives is worth a few extra bucks a year as opposed to a free service like 911 Assist.
As I noted in my previous post, safercar.gov rated the GM products as having as good or better safety ratings than the F150 or Tundra.

@BAT - GM's OnStar crash assist is cellular network based. If the cell won't work in your pocket, it won't work in your Chevy. The GPS portion is satellite but not the call feature.
Unless you are in an extremely remote area (in that case cells don't work) there is always enough vehicle traffic around. If you are in an MVC, someone will report it. If your vehicle does an auto dial due to a MVC, don't you think the fact that an automated crash response with no-one answering the phone will generate interest with the 911 dispatch? That applies to both the Ford and GM systems.
Ford does have "direction assist" through Sync. If that system is able to tell you were to drive, it should be able to provide dispatch with a decent location. If you have a built in SatNav system, that also communicates with Sync.
As far as I'm concerned, both Sync and OnStar amount to a placebo to calm the nerves. The difference is that to continue with OnStar, one must pay for it.
Your logic about "what if your cell flies out of your pocket" is not logical. If you are in a crash that causes your cell to leave your pocket, you will need a body recovery team not a paramedic.

More food for thought:
Where is the battey located in most vehicles? A crash severe enough to render you unconscious will often be serious enough to disable the battery on your truck. What does OnStar and Sync run on?

Tundra crash tested a Double Cab, not a crew max in their side collision. Why would they not test a crew max? Becuase maybe they knew the closer the C pillar and door jam was to the point of impact, the safer it would be?

Hey, hemi lol, are you still reading the $30,000 shootout in disbelief? Yeah, the Tundra did good in the hill climb thanks to it's higher rear gears and trans gears. For the 2013 Rams when they get that 8 speed, that advantage will be the Rams. But as it was, the Ram was pulling harder at the end, tells me the Tundra wasn't making as much power.

Let's see, the Tundra did poor after adding weight in the autocross and braking, but yet real good empty. The moral of the story is, Tundras are all about hype. Did real good in the quarter mile, and 0-60, but then gas mileage, it was 1 mpg less then the Ram. Debinder will come along any second to say gas mileage doesn't matter. Anyway, that's a real world test, not some epa test, right??

It's funny you say yours will tow 10,100 pounds, so Toyota said that in 2007, but now the new SAE lowered it to 9,000. Hey, I'm sure my Ram, as configured now, would be less, but I didn't buy it to tow 9,000 or 10,000. More like 5500-6000 regularly, and I have pulled 7,000. It did just fine. If I wanted to pull 10,000 or heavier then I usually do, I would just get a 3/4 ton. Toyota really can't compete there.

The Ram could be putting out ever more power then it already does over the Tundra, but the bottom line is the current 545 RFE still holds it back. In the past, I gave credit to Toyota for having a better spaced set of gears, and a strong trans. Now the gear spacing is no longer a big deal. Move the Tundra to the middle of the pack! Advantage, RAM!

Lou-while neither Sync or Onstar are perfect (technology never is) Onstar has an advantage. Yes, it is cell based, but since the antenna is mounted on the roof of the vehicle (yes, it could be destroyed in a rollover) it has greater range than a regular cell phone. I know it does, since my customers have told me how they were unable to get reception on their cell phone but were able to get reception in the same area using Onstar. So, while everyone with a cell phone is standing around desperately trying to get reception out/in to report an MVC, Onstar with its greater (not 100% perfect) range has already summoned the authorities. Sync could let you down in such a situation. We have numerous incidents in Northern B.C. where people have gone off the road, down an embankment and are trapped in their vehicle and very little other vehicular traffic is around to notice or report. Onstar's system which does not rely soley on the condition of the driver could make all the difference between life or death. Cell phones can and do get tossed out of vehicles in crashes that are completely survivable, whether they are in your pocket, a purse or on the centre console or in your hand. Watch crash test videos and see the forces generated even at low speeds. Still care to bet your life on your cell phone being exactly where you need it after a crash? If bodies weighing tens or hundreds of pounds can be tossed out of doors,windows or sunroofs, what's to stop your three ounce cell phone from the same fate? You point out that both systems require the vehicles battery to continue to operate. Again neither sytem is perfect or is going to work in every situation, but Onstar hedges your bets for survival. Ask yourself this, if I were in a severe crash and my child who was a passenger in the vehicle with me was critically injured, wouldn't I want every possible advantage working for me to see that child get help asap? How's that for logic !

Big Al,
I agree that most people dont know how to drive im still in the age range that would limit my ability to drive vehicels that i have owned in austrailia i dont think v8 engines get people into trouble by themselves, maybe in austrailia where a lot of your trucks are Turbo diesels but here the v8s are in performance cars and large trucks and suvs. most people who i knew growing up drove honda civics, and similar cars with natural asperated engines the acceleration is greater than the subruban i grew up driving even though the cart weighs less. personally i would rather have the freedom to teach my future children how to drive responsably and then put them in a safe full size pick up. that way if they do get into a crash they are safer. manufactures are now coming out with ways to limit vehicles top speed with programable keys that parents can set. Lets think about it this way which of these vehicles is a person under 21 least likly to get in troublein for driving a f150 with the 5.0 v8, a mustang with the 3.7 v6 or a 4 cylinder focus. what about motor cycles why not ban those for people under the age of 25 also it seems that that is the most dagerous. Also i have freinds who are my age who already have 3 children they would need an exemption letter to drive their own children thats rediculace. i know what the laws is trying to do but i think that it should be up to the parents to make informed decisions and hold them more liable for their childs actions. i am shocked at how many people in cross overs and other small cars with little motors go flying past me around town some of these people here must floor their cars everywhere. and to be honest i think that we will see a rise on femal car accidents as more of them text and drive and update their social media or do their makeup in the car.

@TRX4 Tom

If you look at other tests, the $30K shootout is the ONLY TEST I have ever seen the Tundra not get the BEST or second best MPG. I think it was a fluke.

Regarding handling, the Tundra's ESC is exceptionally intrusive at low levels--but is very easy to turn off completely.

The Tundra is obviously move heavy duty than the 1/2 ton Ram--why won't they adopt J2807--are they scared? Note that Ford was more than willing to include Ram in their Davis pull-off, but not the Tundra.

Toyota could too make more power and MPG--if they stooped to designing/rating/testing an engine that is supposed to use higher octane fuel... oh, but its OK to use lower octane--and get less power, less MPG... .

Finally, it isn't even close when comparing the reliability records of Ram to Toyota--Toyota is consisently rated higher by everyone year after year. Of course, folks want to bring up recalls, but that is because Toyotas are expected to be high quality and they fix their mistakes while Rams are legendary for having inherently crappy front ends, transmissions, etc. that the owner ends up having to pay for down the road.

But I will give credit where its due--Ram makes a good looking pickup. I see all the dudes with the backward baseball hats and 20" rims driving them... .

@BAT - please post your stories concerning OnStar saving people in MVC's in Northern BC. I'd like to see those links.
I have to call BS on that one.
Here is a map of British Columbia that shows OnStar coverage.
https://www.onstar.com/web/portal/coveragemap
This map doesn't look much different than cell coverage.
Here is a Telus cell coverage map (Telus has the best coverage in BC)
http://www.comparecellular.com/telus-coverage-maps/
As I said before, if a cell works, so does OnStar.
Greater range?
It doesn't look like it.
You sound like a salesman throwing in the "if my child was critically injured" tear jerker line.
If your cell flies out of your pocket in an MVC, you'll be dead.
I don't need to see crash video's to see what happens to a human being in a car crash.
I've been down that embankment rendering care.
Cells and OnStar aren't that great in remote areas.

People will drive to where they get coverage and call for help.
Ever hear of VHF radios and repeaters?
There is more coverage with those devices than OnStar in Northern BC.
OnStar and Sync,
as I said before, PLACEBO'S.

Why pay for something that doesn't work any better than a cell?

What next?
An argument that if you locked your keys in your truck, you can call OnStar?



Post a Comment

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
  • Your email will not be shown.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Home | Buy or Sell a Truck | News | Special Reports

Powered by Cars.com. By using this site, you agree to our terms of service | © 2011 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us

Visit our partner: MovingTruck.com