And the Ford Bashing begins in 3.....2......1.......

SuperCrew contained steel bars welded around the front wheels for added protection. Those reinforcements aren't on the other cab variants, and IIHS is now going back to check a SuperCab without the strengthening to check its safety performance, as well.
Awesome ford engineering. Steel bars behind aluminium body on SuperCrew for testing, nothing in SuperCab.
Finish at home ford. Drill the hole to the intercooler and install steel bars inside your aluminium cabin. Ford should make a kit you can buy for $999 with small drillbit and couple of steel bars with crazy glue.

Could be Ford isn't only guilty party on this aspect. Regular cabs are viewed as farm trucks and bottom of the bucket. Like to see if GM is pulling the same...they learn this from one another, to stay cost competitive.

Ya bend over syclone rob

will ford release the 2017 super duty at texas state fair in sept 2015

Witch-hunt part deux...1st was cost of repairs....and THAT as we know was pretty bogus.

Dearborn Derek says the extra bars are not welded on and are only on a 4x4.

So the fact that they are retesting a 4x2, will not prove anything other than the testing of different cabs which they will now have to do all cabs for all other trucks if they want to go down that route.

Here is a video how those extra bars looks like and it's not just behind the wheels, but in the front of the wheels as well.
Pretty big difference in offset crash if you ask me . Ford is cutting corners and SuperCab and Regular Cub customers are not treated equally with SuperCrew ones. What else did they cut will be seen soon. We know, you have to drill the hole to the intercooler , so you can drive and accelerate safely in the rain. Even ALLL1 did it to prevent any unexpected power loss and life threatening accidents because of that.

I am not saying, that ford is a bad truck, just that extra payload they advertise because of aluminium is gonna kill somebody , because of missing steel braces. There is not free lunch kids.

http://www.autonews.com/article/20150615/OEM11/306159945/equipment-disparity-on-ford-f-150-prompts-new-crash-test

Since the Super Crew comprises most of the sales of available configurations, Ford make the cost effective decision to add the reinforcement bars to those models instead of including them on the less popular cab styles.

Makes perfect sense to me from a brutally honest Ford-like corporate point of view. After all, isn't this the same company that made the cost versus benefit decision to not add a simple $2 brace shield to keep the gas tank from exploding during certain rear end collisions on the old Pinto?

I guess things never change with Ford.

@Mike,

How about the 1973 - 1987 Chevrolet & GMC Pickups with gas tank exploding. GM agreed to pay $51.4 million for safety programs that transportation officials said would save many lives.
By that time, more than 600 people had burned to death in C/K post-collision fires

http://www.fairwarning.org/2010/03/old-trucks-leave-fiery-legacy-smoldering-anger/

Good old Ford being cheap once again.

Who was cheap for 15yrs????
More than 600 people had burned to death in C/K post-collision fires

Perhaps the supercrew cab being much larger than the extended or regular cabs needed extra bracing due to inherent differences in structural rigidity?

Regardless of the reasons, the optics of this are poor.

@johnny doe

That's a bit hypocritical for you to say seeing that your favorite brand is GM and their 10 years too late ignition recall that would have only cost them a few dollars per vehicle. What's that death toll up to now? Last I checked it was well over a hundred. Seems to me since you are a GM fan that you are in no position to call other brands cheap given GMs recent actions.

The tail end of the article indicates they have this concern for all truck brands. So why did they single out Ford for the majority of the article, especially the headline, making it appear there are concerns about the Ford? I don't own a Ford but really despise biased journalism.

@Dale - journalists just like most celebrities like attention. Sensationalism draws attention and improves ratings.

Ford tried to get attention like journalists or celebrities with extra payload and 5 stars safety rating with aliminium body, but forget, that not all people are sheep.

Ford tried to get attention like journalists or celebrities with extra payload and 5 stars safety rating with aliminium body, but forget, that not all people are sheep.

The new F-150 (while not my favorite) is a fine truck. It received a 5-star crash rating for all cab types in the Government tests. I really don't see much coming from this.

No not all people are sheep but a lot of them have lost their lives thanks to the GM garbage.

Only ford could think that all people are sheep, like their customers.

"that not all people are sheep"

Coming from Snivelina, that is hilarious.

Ram is a male sheep.

"extra payload and 5 stars safety rating "

Ram could use extra payload but male bovine excreta is light. Maybe Ram excreta is even lighter.

Ram is a male sheep, ford customers are sheep, but not a ram.

Those bars are for the offset crash test. that is all.. Now why is it not on all models??? That is the question that really needs to be answered. This has nothing to do with aluminum bodies. I think its a good idea but it should be applied to all models.

@Syclone Rob Because Ford is cheap and plays the systems cutting corners to save money. Cheap cheap cheap but hey we got a beer can body LOL!

@Syclone Rob It's because these GM guys have nothing better to do while they're waiting for the tow truck.

johnny doe - you are conveniently forgetting that GM killed over a 100 people over a dollar per ignition switch savings.

Snivelina - yawn or should I say baaaa baaaa Ram sheep have you any wool er cargo capacity?
No sir
No sir
3 bags full (that is all she can handle)

@LOL
I don't know who sheep is, but certainly not me, not AutoNews and not IIHS. Maybe you should re post your comments to them and let us know how it goes. LOL.

@Lou_BC

I always wondered why that was with Ram 1500s. I was looking at the Ram Bodybuilder specs of the 1500 the other day to replace my aging 2500 and not one had a GVWR higher than 7,000 lbs. Since a truck payload is its GVWR minus it's weight, these low GVWR ratings Ram gives their 1500 is causing their low payload numbers. It is also causing me to look at other brands since their half tons have payloads similar to my old 2500, and I don't want the dismal fuel economy of the current three quarter ton trucks engines.

Most of the other brands have half ton trucks that have a GVWR higher than 7,000 lbs with plenty of payload. Since the max GVWR these half tons can have is 8,500 lbs, the Ram 1500 has plenty of room to increase its GVWR to give it more payload . I wonder what is limiting these trucks that Ram cannot give them a higher GVWR? Is it the frame? The axles? The suspension? The brakes? Something has to be limiting them for Ram not being able to give them a GVWR higher than 7,000 lbs. I know the Ram 1500 has smaller axles, axle shafts, and less lugs than the other half tons. Maybe that is it. I guess we will never know.

@ Schroeder, Ford or Chevy can't match the ride quality of the Ram 1500. Ram no longer offers an H.D. 1/2 ton. So you have a choice. The Ram 1500 handled the best with a thousand pound payload compared to the rest. The 2500 Ram with class leading capability rides better than both Ford or Chevy. With Fords 150 priced @ 60,000 plus remember you can get a really nice 2500 for that. Ford also didn't do so good on the shootouts on this site with a lot of complaints about ride and sagging. So when your hauling heavy or towing heavy do you want a 1/2 ton or 3/4 ton with bigger brakes,bigger axles, etc..

Schroeder - you nailed it. Ford offers several frames with the F150 (at least they did in the past). Both GM and Ford offer larger rear diff/axle assemblies with max tow and max cargo packages.
Ram sticks with the same underpinnings which means the more bling you add the more screwed you are if you actually care about capacity.

@SemiV8 - PUTC didn't seem to like the Ram air ride truck loaded and/or with trailer as far as ride goes.

Yes -rides nice if all you want is a BOF 4 door sedan with a big open truck.

Since you Rambots have selective memory, I'll provide a refresher:
"but where the Ram lost most of its points was in its limited payload, braking numbers and the ride quality of the air suspension when towing or loaded."

@LOL
You don't have to post any third party opinion about RAM1500 drive. I tested all the competitive trucks and RAM has the best ride. It sticks to the curvy road best and handles any road and any conditions safest.
I own and drive one daily. You can't beat the Rear Axle Multilink Coil or Air Suspension with last century leafs.

@snivelina - thanks for your completely unbiased basso profundo flatulence

Seems people forget too quickly...

n June 10, 1980, NHTSA made an initial determination of defect in Ford vehicles with C-3, C-4, C-6, FMX, and JATCO automatic transmissions. The alleged problem with the transmissions is that a safety defect permits them to slip accidentally from park to reverse. As of the date of determination, NHTSA had received 23,000 complaints about Ford transmissions, including reports of 6,000 accidents, 1,710 injuries, and 98 fatalities--primarily the young and old, unable to save themselves--directly attributable to transmission slippage. As detailed below, this defect finding eventually resulted in a pseudo-recall wherein Ford agreed to mail warning labels to 23 million owners of Fords with these transmissions rather than recall them for mechanical repair.

When complaints piled up in government offices about transmissions that were killing and injuring people, the Federal Government issued the largest recall in automotive history to Ford Motor Company: 23,000,000 vehicles were to be recalled for defective transmissions. Ford went to President Reagan and told him that if they had to recall and repair 23,000,000 defective cars, it would drive the company into bankruptcy. With the help President Reagan, the Fed lost the ability to make mandatory recalls. Ford negotiated with the government, and got off the hook by agreeing to send out, via U.S. Mail, warning stickers to be placed on the dashboard of 23,000,000 defective Fords, warning that the transmissions could cause injury or death.

We also can't forget the time Ford let Firestone take the blame for deadly rollovers. The Ford Explorer was first offered for sale in March 1990. Numerous Ford internal documents show the company engineers recommended changes to the vehicle design after it rolled over in company tests prior to introduction, but other than a few minor changes, the suspension and track width were not changed because this would have delayed the introduction date by as much as ten months. Instead, Ford, which sets the specifications for the manufacture of its tires, decided to remove air from the tires, lowering the recommended psi to 26. It appears Ford never fully tested the tires at this level. Within a year of introduction, lawsuits against Ford and Firestone were filed for tire failures that resulted in crashes and rollovers. At least five cases were filed by 1993, and others followed in the mid-1990s. Almost all were settled, and settled with gag orders prohibiting the attorneys and the families from disclosing information about the cases or their documentation to the public or DOT.

Oh and we can't forget the cruise control fires that sparked a recall in 1996 but has continually expanded to include more vehicles as recently as 2009. Yet the vehicles recalled in 2009 were built as far back as 1992. 17 years to recall something as dangerous as a spontaneous vehicle/garage/house fire.

@Hemi V8

If I wanted to sacrifice capabilities for ride comfort then I would get a car or SUV, but I want and need a truck. I don't really tow all that much, but I use my bed a lot so a payload of at least 1,800 lbs with a long bed is a must. I am not saying I load it down like that all the time, but there are many times when I do.

About the 2500, I don't want the gas guzzlers that come with them these days and the diesels are way to much to pay for me not doing that much towing. From the research I have done, all of the brands V8s are getting around 12-13 mpg which is a lot less than the half tons or my 2500 CTD. I don't really care what is "class leading" because I know it is just marketing jargon.

I want something that gets at least 16-17 mpg combined, has a 6.5 foot bed, is a 4x4, can tow at least 8,000 lbs on occasion, and has a payload of at least 1,800 lbs that is under $50k. Sorry to say it, but Ram does not have something like that in a half ton like the others do. I would have to get another Cummins to get all that in a Ram, and I cannot justify the cost of a big diesel with the little I tow.

You are kind of sounding like you work for Ram since you are trying to sell me on one so bad. If that is the case the maybe you can answer my question. Why does the Ram 1500s not have a truck that has over 7,000 lbs GVWR when they have another 1,500 lbs before it reaches the max for its class? What is holding them back from having a GVWR of at least 8,000 lbs? I am asking because I am curious as to why the other brands have half tons with a GVWR greater than 7,000 lbs while Ram doesn't.

@LOL
No problem. I like you agree with me. What else do you want to know about RAM 1500?
You could test drive one by yourself probably.

@Lou -BC, The air suspension which is an option on Ram not standard,levels the truck out for superior handling when loaded.

@Schroeder, "I would have to get another Cummins to get all that in a Ram, and I cannot justify the cost of a big diesel with the little I tow." Did you know that Ram has two gas options for the 2500. The proven 5.7 Hemi and the class leading 6.4 Hemi. This site picked the Ram 2500 for the truck they would own. I am not going to do your research for you on your truck purchase. Did you know you can tow a trailer with 1,800lbs instead of loading it in the bed. A lot of times it's easier with the load be lower to load and unload the cargo. If you have questions regarding Ram trucks try their facebook page. Buy what you need what you like I could care less. I would suggest doing some research. You c

@My name is Nobody - your blog name is ironically appropriate since all of the Ramtards are incapable of using their own names on this blog.

HEMI V8 - why would a coil spring Ram 1500 be any better towing or hauling than a "self leveling" air ride Ram 1500?

Air ride is supposed to help tow and haul BUT PUTC's last 1/2 ton test shows that it can NOT handle towing or hauling.

Schroeder - don'y waste your time with FemiV8 or Snivelina.

@Hemi V8

Yes, I know there are two gas options in the 2500 and both get dismal fuel economy compared to the half tons or my current 2500 CTD as I stated before. Why would I buy a truck that gets less fuel economy when there is one that gets better fuel economy and has better performance while suiting my needs just fine? That just doesn't make sense.

Why would I go through the hassle to hook up a trailer to tow 1,800 lbs everytime I need to when I can get a truck that can haul that amount? That just seems asinine to comprise your need or wants like that just for a truck brand. You should buy a truck that fits your need and wants, not adjust your needs and wants in order to buy a certain truck or brand. Again, that just doesn't make sense.

I also don't care about what site picked what or who is claiming they are best in their class. That is useless if it does not apply to my wants and needs. Again, why are you so adamant about the truck I buy? You seem to be a truck salesman for Ram or work for them somehow. If so why can't you answer my question as to why Ram does not give their 1500 a GVWR higher than 7,000 lbs like the rest? What is the limiting factor?

@Schroeder, Why would I pay 60,000 for a 1/2 ton When I can buy a more capable 3/4 ton?

Why would I buy a gas 1/2 ton that can't tow as much and gets worse MPG loaded or empty compared to Ram 1/2 ton?

Why would I buy a Raptor with less capability for more money than a Ram power wagon?

Lou- You're quick to divert the topic of discussion from Ford's manipulation of crash tests to GM's ignition switch. Even quicker to divert the discussion when Ford's long held tradition of profit over safety gets brought up. They openly admit, through PR jargon of course, that they optimize the the truck's design to meet their goals. The steel bars, according to Ford Service Techs, cost $58. That's a lot of money per truck, why put them on every truck if only the crew cab would be used for crash test ratings. Some guys that frequently comment like to point out that the 2015 F-150's average transaction prices set a record in May. I ask, why can't they put these steel bars that obviously result in a safer trucks, be equipped on all trucks. Granted, this would be at the cost of lower profit per truck. Oh wait...

@Lou-BC, How bout those limp mode lemons? 3.5 Eco Boost. Oh that's right you wouldn't buy one either. lol

@Hemi V8

I guess you did not read where I said I did not want to pay more than $50k? Why would I buy a three quarter ton gasser that I have to spend more money on fuel on when there are half tons on the market that meet my needs and wants just fine while getting better fuel economy? Why would I buy a Ram half ton when there is not one that meets my payload needs while meeting my towing needs? What does a Raptor and Power Wagon have to do with this?

Again I am flattered that you are so concerned about me and my truck decision, but I can assure you that I did my homework and will choose a truck that fits my needs and wants. I can assure you that it will not be a Ram 1500. I am sorry that you don't like the fact that the Ram 1500 does not meet needs or that there are other half tons that do, but you are going to have to get over it. Since you know so much about Ram, why can you answer me why there are no Ram 1500s that have a GVWR greater than 7,000 lbs and what is limiting them to such a low GVWR for a half ton?

The nhsta test all of the configurations and the safety and crash. performance wasn't affected and didn't vary from cab configuration to cab configuration. Has the iihs even tested the ford and if so why haven't they released there rating on the configurations they tested??? And why haven't they tested all configurations prior to this like the nhsta does. There is significant differences in weight between configurations and a lighter standard cab may and prolly will perform better then a heavy crew cab in a 40 mph offset crash.

@Schroeder, You don't need a truck. You can tow a trailer with a Toyota corolla with 1800 lbs. on it.

@Hemi V8

Yes, and I would need to do that if I were to get a Toyota Corolla or a Ram 1500 since neither can haul that much in a four door. Other half tons, not so much.

Lucky for me, you don't get a say so in what I drive. I am still trying to figure out why you are so concerned about my post or my truck decision. I am beginning to think that Lou guy above is right about wasting time conversing with you since you are so concerned with telling me what I need to do or don't do.

Since you obviously are some Ram truck salesman why haven't answered me as to why a Ram 1500 does not have a GVWR over 7,000 lbs or what the limiting factor is. You are also ruining any chance of me buying a Ram and are actually making me not want to buy one out of spite. Do you do this with all your customers? Ignoring their needs and telling them what you think they need? If so, you should be fired for making customers not want a Ram period.

There are many cuv's, small suv's and compact cars that equal to or greater then payload capacity of ram 1500's. Your not buying a ram for capability.... The only reason to get a ram 1500 is the diesel so you can fill up at the big boy pumps to boost your low self esteem at truck stops and while you are eating your bacon and eggs as a group of trucker you join you all sit and complain about the EPA, the government and the diesel exhaust fluid needs to be put in and how diesel should be cheaper then gas.

@scott, Diesel in my area is cheaper than gas. No other truck will come close to the Eco Diesel in MPG unloaded or loaded. So what ever it lacks in payload can be put in a trailer and towed. Show me a Ford that can tow 9,000 and get 28 plus MPG?