IIHS Examines Safety Variations by Cab Model for Ford F-150

Ford 15 copy II

New crash tests are being designed to find out if pickup truck manufacturers are including certain safety devices on some cab configurations but not others.

According to Automotive News, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a vehicle safety organization funded by insurance company associations, is changing its pickup truck testing procedures to include all pickup cab configurations after becoming aware that safety equipment varied by cab models.

Much of the attention is focused on the Ford F-150 crew cab, which has special "wheel blockers" at the front and rear of the front wheels to prevent the tires from moving into the cabin of the truck during a front-end collision. Automotive News asked Ford why the extra wheel tubing is on some cabs and not others; Ford responded that it strengthens each cab configuration based on many different factors to achieve the proper safety requirements.

Recent crash tests conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration resulted in five-star ratings in front, side and overall crash categories for all 2015 Ford F-150 cab configurations (regular, extended and crew cabs). However, IIHS tests include a small-overlap frontal crash test that NHTSA does not do. The IIHS overlap test simulates the front corner of a vehicle crashing into a rigid barrier at 40 mph; it has proven troublesome for many automakers across their vehicle lineups.

It remains to be seen whether safety equipment that varies by pickup trim levels or cab configurations will create a problem for Ford or other truckmakers when it comes to crash testing.

Cars.com photo by Evan Sears

 

IMG_0378 II

 

Comments

"It's RAM 2500 with 5.7 HEMI which is averaging 16 -17 Mpg from fuelly."

There is no way in the world I am believing that and if you do then you are dumber than I thought. So you are telling me that you actually believe that the 6,500 lb 2500 with a 5.7L actually gets better average fuel economy than the 5,400 lb 1500 with the same 5.7L? Wow! You might want to check those averages again.

"Ford doesn't smoke anything without power braking,"

How do you know since you stated you never driven one?


Soooo back to what I was asking. Why doesn't Ram rate their 1500s with a higher GVWR than 6,950 lbs in the 2A truck class? All the other class 2A half ton truck have a truck that is higher than 7,000 lbs GVWR so why doesn't Ram? What is the weak link in the truck that is holding them back from giving it a higher GVWR? You would think since they are so bent on being "class leading" them they would do something to raise their GVWR. Why don't they?

Oh wow! Take a good look at the pictures, the notes, and the fuel prices of the 2014 Ram 2500 5.7L fuelly posts that are over 14 mpg. Do you notice something a bit odd?

http://www.fuelly.com/car/ram/2500/2014?engineconfig_id=6647&bodystyleconfig_id=&submodel_id=

Lets see if you are smart enough and know enough about Rams to to figure it out.

You don't believe fuelly, your preferred example for MPG?
You must be ALLL1. Only him and LOL BC makes personal attacks when they have no argument.
We are done in here. You don't accept even your own posts. LOL.

So you didn't catch the mistakes in those fuelly posts. You mean to tell me that you being a huge Ram fan and a Mr. Know-it-all about Rams and you did not catch the mistakes in those posts while I did? I am going to give you one last shot to catch the mistakes before I completely embarras-s you in front of all your Ram friends.

Meeh.

So is that a no that you could not catch the mistakes?

You are the mistake.

Okay let the embarrassment begin. Besides from the fact that only a moron would think that a 6,500 lb 2500 with a 5.7L actually gets better average fuel economy than the 5,400 lb 1500 with the same 5.7L, there are some things you should have caught just by looking at the pictures of the trucks.

Let's run down the list of all the 2014 2500 5.7L found in this fuelly.com link - http://www.fuelly.com/car/ram/2500/2014?engineconfig_id=6647&bodystyleconfig_id=&submodel_id=

The first two don't catch you eye as being off since they are below 13 mpg, but the third(dodgemaniac's profile) one does with a 17.8 MPG average. Then you take a good look at the at the truck in the picture and you will notice a big giant "C" for Cummins on the side of the front panel. You would figure a Ram nut would have caught this. Going into the link of that truck you will also find that the fuel cost is rather high for gasoline and is more in line with diesel prices. Then there is the dead giveaway in the notes of fill up number 22 where he states that his truck was in "Regen". Now why would a 5.7L gas engine need to regen? This made it obvious that whoevers fuelly profile that is that he accidentally selected that he had a 5.7L engine instead of a 6.7L engine.

Then I wondered if there were more and the one right after that(khmacdonald's profile) is the same with his 16.0 mpg average. You cannot clearly make out the C for Cummins in the picture but looking at the price for fuel and the fact that he is getting 12-13 mpg towing in his notes is a dead give away that it is a diesel that again accidentally selected 5.7L instead of 6.7L.

The fourth one (cowboy395's profile) that averages 16.6 mpg does not show a picture, but from the high fuel average price per gallon that is WAY over the average price per 87 octane in the US is a dead giveaway that he selected the wrong engine choice when he man his profile.

The next one to catch my eye was natecr's profile and his 16.2 mpg. In his profile picture you can make out the big C for Cummins on the side of his front panel and his higher $3.08 average cost per gallon coincides with diesel fuel NOT 87 octane.

Next is jverhalen's profile and his 17.0 mpg average. Here you can clearly see the bog C for Cummins on the side panel clear as day and his average $2.98 price per gallon also coincides with diesel not 87 octane.

Then there is 1xfd4's profile with his 16.9 mpg average. Again, the big C for Cummins is clearly seen on the side of the front panel and his average $3.42 per gallon is way over the price of 87 octane.

The go down to scottgoad's profile and his 15.1 average. There is no picture, but the dead give away here is the $3.49 average fuel cost and his one and only note where he said he added DEF fluid. If you knew anything about Rams then you would know that the 5.7L does not require DEF fluid.

Last but not least is redbeard6111's profile and his 19.1 mpg average. This one is just riddled with inconsistencies and the $3.89 average fuel price should be a giveaway anyways.

So taking those erroneous profiles out and averaging the rest of the profiles the average fuel economy for the 2014 2500 5.7L is 11.7 mpg going by their profiles. Man, I am shocked that you didn't catch those things especially the clear as day big C on the some of those pictures. One would guess that a big Ram fan such as yourself would have caught that.

Cool.
It's just tells me ,that only morons in your country contribute to fuelly and you shouldn't use it like your best source for Mpg in the past and in the future as well, because they might drive F150 V8 5L posting in ecoboost section easily.
You just embarrassed your fellow colleges with cummins engine. Not me. I have nothing to do with fuelly and I said many times I don't trust it regards your ecoboost numbers. Thank you for proving my point.

Oh, nice way to spin it but you were the one who believed and posted those numbers so don't try and wiggle your way out of it now. Why did you post these numbers as if they were true? Because you believed them to be true and did not know enough about Rams to see they were false numbers where people mistakenly selected 5.7L instead of 6.7L engines. So don't try to slime your way out if it like a woman. You F'ed up so take your mistake like a man instead of trying to deflect the blame. Although it figures that you would try to deflect your mistakes given where you come from.

"that only morons in your country contribute to fuelly"

FALSE! there are many people from different countries throughout the world that contribute to fuelly. One can clearly see this in profiles of the brands that aren't even available in the US. I guess you are not to good at seeing the obvious or you ignore the obvious to push what you want to believe even though it is false.

Fuelly is a good source for mpg numbers IF you are smart enough to see through some of the bull -hit or incorrect profiles. In your case, I would not use it since even you as a Ram fan could not even see that some of the profiles were incorrect even though the evidence is right in front of you.

So now that I have squashed your "the Ram 2500 5.7L gets 15-16 mpg" false statement. lets gets back to what I was talking about which was the poor GVWR on the Ram 1500s and how Ram forces you to get a 2500 with DISMAL fuel economy along with DISMAL performance if you want a truck with any kind of respectable payload.

Sooooooo.......Why doesn't Ram rate their 1500s with a higher GVWR than 6,950 lbs in the 2A truck class? All the other class 2A half ton truck have a truck that is higher than 7,000 lbs GVWR so why doesn't Ram? What is the weak link in the truck that is holding them back from giving it a higher GVWR? You would think since they are so bent on being "class leading" them they would do something to raise their GVWR. Why don't they?

I have seen just US flag in fuelly posters you refer to.
I never believed in fuelly, now we know it's BS and you shouldn't use it anymore.

What is the difference between that and using Allpar which is a biased site and has proven multiple time to be wrong? You Ram fan boys still use them. I can use what I want just as you use Allpar and I don't believe a word they say.

As I said in your case, I would not use it since even you as a Ram fan could not even see that some of the profiles were incorrect even though the evidence is right in front of you. There are many correct profiles on there, but you have to know a little something about vehicles to know decipher what is correct which you apparently lack.

Anyways, I know you keep wanting to change my subject because you are embarrassed that the Ram 1500 is on BOTTOM of the 2A class and lord knows you don't like to listen to anything negative about Ram or when they are not "class leading" in something. Sooooooo.......Why doesn't Ram rate their 1500s with a higher GVWR than 6,950 lbs in the 2A truck class? All the other class 2A half ton truck have a truck that is higher than 7,000 lbs GVWR so why doesn't Ram? What is the weak link in the truck that is holding them back from giving it a higher GVWR? You would think since they are so bent on being "class leading" them they would do something to raise their GVWR. Why don't they?

You are sick ALLLL1. Do you really want to blame I used fuelly , when you referring to them all the time and and your fellow citizens and colleagues with Cummins are retarded?
Should I pick only numbers I like , like you do? Where is a guarantee , that ecoboost has Mpg you trying to present in here based on fuelly?
Nowhere. Fuelly lost any credibility, so forget about it. You proved that by yourself to yourself. Nothing else.

Sorry, for the late response and all. I was out actually having a life and now my weekend is winding down. I would say that I hope you didn't keep checking if I posted something here every waking moment this weekend since you don't have a life, but I know you did.

Like I said, I don't really think you sould use or reference fuelly since you do not know enough about vehicles to comprehend what you are looking at. Afteral, you actually believed that a 6,500 lb 2500 with a 5.7L actually gets better average fuel economy than the 5,400 lb 1500 with the same 5.7L. I mean come on. A 12 year old would have knew better and would not have even bothered posting that because he would not want to embarrass himself. However, since you did not know what you were looking at then you posted it and actually believed it. Another thing, Cummins owners are also Ram owners so if you make fun of Cummins 6.7L owners then you make fun of Ram owners too. Although I can give a rats arse what you think of anybody because you words and what you think mean nothing to me.

Anyways, I know you keep wanting to change my subject because you are embarrassed that the Ram 1500 is on BOTTOM of the 2A class and lord knows you don't like to listen to anything negative about Ram or when they are not "class leading" in something. Sooooooo.......Why doesn't Ram rate their 1500s with a higher GVWR than 6,950 lbs in the 2A truck class? All the other class 2A half ton truck have a truck that is higher than 7,000 lbs GVWR so why doesn't Ram? What is the weak link in the truck that is holding them back from giving it a higher GVWR? You would think since they are so bent on being "class leading" them they would do something to raise their GVWR. Why don't they?

Hecho En Mex-Ico V8 -

Cut Snivelina some slack.

Snivelina struggles with English comprehension since he just got off the boat a relatively short time ago.



The comments to this entry are closed.