IIHS finds Ford only reinforced trims the IIHS would test

[Subyman]

I saw this over at Car and Driver this morning and thought it was quite disturbing.

The four-door SuperCrew passed all five tests with the highest-possible “good” rating.

However,

[The F150 SuperCab] structure as “poor,” which is below “marginal” and the group’s worst rating.

The reason?

it’s the first time the IIHS has witnessed such divergent results for one U.S.-specified car model. As a result, the IIHS says it’s planning to crash-test several body styles of other full-size pickups this year, and it is investigating whether other manufacturers also are reinforcing vehicle trims it knows the IIHS will test.

The SuperCab is on the left and the SuperCrew is on the right. Traditionally the IIHS tests the most popular trim level, which would be the SuperCrew. Ford heavily reinforced the SuperCrew model with extra steel beams before and after the front tires to ensure they do not enter the cab. Ford left these reinforcements off all other trims of the F150, which they assumed IIHS would not test.

After the IIHS heard that Ford pulled the extra steel from other trims, they decided to test both versions and found the huge difference in crash ratings.

IMO, this is very unfortunate for the consumer. The IIHS says that they see some divergence between models, but it never goes from "Industry best" to a borderline complete failure. I'll be very curious to see them test other trucks. I own a GMC DoubleCab, which is in the same category as the SuperCab from Ford.

http://blog.caranddriver.com/iihs-2...te-results-between-crew-cab-and-extended-cab/

 

[vshah]

that is a huge difference in compartment intrusion!

 

[Midwayman]

Wow.... I smell a huge lawsuit. I would be PISSED if I bought the other trim.

 

[ElFenix]

Wow.... I smell a huge lawsuit. I would be PISSED if I bought the other trim.

won't be huge, only like 3 of the other types have been sold. free crewcab model or 2016 model, maybe

 

[thomsbrain]

Though these particular pics are from the really tough and new small-frontal overlap test, that SuperCab pic is a great visual of why I refuse to buy the "trucks are safer than cars" argument. Sure, you have weight and strength and rigidity, but it's all in the frame, not the passenger cage. Significant passenger cage intrusion, especially in the knee area, has long been par for the course with body-on-frame vehicles. They are basically sharp, heavy battering rams with soft, squishy bubbles strapped on top. The frame pierces deeply into whatever you hit, and the passenger cage just gets peeled off the top like a banana peel. Safe for neither the truck driver nor the poor soul who got skewered by the frame.

 

[michal1980]

Though these particular pics are from the really tough and new small-frontal overlap test, that SuperCab pic is a great visual of why I refuse to buy the "trucks are safer than cars" argument. Sure, you have weight and strength and rigidity, but it's all in the frame, not the passenger cage. Significant passenger cage intrusion, especially in the knee area, has long been par for the course with body-on-frame vehicles. They are basically sharp, heavy battering rams with soft, squishy bubbles strapped on top. The frame pierces deeply into whatever you hit, and the passenger cage just gets peeled off the top like a banana peel. Safe for neither the truck driver nor the poor soul who got skewered by the frame.

better drive that 1970's based panther. all that mass makes it safe. ohh wait a second.

 

[thescreensavers]

Good on IIHS this is why we crash test. Its easy for manufactures to design to pass a known test.

 

[Thump553]

Sounds like a slam dunk win for products liability lawyers for accidents for any of the other trim levels. Ford was penny wise, multi-million dollar liability foolish.

 

[Viper GTS]

Given how much Ford is doing right lately this seems like an absurd misstep.

Viper GTS

 

[theeedude]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...nds-injury-risk-for-ford-s-new-aluminum-f-150

Ford chose to first put the extra safety supports on the SuperCrew because that’s the top-selling version of the F-150, Raj Nair, the automaker’s global product development chief, said in an interview. The specific “small overlap test” that challenged the F-150’s SuperCab is a relatively new assessment.
“That test mode was introduced in the middle of the development of the F-150,” Nair said. “We addressed that small overlap front crash in the SuperCrew first because that’s 83 percent of our volume.”

It still looks bad.

 

[thescreensavers]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XkH4Ss8shE

These seem so difficult to add...

The Front bar prob does the most by transferring energy into the frame rail...

 

[Fenixgoon]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...nds-injury-risk-for-ford-s-new-aluminum-f-150



It still looks bad.

That's a little different. Redesigning a car is a massive undertaking, and the lead time is like 5 years for a brand new model. And ford smartly redesigned the highest volume model first.

I'm curious about the exact timing of things. Usually the crash test requirements and those sorts of things are advertised well in advance.

It could be that the other F150 models were mostly designed and then the new crash requirements were announced.

The OPs article vs yours paint two very different pictures

 

[Hail The Brain Slug]

That's a little different. Redesigning a car is a massive undertaking, and the lead time is like 5 years for a brand new model. And ford smartly redesigned the highest volume model first.

I'm curious about the exact timing of things. Usually the crash test requirements and those sorts of things are advertised well in advance.

It could be that the other F150 models were mostly designed and then the new crash requirements were announced.

The OPs article vs yours paint two very different pictures

The article says they began briefing automakers in 2009, and began actually testing with the new specifications in 2012. When did Ford's new model come out? Oh, yeah. 2015. Assuming a 5 year development time, ford should have known right around the time they started designing the new model.

Not sure how Ford can claim they didn't know in time, unless it took them 8 years to design the new F150.

 

[clok1966]

No matter how you sugar coat it its not good, and for all the Ford lovers or haters, you know the rest are doing it too if Ford is. But in fords case they are using a lighter, and yes, weaker structural material to save some MPG for the PR wars so it is worse.

But anybody thinking just Ford is doing crap like this is wrong, they all try to screw the system if they think they can get away with it.

 

[Topweasel]

No matter how you sugar coat it its not good, and for all the Ford lovers or haters, you know the rest are doing it too if Ford is. But in fords case they are using a lighter, and yes, weaker structural material to save some MPG for the PR wars so it is worse.

But anybody thinking just Ford is doing crap like this is wrong, they all try to screw the system if they think they can get away with it.

More expensive to fix yes but I still wonder where this stupidity of weaker structural material comes from. You do understand that no one uses pure aluminum right? They use an alloy, when you are talking about structural components the can and do use alloys that are as strong or stronger than their steel counterparts.

 

[thescreensavers]

Aluminum Body /= structural component.

 

[jagec]

you know the rest are doing it too if Ford is.

How does this follow? Saab went bankrupt partly because they wouldn't compromise their safety standards, despite GM's pushing, and therefore weren't making money. Now, if VOLVO was found to be using weaker components on non-tested trims, then I would worry.

I agree that any company is just a few bad managers away from a similar fiasco, but that doesn't mean that they are currently there.

 

[Jimzz]

How does this follow? Saab went bankrupt partly because they wouldn't compromise their safety standards, despite GM's pushing, and therefore weren't making money. Now, if VOLVO was found to be using weaker components on non-tested trims, then I would worry.

I agree that any company is just a few bad managers away from a similar fiasco, but that doesn't mean that they are currently there.

WHAT?!?!? That's BS. They went bankrupt as no one bought their cars. Even if they save/made $1000 more per car it still would not have mattered. Others have tried to revive Saab and failed; so no the safety part is just BS.

 

[leper84]

Saab and Volvo both share the same safety strategy-

You can't crash it when its in the shop. And they are. Always.

 

[Pulsar]

But in fords case they are using a lighter, and yes, weaker structural material to save some MPG for the PR wars so it is worse.

God I hate this bullshit. Do you know ANYTHING about structural engineering, or material engineering?

You don't have to answer. It's rhetorical.

Let me clue you in. If they could get the same strength to weight ratio out of steel, then planes would be made of steel. They can't. So they use aluminum. Because, by weight, it's a much stronger material.

Vehicles still use steel because it's cheap. When you're in volume manufacturing (car industry, 17 million in the us per year) versus plane manufacturing (one or two hundred a year), those small costs add up HUGE.

 

[LTC8K6]

The F-150 has a steel frame, just like it always did. In fact, they are trying to increase production of the steel frames by adding another supplier.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/ford-hi...o-meet-demand-1438961830?mod=yahoo_hs&ref=yfp

Ford Motor Co. has hired a second supplier to provide steel frames for its best-selling F-150 truck, hoping to better meet delivery demands amid a parts shortage from its current supplier, according to people familiar with the matter.

The Dearborn, Mich., auto maker is struggling to get as many F-150s on dealer lots as originally planned because its supplier, Mexico-based Metalsa SA, is having trouble building enough frames to keep pace with production needs, according to the people.

The frame shortage has been going on for months and continues to stifle production at Ford’s two pickup plants at a time when light-truck demand—juiced by low gas prices—is running at a 10-year high.

To fill the gap, Ford has tapped Livonia, Mich.-based supplier Tower International Inc. to build the additional frames, which are expected to become available in October, people familiar with the plans say.

Meanwhile, the auto maker has been shipping frames to its factories by truck rather than rail to get them there faster but at a higher cost, these people say.

 

[Ramses]

This still seems like overblown BS to me. All the trucks meet the fed safety regs, this stuff is like extra credit, it's optional. Good for them for even bothering at all imo. I heard a bunch of people asking where the test results from Dodge and GM were for this test, and there aren't any even remotely recently. Ford would apparently still sell the ever loving crap out of those trucks, even if they all failed. And not take government bailouts to do it unless I miss-remember my recent history.

They are also not the only one's to ever be caught doing this sorta thing, it's documented more than a few times over the decades.

 

[gorcorps]

No matter how you sugar coat it its not good, and for all the Ford lovers or haters, you know the rest are doing it too if Ford is. But in fords case they are using a lighter, and yes, weaker structural material to save some MPG for the PR wars so it is worse.

But anybody thinking just Ford is doing crap like this is wrong, they all try to screw the system if they think they can get away with it.

All they changed were the outer panels, which are adhered onto a substructure. That substructure is still steel. All of the doors even still have steel in them, it's just not on any of the exposed (visible) panels. What Ford changed to aluminum has zero bearing on these crash tests, because all structure is still steel.

 

[Viper GTS]

There is always going to be a subset of the population (and let's be blunt, it's the old people) who don't understand that the skin of a modern vehicle is in no way structural.

It's just there to look pretty and make the air go where it's supposed to.

I'd bet (though I'm no expert) that the old vehicles were no different it's just public perception going from thick steel to aluminum/plastic is going to confuse the general population.

Viper GTS

 

[gorcorps]

There is always going to be a subset of the population (and let's be blunt, it's the old people) who don't understand that the skin of a modern vehicle is in no way structural.

It's just there to look pretty and make the air go where it's supposed to.

I'd bet (though I'm no expert) that the old vehicles were no different it's just public perception going from thick steel to aluminum/plastic is going to confuse the general population.

Viper GTS

I'm not sure... they had to use some pretty thick steel to get the shapes they wanted back then without cracks. So even though it wasn't designed to be that way, older vehicle bodies probably added at least some strength just from how thick they had to make the steel. It was also wildly different grades compared to the steel used now.

Modern door panels are usually made out of a bake hardenable steel... it's fairly easy to press, but carbon diffuses to dislocations at the paint curing temperature making them stronger and more dent resistant than they started. They don't have to be very thick, and are only made to be strong enough to resist door dings and such.

Body side outers (which consist of the back fender all the way up to the start of the front fender) are generally made from extra deep draw (aka interstitial free) steel. It's very soft, easy to press so you can easily make the very deep rounded shapes most auto makers use on these parts now. Back in the day you didn't have these grades, so you needed thicker steel to make complex shapes without cracking. These grades weren't possible until a lot of work was done with the vacuum degassing process, which pulls a vaccum on the molten steel below the partial pressure of CO and CO2... allowing almost all of the carbon in the steel to escape as gasses. A few alloy additions to make it stable but it's almost pure iron, and easy to form. It's so easy to form that they can make it very thin without tearing it.