IIHS Testing

IIHS Testing Has Truckmakers Scrambling to Respond

Quote :

The challenging small-overlap front crash test conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (a third-party testing agency sponsored by the insurance industry) is shaking things up in the half-ton pickup truck world.

First announced to be a part of IIHS' new pickup testing regimen almost three years ago, the test replicates what happens when a vehicle's front corner clips a tree, pole or other vehicle at 40 mph. It has truckmakers scrambling to improve front-end and cab structural safety. The test — and truckmakers' response — is a big win for consumers because automakers don't redesign the structure of pickup trucks very often.

IIHS tests are important because the institute tests each vehicle configuration and measures side, roof crush and small overlap results. By contrast, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's safety tests are less comprehensive, with the rollover scoring done with a mathematical calculation.

IIHS' most recent safety tests yielded just one half-ton pickup — the 2016 Ford F-150 SuperCab and SuperCrew models — with a clean sweep of "Good" scores in all seven test categories, garnering it the Top Safety Pick for the segment when equipped with Ford's optional basic-rated forward collision warning system. IIHS tested two-wheel-drive models from Chevrolet, GMC, Ford, Ram and Toyota. The institute selects 4x2 models for testing because they are the most-purchased variant nationwide. It tested extended- and crew-cab models from those manufacturers with the exception of Ford; the Top Safety Pick rating for the 2015 SuperCrew model carries over to the 2016. For 2016, IIHS tested Ford's SuperCab version.

For the other brands the crew-cab models, with the larger roof and more glass, received worse overall ratings than their extended-cab counterparts. Three of the extended-cab models tested received acceptable overall ratings — Chevy Silverado 1500, GMC Sierra 1500 and Toyota Tundra — while the crew-cab models got a marginal rating. The Ram 1500 was the only pickup tested to receive a marginal rating overall as well as a poor rating in the structural category.

IIHS plans to test the 2017 Nissan Titan half-ton and the all-new 2017 Honda Ridgeline later this year, but does not have any other midsize pickups scheduled for testing at this time.

Here is the design status of each half-ton pickup and the truckmakers' official reactions to the IIHS report. Below, we've provided images of the actual crew cab test vehicles the IIHS crashed, both pre and post crash.

Chevrolet
The Silverado 1500 was redesigned for the 2016 model year, which included structural front-end underbody changes, new headlight designs, grilles and hood shapes. GM is not commenting on the IIHS safety ratings.

Ford
You have to give credit to Ford for so quickly modifying its 2015 design. When it was discovered that the 2015 SuperCab models without the wheel-well support bars did not survive the small-overlap front crash test as well as the SuperCrew model (which had the wheel-well bars), Ford instantly made them standard on all regular-cab and SuperCab F-150s.

GMC
The Sierra 1500 also was redesigned for the 2016 model year, which included structural front-end underbody changes (identical to the Silverado 1500), new headlight designs, grilles, extra optional features and a new hood. GM is not commenting on the IIHS safety ratings.

Nissan
The 2017 Titan half-ton is not due to go on sale until later this year and likely won't be tested by IIHS until late in 2017. We would expect the new Nissan to do well since Nissan has had the most time to create a new pickup design. Nissan is not commenting on the IIHS safety ratings.

Ram
Redesigned in 2013, just after IIHS came out with its new pickup truck testing guidelines that included the small-overlap front crash testing starting in the 2015 model year. A spokesman for Ram told PickupTrucks.com: "Our vehicles are designed for real-world performance and no single test determines overall, real-world vehicle safety. Every FCA [Fiat Chrysler Automobiles] U.S. vehicle meets or exceeds all applicable motor-vehicle safety standards."

Toyota
The Tundra also was last refreshed in 2014 (like the Silverado and Sierra 1500s, but both of those models already have been updated) but nothing has been structurally changed since that time to better accommodate the IIHS small-overlap test. Toyota told us: "We are evaluating the test results with the goal of finding new ways to continuously improve the performance of the Toyota trucks and to further enhance the safety of our vehicles. Importantly, the Toyota trucks tested continue to meet or exceed all federally required motor vehicle safety standards."

PickupTrucks.com

Aside from Ford's, those are rough results. Wonder why GM was unable to shine with a relatively new pickup design. This test shouldn't have been a surprise as they had the same test last year. Ford had a relatively simple solution prior to last year's test even though they didn't implement it across the entire F150 lineup.

Its tough driving a Ram looking at those results. But I'm really surprised at the "lower leg & foot" category, all Poor except Ford. I'm not sure what it says except you likely wont be walking away after an accident unless you're in the Ford. (small pun/joke there)

Most deaths occur from head, neck and chest injuries. All trucks do well in those categories. I would rather walk away than deal with multiple broken bones in my foot, at my age they hurt enough as it is.

There are pictures of the dummies lower leg and foot posted elsewhere and the difference is not so big a driver may face amputation in any off the trucks. Typical of IIHS to create alarm and yet they have never created a solution.

Really no sense in a modern truck like the Toyota or the Ram to be folding up like that into the cab area.

If you even lived through it, you'd be Peg Leg McGee

Just don't go drive your truck offset into an immovable object like an M1A1 Abrams tank.

I'd like to see the statistics of which in the totality of vehicle crashes what percentage involve large areas of immovable, none absorbing structures.

It doesn't need to be an immovable object, similar forces could come from a moving vehicle from the opposite direction. Bottom line is, it's an easy fix and no reason for any manufacturer to neglect it.

Similar? Qualify similar? A vehicle in the opposite direction would absorb crash energy as well, but not this test. Even double the closure rate, head on collision will have 100% greater space between passenger compartments all the while crash force is being absorbed and dissipated by both structures as they converge. IIHS testing is a perfectly square test. The truck strikes the object which is perfectly flat at a exact perpendicular intersection point. It appears to be offset just enough to be outside of the frame rail. How similar is that square block of steel that spans from the ground to over four feet in height compared to a guard rail or any object a truck could catch in an exact 90 degree angle and offset to cause?

These pictures at the emotional strings (see how BAD it is) so they can justify jacking up your insurance rates (IIHS is funded by the insurance companies). Ram truck sales have been on a pretty solid rate of increase over the past few years. How better for the insurance companies to address this growing market with justification (see) of another rate increase. Media and insurance companies would never convolute an issue (GM saddle tanks). Tobacco companies did the same thing. Pharmaceutics today do the same thing.

Vehicles have never been perfectly risk adverse from injury or death in a collision, nothing that moves is completely risk adverse. Today's vehicles have never been safer.

Want a fundamental way to seriously address injuries without being charged by a company for it? Lower the national speed limit. Used to be 55. Now it's a free for all. 70mph zone, people do 90mph. SH-130 in Texas as an 80 mph limit with people that do 90 to 100 mph without even thinking twice about it.

Want something that can immediately address fuel efficiency, lower the national speed limit. We won't do this, because there is no money in it for the companies.

How about having a real licensing and training program for obtaining a license and that it must renewed over X years or you lose the privilege? Last time I had to take an actual driving test was when I turned 16.

Around 8k people annually are killed annual by firearm homicides, a number of these are even justified. Yet over 30k people are killed in vehicle accidents. It isn't because we're all driving around in death traps. A good majority of these are people simply don't know how to drive, what to look for and how to not put oneself at risk for getting into a situation.

How about people in the country take a real responsibility instead of pushing it off on someone else to do on their behalf? The only solution our country has for any problem? Break out your wallet.

A force is a force. No doubt there are many factors involved including mass, speed, acceleration, center of gravity, vehicle dimensions, angles but it's all a red herring. From a safety point of view the truth remains, there's no excuse to ignore easy solutions.

I'd say with all the texting these days a crash of this nature would be common, along with rear enders. Sad but true. Wanna stop it? Place a device in vehicles that would disable texting if the engine is running.

But the other 3 or 4 potential passengers want to be distracted or entertained during travel.

Hopefully technology continues to improve and become common place with automated driving, collision avoidance, and automatic braking.

What are the easy solutions implied are being ignored?

I heard automatic breaking systems will be mandatory on all new cars and trucks soon. Though I font remember what year the deadline is.

Ah, and as I back out of this thread guess what I see. A thread about automatic breaking.

joemac wrote:

What are the easy solutions implied are being ignored?

Ford's solution involved tubular metal bars installed that deflect forces outward and away from the cabin. I think PUTC had undercarriage pictures of it a while back.

Quote :

Because of a simple solution, the redesigned 2015 Ford F-150 SuperCrew was able to pass the Institute for Highway Safety’s small offset crash test. Tubular bars were welded to the pickup’s frame. These were positioned in the front wheel wells, fore and aft of the tire.

http://www.4wheelsnews.com/auto/2015-ford-f-150-supercrew-passes-iihs-crash-test-34856.html

The Ford did really well and the GM did pretty good too. The Ram and Tundra are just horrible. I agree, there is no excuse for such poor results.

2 lane road, someone falls asleep, drifts over, corner to corner head on. Everyone dies.

This just happened down in my old hometown in La. One 2008 F150, one 07 or so Silverado. Cabs were crushed in on the drivers side on both. They had to cut the bodies out.

One 17 yr old girl, one 19 yr old.

Probably more common than the straight up head ons.

Just down the road on US-377 week ago.

Mom and toddler dead, Mom and her 12 year old dead.

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/community/fort-worth/article71021752.html

Quote :

Nissan Rogue was traveling southbound near the 8000 block of U.S. 377, crossed into the northbound lane and crashed head-on into a Volvo XC60.

Preliminary investigation of cause of crash?  Phone use.

Quote :

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2016/02/12-year-old-boy-killed-four-others-injured-in-crash-on-highway-380-in-denton.html/

Quote :

F-350 and Nissan Quest

Suspected cause of the crash?  Phone use.  Raw physics of mass and speed even in moderate quantities can't be engineered safe.

The meme in today's society has permeated every fabric.  People willfully ignoring their individual responsibility of safety and security and pushed that responsibility onto something else, a system, a structure, a company, a government.  No one thing will impact driver and passenger safety more than individuals and their decisions.

You could do hundreds of these a day.  It isn't the vehicles that are unsafe, it's the drivers.

There are laws, multiple laws/ordinances broken in these incidents, speed, seat belts, no electronic phone use while driving, all ignoring, excusing, condoning the activity and pushing the responsibility of safety and security onto something or someone else.

I wouldn't call the Tundra or the Ram above safe.

Anyone can gain an outcome if the specification of circumstances are designed to target a result.

Check out the mass and structure of the imposed object of collision.

And the Tundra and Ram still aren't what I'd call safe.

joemac wrote:

Anyone can gain an outcome if the specification of circumstances are designed to target a result.

Check out the mass and structure of the imposed object of collision.

That's crazy, the difference between crew cab and extended cab. Obviously a lot more structural change than just a B-pillar.

meh,

you'd be walking all the time and would't get in an accident if you owned the ford anyway as the ecoboost would be hydro-locked from the humidity and in the shop

I kid, I kid,

well done ford, the others may adopt what they did

Cars see that kind of damage all the time and the test's closing speed isn't that fast. It doesn't matter if an real world crash offloads force whereas the test mass doesn't since there'll always be a bigger and/or faster traveling vehicle. There are also weather slickened roads, roadside trees, cement work, guard rails, parked cars and trucks. The scenario is universally real world.

It's just solving a problem with science. The point is to set a standard, build a repeatable test, test vehicles to the standard, and report the results to manufacturers and consumers.

The IIHS knew there was a problem, they have plenty of real world data, and can generate realistic tests. Said another way, aside from conspiracy theories there's no reason for the IIHS to create unrealistic tests.

This seems like a brand loyalty issue. Ones favorite brand didn't fare well so the test must be a conspiracy.

Each vehicle has its strengths and its weaknesses, all but Ford in this test in this vehicle configuration didn't fare all that well.

Next topic....

Yea there's no reason for an insurance funded testing organisation to create scenarios to drive up insurance rates. Thank IIHS on your next rate/premium decrease. The Clinton foundation is also legitimate non-profit too that didn't launder money for political favors and business benefit.

Vehicles aren't impervious structures. As long as people treat them as such, lot of people will die. The next safety gadget won't change the course.

A lot has changed for the better over the years. Personally I'd rather let someone design improvements into the machinery around me versus let my family have near zero chance of survival.

How is the test rigged? Its the same test across all brands across a lot of configurations. Different results because the vehicles are designed different and therefore built different.

I guess Ford wanted a better rating so they got together with the IIHS and designed there pickups to perform better. I wonder how much they paid IIHS? I think GM should file a complaint with the government and demand money to pay for a vehicle redesign to get better results because they have been treated unfairly and are at a competitive disadvantage.