GM Inside News Forum banner

Ford F-150 aces crash tests as GM pickups fall short

6K views 58 replies 39 participants last post by  doh 
#1 ·
Ford F-150 aces crash tests as GM pickups fall short
Chris Woodyard
USA TODAY
April 17, 2015


Federal regulators have given its top five-star rating to the biggest version of the nation's bestselling vehicle, the Ford F-150, but General Motors' new midsize pickups came in at four stars.
GM didn't fare as well with its midsize, steel-bodied pickups. The Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon, which are corporated siblings, were rated at four stars overall for their extended-cab versions. They received the top five stars for side collisions and but only three for rollover protection. Chevrolet's full-size pickup, Silverado, is rated at five stars overall.
More at link: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...50-crash-ratings-chevrolet-colorado/25889207/
 
#4 ·
It says "GM pickups" not Silverado, full size, or anything of the like. So how exactly is that misleading?
 
#14 ·
Surprising that even after ~$500 million on localized Colorado-Canyon, a problem still persists.
I'm sure that GM will be correcting this on the fly and retesting ASAP.
We will never know, but it would be interesting to see what the ex-US market Colorado would have scored on this test.
 
#12 ·
Crash test ratings are not "vague".

Hard to believe people are fine with this. Any other automaker that introduced a new vehicle with a crash rating like this would be picked apart and laughed at on this site.
 
#27 ·
Really??

I know I for one was definitely misled. Like others, I assumed apples to apples, and thought they were comparing to the Silverado. How many people read to the very bottom, which is where they actually made it somewhat clear?

Don't try to tell me that these journalists don't know they're being misleading. I'm pretty confident they know exactly what they're doing, and have a clear penchant for bashing GM.
 
#23 ·
BS headline, just another strike at GM. That said yes the mid sized twins ought to do better in the test. Hopefully GM acts quickly on it.
 
#30 ·
A 4* on the truck that most people will buy isn't that bad at all. Plus, they didn't include ALL the rankings either. Then, they didn't actually link to the test results either leading the reader to go and explore to find those. Face it, it was a pretty poor blurb.

Did you happen to see where the F150 got "only" a 4* on the rollover protection as well?
 
#33 ·
At first I was "misled" also because I own a '14 Sierra and my brother just bought a '15 Silverado so without reading the article I assumed the same as most here that they were comparing full sized vehicles. I'm glad it is not the full sizers because we own them but that being said, GM really need to make the C and C 5 star rated.
 
#34 · (Edited)
The article title and content are very misleading. Makes you think ALL GM trucks are poor in crash tests, and the lemmings out there that don't read will assume as much and spread negativity against GM. That is what is bothering people here. I don't understand why liberal news hates on GM so much, GM is unfortunately the biggest contributor to liberal politics. Besides the truck that got bad ratings was a stripped work truck that didn't have all the available safety systems that could have recieved a higher score?
 
#49 ·
I think it's more a generational thing than liberal-vs-conservative. Fox News was one of the biggest critics of GM during the bankruptcy, and intentionally misled people about the Volt on multiple occasions as part of their efforts to create a conflated sense that Obama was greenwashing America. In fact, conservatives are probably mainly responsible for killing the Volt's chances of being an all-out success, rather than a partial failure.

So on the conservative side, I think GM is mainly hated for having union workers, and conservatives despise labor unions, or anything that threatens the status of rich people running the world. On the liberal side, I think at least in my baby boom generation they became slaves of Consumer Reports, which built a nice little empire on the premise that Japan was here to save us from the evil American car companies. Also, once Ralph Nader got the ball rolling with "Unsafe At Any Speed" in the sixties, journalists gradually grabbed on to the idea that attacking the GM as the biggest target possible made them feel credible, and that seems to hold sway even through today (now in just the past few years you start to see a little of that spilling over to Toyota). Granted, GM sometimes painted the bulls-eye on its own ass, but there is clearly disproportionate media focus on GM's failures compared to other companies. One of the most heinous examples being when NBC's Dateline faked tests to make GM trucks with "sidesaddle" gas tanks catch fire in staged impacts.

But time will pass and generations and demographics change. I think GM realizes there is a sliver of hope in changing the biased lay of the land over the next few years with the youngest drivers today, whose parents all coveted BMWs, Mercedes, Lexi, etc. (and often settle for Camrys and Accords.) I think there are a lot of kids now who want Camaros and Mustangs, and who even think some Cadillacs are cool. Give it 10 years.
 
#36 · (Edited)
The link includes 2012 and 2011 MYR results.

On the upper left - oops, upper right - there is a box to filter out only 2015 results.

The four 2015 Colorado results are as described - but you just gave an idea on something to check - about the site.

Back in a bit. Nope. No joy as per last.

Meanwhile here is a highly relevant link from Chevrolet -http://www.chevrolet.com/colorado-small-truck/specs/trims.html

Also from the Corporate presser
-FX3 StabiliTrak, stability control system S S S S S S S
across all Colorado as per Regulation backed by Law.

https://media.gm.com/media/us/en/chevrolet/vehicles/colorado/2015.tab3.html


With listed GVWRs between 5,400 / 6,000 lbs. - could not be any other way.
 
#39 · (Edited)
Actually.... a former or current Ranger owner / operator would be very pleased about the safety performance and enhancements these 2.5L equipped Colorado(s) represents.

Kinda' like a Stearman and a Lear.
 
#43 ·
#45 ·
Pickups might be wide, but they also have a higher center of gravity which counter acts this. Just on visual observation, the Colorado looks to be just as high (or nearly so) as the Silverado, yet is not nearly as wide, so it makes sense it will not perform as well in the SSF (Static Stability Factor) calculation. This article describes how the test is conducted and the SSF calculated.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/809868/pages/IntroBack.html

The only way to improve the Colorado is to make it lower or wider or both. It passed the dynamic test, but obviously could be better in the stability calculation.

A vehicle's SSF is calculated using the formula:

SSF = T/(2H)

Where
T=track width
H=height of the center of gravity of the vehicle
 
#47 ·
But the new F150 is held together by Elmer's glue and pop rivets. How can it be better in crashes?
 
#50 · (Edited)
A couple of things to bear in mind.

For each of F150 and also Colorado.

One, on the rollover NHTSA two part metric, the two F150s were assigned a net 19.1 % propensity to roll factor, and the two Colorado were calculated @ 22.0 %.

The dividing line between the 3 and 4 star rating is 20.0 %.

( 10.x /20.0 = 4, 20.x - 30.0 = 3 star )

Make of it what you will, but without a doubt, the F150 is a 'low' performing 4 star, and the Colorados used here are a 'high' performing 3 star.

The calculated difference is not so much.


More like the difference between a B+ student and an A -...........on scale with no pluses and minuses.

( Nonetheless, not taking anything away from Ford's performance here - rather using the actual assigned scores to provide context for Colorado. )


Second, the nature of the calculation has various parameters concerning max. payload and distributions - and fuel etc.

A solid guess is these Colorados have more than a decent chance to improve into a 4 star - so in terms of real world running in more favorable and likely payload configurations and so forth.

Not jabbing at the test - just pointing something out.

Third, we need to see how all F150 and all Colorado configurations - that are going to be rated - rate out before jumping to a bunch of unsupported conclusions.

Changing Cab and or Bed configurations and or prime movers and 2wd versus 4wd can take a 4 down to a 3, and a 3 up to a 4.

Happens all the time with Pick Up product as an example.

And often enough with certain kinds of SUVs.

Even with regard to other kinds of light automotive product - besides the full size Vans.

Same with regard to a raised / dedicated Off Road package - or similar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blkwrxsti
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top