GM Inside News Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 54 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,500 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Ford Focus & Ranger Have Rollover Risk
Tuesday October 26 2004
By Dee-Ann Durbin, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Two 2005 Ford vehicles, the two-door Focus and the Ranger 4x4 pickup, were the worst performers in new government crash and rollover tests, according to results released Tuesday.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said the rear passenger was at risk of serious head injury when the Focus was hit in the side in a 38.5 mph test. The Focus was tested without side air bags, which a Ford Motor Co. Web site lists as a $350 option on the vehicle.

NHTSA gave the Focus three out of five stars for driver's side protection and four out of five stars for rear passenger protection, the lowest ratings among cars tested. Those ratings didn't reflect the potential for head injury because NHTSA's side-impact ratings consider only chest injuries. A five-star rating means the likelihood of serious injury in a similar crash is 5 percent or less; three stars means the likelihood is 11 to 20 percent.


The Ranger 4x4 and its corporate twin, the Mazda B-Series 4x4, earned two stars in NHTSA's rollover ratings, the lowest of the 10 2005 pickups tested. NHTSA said the Ranger and the B-Series have a 30.6 percent chance of rolling over in a crash. The ratings consider the vehicle's height and weight and its performance in a 35 to 50 mph test with a sharp turn.

Ford spokeswoman Carolyn Brown said Ford plans to study the new data but believes the Focus and the Ranger are safe and perform similarly to comparable vehicles. Brown added that Ford thinks NHTSA is using faulty methods to predict chance of rollover. "The calculation that NHTSA is using is based on a model that includes outdated information and is not capable of producing real-world results," she said.

Full Story HERE

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,963 Posts
Ugly, problem-prone, and now unsafe? Awesome! Keep buying them people!!

Ford..For the Road Ahead...
yeah right. The road ahead to your local Ford dealership for the weekly recall.

Remember, 98% of all Fords are still on the road...the other 2% made it home.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,899 Posts
Ranger listed as best small truck in initial quality, second best in long term quality (behind Toyota). 4 cylinder has best gas mileage of any pickup. Best-selling compact truck for 16 years. I’ve never had a recall on my 1995 Ranger (w/ 270,000 miles) or my 2000 Ranger (w/ 46,000 miles). You mean newly redesigned trucks do better than old ones? Shocking. Regardless, the article doesn’t mention that the crash results are only from 5 trucks (10 if count 2 and 4wd models) – Ram, Colorado, Canyon, Ranger, B-Series. Since some of these are clones, it is really only between 3 trucks. Ram, Colorado/Canyon, and Ranger/B-Series.

In addition, NHTSA tested the 2-door hatchback, not sure if the results would have been different w/ a sedan version, doubt it since it was for front passengers I believe (I noticed a sedan was pictured).

NHTSA (didn’t have time to check side-impact for all):

2004 Ranger
Passenger - 4/5
Driver – 4/5
Frontal offset – Acceptable (out of Good, Acceptable, Marginal, Poor)

2005 4-Door Colorado
P – 4/5
D – 4/5

2003 S-10
P – 3/5
D – 3/5
Frontal offset – Marginal

2004 Dakota
P – 3/5
D – 5/5
Frontal Offset - Poor

2004 Tacoma
P - 4/5
D - 4/5
Frontal offset – Acceptable

2004 Frontier
P – 4/5
D – 4/5
Frontal Offset - Marginal
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,170 Posts
zeobandit said:
Ford has issues.......
Yeah, Ford lovers that bash GM make me laugh. If you are a Focus or Ranger fan, don't try to spin this, just encourage your favorite company to fix the problem. Don't try to justify a rollover risk with mpg ratings or recall stats.

One other point, anyone who buys a small vehicle and passes on side impact airbags when available is pretty stupid. These things save lives greater than 50% of the time they deploy. GM, Ford - make'em standard. You can take a hit from an SUV and live, if not walk away depending on the vehicle.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
895 Posts
The Focus test is bogus. That would be like NHTSA deciding to test the survivability of people jumping from airplanes and not allowing the parachute to be used. If the Focus has side impact airbags, why weren't they installed since they are available?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,258 Posts
I'm a Ford fan, but I'm not gonna spin this. The Ranger is in need of an update, but Ford hasn't said much about that - shame on them if it's not gonna be here in the next year or two. The US Focus is inexecusably still on the old platform and not the updated Mazda3 like everywhere else in the world. Of course, if side airbags are an option for the car, most people will get them - that will help crash survival. Neither of these two models is really new for 2005 -- the Focus got a sheetmetal and powertrain update, while the Ranger is unchanged.

Ford's "Built for the Road Ahead" advertising campaign is referring to the new models it has, like Five Hundred, Mustang, Freestyle, Super Duty, Escape Hybrid, and F-150 (not new for '05, but still fairly new).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,554 Posts
because they are not standard. IMO, its disgusting that car companies make such vital safetly equipment available only to the rich. For some reason, Ford gets in these situations more often than others - Pinto, Explorer, Focus, Ranger. They better make the side airbags standard on focus now, for this test shows that the car is unacceptable w/out them. I
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,170 Posts
laserwizard said:
The Focus test is bogus. That would be like NHTSA deciding to test the survivability of people jumping from airplanes and not allowing the parachute to be used. If the Focus has side impact airbags, why weren't they installed since they are available?
Its appropriate to test a vehicle with standard equipment. That helps provide incentive for automakers to make safety items standard. Its also appropriate to test with optional equipment, but testing isn't cheap, and a car needs to meet standards with standard equipment. Sound like Ford needs to bite the blue bullet and get the focus on the newer paltform. Laserwizard is going to say anything is bogus that is against the blue oval.

______________________________________________
What do George W and Laserwizard have in common?
IQ
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,252 Posts
laserwizard said:
The Focus test is bogus. That would be like NHTSA deciding to test the survivability of people jumping from airplanes and not allowing the parachute to be used. If the Focus has side impact airbags, why weren't they installed since they are available?
Of course, had this been the Chevy Cobalt, you would've made some off-handed comment about the car being boring AND dangerous. Once again, you've proven, as you do 98% of the time, that you're incapable of providing any sort of meaningful contribution to this forum. It's a shame, because you actually seem somewhat intelligent.


You need to stick with cranking out derivative and unimaginative PhotoChops and leave the real issues to people NOT wearing blue-tinged sunglasses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,999 Posts
laserwizard said:
The Focus test is bogus. That would be like NHTSA deciding to test the survivability of people jumping from airplanes and not allowing the parachute to be used. If the Focus has side impact airbags, why weren't they installed since they are available?
It is not a bogus test. Not everyone buys a Focus with the side airbags. The NHTSA does this all the time with Honda, Chevy, Ford, you name it. If the car doesn't come with the standard safety features they test it without the standard features. There are a lot of instances where they will test a car without side airbags - it does poorly, then test the same model with the side airbags. The differences are remarkable. Check out the NHTSA website and look for yourself. I find it bogus that these safety features don't come standard. I know it costs more money, but it could be the difference between life and death in an accident.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,258 Posts
vanshmack said:
Of course, had this been the Chevy Cobalt, you would've made some off-handed comment about the car being boring AND dangerous. Once again, you've proven, as you do 98% of the time, that you're incapable of providing any sort of meaningful contribution to this forum. It's a shame, because you actually seem somewhat intelligent.


You need to stick with cranking out derivative and unimaginative PhotoChops and leave the real issues to people NOT wearing blue-tinged sunglasses.
And what meaningful contribution has your post here made to this forum? None, because all you did was bash Laserwizard. But you have as much right as he does to be here and to talk. Just because someone has a different point of view does not make them wrong or worthless. Variety of opinion is what keeps this forum being so great. If everyone chanted the GM mantra here and didn't criticize things, most of us wouldn't bother anymore.

I want to see results of the Focus with the side airbags.. if the results are significantly better, then Ford really should just make them standard. But it would still only be a stopgap measure until a new platform is used. I really don't get why Ford did this. There must be some sort of bizzare contractual obligation somewhere that is preventing the Mazda3 platform being used for the US Focus... or perhaps it's a manufacturing issue for current Focus factories?? I really wish someone with more information on that issue would find the answer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,875 Posts
as far as rollover safety for the Ranger goes, it's a stupid B/S test. who takes a sharp turn at 35 to 50mph in a 4X4 pickup? if you do that, you deserve to roll it over, it's not a sports car. the Focus, i agree, should get better ratings and i'm a little disappointed by its performance, but i'm with awalbert, i want to see the test done with side airbags just to see the difference.

if you want five star side crash ratings in a compact, the new Civic gets them with side airbags...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,999 Posts
SUPERBADD75 said:
as far as rollover safety for the Ranger goes, it's a stupid B/S test. who takes a sharp turn at 35 to 50mph in a 4X4 pickup? if you do that, you deserve to roll it over, it's not a sports car. the Focus, i agree, should get better ratings and i'm a little disappointed by its performance, but i'm with awalbert, i want to see the test done with side airbags just to see the difference.

if you want five star side crash ratings in a compact, the new Civic gets them with side airbags...
I'm assuming the rollover safety test is supposed to represent an emergency maneuver. Say you're driving along doing 50 and a deer jumps out in front of you, natural instinct is to swerve and avoid the deer. If all the vehicles are tested this way, then they are on a level playing field.
About the Civic..the side airbags don't come standard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,999 Posts
impala02 said:
It is not a bogus test. Not everyone buys a Focus with the side airbags. The NHTSA does this all the time with Honda, Chevy, Ford, you name it. If the car doesn't come with the standard safety features they test it without the standard features. There are a lot of instances where they will test a car without side airbags - it does poorly, then test the same model with the side airbags. The differences are remarkable. Check out the NHTSA website and look for yourself. I find it bogus that these safety features don't come standard. I know it costs more money, but it could be the difference between life and death in an accident.
Sorry for the double post, I couldn't go back and edit. It is actually the IIHS (Insurance Inst. for Hwy Safety) that has tested the same model cars with and without side airbags. I don't know if the NHTSA does this.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,252 Posts
awalbert88 said:
And what meaningful contribution has your post here made to this forum? None, because all you did was bash Laserwizard. But you have as much right as he does to be here and to talk. Just because someone has a different point of view does not make them wrong or worthless. Variety of opinion is what keeps this forum being so great. If everyone chanted the GM mantra here and didn't criticize things, most of us wouldn't bother anymore.

I want to see results of the Focus with the side airbags.. if the results are significantly better, then Ford really should just make them standard. But it would still only be a stopgap measure until a new platform is used. I really don't get why Ford did this. There must be some sort of bizzare contractual obligation somewhere that is preventing the Mazda3 platform being used for the US Focus... or perhaps it's a manufacturing issue for current Focus factories?? I really wish someone with more information on that issue would find the answer.
I think you read a bit much into my post, as well missed the irony that it was infused with. First of all, I have no problem with people having different points of view. I do not believe that people not bearing the GM flag should be silenced here. On the contrary, there is some great dialogue here between GM and non-GM fans. In fact, I do respect the viewpoints of folks like yourself and FoMoCoFan because, while there's no doubt as to where your allegiances lie, you both make great contributions and compelling arguments for the alternative point of view. Most of the time, LW does not. And since he normally chooses the most abrasive manner possible to air his opinions, he leaves himself wide open for equally abrasive criticism.

Second, my "personal" attack on him was really meant to mock his endless carping about Cadillac's design theme. He thinks Cadillac's designs are ugly. I think his are dull and derivative. It's really all the same.

Finally, I do my best to contribute to this forum. Whether it's hanging out the window of my car with a camera to get spy pics of whatever camo'd car I see, or discussing some of the technical points of pushrods vs. OHC, my track record is there for all to see. And if that record includes a few snipes at everyone's favorite GM hater, so be it!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,146 Posts
LW's point of view on Cadillac is old news now. There was even a thread started about it. We can hopefully drop that now. Moving on....
Ford has managed to take on of the best cars available in Europe and turned it into less than half the car it really could be in North America faster than anyone else thought possible.
Thing is, if you're not going to feel safe in an accident in the car you're in, hopefully you have the resources available to you to buy a bigger car and one with better standard safety features, or at least something that fares better in crash tests.
And if that record includes a few snipes at everyone's favorite GM hater
If you asked LW for his opinion, i'm 99% sure he would say he does NOT hate GM. His strong points of view may make it seem that way, but calling him a GM hater is off the mark.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
vanshmack said:
I think you read a bit much into my post, as well missed the irony that it was infused with. First of all, I have no problem with people having different points of view. I do not believe that people not bearing the GM flag should be silenced here. On the contrary, there is some great dialogue here between GM and non-GM fans. In fact, I do respect the viewpoints of folks like yourself and FoMoCoFan because, while there's no doubt as to where your allegiances lie, you both make great contributions and compelling arguments for the alternative point of view. Most of the time, LW does not. And since he normally chooses the most abrasive manner possible to air his opinions, he leaves himself wide open for equally abrasive criticism.

Second, my "personal" attack on him was really meant to mock his endless carping about Cadillac's design theme. He thinks Cadillac's designs are ugly. I think his are dull and derivative. It's really all the same.

Finally, I do my best to contribute to this forum. Whether it's hanging out the window of my car with a camera to get spy pics of whatever camo'd car I see, or discussing some of the technical points of pushrods vs. OHC, my track record is there for all to see. And if that record includes a few snipes at everyone's favorite GM hater, so be it!
Sorry man but I believe LW makes both make great contributions and compelling arguments on a regular basis at this site. I read and enjoy his posts all the time. He usually just lays it out straight according how he feels. Take it, or leave it.

Yes, I believe you do have a problem with others points of view. If not; Why do you become fixated on destroying a member’s credibility when they posted something you don't agree with? Is it to prove your credibility is more significant? It's not working. I think you are taking things way to personally.

I Like LW's photo-chops. You can't deny he's got some major talent and has contributed to this site more than most people.

To me it seems like you main contribution to this site is a mission to prove how bogus people's credibility is, by using personal attacks and cheaply devolped insults. This is annoying and makes you seem insecure.

Now I'm sure this post will leave you franticly scanning and searching back through my existing posts, so that you can then find a way to prove how insignificant me and this post of mine is. Feel free.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,252 Posts
Swahili said:
If you asked LW for his opinion, i'm 99% sure he would say he does NOT hate GM. His strong points of view may make it seem that way, but calling him a GM hater is off the mark.
Well, I'm sure O.J. Simpson would tell you he's NOT a double-murder if you asked him, too.
 
1 - 20 of 54 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top