$5,912 damage. F150 Look Again

Think of buying a 2004 F150? Look how much damage a 5 MPH collision can cause. This is obscene.
http://www.detnews.com/2003/autosinsider/0312/12/autos-6440.htm
And one would think that a tough truck would have less damage and fair better in a collision. Maybe Toby Keith will fix yours if you ask nice and wear a cowboy hat.
Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Apparently you missed the insurance crash test data. The 2004 150 is best in class. Made the news as a matter of fact.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thomas Moats wrote:

So, if ford went to all the trouble to keep the passenger compartment intact for a severe crippling crash (which is good, five stars) they cannot make the front bumper more resistant to a 5 MPH crash?
So Tom, if your wife ran into something in the mall parking lot at 5 MPH and you had a $5900 bill, you would not be upset?
And i wonder what the insurance companies are going to rate long term on this. What do you think they have more claims on, totals or smaller low speed fender benders?
Let me quote Ford PR: The all-new 2004 Ford F-150 creates a bold first impression as it extends Ford's tradition as America's Tough Truck leader
I think a tough truck ought to not cost $5912 to fix in a front end 5 MPH collision. It may be a tough truck, with a weenie front bumper. May not so tough cars would fair better.
BOB
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Having been in the automotive repair busness for........lets just say a lot more years than I like to think about, I tend to not trust many of the damage claims for things like the 5 MPH test.

Not so much at the damage or cost, but at why she ran into something.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob, Maybe you should actually check out the stories you post here, the $5,912 was a total for all of the tests. Considering it's one of the safest trucks at 40 mph, I'll get over the 5 mph issues. My ass is way more important than my wallet.
5 MPH CRASH TEST RESULTS, FORD F-150 PICKUP TRUCK AND FREESTAR MINIVAN Front into flat barrier Rear into flat barrier Front into angle barrier Rear into pole Total damage 4 tests Average damage per test Bumper rating PICKUP TRUCKS 2004 Ford F-150 $979 $1,606 $1,286 $2,041 $5,912 $1,478 POOR 2001 Ford F-150 $1,353 $1,127 $1,279 $1,711 $5,470 $1,368 POOR MINIVANS 2004 Ford Freestar $191 $513 $1,239 $869 $2,812 $703 MARGINAL 1999 Ford Windstar $389 $0 $355 $1,349 $2,093 $523 ACCEPTABLE

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

vehicles have the look of no bumper at all. Dont like it? You are going to have to buy a really old car with a chrome bumper :)
--
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That's funny, just 8 days later, the same group said this about the F150 (and the minivan)
December 19, 2003
Related information:
Frontal offset crash test results for
a.. All pickup trucks b.. All passenger vans tested by the Institute
HIGH-SPEED CRASH TEST RESULTS: NEW FORD PICKUP & MINIVAN ARE 'BEST PICKS,' F-150 PICKUP SHOWS DRAMATIC IMPROVEMENT
ARLINGTON, VA -- The redesigned Ford F-150 pickup truck and Ford Freestar minivan each earned the highest overall rating in a recent series of 40 mph frontal crash tests conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Both vehicles, which are 2004 models, improved compared with their predecessors. The previous F-150 model was rated poor, while the redesigned 2004 model F-150 earned a good rating and the added designation of "best pick." Ford's previous minivan, the Windstar, was rated acceptable, while the new Freestar earned a rating of good and also is a "best pick."
Vehicle ratings reflect performance in 40 mph frontal offset crash tests into a deformable barrier. Based on the results, the Institute evaluates the crashworthiness of passenger vehicles, assigning each vehicle a rating from good overall to poor. If a vehicle earns a good rating, it means that in a real-world crash of similar severity a belted driver would be likely to walk away with minor injuries. A "best pick" designation means the vehicle performed well across the board in the 40 mph crash test.
"The good crash test results of the F-150 pickup and the Freestar minivan mean that Ford has the top-rated full-size pickup truck and one of the two top-rated minivans in the Institute's frontal crashworthiness evaluations," says Institute president Brian O'Neill.
Intrusion measures are much lower for new F-150: "The F-150 went from the worst performing large pickup we've tested to the best performing large pickup," O'Neill says. "When we tested the old F-150, there was massive coll apse of the occupant compartment, and as a result high injury forces were recorded on the driver dummy. In contrast, the compartment of the new F-150 held up extremely well in the offset test, the dummy's movement was well controlled, and all injury measures were low."

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael O wrote:

No one said it was not safe or improved over the "Heritage" models of F150. And i commend Ford on its 5 start rating in this category. But i chastise them for not spending a few more dollars to make the front bumper more robust. The main problem is lack of a federal standard like cars.
And from the detnews web post:
"Ford could have used this opportunity to design better bumpers," said Adrian Lund, a vice president of the Arlington, Virginia-based group, in a statement. "A bumper should be tough enough to prevent major damage in a minor collision at a fast walking speed."
They may have gave it a great 40 MPH crash rating, but the insurance group gave it a POOR rating for low speed FRONT crash test. And it had nothing to do with occupant safety, it was just about how much it cost to fix it.
Ford had the opportunity to get a grand slam with the New F150. In many respects they did. They just missed a little on the front bumper issue.
BOB
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The only problem Bob was that your post was biased. You indicated the repair cost was $5900, which isn't true and you neglected anything positive. Most parking lot mishaps are less then 5 mph. Hell, a shopping cart into your rear quarter could cost a lot more than $1500.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You don't understand the purpose of the crash test and the design of the vehicle. It boils down to let the vehicle destroy itself while absorbing the forces of a crash while at the same time keeping the passenger compartment (and the passengers) intact. It's about minimizing injury to occupants. Damage to the vehicle is unimportant.
max-income
--
Every day is a good day- it's just that some are better than others.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I thought the term crash meant when an object hit a another object.
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If they hit in a violent manner, in my opinion a 5MPH impact is not a crash. Bob
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The violent manner only describes the intensity of the crash;>)
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I guess one mans fender bender is another mans crash...lol Bob
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

The low-speed tests are to find how much damage is caused by such things as bumping into another car in a parking lot, bumping into a wall or pole, etc.. These are not crashes, but very-low speed impacts. I do not believe trucks have ANY standard to meet for bumpers, unlike cars. Even there, the standard was reduced from 5 mph to 2.5 mph a number of years ago. I also think it went from no damage at all (remember the bumpers with the shock absorbers behind them?) to no STRUCTURAL damage to the vehicle. Even 'good' rated cars often require the bumper itself be replaced. It may look perfect on the outside, but the foam behind it is often crushed. In the case of minivans/trucks (remember, SUV's and minivans are classified as trucks), the high costs usually come from damage to the rear door/tailgate.
When the 5 mph standard was in effect, Consumers Union (Consumer Reports magazine) stopped their bumper tests because there was little to no damage. When the standard was reduced, they restarted the testing.
If you wonder how this affects you, just look at your insurance bill. Take a close look at the collision/comprehensive part. High repair costs for such minor accidents will affect this.
--
If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Andrew Rossmann wrote:

The proposal that light trucks (defacto passenger cars today) should meet the same low-speed crash standards as passenger cars has been fought by the industry for years, with the support of their tagalong congresspersons. The public has been told that requireing that light trucks meet the same colision standards as passenger cars is impossible or wimpy or some form of communism. For some reason, people bought this. Now the stadards for passenger cars have been reduced. Light trucks used for passenger car purposes have no standards. Minivans are the same as light trucks.
So now, any tiny little impact costs hundreds, if not thousands to repair. But, people don't care. They just come up with the deductable (applied to credit, like everything else) and then bitch vaguely about rising insurance rates caused by various (hatefully refered to) ethnic groups committing undefined fraud in places not near them. *THEY* did this to *US*.
God help you if you are on the business end of my 1973 Montego's huge 15 MPH bumper. I'll go through your cheap-ass overpriced SUV like a knife through butter.
--
Tom
TS3
http://www.geocities.com/styleline58 /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Whole Lotta Tom wrote:

I can't speak for all SUVs, but I had some guy in a Tempo bounce off the back of my Expedition. Zero damage for me. Considerably less than zero damage for him. I suspect if you amined your Montego at my rear bumper, we both be unhappy. I'd guess your grill would really scratch up the chrome on my rear bumper as it collasped into your radiator and your massive bumper would be similarly scratched up as you ruined by trailer hitch.
7) Has NHTSA conducted evaluations of the bumper standard? If so, what were the results?
From http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/studies/Bumper/Index.html :
Yes. NHTSA conducted an evaluation of the bumper standard in 1981. The evaluation determined the net benefits (the change in costs) to the consumer attributable to each successive standard (applicable through MY 1980) in relation to unregulated bumper systems in MY 1972 and prior years. The evaluation findings were that bumper systems complying with the standard requirements for model years 1979 and 1980 (most, if not all, bumpers were built to the 1980 "no damage" standard in 1979) tended to show net consumer losses - based on a 10-year car life - when compared to unregulated bumper systems. The costs of the 1979/1980 systems were between $150 and $200 higher than the unregulated bumpers (1972 and earlier model years).
In 1987, the agency conducted another evaluation of the bumper standard. The evaluation concluded that: (1) the costs to consumers did not change as a result of the modification of the bumper standard from 5 to 2.5 mph; (2) the net effect, over a car's 10 year life, is a small increase in repair costs, which is offset by a reduction in the cost of the bumpers; and (3) the change in the bumper standard did not compromise the protection of safety-related parts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Whole Lotta Tom wrote:

I had an old 1975 Volvo 164E with these heavy metal bumpers. It absolutely creamed a 1980's Ford and suffered little to no damage. My 1984 Buick hit a little Mazda once in the rear end and not a scuff on it. The rear end of the microbox was crushed in.
Now, it's all plastic and unibody and honestly, the cars are not any safer except in very high-speed crashes, where you'd think destructable at 5pmh bumpers would be counter to the design.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.