Car Crash Test Compilation - Pickup Trucks - Ford F150, Ram 1500, Chevrolet Silverado, Toyota Tundra

Car Crash Test Compilation Pickup Trucks
Four large pickups offer strong protection in side crashes but fall short when it comes to protecting passengers in the back seat.
The Ram 1500 crew cab, Ford F-150 crew cab and Toyota Tundra crew cab earn good ratings in the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s updated side crash test, while the Chevrolet Silverado 1500 crew cab is rated acceptable.
However, in the updated moderate overlap front crash test, which now emphasizes back seat safety, only the Tundra manages a marginal rating. The F-150, Ram 1500 and Silverado are rated poor.
These results are valid only for models sold in the USA
Do you like it?
Comment, like, dislike, share!
-
Follow us: / @youcartv
Join us to enjoy exclusive benefits: / @youcartv
✅ Source: IIHS
Original content at iihs.org or KZbin channel: / @iihs-hldi
If you are interested to request to use the original content for any purpose, please contact [e-mail].

[@scottstrausberger5378]

While the IIHS has, without a doubt, improved safety for all vehicles---there's always a "new" test that no one can pass.

[@DEATHx27]

Thats how improvements are made

[@Ryan2022]

They have become another lobby. The main test to worry about is the front and the side.

[@Anti-Fake-ul9oe]

Contrived test: 40 mph and frangible obstacle.

[@heylookitsthetruth]

who is crashing 40mph, there are TONS of doubt cars break before they hit anothe vehicle, so their nose go low tons of other things

[@jdwht2455]

Too bad accidents aren't in a controlled environment and conditions. The seat belt on the child dummy was incorrectly placed on all three US built trucks. Makes me want to believe that Consumer's Report has a hand in the IIHS since CR never saw an American made car they found acceptable. I still prefer ANY US made pickup including my current F150

[@Sashazur]

I really doubt they put on the seatbelt wrong especially considering that they film it all and anyone can watch - they would know right away and would do it right. Plus suppose they did do it wrong; wouldn’t regular people make the same mistake? If so wouldn’t that imply that there’s something wrong with the seatbelt design?

[@wamdaddy]

4 Us built trucks...Tundra is built in San Antonio

[@mariog4674]

Lol the Tundra is probably the most US built truck there is. You aren't any less of an American if you buy a Toyota

[@bret9741]

@@mariog4674nope. But the profits do leave the nation to the tune of $100 billion a year!

[@Lq32332]

@@bret9741 you’re just wrong on so many levels 🤡

[@brent1041]

Get ready for padded 6” wide seat belts on your next new car.

[@fritty9927]

I find it interesting that anytime a truck has poor results owners of said vehicle claim bias or bad testing ect. Crash test, reliability, capability ect. When in reality they are only showing “ their” bias.

[@sarcasticundertones3513]

Straight up denial. It hurts their feelings that compact crossovers are safer than their pavement princesses.

[@squangan]

I would happily drive any of these pickups feeling perfectly safe and protected while doing so. They absorb the impacts amazingly without deformity to the inside of the cabs. I don’t know what the IIHS expects, maybe for occupants to be instantly and magically teleported out of vehicles that are involved in serious collisions so the occupants aren’t even present?

[@cantbsdave]

I agree. All of them are a major improvement over just 5 years ago

[@eddiethewhale3268]

Well the point is how the rear occupants are affected in a crash, so while yes you as the driver/front passenger will be safe, that’s not the same story for rear occupants.

[@squangan]

@@eddiethewhale3268 Nonsense.

[@eddiethewhale3268]

@@squangan bruh wdym “nonsense” that’s exactly why they added dummies in the back seat in the updated crash tests😭

[@JsGarage]

One could argue it was the IIHS that helped bring light crash safety in the first place and drove the industry to these safer vehicles. If you ever get in a terrible accident you’ll be glad vehicles weren’t rated too easily.

[@evictioncarpentry2628]

Look at the Cab and the Bed on the chevy side impact....wow!

[@benmoore2734]

Yes I saw it. But, the glass didn’t break as the Ford and Ram did. Like a Rock…Chevrolet!

[@Chris-L-sr]

Wow a couple of trucks smash,,,there goes 485,000 dollars😂😂

[@truno7]

Guys you didn’t show the RAM tailgating and aiming at animals in the road.

[@WayneKerr69420]

the ram was not in its natural habitat so its obvious that they were gonna rate it down which isn't very fair.

[@mav4516]

Idk if I trust that seat belt thing they highlight, I think that’s more a dummy issue

[@eddiethewhale3268]

The restraints didn’t do a very good job for the rear passengers. The lower part of the seatbelts allowed the dummy to slide under slightly which meant the body shifted from a safe position to one that would cause internal damage, specifically in the abdomen.

[@amzarnacht6710]

The gap in the dummy effectively replicates abdominal softness. Having suffered severe injury from a frontal collision in exactly that way I can verify the seat belts reacted according to dummy design.

[@fernan1710]

Yo me salve en un accidente (vuelco) gracias a “No tener cinturón”

[@prestonfreeman8443]

Dummy truck wins every time

[@Forestdawg1791]

I don’t understand how they calculate these tests. The ram looked to do much better than the tundra yet got a lower rating. The tundra got a marginal score yet the rear passenger was all over the place.

[@amzarnacht6710]

Stiffer design = less energy reduction from impact = more energy transferred to the passengers = lower passenger safety rating.

[@Anti-Fake-ul9oe]

Contrived test: 40 mph and frangible obstacle. A marketing device for delusional safety.

[@carterbishop2935]

rear seat belt in the RAM was clearly not placed correctly on the dummy's waist. It was riding too high before the accident. That is no fault of the automotive maker.

[@KrAk_D0g]

agreed

[@josels1292]

Yes, for making it too high.

[@gucstorti]

Where is tundra side test?

[@hanksadventures4132]

Probably preformed acceptable like the silverado so they didn't want it shown.

[@off-roadingexplained8417]

I would love for somebody to do side impact testing with rock sliders It seems like they always leave the rock sliders off even if they're available from the factory I want to know what the difference is

[@hanksadventures4132]

Damages the barrier vehicles most likely. A sharp edge to catch the concrete and split it probably provides wonky results. I agree with you 110% tho. Step-sides and taneau convers would also be nice to see as well as brush guards.

[@joshualish5247]

I’m also going to add that I know truck drivers who say they won’t hop in a car because it’s a small death trap, but then they hop on a motorcycle with absolutely no protection and even a small rock in the road can cause an accident and kill them. So the argument that they can’t drive a small car because they aren’t safe is immediately invalidated in my eyes.

[@Anti-Fake-ul9oe]

Contrived test: 40 mph and frangible obstacle. A marketing device for delusional safety.

[@Dwe-j8e]

Bro that silverado flew

[@selfcarefordudes]

Way to go Ram 💪

[@lordjoshr]

Looks like the Chevy you gotta worry about getting hit in head with the gas door 🤣

[@rotaryenginepete]

ask YOUCAR why they left the Tundra out of the t-bone test. Maybe because it didn't pass?

[@RhinoXpress]

So what now put airbags on the lower portion of the seatbelt

[@Ichibuns]

Some small aircraft do have airbags built into the seatbelts. They're not intrusive and are honestly comfortable. They would probably be more useful in a ground vehicle

[@Peighton-1994]

I noticed all those front crash tests the rear seat belt cut into the dummy passenger which I don't think is supposed to happen

[@cantbsdave]

Impressed at how strong the Rams frame is compared to the rest especially the Silverado (floppy frame). These updated tests are no joke

[@johnnynguyen9449]

you call the first test strong?

[@SylentONE]

That's actually not a good thing

[@johnsim3722]

What's the music track you're using? Thanks.

[@christomapher]

While I do appreciate this public data, I don’t understand a few things that could improve the tests: 1. why are the cars’ motors not running? should we not be considering how the vehicles behave while actually turned on and crash? that’s how most of us use them, no? 2. why are dummies missing limbs, and only partially painted, to see where they are being hit? it seems that we are missing out on real world factors this way-but I do admit that it would be harder to analyze crashes were they to catch fire . 3. they don’t explain their ratings. a circle around a seatbelt presumably doing its job does not explain much.

[@josemorenoporras7506]

I think those test take in consideration some basic safety. A car full of gas can burn and it would be no fun for the test facilities and the car itself could be destroyed with all crash test data&dummy´s inside.

[@christomapher]

@@josemorenoporras7506 totally valid. But testing with greater real world factors (motors running + fully formed and painted dummies) is at the cost of improving human safety, why not? We are crashing cars already to ensure they're safe--surely there are provisions to extinguish a fire and to salvage valuable data and dummies. To put it another way, the current methodology of testing is like dropping a cell phone from a great height--but keeping it inside of a protective case--to test the phone's durability to ensure that we don’t damage the phone. Gotta break a few eggs to make omelettes. ^ u ^

[@amzarnacht6710]

Different tests, different dummies. Some do have arms, some do not. In this test they were not looking at finite injury data, but occupant motion more than specific injury. All vehicles have their fluids removed - ALL of them - prior to testing due to many factors. Fire, as noted by others, but also for the simple ease of cleanup after each test and the environmental impact of said cleanup. They need to keep their test area as clean as possible so they can apply and maintain their indicator markings (the circles and cross-hatched tape, ect). The state of the engine - on or off - has little to no bearing on the impact tests and vehicles are not tested on post-crash safety where a hot engine would come into play. If the safety of the fuel cell wants to be determined they fill it with water prior to testing.

[@19jody72]

Rear airbags in the back of the seat for passengers maybe? Getting a new truck later this year, figured Id watch this.. but still getting a Ford

[@19jody72]

Wht happens to these trucks after crash testing?

[@bret9741]

I e seen a lot of crashes. I’d rather put my family in any of these pickups and similar SUV’s. The only fatalities I’ve come across were in small cars, mid size cars and accidents at high speed where no chance of survival was possible. I build custom home and have never found CR recommendations in dishwashers reliable. In particular they always place Bosh as the best and most reliable. That has never ever been my experience. I could go on and on on how poor and biased their testing is. I’m convinced money is paid for good or better results.

[@paulklp8262]

Car culture in the USA is literally survival of the fattest. Big = safe. Its unhinged.

[@reduxith]

@@paulklp8262 Well that’s because in this country, if you drive a small little car you are at a great risk of being obliterated by 5’1 Stepahnie driving her Escalade ESV going 90 down the highway. You tend to feel unsafe driving a small car in a country full of people driving continents on wheels..

[@amzarnacht6710]

Actually, it's not a safety factor. It's a fuel efficiency thing. The longer/wider the wheel base the different the fuel efficiency calculations. Bigger = better ratings, so trucks just keep getting bigger. Dates back to the Clinton era. I'd look up the video but links don't work in comments.

[@tylerbuck9347]

Wait I'm confused how does the 2nd part relate to the 1st part?

[@chada472]

In crashes like these you want the truck to absorb the energy. The trucks are totalled. Ford does the best at saving people!

[@fernandochaves9665]

Built Ford Tough moment, at 3:00: the Ford logo flies intact after collision.

[@299charles]

Uhhhh, What was the result?

[@COYGunners]

Why do they run these tests in well equipped trucks instead of using bare bones basic ones? No need to total the expensive 4x4 ones IMO

[@mattweeks2272]

Changes the weight on them as you get higher in trim level and 4x4 equipment. So they generally test the more popular selling trim levels and equipment groups

[@sdrape4964]

Compared to the 1994 Ram 1500, the 2023 model is a tank.

[@fernandobriseno8164]

Yup, all of these are miles ahead of their previous generations.

[@Anti-Fake-ul9oe]

Contrived test: 40 mph and frangible obstacle. A marketing device for delusional safety.

[@Kakiharaichii]

You want safety? Limit top speeds, limit horsepowers, and ban all those distractive screens.

[@Anti-Fake-ul9oe]

Contrived test: 40 mph and frangible obstacle. A marketing device for delusional safety.

[@아반떼N마니아]

wow🥰🥰

[@joshwalsh6432]

Guess Toyota Tundra's don't get T-boned. Maybe they figured out how to teleport the entire vehicle away from a side impact.

[@brettradecki]

Good work Silverado!

[@COYGunners]

No it did not

[@thesmokingman]

Look at this compared to the Cybertruck. Look at that cabin intrusion from the side, yikes.

[@EGGINFOOLS]

Id be more concerned being in the passenger seat on the side impact test. You see the rams passenger side? Im sure they all did it

[@مشارك-ي9ث]

أين اختبار الاصطدام الجانبي لتويوتا تندرا؟!

[@obedaragon-kj8my]

WOOOW EXCELLENTT PICK UP RAM 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

[@UncleVenz]

why does the crash cart have american racing wheels on it 😂

[@Michel-dq8dz]

Muito legal 😎

[@lifeaszahara3282]

I’m getting this

[@kilapersian364]

It’s hard to take a Ford down in this type of way because Ford is the strongest truck on the road and that’s why I caught it Ford tough

[@arizbeduran6742]

Ford F150 gooooo !!!!!!

[@Doc1855]

I’m glad they’re getting rid of as many vehicles as possible with gloomy, depressing, drab, boring Grey and Black interior colors that became popular in the last millennium

[@TheRoyJames]

I'm glad I'm not the only one to notice this. It says something about our current mindset as a whole. Corporations are moving this direction too (Mcds is all Grey and gloom now)

[@Doc1855]

@@TheRoyJames Yeah, it’s pretty sad, isn’t it? Almost 2 years ago I bought my wife an Outback for her 50th birthday, so I was looking for a color combination so she could have Ivory interior. I finally found one that’s Cinnamon Brown Pearl with the Ivory interior. I know how much she likes brown or tan. I was looking for a new one but it was right at the end of the pandemic so vehicles were scarce. Her Outback was a lease return and it had only 5,600 miles. It was a 2019 year model. I called the dealership and asked how much for everything out the door. I then went to the bank and got a cashiers check. I told my wife the night before because we had to drive to Tacoma (a5 hour round trip) the next day. She was over the moon. We were so impressed with the traction of her Outback that last year I decided that my 13 year old Rav needed replacement so I started looking for a Forester Touring as I wanted the Brown Leather interior. Anyhow it took me over 6 months to find one with the Brown interior. It too was a 3 year lease return and had only 4,700 miles. We had to drive to Shoreline, Washington, (a 6 hour round trip). Everyone I talked with had either new or low mileage vehicles but they all had the gloomy Grey or Boring Black interior and we refuse to buy a vehicle with those outdated interior colors that became popular in 1990. We had several people complimenting us on our interior colors. My Forester is Bronze exterior. We have a 11 Ford Ranger XLT pickup. It came with gloomy Grey and Death Black interior so I had it reupholstered in Red with black trim and stitching to match the custom 2 tone paint, ( factory Silver over Red metallic). I’ve had a lot of compliments on the interior and exterior color choices as well. In fact this last summer I’ve had 2 guys offer to buy our Ranger. One offered $25K and the other offered $28K. The truck has only 36K miles and I’ve not only had it 2 toned, but it also has custom wheels, rear air shocks, LineX spray in bed liner, custom pinstripes, running boards. Before adding a K&N intake and a 3” FlowMaster exhaust, I was getting 19mpg on the highway with the cruise set on 75mph, I’m now getting 23mpg. Hopefully buy the time our Subie’s wear out, it won’t be so hard trying to find something other than depressing Grey or Fugly Black interior colors.

[@tylerbuck9347]

FOR REALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

[@35RSkyline]

what do you want when they are made mostly out of plastic

[@ozkrpalminteri9431]

Let's cut the bulls#!t. No one is gonna buy a truck based on ur accident experiments. They'll buy one either on brand preference or durability history.

[@aazvank7000]

these should be tested with a load.. would there be room in the cabin to breathe when a ton of cargo comes from behind.

[@amzarnacht6710]

How many of these modern trucks do you actually see with a load and not some 5-foot-nothing female in them or a couple of corn fed yucks who've only seen 'offroad' when they're forced to park on gravel?

[@IanSlatas]

@@amzarnacht6710 You've opened your mouth and removed all doubt.

[@amzarnacht6710]

@@IanSlatas And you've shown yourself to be about 6 years old and daddy let you off his 'teat'.

[@CharlotteSmoothie]

I dont think it's fair to point out the seat belt going in between the waistline when the dummies have that pass through, of course the belt is gonna go through it. Real humans don't have that pass through for the belt to fall into lol

[@amzarnacht6710]

Real humans have soft abdomens. I can attest 100% what a seat belt does to the abdomen in a frontal collision. That gap is an effective replication.

[@vinnie8495]

Looks like you'll live in the Ford

[@ppentertainment2351]

No Nissans? Come on guys.

[@jimmycline4778]

The Silverado side impact was acceptable not good like the others ,,but none of the side glass shattered in that truck,,the Fords rear glass also shattered in side impact, no Toyota side impact test? They were all poor on frontal crash, but that was 02 pickup trucks the cabs would have caved in unlike these trucks in frontal crash!

[@shadowopsairman1583]

Mine didnt in 2012 and it was an 03 at 70 mph.

[@walterbryan1798]

I think it’s safe to say, being in a car accident is not a good time, regardless of the IIHS’ “rating.”

[@CraigNelson-gw6jw]

Chevy literally flew off its bed. Looked like a soda can crunching

[@Star-fc4ni]

People on here saying these accidents tests look safe lol. Keep convincing yourselves that they are. No accidents are safe in any situation, that's why the word accident is used. Maybe you would like to be in a car accident and test it out for yourself?

[@Anti-Fake-ul9oe]

Contrived test: 40 mph and frangible obstacle. A marketing device for delusional safety.

[@ChaklitTea]

And the tahoe rolls over

[@oscarsolis3019]

De frente la Ram y de lado la Ford

[@amzarnacht6710]

I'd like to know how they buy these vehicles. I know they're buying straight off the dealer lot, but how have the dealers not noticed that the same purchaser goes through so many vehicles on a regular basis? And as for back seat passenger safety... no vehicle is going to be all that great because of the typical distance back seat passengers travel in a frontal collision before being arrested by seat restraints. Trucks make that worse because there is even more room between the seats (crew cabs). Not even mounting an airbag in the back of the front seats would help with that since the restraints arrest travel before the passenger would impact them.

[@kingperfection1868]

The tundra is marginal yeah no i see more movement in the t4uck than the outside

[@gieseb83]

I don’t feel bad for anyone not purchasing a Tundra.

[@mattweeks2272]

Good… wouldn’t want you to lol. My 2018 F150 saved my life in a 50mph head on collision last year, I happily bought another one. Btw… from that collision all I had was minor whiplash. No other injuries were sustained by me.

[@gieseb83]

@@mattweeks2272 are you an owner of several firearms? Just trying to count brain cells here, see if it makes sense. Ya feel may?

[@mattweeks2272]

@@gieseb83 count brain cells? If you’re trying to be funny/insult me, it isn’t working.

[@Holler_Rat]

@@gieseb83 Why does everything have to be political? It doesn't have to be this way.

[@gieseb83]

@@Holler_Ratit’s not political my dude. Was just a question dude didn’t answer.

[@DoubleD72]

Such blatant inaccurate grading. lol

[@ethandearborn3760]

Yep, non union built is the way to go. Ill wait for the comments. Btw i drive a UAW built truck and yes, i understand it has nothing to do with it so chill out.

[@coach2208]

Bottom line dodge is the better truck.

[@randyTrevor-fs3to]

Tundras are by far and away the worst trucks ever made, at any second the lower or upper ball joints will snap in half and can cause somebody to loose control and hit another vehicle head on. Toyota truck ball joints are the most common automotive failure.

[@shadowopsairman1583]

Toyota and honda are overrated, just like crysthler and ford...

[@tylerbuck9347]

​@@shadowopsairman1583then what isn't

[@mariog4674]

This isn't an issue anymore and hasn't been for quite some time.

[@zxx-]

ford good car

[@chrismarbrey9678]

I'm sure hope that there is an equal representation of female crash test dummies in this event, LOL.

[@4673962]

Where is the toyota side crash. Ford got "good" when the dummy in the back just about hit its own face with its knee........come on. This test was supposed to represent 12 year old kids or and elderly woman. Can you imagine an elderly woman going through the ford side impact????? This is a joke. Toyota probably blew on the side impact but didn't want to show it 😂😂😂😂. What a joke. See all the windows on the ford blow out. Imagine all the glass everywhere....yeah real safe. Look how the doors on the ford were totally deformed and how far the crash vehicle intruded on the ford from the top camera view. This is all crap....

[@Star-fc4ni]

Obviously the junk chevy looked the worst! Typical gm crap made.

[@paulverstraete9157]

looks like toyota or ram are the best to me....i drive am f150 for work...the chevy seems the weakest.....

[@Doc1855]

Wow that Stillantis / Fiat Ram crumpled like a tin can

[@brentfield269]

What part of the video are you talking about?

[@EliastheKiNg34]

Ford did the worst

[@johncipolletti5611]

These trucks are one bad creation. First, around 90% of these truck owner never use their bed or tow anything. Yet, more pedestrians are killed by these humongous monsters! These things get terrible gas mileage and so don't help the environment. Now the passengers are in danger with these extended cabs in side hits! These vehicles should be outlawed!

[@byronlocklear91]

You could go live in China. The same could be said of large SUV’s and they are totally practical for hauling families and gear. If I’m not mistaken, they are the same weight as the full size truck considering most trucks now are made of aluminum.

[@makeshiftlake3519]

I love my truck and I’ll never NOT have one😂😂😂 I love my “humongous monster” as you call it

[@johncipolletti5611]

​@@byronlocklear91Wow. You are right. These ugly trucks and SUVs are the same! They are gas guzzlers, heavy, environment damaging, that are used 80% of the time for only one or two butts!

[@JohnDough-d6o]

But it's so nice being able to see over the top of all tiny cars. I think it's actually safer because all the added visibility I have in my truck. Oh, and building homes for people like you, happens with people like me who own a truck that can haul tools and materials to sites.

[@Quinton0520]

@@JohnDough-d6olol “tiny cars” yet they can’t brake as quick take turns or if you need to do a quick maneuver! Such as swerving to avoid a collision without flipping

[@lycorish46]

The amount of copium in the comments is hilarious. Love how everyone are suddenly experts in vehicle safety. All they found is that these big trucks aren’t always as safe as they thought. I’m glad they do this stuff cuz how else are they supposed to improve lol.

[@alexmaclean1]

It's amazing how fast safety ratings change. A vehicle that rated as good in 2015 would most likely receive all poor ratings in 2023.

[@TurkeyBaster6969]

Listen I’ve been to Ibiza and this soundtrack is killing it

[@makeshiftlake3519]

Very interesting. I have a 2023 Silverado and it’s crazy just how much the bed shifts around in the side hit compared to the other trucks

[@dylanzapper3445]

They don't make them like they used to back in the 90s

[@EverydayCars]

But the glass didn’t break! On the doors or back window that was impressive.

[@bobhirdes6725]

and the Silverado was the only truck that the windows stayed fully intact aka didn't break.

[@HioSSilver1999]

@@dylanzapper3445 yea....thank goodness. The old trucks flexed much much more.

[@tedbear6012]

I'd rather have my windows stay

[@markj2838]

Bs tests, they all look pretty safe... ps stay off your phones most of this shit wouldn't happen...

[@Quinton0520]

It’s not the phones but go off

[@hakeemsd70m]

That's true, but we also have to account for other reckless drivers that may hit our vehicles.

[@markj2838]

@@Quinton0520 ppl on phones don't cause accidents 🤣 ok Einstein...

[@Quinton0520]

@@markj2838 A total of 29% of all deadly car accidents occur as a result of speeding drivers! And if it’s the phones that same thing can be said about the new tech and touchscreens in cars!

[@RyeitOut]

Its the whiplash alone thats go injure or kill you 🤦🏽‍♂️

[@Anti-Fake-ul9oe]

👍

[@thespedsession5953]

I like how Chevy is poor even tho my 2016 saved my life when I hit a tree n flipped it 3 times lmao if anything it’s safe

[@DaRevrin]

Ram def looked to be the most sturdy truck overall in both tests, especially the first test.

[@BorgWarnerKP39]

Yeah thats why it got acceptable and not good rating....

[@DaRevrin]

@@BorgWarnerKP39 the first one was only because the rear seat passenger being added, and they didn't even strap the belt on correctly. But you can easily tell in the video that the ram held up the best.

[@BorgWarnerKP39]

@@DaRevrin Yeah, because you seeing a video of the damages is more accurate than the whole specialist team analizing the results and actual damage to the passengers....

[@amzarnacht6710]

It did not rate higher because there was an overall reduction in ablative damage (crumple zones), increasing the kinetic energy transferred to the passengers. The truck, itself, held up better due to a stiffer design with less energy reduction transfer. That's a mixed bag, overall, resulting in a lower rating.

[@Anti-Fake-ul9oe]

Contrived test: 40 mph and frangible obstacle. A marketing device of delusional safety.

[@sdrape4964]

Yeah it's nice to see the IIHS constantly crap on the automakers for building "unsafe" vehicles, but I have yet to see them provide the crash ratings for their barrier vehicles that I am pretty confident do not remotely meet any governmental standards of safety requirements. I mean, I've been a lot of places and driven a lot of miles, and not once have I seen a rogue IIHS barrier vehicle lurking on the roads.

[@sirjab]

Ford ❤

[@EliastheKiNg34]

I’m a Chevy guy but that ford did pretty good

[@freedomfighter5095]

Why is home boy with the straps wearing a face diaper?

[@demsareunamerican6800]

He's probably a Democrat. IIHS is near Charlottesville, in Ruckersville,VA. I used to take our Porsche to IIHS. Talk about driving a brand new 911 to get destroyed. There's nothing like destroying a 6-figure car on purpose. Funny, you never see super cars being destroyed on purpose. Never took an Audi R8 to IIHS either. Dealership I worked at had all German cars.

[@ahndajong]

These are good tests. I'd like to see the outcome of them at real world, "highway speeds"; 75-80 mph.

[@amzarnacht6710]

Depends on what they're hit by. Most of these tests are for non-highway impacts (roughly 45mph) where a greater majority of accidents occur as there are far more service streets than highways. The likelihood of offset frontal and ninety degree side impacts at highway speeds impacts is very, very rare. And it would be very, very difficult and dangerous to test at 70+ mph in a lab environment.

[@timnelson1787]

Never driven on a 2-lane Hwy at 55-60mph… your telling me nobody ever speeds 70😒. Never seen a vehicle randomly drift 2ft into the rumble strip on the shoulder, center line?? Get real. Most head on collisions happen at Hwy speeds. In town driving is so slow, often times you swerve away from the moron before they hit you head on.

[@Anti-Fake-ul9oe]

Contrived test: 40 mph and frangible obstacle. A marketing device for delusional safety.

[@Anti-Fake-ul9oe]

At 70 mph the "outcome" is what would be expected.😂😂

[@EGGINFOOLS]

No toyota side impact test?

[@CraigNelson-gw6jw]

They knew it would fail horribly lol

[@ricqik]

Why is the rating poor?

[@benoitsauve3436]

We have a f150 crew cab

[@RohanSanjith]

The side crash tests in real life would leave the person with bad knee and neck injury 😢

[@Anti-Fake-ul9oe]

Contrived test: 40 mph and frangible obstacle. A marketing device for delusional safety.

[@bernardcalloway2205]

Goofy question ; ... What would happen if say Car/Truck SUV manufacturing could widen out the waist Belt to leviat the problem with waist protection ? 🤨 "

[@PKDesigns2011]

based on todays msrp adjustments its gonna increase the vehicle price by $5k since they would need to shell out an extra .25c per vehicle ...

[@amzarnacht6710]

Too wide could actually be worse as the belt is laterally flexible (it twists/folds). Having suffered the exact injury those dummies experienced I can attest that the width of the belt only matters if the belt itself is stiff enough not to fold over itself on impact.

[@rob6870]

It's quite unbelievable, that no matter how many hours and money is invested to make vehicle occupants safe, they are still killed.

[@amzarnacht6710]

There is only so much that can be done to eliminate that much kinetic energy. The only design that will ensure passenger survival is a sofa. I.E. the passengers never leave their house.

[@tylerbuck9347]

@@amzarnacht6710 exactly

[@kabloosh699]

Unless you want to drive around with a helmet on with a roll cage, and a racing harness there is really only so much they can do without sacrificing comfort.

[@bliglum]

Is IIHS getting too stringent? ALL of these looked at least 'acceptable' to me. The "Poor's" looked Acceptable. And the "Marginals" or "Acceptables" looked 'good'. I suppose they are the car safety 'critics' after all, and they gotta keep their job security.

[@lordjoshr]

Looks like in the chevy you gotta worry about getting hit with the gas door🤣 also all these would require a thicker seatbelt nothing will stop that seatbelt cutting in when your stoping that quickly.

[@shadowopsairman1583]

03 sierra saved my bacon in 2012 in 6x rollover, the belt didnt cut into me and i was doing highway speed, i walked away with minor cuts. I bought a 07 Silverado of the same platform

[@greggc8088]

I buy vehicles to drive.

[@wilecatrexy]

They're all a lot better than they used to be.

[@AriePharmD]

Those test dummies never saw it coming.

[@maxchester8759]

Exelente trabajo gracias

[@HioSSilver1999]

So the glass never shattered on the chevy side impact and it got the worse rating.....that's odd.

[@fritty9927]

It’s safety glass. It’s not nearly as important as other factors.

[@HioSSilver1999]

@@fritty9927 keeping glass out of my eyes is pretty damn important

[@fritty9927]

@@HioSSilver1999 😆👍

[@GamerKid-qk9is]

lets go f150

[@CARWASHCHANNEL.]

So there saying back seat is not safe in the trucks

[@RayRayP2001]

It was so sad watching a 23 F150 being demolished 2x. I would love to have the 2 test models, so I could have parts in case I ever have mechanical issues.