There has been alot of talk on TRS about wanting the European style quad cab Ranger..

[97RangerXLT]

Well here are the crash test results for it:




Can't say that I would want it...

AJ

 

[97RangerXLT]

For comparison, here is the 2005 Ranger Supercab that is sold here in the US. Note that the passenger compartment stays more or less intact compared to the above video.

 

[Bennybooster]

haha, me niether

 

[slow96gt]

there turds, i drove them a few times in iraq and i hated them

 

[Viva*the*Ranger]

Cars in this day in age, are made to crumple. I wouldn't gauge what vehicle I buy off of data from the 70's, where they held up like a brick. I don't know what they ride like, so I can't say anything about that, but the crumpling is a safety feature. I know My '87 wouldn't do that good. My 97 F-150 probably wouldn't do too good either.

-Denny

 

[TheTopher]

I'll have to find the video but crash testing of the 97-03 F150s were so bad the cab crumpled like a bad potato chip. They pitted it against a mini and the mini won on all counts...yet those trucks were still allowed in this country


Here we are. Seems far worse than that Ranger cab to me.



http://paultan.org/2005/11/08/mini-cooper-vs-ford-f-150-crash-test/

 

[lil_Blue_Ford]

I haven't been asking for the quad cab, I've been wanting a supercab with the diesel, lol.

 

[jhammel85]

I'll have to find the video but crash testing of the 97-03 F150s were so bad the cab crumpled like a bad potato chip. They pitted it against a mini and the mini won on all counts...yet those trucks were still allowed in this country


Here we are. Seems far worse than that Ranger cab to me.



http://paultan.org/2005/11/08/mini-cooper-vs-ford-f-150-crash-test/

Hmm...we've got those in our fleet at work. I've gotta be careful!

 

[97RangerXLT]

Cars in this day in age, are made to crumple. I wouldn't gauge what vehicle I buy off of data from the 70's, where they held up like a brick. I don't know what they ride like, so I can't say anything about that, but the crumpling is a safety feature. I know My '87 wouldn't do that good. My 97 F-150 probably wouldn't do too good either.

-Denny

the crumple zones are supposed to be designed in the engine compartment/trunk area. the passenger compartment should not crumple up or anything from the trunk or engine should not protrude into the passenger commpartment.

That 97 F150 was really horrible. I gotta agree, if that is allowed in here and passes safety tests, the quad cab should be as well!

AJ

 

[Viva*the*Ranger]

You have to keep in mind, we drive compact trucks (not BMW's). I'm pretty sure all of our Rangers/pre 2004 F-150s are going to do horribly bad in a head on collision.

Cars are getting lighter, the steel being used is getting thinner/weaker, and last time I checked, I couldn't find a vehicle where the passenger compartment didn't buckle when T-boned. They all buckle, it's just a matter of having side airbags, and quality restraints. If you can find a vehicle where the passenger compartment doesn't crumple on impact, I'm willing to bet it's out of our price range, or something most of us wouldn't desire to own in the first place.

This kind of thing comes up every so often on this forum, and it makes me laugh every time. Half of the people on this forum, drive a first or second gen Ranger, and say "I wouldn't buy that either" when they are driving a truck with almost no safety features.

 

[heptofite]

there are not really that many fundamental differences in cab design between my 2000 and my 86, in terms of shape at least.

where is all this reinforcement in the modern cab designs? i just don't see it, or the room for it.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

The 97-03 F-150 was better than anything before it, and the norm at the time. Neither the GM 1500 or Ram 1500 did much if any better. The previous style F-150 did only very slightly better but was a standard cab, the extended cab would have been worse. They don't have a vid for it that I know of but I found the scale when I was shopping for my 2002 F-150.

It was right at the turning point when people actually started to care how a truck took a wreck, they knocked it out of the park with the '04 F-150.

Head to head, the F-150 would drop kick a mini into next week in a crash. A little car with not much mass to stop is easier to plan for in a crash than a truck with a lot of mass. In my neck of the woods, even a F-150 is almost a minority in a land of 3/4 and one tons.

If you think old steel cars were tanks and/or the F-150 was bad, check out the battle of the '59 Bel-Air vs the 2009 Malibu...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJrXViFfMGk

For those of you that like to watch crash tests, the new micro/mini fad cars vs a normal sedan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cu95gB04VC4

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

there are not really that many fundamental differences in cab design between my 2000 and my 86, in terms of shape at least.

where is all this reinforcement in the modern cab designs? i just don't see it, or the room for it.

I know in the transition between first and second generation they added a crumple zone to the front frame, and the way the bumper mounts itself is very different. First gens it mounts to the frames, everything else has brackets. They also probably reinforced the doors, and of course airbags and self tightening seat belts which make a big difference.

There was a crash a couple weeks ago not far away. A 18 year old girl was passing 2 cars on a hill in a '05ish Nissan Altima, and met a 2001 Kia Spectra. Both drivers were lifeflighted away from the scene and survived. Sadly two kids in the back of the Kia didn't make it. Suppose air bags helped those in the front? One car was going over the 55mph speed limit and the other one was probably close to it.

 

[straycat]

For comparison, here is the 2005 Ranger Supercab that is sold here in the US. Note that the passenger compartment stays more or less intact compared to the above video.

Not all car crashes are the same. You can buy any thing anywhere and crash and die in it. All the auto mags talk about saftey in every car and truck that is coming on the market in the USA or either overseas.

America has more death and injuries then any country in the world. It has been that way for years. I saw less acidents overseas in crowed coutries then I saw here in the USA. Go figure. I still would take that Ranger Crew Cab!!!

 

[heptofite]

I know in the transition between first and second generation they added a crumple zone to the front frame, and the way the bumper mounts itself is very different. First gens it mounts to the frames, everything else has brackets. They also probably reinforced the doors, and of course airbags and self tightening seat belts which make a big difference.

There was a crash a couple weeks ago not far away. A 18 year old girl was passing 2 cars on a hill in a '05ish Nissan Altima, and met a 2001 Kia Spectra. Both drivers were lifeflighted away from the scene and survived. Sadly two kids in the back of the Kia didn't make it. Suppose air bags helped those in the front? One car was going over the 55mph speed limit and the other one was probably close to it.

er, my first gen bumper mounts to brackets as well.

anybody have a bronco II crash test?

I'm trying to convince my wife, as an amateur driver, that she does NOT want to DD my B2, it's just not safe for a new driver.

edit: so i just looked it up, that euro ncap test is at 40mph, i ran my 1988 supercab into a telephone pole going at least 60 and didn't do that much damage.