These are utility vehicles, safety in high speed crashes isn't the primary concern. Neither is stability control when you are driving around the work site with a backend so full of tools it barely moves.

Anyway its a great report now that everyone is moving from large SUV's and trucks to smaller vehicles, now they'll be rethinking that decision and sticking with the big ol' gas guzzlers.

...Thats assuming most people using trucks for daily commuters go back to using cars. If that doesn't happen and people continue to use trucks for the daily drive then yes the highspeed impact and stability control make sense...

Around here in Dallas, I still see a lot of big SUVs and big trucks driving around. It makes me wonder if it is worth it to go to a thinner, smaller car to save some bucks but end up dead some day. Passing a traffic light intersection safely is a blessing everytime. I have seen enough deaths from T-bone crashes on the local news. You will never know when will that crazy truck driver dashing through that red light. Heck, even a mid size sedan can still do serious damage. It's the moneys or your life that you are gambling with, your choice. In the mean time, I will stick with my heavy duty diesel trucks and the tank diesel Benz.

I'm not usually a skeptic, but how the hell do you setup an objective test ABOUT SAFETY and only equip one out of four trucks with optional side bags? No matter how you look at it, it makes no sense at all. Whoever setup that test lot should be fired, and Nissan, Chrysler, and Chevy should be screaming shenanigans!.

Worker:

"Hey boss, I'm getting the trucks for the side impact testing project this week."

Boss:
"Oh ok."

Worker:
"There are some options though, how should I order them?"

Boss:
"Oh, like what?"

Worker:
"Well, side airbags are optional on four of them."

Boss:
"Really?"

Worker:
"Yah, the Toy, Nissan, Chevy, and Dakota all offer them. the Ford is just too old. Figure it was impossible."

Boss:
"Oh, hmph. Well, just get a Toyota with the side airbags. We should probably report it as the safest one."

Worker:
"Oh, yah that makes sense. Must be why you're the boss."

Boss:
"That's right."

@nobledoggy

Fully agree. I just bought a Leopard 2. Just waiting to ram into the side of a hummer.

@ Todd

Funny!

And their test methodology is so reflective of real world cases. Take the same testing criteria and apply it to a small car, no we can't that then no one would buy small cars. I know we'll reduce the weight for those cars and they well be safer in the real world.

@Todd:

The reason the IIHS did not test the Colorado, Dakota or Nissan with side impact airbags is because they are not available on those models. That is, you CANNOT get side impact airbags on any of the cars you mentioned except the Tacoma.

So of course the Tacoma is safer. Also, about stability control, these vehicles are hardly "work only" cars. I see Colorado's and Tacoma on the streets every day, and many on the highway. Lots of people use them as personal vehicles. And given their higher center of gravity and more sluggish drivign characteristics, stability control makes perfect sense.

@nobledoggy:

You know, I travel a lot. Somehow, everyone else that drives in the world manages to survive with a small car. We are the only nation to buy so many large cars, yet we still have more deaths on the roads per capita than all but a few countries.

Could it be since small cars are more manueverable, people can get out of an accident before it happens? Could it be that the build quality of a car, not the size of it, is more important?

In 2005, a head on collision occurred between a 2001 F-150 and a Toyota Corolla in Tallahasse, Florida. The F-150 driver was dead on impact. The Toyota driver.... was fine but couldn't be cut out of the car by the fire department. The steel Toyota has been using in their small cars was so strong the saw wouldn't cut, and the next day they had to order diamond blades. The Corolla driver eventually was wriggled out by safety workers. He left with only some scratches and bruises.

That is out of a Forbes article I read three months or so ago. You can try and dig it out yourself if you want. But the point is it does not matter how big your car is, it matters the quality of it. If you are surrounded by two tons of talc, your not nearly as safe as in 1000 lbs of steel.

I currently live in Missouri, a place that should be called the Crown Vic capital of the world. I see more dead people pulled out of that car than anything else on the streets here. Yes, its big, and its body of frame (which is weaker than unibody construction but people somehow got convinced otherwise, just read the wiki on it or ask any engineer). The problem with it is that its a nearly 20 year old design, with the same sheet metal as 20 years ago. And you know what? The quality of modern sheet metal is much better than back then. Maybe its not like the tanks of the 1950s, but still better than 80s sheet metal.

When I go overseas, a lot of people I talk cars with are speechless when it comes to Americans identifying big cars with safety. One Dutch guy I know said it best, he'd been in America and driven the roads their a month prior. He said, "its like people just get a big car and think they are safe. They pay no attention to the skill it takes to drive safely and just think 'I'm in a big car, I'm ok.'" And the truth couldn't be further away from big car = ok.

The reason Germans, French, and British are safer on roads (among a few) is because when they drive, they are driving. Not eating, not drinking, not staring at the scenery. German's especially, driving is considered an act worth doing for the sake of itself in Germany. People actually still just go for a drive there, gas prices be damned.

Thats why you see and hear about so many deaths on the roads of America. That guy who side-swept you at an intersection? Probably eating, talking, drinking, or just not thinking about driving.

Want safer roads? Stop giving people false senses of security in big cars and make them drive their cars, not just steer them absent mindedly.

Here's what really took place at the test lab:

Worker:

"Hey boss, I'm getting the trucks for the 2009 side impact testing project this week."

Boss:
"Oh ok."

Worker:
"Uh oh, I think we have a problem."

Boss:
"Oh, like what?"

Worker:
"Well, the 2009 Tacoma's the only one with STANDARD side curtain airbags."

Boss:
"Really?"

Worker:
"Yeah, and check out the design on these Chevrolet Colorado/GMC Canyon's - the barrier's gonna take the driver's head off."

Boss:
"On both trucks?"

Worker:
"Well, it's actually the same truck badged differently."

Boss:
"Why would they do that? I thought GM was in financial trouble - shouldn't they consolidate their brands?"

Worker:
"Probably, at least they're not running with a 20 year old design like Ford."

Boss:
"Well, that's too bad but our job is to test a base model of each truck, so go ahead and order them."

Worker:
"This ain't gonna be pretty."

Boss:
"I know it. I can just imagine the whining on the torquereport forums when we post the results."

"The Tacoma was the only pickup to receive the IIHS's highest rating of "good" due to its available side curtain airbags (side curtain airbags will be standard on the 2009 Tacoma)"

As stated, the others all have available side curtains minus the Ranger. They didn't test '09 models, they tested '08s. GM or Dodge could very easily make an announcement today saying that side curtain airbags will be standard on there '09s.

Allen, a quick glance at Chevy's website, build my own, "Air bags, , head curtain side-impact, driver and right-front passenger, first and second row outboard passengers (ASF) "

And Dodge, " Supplemental Side Curtain Air Bags
Supplemental Side Curtain Front and Rear Air Bags"

And lastly, Nissan, "Side Air Bags Option Side Air Bags Option
Side Air Bags Option
Driver and front-passenger seat-mounted side-impact supplemental air bags
Roof-mounted curtain supplemental air bags for side-impact and rollover head protection for outboard occupants
Moonroof and Side Air Bags Package Moonroof and Side Air Bags Package"

From IIHS website:

'NOTE: When side airbags are optional, the Institute tests without the option and will conduct a second test with the optional airbags if the manufacturer requests it and reimburses the Institute for the cost of the vehicle.'

The IIHS obviously tries to test the latest model configuration of each vehicle and the 2009 models are almost out. Highly doubtful that the 2009 models will differ much from the 2008 models mechanically. If any other manufacturer had announced standard side airbags on their 2009 models I'm sure they would have tested it with that option equipped. I guess I don't see the conspiracy here since they tested the Nissan without side airbags.

Toyota is smart to make the airbags standard. However, this test proves nothing, a waste of time. Of course without side air bags this test will fail. But without head, shoulder, foot, wrist, crotch, chest, neck, and armpitt air bags you will get hurt slamming around the cab during any accident. Why not make the car fill up with quick freeze foam while your at it?

So test with the optional air bags if available, then run the test. Give us some usefull results - Does the toyota with air bags do better than ANY other truck with air bags? duh! Gag...

That's funny. A truck that hasn't been totally redsigned in 15 years like the Ford Ranger did better then the Colorado/Canyon and scored on par with the Dakota and Frontier.

@noblekitty

I suppose it beats spending more on a larger truck or SUV and ending up dead in that.

The real-world statistics bear out that large cars are safer than any other consumer vehicle. Mid-sized cars compare to the largest of the SUVs.

So save some money, and get a good mid-sized car. Focus on one with a good crash-test (I love my BMW both for it's ability to handle in bad conditions and the amount of airbags)

@ Allen

The reason we have more deaths per capita is because we drive more per capita. Also everybody in every country falls prey to eating and talking on cell phones while driving. That is not a uniquely American thing. Furthermore, any ordinary metal saw can cut through the sheet metal of any vehicle. Even a Corolla. Too, large vehicles are usually safer in collisions with other vehicles. Collisions with fixed objects warrants more discussion. Lastly, Corwn vics are made with same sheet metal as everything else because it is cheaper and good enough. PS - Why so angry? It's just cars.

@Allen:

---------------------------------
Allen said:

"The reason the IIHS did not test the Colorado, Dakota or Nissan with side impact airbags is because they are not available on those models. That is, you CANNOT get side impact airbags on any of the cars you mentioned except the Tacoma."
-----------------------------------

With this quote, you fail. Make sure you are RIGHT before you YELL something.

@allen
that car that hit the f150 was accually a ford fusion not a toyota corolla. It took teh firefighters hours not a day to pull the driver out. Toyota does not use boron steel in the construction of the corolla. They will be switching it to boron steel in the model year of 2009. The use of boron steel was stronger then the Jaws of life could handle so they had to get one for this accident. The f150 was a 2001 model year which was known for being terrbily unsafe plus the driver in the f150 was drunk. Allen have you ever been to europe. The roads there are small have blind corners and are generally not very well taken care of. The reason there are less traffic fatalities is because as americans we drive like 3 times more miles then they do. I know in England its not common to travel during holiday or at least it wasnt when I was there.

The reason you post as unknown is because you don't have your facts straight. First, have you ever been on the Autobahn? I have. Second, have you ever been on French or German streets?

Germany in particular is known for having some of the best roads in the world. The Autobahns are constructed with concrete TWICE as thick as American Interstates, and when a crack or pothole develops the entire stretch of road is replaced, not just the area surrounding the affliction.

Second, the car I speak of was a Corolla. How do I know it couldn't of been a Fusion? Because the crash took place in early 2005, the Fusion was not available until late 2005 as it began production in August. The roll out happened in November I believe.

Third, I never said it took a day to get out the driver. They wriggled him out the same night. Also, Boron Steel isn't the only tough steel available. Just knowing that it exists proves you can look up whats on Ford's European cars these days.

Fourth, prove it. Prove that I am wrong about the Corolla crash by posting the article. Post links with proof that the Corolla is using inferior sheet metal in comparison to a Fusion.

Fifth: you can't. I made the story up. I knew that local fire departments had sent out orders for new saws due to the inability to cut the metal on new cars, and that Toyota's line up had been named as a problem, but that was about it. I picked up Tallahassee as I was in Tallahassee at the moment.

Allen, you've already proven you're either an idiot or a liar, so nobody is reading you anymore. You couldn't post a link to anything if you had to, because as you freely admit, you LIE (facts straight before I yell).

It took me 15 seconds on edmunds.com to determine that Todd was right and you, Allen, were wrong.

Tommy, that would be funny if it weren't derivative on Todd's creative entry and if it weren't bending the facts strictly so you could beat on "traditionally" domestic manufacturers.

"The Tacoma is the only pickup in the group of small models that was tested with side airbags, which are optional in 2008 models. When side airbags are optional, the Institute's policy is to test a vehicle without the option. An auto manufacturer may request a second test with the airbags if the automaker reimburses the Institute for the cost of the vehicle. Manufacturers of the Dakota, Frontier, and Colorado didn't request second tests (side airbags aren't offered in the Ranger, even as options). The Tacoma was tested only with its optional side airbags, an exception to normal policy because such airbags will be standard in 2009 Tacoma pickups being shipped to dealers this month."

Tommy Boy is almost right, but am I wrong in reading that the IIHS broke their own policy to test the option?

How stupid are NM, C,LLC and GM for not asking for the retest... Come on guys, it's not like you don't have inventory!

Ok!
to the lowest iq:
I said I am keeping my big diesel pickup because it will most likely survive a side impact crash, not so I can run into other people. I drive responsibly, but will others do? Plus, most less educated folks think that diesesl are gas guzzlers, but they aren't. My 02 Powerstroke Excursion will do 17 mpg hwy, 15 city and I have a big family. If I chip it up, it will do 20 mph easily; Think about it, safety, reasonable mpg, roomy, off-road and towing ability...are all in one package, thanks to the diesel engine. And go educate yourself some more about cars, the Hummer H2( which is the one we see most on street or TV commercials ) doesn't have a diesel option on it. The diesel Hummer is available in the H1, which is a the same spec as a military Hummer, you don't see those around a whole lot.

and to Allen:
I thought we are talking about side impact here, please stay on the topic. I bet if that corolla get t-bone by a crazy f-150 driver, you would probably can't tell if it was a corolla anymore. If you still think that your corolla is so strong, I am welcoming you to my place and try it on my X, no..not head on, but your corolla to the side of my X, yes ... we'll see how it comes out.

Here is my personal experience with a corolla. About 10 years ago, when I was still in high school, we rented a corolla and got into an accident head-on with a Volvo sedan. The Volvo only suffered a hanging corner light, the corolla on the other hand was heavily damaged. It nearly lost one of its corners and bent its radiator. Coolant was all over. The aftermath was that the driver of the Volvo drove away in her own car, we got a ride with the flat bed truck driver.

@doubledoggy

Please read.
1. Generally trucks are less safe. The arguments are listed in the posts above. Weight and size is NOT the decider. Go and 'Youtube' the crash test of the SMART and you'll know. While you are there, educate yoursellf a bit more about road compatibility'.
2. Trucks are using engineering and construction principles of the fourties and fiftees. They are worse in that sense, then the allready awfull Crown Vics.
3. I'm a Diesel fan. From a tech point of view, Diesels are far superiour and that includes emissions.
Whether the Hummer has diesel in it or note, i dont care, i'm only going to ram it with my Leopard 2 (please read carefully).
4. And lastly, through my post i was rediculing you ignorance.

And, on your 10-year ago rant, stay with Youtube and search for the 'old vs new' crash test. Technology has made incredible advances the last 10 year through computer aided design, better (and more) steel and other materials etc. Which car is safer in a 40% off-set crash? A 1995 Volvo 940 or a new Renault Modus.

Well I think there are two sides to a similar argument here:

What do you want to survive the crash? The car or the person?

Lets take a 77 Caprice Classic, a 2004 Corolla, and a mid 90's Accord, and the 2008 Smart.
All 4 of those hitting a solid concrete wall at 60 mph are going to be undriveable. You'll likely die in the Caprice, and be hurting pretty bad (with probably the least damage from the Smart). In terms of the car, the Caprice probably fairs the best. Sure you'd lose the radiator, and maybe the engine, but I bet there would less structural damage than the other 3.

Or how about the 96 Cavalier coupe I used to have, you had a 1 in 2, that's right a 50/50 chance of dying from a side impact. I've taken the door apart, the only think protecting you from the car that's about to hit you is the sheet metal on the outside.

Frankly safety is a trade off, you can have plenty of crumple zones and air bags to slow everything down, and give the occupant a higher chance of walking away, or you make the car stronger and not have it crumple like tin foil when it's in a wreck at 30 mph.

And on the topic of Stability Control and crap like that. WTF does a small truck need stability control? WTF do 60% of cars on the road need it? If designers made cars handle worth a crap you wouldn't need it. If people could actually drive you wouldn't need it. You frankly DON'T need it. It's another expensive, bloat adding, useless safe feature added to compensate for a crappy design. And multi air bags should be an OPTION, not mandatory. It's my car, my life. If I don't want to wear a seat belt, frankly that should be my right to....but we won't get into that.

@brain

brakes, wind screen, headlights should be an option. It's my car, my life.
Nevermind the poor rescue people that have to wipe together the minced meat that you have become after the crash.

@lowest IQ

The Smart car isn't that safe of a car. Sure it has a strong cage, but it lacks many crumple zone areas to help absorb energy to make up for it's small size. If a mid-size car hit an Smart Car at a moderate speed, your prob going to die from the G-Force trama to your body alone due to lack of crumple zones. These cars were designed around metro speed limits, where speeds are moderately under 40mph.

lowest iq!
Yes, I have seen crash tests on the Smart car many times. Have you seen the one when they have an S class Benz hit it head on? did you see the S class just shrug it off, while the Smart was rolled over several times? Wait, the S class only weight a little more than twice the Smart. Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of MBz and Smart car was designed my MBz. It of course will feature load of safety measures.

Look, we are just talking about side impact here. And I am discussing about the chance of surviving a side impact by another car. I could careless about head on, hitting a concrete blah blah blah...It is very hard to avoid a side impact when it does happen. Experienced drivers just couldn't tell when the other drivers would run a stop sign or red light. Newest cars now are pretty safe for frontal crash due to crumble zone and airbags, but I still believe they are very weak against a side impact. Just last month, the local news was talking about a family, all died because their mini van ( Sienna ) was trashed by a Pontiac sedan ran a red light. When I say trash, that what's left of the Sienna after the crash. You could see the head and the tail, but the whole mid section was just not there any more. It was like something shredded a piece of paper into 3 pieces. Now, how are side air bags are going to save lives in that situation. They said the Pontiac was zooming through there at around 60-70 mph, but no one expected it was to make a hole through that minivan. Here is the link to the story: nbc5i.com/news/16679551/detail.html

Here is the thing, it doesn't matter how much safety techs you put inside a car, if it started out with a weak frame, it would not work. Those safety features are becoming more like a sale gimmicks, rather a saving lives thing. Ever wonder why body shops charging so much to do body work on European cars? because their steels are so hard, it's not even funny to work on. May be that's why the Europeans suffer less death from car accidents and they can do well @ Autobahn speed.

E=mc^2. that Smart car was getting more than twice the E from the S class and therefore was pushed back rolling like a toy.

@waldorf and statler

Oh so you want a Jeep Wrangler with a flip down windshield? Frankly if you wanted a death trap you could make it yourself. But for liability reasons, I'm sure no one will sell you one.

All I'm saying is at a certain level you begin to achieve diminishing returns. Some people see it as it saves one more life, and fine maybe one day that life might be mine. But in the mean time all that safety makes cars heavier, more expensive, and less fuel efficient.

I'd love for someone to dig up some statistics on how many motorcycles are registered in a country vs. how many accidents there are. Outside of mandatory body armor laws I don't see how you make a bike safer.

@nobledoggy,

and the S-class was travelling a the speed of light (c) :)))

Nah, but here is another equation for you lowest iq, p=mv. That is momentum equals mass times velocity.

yeah, where P stands for Pontiac and MV for minivan.
You got it!

http://www autojunk nl/clips/view/143376

my bad! I was meant to say F=ma, been a while. Anyhow, I was trying to point out the variable here is m.

Guess that's why that Pontiac ripped through that Toyota Sienna like a hot knife on butter.

curb weight Toyota Sienna: 4270lbs
curb weight Pontiac G8: 3950lbs

and?

2007/2008 model years

But your equation said Pontiac equals Mini-Van, so the curb weights don't matter clearly.

Here is why it cut through it like a hot knife on butter. 60-70 mph was the speed, the Toyota's speed in the direction that the Pontiac hit it, 0 mph. Thus its momentum was zero in that direction. This means no more Mini-Van.

Oh, and before you say the Mini-Van was moving, velocities have two properties. A direction and a speed. The velocity of the Mini-Van in the direction the Pontiac hit it, 0 m/s. Zero times any amount is always still zero.

As for the F=ma, acceleration also has a direction and a speed. The Mini-Van's acceleration with regards to how the Pontiac hit it, zero, since its change in velocity was zero and acceleration is a change in velocity of a give time, seconds square to be exact, or m/s^2. So its force in the direction the Pontiac hit it was also a big fat 0.

So much for your Pontiac equals Mini-Van theory.

yes, avatar, yes.

look at the clip on autojunk. Its about compatibility, having the 'beams' at the same height, etc.

If only your link actually linked to something other then Google searching nothing, lmao.

can't post it with the dots between www and the rest...so took those out.

hey dudes, why don't you two just email each other or get a room together

i live in a carton box under the i-95

Great post, Tommy Boy. One of the few actually worth reading here.

There is never a better safety device then an alert, careful driver that understand the limits of the vehicle they are driving. You can stuff all the airbags you want into a vehicle, but it's the good driver that can yield the best safety factor.

Agreed harryo. The best and safest accident is the one that never happens in the first place.

airbags are to protect you from the other idiots on the road