jbowman1993

Im certainly not a mechanical engineer, but I am trying to wrap my brain around how the bars would fall off during a front end collision. Wouldn't they be pinned in between the two objects be it vehicle vs vehicle or vehicle vs. solid object? Perhaps after the accident, when you are towing it, it might fall off, causing several more accidents in the process (this is Thailand, after all) .

No problem Wilko, apparently, you missed my other post, where I talked about my own research, using primary sources. So here it is.

Peace

"and it’s been demonstrated time after time that cars are safer than pickups."

I wanted to find some ratings to see what the general level of safety was on pickup trucks, so I went the the US government website, www.nhtsa.dot.gov On that website, they do rate trucks and provide crash test marks, and rollover marks. I looked at the 2006 models, and the results of the 2006 models would seem to indicate that trucks are equally as safe as cars.

Admittedly, they were testing US models, but this is the only comprehensive source I could locate, so that is what I am going by.

All Dodge pickup models scored 5 and 4 stars in all catagories, including rollover.

The Ford F-150s were all 5 and 4 stars, and the Ranger scored well in crash ratings, but only 2 stars in rollover.

Chevy trucks scored between 3 and 4 stars in crash ratings and 4 star in rollever

The new pickup by Honda, the Ridgeline, 5 star ratings across the board.

Nissan Frontier - 4 and 5 star ratings across the board.

Toyota Tundra, Tacoma, and Prerunner - 4 and 5 star ratings across the board.

I actually went added up all the ratings awarded (im a nerd,what can i say), and it came out to a 4 star average, for pickups in general.

Next i turned to ratings for 2006 passenger cars. This was more difficult as there were many more models.

Ford and Volvo turned in the highest marks overall, with several of their models having 5 star ratings across the board., but these were balanced by 3 and 2 star ratings turned in by our old friend GM, and Nissan, Kia, etc. The average rating for the passenger cars listed, also 4 stars.

So, what conclusions can we draw from this? Well, it would seem that pickup truck safety and car safety vary by model, but the general level of safety in both types is equal.

I would be curious to look up results from previous years, to see if pickups were lower, and have been catching up, but I am tired, and I don't want to, lol

Peace

We'll, Im quoting myself. Guess this thread is pretty much shot to hel_l. later

Don't kill the messenger, spanky.

I wouldn't listen to anyone knocking the idea of a front bar, The main purpose of those bars is to keep your truck from getting scraped by passing motor bikes and to keep front end damage down on very low speed collisions, I.E. bumping something with your trucks front end.

I for one am FOR them, they DO keep that damage down.

As far as other accessories you can get them down at the chinatown area pretty cheap. lots of sellers there so you can bargain ;-)

Greg

I suppose they might have some advantages. It will keep that front bumper scratch free, so that you can go into your head on collision with the drunken bus driver with a pristine bumper. Then the front end bars force the engine to be pushed into the passenger compartment, along with some of the aforementioned front bumper.

Makes sense, In a weird twisted warped kinda way.

Bangkok Post

Friday, January 20th, 2005

4X4 DOUBLE-CABS

COMMON RIVALS

The Chevrolet Colorado, Mitsubishi Triton and Toyota Hilux now have modern packages and technologies to stay ahead of the others. So which one's the best?

Motoring

With the advent of four-door pickups, or double-cabs as they are also known as, in Thailand, buyers had new alternatives to conventional saloons and SUVs priced under one million baht.

Despite being grossly vehicles, double-cabs highlight durability, low running costs (with the exception of annual road tax) and cargo-carrying versatility. Four-wheel-drive options have also made them practical for off-roading.

Highlighted in this week's comparison are three models that come with new-generation bodies and the latest in diesel engine technologies: Chevrolet Colorado, Mitsubishi Triton and Toyota Hilux Vigo.

Isuzu, the pickup champion in Thailand for over two decades, has the credentials to match this trio. Actually, the D-Max is the donor of nearly every component of the Chevrolet Colorado.

But why isn't the D-Max here? As ever, Isuzu has declined the invitation, as the brand says it has no policy of giving vehicles to the media for comparisons. So, the Colorado could somehow be reflective of how the D-Max would perform here, despite some small alterations like a more comfort-oriented ride, specification and price.

Three other players - Nissan Frontier and the jointly-developed Ford Ranger and Mazda Fighter - are obviously not here because they are a generation behind and are all due to be replaced with all-new versions this year.

The Frontier, Ranger and Fighter don't have turbo-diesel engines with common-rail fuel injection technology yet. As well, their four-door bodies can't match the others - rear legroom is far more inferior and the seating position is too upright.

Which leaves us with the Colorado, Triton and Vigo to see which one's the best choice. The brief this time is on- and off-road driving balance, practicality and value.

The 2,000km test route was rather comprehensive including highways, back-country and winding mountain roads, as well as off-roading between Chiang Mai and Mae Hong Son provinces.

Exterior appeal

You may think that vehicles in this domain of the market don't have to look good, given that pickups are more like workhorses. But the latest trends suggest that buyers do crave for some good looks, especially in 4x4 form.

That explains why Mitsubishi has given the Triton much inspiration in terms of design. The curvy C-pillars and the shapely front and rear lights effectively lifts the Triton's presence on the road. And that apparently hasn't affected the vehicle's functionality.

The Vigo, on the other hand, looks just as modern, but in a more restrained and mature fashion. Toyota has ensured that practicality can't take a back seat, explaining the cavernous cabin and largest cargo bay of the three.

The Colorado is the plainest-looking vehicle of this triplet. However, it still looks distinctive in its own right, despite some clues of the D-Max. The sharp-looking front end and the distinguished bowtie-badges on the grille and wheels bring out some life from the Colorado.

Interior appeal

Since the Colorado was developed earlier than the Triton and Vigo, it has the least comfortable cabin. While comfort isn't a problem up front, rear occupants will find the seats too upright.

The Colorado is also the least interesting vehicle to be in. The dashboard and door panel design is utterly simple, but is straight-forward to use. The hard plastics may feel dowdy, but are screwed together well. In fact, finish is the best of the three.

Like the exterior, the Triton's interior is a flashy place to be in. The dashboard and upholstery combine several colours and trimmings in a contemporary manner. Our test car, however, suffered from some quality glitches which Mitsubishi claims will be ironed out after production for export has started. The Triton has the airiest cabin of the three. The seats are large - not shapely, though - and the rear bolsters are angled the most to yield a car-like stance as much as possible.

The Vigo, meanwhile, boasts a classy ambience by using cream and beige colours to lighten up the cabin.

It's just as functional and spacious as in the Triton, but not as special to be in.

Interior design is more inspiring than in the Colorado, but not as racy as in the Triton. The Vigo's overall cabin quality is good, although you could still find some panel gaps.

Driving -appeal

The Colorado, Triton and Vigo are good examples of how modern pickups should behave on the road. Memories of compromised dynamics and sluggish performance can now be forgotten, although you can't avoid the fact that they are bigger and heavier than ever.

At least, all three come with adequate performing turbo-diesel engines to offset their grossly body weights of some two tons. Their automatic transmissions haven't blunted performance either.

And since double-cabs aren't prone to carrying heavy cargo, engineers have managed to tweak the chassis on the plush side to improve ride comfort.

The Colorado appears to have the most nimble driving characteristics of the three. By standards of pickups, the Colorado rarely feels uncomfortable.

As well, it handles effortlessly. The steering may not be that precise or feelsome, but has been geared well to suit both on- and off-roading.

The 145hp 3.0-litre engine doesn't feel sluggish and yields sufficient punch whenever you crave for it. Refinement is okay, although the motor is noisy when pushed hard.

The Triton, on the contrary, is a mixed bag of virtues and flaws, despite being the newest entry in the Thai market and coming with the most powerful engine.

The 165hp 3.2-litre unit performs just as well as the Colorado's, but comes with added oomph in the mid-ranges. You can feel this when overtaking other vehicles on two-lane roads. But the engine is coarse at most times and gets too talkative when strained.

Handling isn't a problem in the Triton: of the three it feels the most planted to the road. But the steering is far too slow, meaning that you have to put more steering input at low speeds.

Such an unresponsive steering may give some driving comfort during off-roading. Even so, there is still too much slack. Also, all testers noted the excessive amount of steering kickback.

The front end of the Triton yields a comfy ride, unlike the rear end that appears to be firmer and tuned by another set of engineers.

It appears that the Vigo has the best road manners here. The ride quality is a tad firmer than in the Colorado, yet comfortable enough on both the tarmac and dirt.

What's better is the steering that feels the most direct here, as well as being not too heavy or light. It could get a little snappy in tough off-roading. But on-road, it's the best.

The 163hp 3.0-litre powerhouse may not beat the Triton's in the game of numbers, but it feels just as swift and spirited on the road. The Vigo seems to have the most responsive, linear and refined drivetrain here.

All three come with the usual front disc/rear drum brakes set-up and have slightly wooden pedal feel and yield sufficient, if not exceptional, stopping power. The Colorado was vividly remembered for not having enough bite here when compared to its rivals' grabbier stoppers.

Monetary -appeal

All three have prices retailing high up in the 800,000 baht range, with a 27,000 baht difference between the cheapest and most expensive ones. All have basic safety features like four three-point seatbelts, anti-lock brakes and frontal airbags

The Triton is the dearest at 898,000 baht, but comes with the best specification. Highlights include electric-powered, leather-upholstered seats, trip information and a window at the rear that opens via touch of a button.

The Vigo and Colorado don't have the aforementioned items, explaining their lower prices of 871,000 and 874,000 baht respectively.

There are some variations in the petty items offered in all three cars that allude to luxury and convenience. An example is the Vigo that has both side and rear steps. Or the shift-on-the-fly 4x4 gearchange in the Colorado.

As said in the beginning of the report, all three are subject to high annual road taxes worth at least 6,000 baht per year due to their high engine displacements and the inability to be - legally - categorised as a commercial vehicle like two-door pickups.

During the entire test which included the need to carry camping equipment and 2-3 persons on each vehicle, the three double-cabs returned average fuel economy. The Colorado was the best at 11kpl, the Vigo 10kpl and the Triton 9kpl.

The verdict

To us, it appears that the Colorado's fuel economy is competitive in this company and that could be of some concern to potential buyers of double-cabs. The Vigo may not be as economical, but is compensated with better performance. The Triton has the performance, but is not frugal.

The Colorado also stands out with a reasonable balance between on- and off-road ability, although the Vigo's more focused on-road behaviour and more responsive performance makes it a difficult choice to ignore when it comes to driving experience.

The Triton may have a flawed drive, but oozes with style and practicality. These two areas are certainly new benchmarks for the development of pickups. If these two attributes really matter to you more than anything else, the Triton is it.

But if they aren't, then the Colorado should be the more logical option. It's least comfortable cabin is made up with nimble driving manners and economical performance for the unfussed driver.

But if you need a little bit of this and that, the Vigo has it. It has both a practical cargo bay and spacious cabin, plus an inspiring drive to help quash its shortcomings that are petty rather than noteworthy.

The Vigo wins here, with the Colorado and Triton trailing behind depending on what you specifically need in a double-cab.

Mine means that I am cool, like Jai Dee

Dont mind me too much Wilko, Im harmless.

Astral you should probably say less!

Nothing like a generalization to spur prejudice.

I was speaking from personal observation a few years ago,

when I was helping a Thai to find a piece of land to buy..........

You personally observed the entire Chinese race? Because if it was just a few select individuals, I'll have to agree with the previous poster, you should probably keep quiet.

Many people who've given an opinion about those front bars on this forum are against them. Reasons cited were 1) they greatly decrease the the safety of the vehicle in front end collisions, since they interfere with the built in crumple zones. 2) They are much more dangerous for people outside the vehicle, who might get in the way of those giant steel bars. 3) They cut down on the aerodynamics of th vehicle, increasing fuel consumption.

The recommendation many had was to install the plastic ones specially designed by the manufacturer. There is another thread running where people are talking about accessories. "Vigo plastic bug deflector"

FYI

Many people who've given an opinion about those front bars on this forum are against them. Reasons cited were 1) they greatly decrease the the safety of the vehicle in front end collisions, since they interfere with the built in crumple zones. 2) They are much more dangerous for people outside the vehicle, who might get in the way of those giant steel bars. 3) They cut down on the aerodynamics of th vehicle, increasing fuel consumption.

The recommendation many had was to install the plastic ones specially designed by the manufacturer. There is another thread running where people are talking about accessories. "Vigo plastic bug deflector"

FYI

You are right Wilko. How could I ever have let myself be decieved by those idiots at the US NHTSA. Their ###### lies! Crashing all those 2006 model vehicles, in a blatant attempt to support the US auto industry. All those 5 star ratings crash test and rollover ratings they gave Toyota and Honda trucks and SUV's, and the mix of 4 and 5 star ratings given to Ford, Chevy, and Dogdge. Its a conspiracy, I tell you! Thank you for shedding light on this for all of us.

I feel so dirty. How could I let myself be tricked like that. I need a shower

Grumbling to myself: "Tricksy little stinkin fat hobbitses. Whats this? A pickup truck? My love, my precious....."

A catholic priest in BKK offered to marry me and my Thai GF, her family were ok about it if we had the Thai ceremony too, why not do the Thai ceremony and replace the trip to amphur with a cathoilic wdding which legalises the marriage, I don't see any conflict as the Thai ceremony is not strictly a wedding (no legal status) its just being blessed by family and monks

How does a catholic wedding replace the trip to the amphur office. One is civil, the other religious, right?

Terdsak mentioned something important; and that concerns accidents. Many people in the States will take two undamaged halves of the same model car and simply tack weld them together, repaint the vehicle, put in a new interior, etc and you have a nice looking car. These rebuilt wrecks are very dangerous to be driving around in. I can imagine that this sort of wreck rebuilding/selling happens here as well so do make sure you inspect the vehicle THOROUGHLY for any signs of previous wrecks. Look for paint overspray inside door jams and check to make sure all the body panels line up evenly. Check the frame of course and remember that cars which have had front end collisions may have bad AC systems since the compressor is located in the front of the engine compartment and takes a beating in front end accidents.

I would also vote for buying new. My Dad has been a car mechanic for going on 40 years, and is still today. He always warned me away from used cars. You don't want to buy other people's problems. You don't know what kind of previous accident history the car might have had (especially at those big used car lots), you don't know what kind of driver the previous owner was. Maybe he was a leadfoot, and has inflicted a lot of heavy wear and tear on the drivetrain and braking system.

You know what kind of driver you are, and you have a 3 year warrenty with the new vehicle, as well. I vote new!

Chock Dee krup!

What Do Farangs Do In Bangkok?

They complain a lot.

I don't mind having debates about things, I just like to make sure I don't have to read about other men's lactating nipples.

Peace

I was always a sucker for this inspirational crap. Here is one of my favorites. If you don't know Leo Buscaglia and his books, you should find out. He transcends words.

A Start

By Leo Buscaglia

Each day, I promise myself not to try to solve all my life problems at once -- nor shall I expect you to do so;

Starting each day, I shall try to learn something new about me and about you and about the world I live in, so that I may continue to experience all things as if they had been newly born;

Starting each day, I shall remember to communicate my joy as well as my despair, so that we can know each other better;

Starting each day, I shall remind myself to really listen to you and to try to hear your point of view and to discover the least-threatening way of giving you mine, remembering that we are both growing and changing in a hundred different ways;

Starting each day, I shall remind myself that I am a human being and not demand perfection of you until I am perfect, so you're safe;

Starting each day, I shall try to be more aware of the beautiful things in our world -- I'll look at the flowers, I'll look at the birds, I'll look at the children, I'll feel the cool breezes, I'll eat good food -- and I'll share these things with you;

Starting each day, I shall remind myself to reach out and touch you, gently, with my words, my eyes and with my fingers, because I don't want to miss feeling you;

Starting each day, I shall dedicate myself again to the process of being a lover -- and then see what happens;

I’m not your wet nurse!

If you want my research you can buy it off me!

I certainly don't have to cite anything...I'm not disputing anything I'm agreeing with your posting but I can't see the point you are making as you haven't made one! Have you?

My point was simply this. You claim that cars are inherently safer than pickups or SUV's. I have produced documented evidence that suggests that this is not the case anymore. (NHTSA + sources in the Popular Mechanics article). If you wish to dispute those results, by all means, try. But leave out the personal innuendo's about my drinking habits (wet nurse). I prefer beer.

Another article, written by experts, as food for thought.

Which Are Safer: Cars Or Trucks?

BY PAUL A. EISENSTEIN

Published on: October 7, 2001

Popular Mechanics Magazine

Carly Scissors wanted a new Jeep Wrangler because she thought it "looked cool." Her parents decided to buy it for her because they believed an SUV would give the 19-year-old student the best line of defense in a serious accident. "If you're going to have your daughter driving around, you want her in something safe," explains stepfather Elliott Milstein, president of a small Michigan pharmaceuticals company. "And we'd read all the reports in the papers saying you're more likely to survive an accident being in a truck."

The Milstein family is by no means unique. Millions of American motorists are trading in their sedans, coupes and station wagons for minivans, pickups and sport utility vehicles. While style, utility and versatility are among the advantages that light trucks offer, for many buyers, safety is the major selling point. Fueled by surging demand for sport utility vehicles, light trucks now account for about half of the overall U.S. motor vehicle market.

But are sport utility vehicles really as safe as they seem? That's become the centerpiece of a debate that's growing even faster than the SUV market itself. To critics, they're "killer trucks." Yet others cite the same data to make their case that sport utes are among the safest things on wheels. As is common when an issue becomes so polarized, the real answer is somewhere in between.

Down And Dirty Data

According to statistics collected by the Highway Loss Data Institute, large sport utility vehicles, like the Ford Expedition and Chevrolet Suburban, have the lowest death rates on the road—about 90 occupants killed for every million registered vehicles. At the other end of the spectrum are minicars, such as the Chevy Metro and Ford Aspire. As a group, they average almost 300 deaths per million registered vehicles. Midsize SUVs, including the popular Jeep Grand Cherokee and Ford Explorer, average 136 deaths, while midsize cars run as high as 201 deaths per million vehicles. Average things out and you are, on the whole, safer in an SUV than you are in a passenger car. The death rate ratio is 151 per million compared to 168. (Remember that statistics fluctuate over time, and these could change.)

That's not to say SUVs are even close to perfect protection. Light trucks have stopping distances that aren't nearly as good as passenger cars. They're not as easy to maneuver, especially in an emergency situation. And, "sport utes are more prone to fatal rollovers" than passenger cars, notes Adrian Lund, senior vice president of research for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). That's especially true with small SUVs, such as the Chevy Tracker. Not surprising, when you consider the potentially troublesome combination of a short wheelbase and a high center of gravity. Now add the fact that these vehicles tend to be owned by young, less-experienced drivers who often act as if they're behind the wheel of an off-road sports car. On the other hand, larger SUVs, like the Explorer or Chevy Blazer, tend to be owned by older, more mature drivers, a fact that undoubtedly enhances their safety record as much as the vehicles’ mass and four-wheel drive. But the bottom line is that you're statistically better off in a sport ute.

End of story? Not quite. The current controversy takes an unusual twist. What critics are concerned with is not whether you will survive an accident in your Jeep or Explorer, but what will happen to the folks inside the car

Call Me Incompatible

It takes only an elementary understanding of the laws of physics to recognize that "when big runs into little, big tends to win," as Ford Motor Co. safety specialist Ernie Grush says. It's a concept automotive experts have dubbed "compatibility."

Smash an 18-wheeler into a subcompact and there's no contest. Obviously, the odds also are stacked in favor of a Chevrolet Suburban slamming into the side of a Chevy Cavalier. On the whole, when a light truck and a passenger car collide, the car occupants are four times more likely to die than those in the truck, according to a federal study of recent crash data. And, according to that same data, when a compact car is hit in the side by a large SUV, the death rate jumps to 27:1.

Side impacts are about the most deadly vehicle-to-vehicle collision. Accordingly, side-impact survivability has been the most recent focus of automotive safety engineers. Today's automobiles are designed with a lot of crush space that will fold up like an accordion—in a frontal or rear-end collision—helping absorb much of the crash energy. When you're hit in the side, however, there's simply not much room to "ride-down," or absorb the impact forces. So run a full-size passenger car into the side of a small one, and you're still 20 times more likely to die if you're sitting inside the car that's being hit.

Federal automotive safety watchdog NHTSA finds particularly troublesome the rate at which passenger cars are being replaced by sport utility vehicles and other light trucks. The agency feels that if that trend were reversed, the highway death toll might drop by as many as 2000 lives a year.

But a recent series of government-sponsored car-truck crash tests were not nearly as conclusive as the safety agency had expected, prompting many to question NHTSA's dire warnings. Since 1980, light trucks have gone from 20 percent to more than a third of all the vehicles on the road, yet over the same period, the nation’s vehicle fatality rate has dropped from just over three deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled to less than two. So, one could just as easily agree with GM safety expert Robert Lange, who argues, "Today's motor vehicle fleet is safer because of the penetration of light trucks, not in spite of it."

And while NHTSA might argue that big is bad, a report by the Brookings Institute would contend that small is an equally serious problem. It asserts that by downsizing the U.S. passenger car fleet over the last 20 years, we have added 2000 lives a year to the nation's highway death toll. "We have a small-vehicle problem," agrees IIHS president Brian O'Neill. "When you look at crash statistics, the biggest gains could be made by getting rid of small [passenger cars]."

A Geometry Lesson

Even if one accepts there is an imbalance when cars and trucks collide, just how serious a problem is it in the real world? SUV-passenger car crashes account for a scant percentage of the total passenger car fatalities. Far more people are killed when their passenger cars hit trees. Indeed, single-vehicle accidents account for almost half of passenger-car fatalities, about twice the total for all car-truck accidents.

Of course, all safety experts—from the government, insurance companies and the automakers--agree that we could slash highway fatalities by getting everyone to buckle up.

That said, one can't dismiss the compatibility issue entirely. The problem is, no one quite understands all the forces at work when cars and trucks collide. "Weight has a big effect," says Priya Prassad, one of Ford's top safety researchers. But factors such as vehicle stiffness and geometry catch at least some of the blame in accidents leading to the loss of 1000 lives a year.

Geometry refers to the fact that light trucks tend to ride higher than cars, and usually have longer front and rear overhangs (the amount of vehicle between axle and bumper). So when a big SUV, such as the Ford Excursion, T-bones a small car, it's not uncommon for the SUV's bumper and hood to penetrate into the car's passenger compartment—something that can result in fatal head injuries. And even in frontal accidents, high-riding trucks often "over-ride," or climb on top of, the car they're hitting.

As for stiffness, while cars combine body and chassis in a relatively yielding unibody package, most trucks mount their bodies on rigid steel frames. That's useful when you're designing a vehicle for rough off-roading or to haul a heavy trailer. But in an accident, a truck's stiff frame rails can knife into the vehicle it hits, something Adrian Hobbs, of Britain's government-funded Transportation Research Laboratories, calls the "fork effect."

Light-truck critics contend the easiest answer would be to lower the height of tomorrow's trucks and build them on frames with more built-in crush space. "You can make SUVs lighter, lower and softer," insists Clarence Ditlow, director of the Washington-based consumer group, The Center for Auto Safety.

The challenge, industry officials counter, is to make those changes without trading off the utility and versatility that SUV and other light-truck owners value. It's also essential, stresses GM's Lange, that "you don't do anything that will compromise the safety of light-truck occupants in order to improve the safety of someone in the car they might hit."

Starting Fresh

That doesn't mean you have to accept today's limitations. "If you start with a clean sheet of paper, you can design safer vehicles, even if you don't understand exactly what compatibility is," says Dr. Falk Zeidler, a senior engineer with DaimlerChrysler. That's the approach the automaker took with its Mercedes-Benz M-Class. Its bumper, hood and frame rails are lower than the typical SUV’s, and there's carlike crush space designed into the M-Class's front end. DaimlerChrysler engineers also took steps to spread out crash loads to prevent the fork effect.

Then there's the "active bumper" system that both Ford and GM are exploring. It would automatically extend several inches when a sonar or radar system detected an impending accident. This would provide an instant crush zone to help cushion the impact. But, these measures might be helpful in only a relatively small number of accidents. Other steps are being taken that would have a far greater reach. Since last year, passenger cars have complied with federal safety standard FMVSS208. It significantly improves side-impact crash protection, and is likely to save hundreds of lives each year, no matter what types of vehicles are involved. A newer standard, FMVSS214, will add an additional measure of head protection.

It used to be said in the auto industry that "safety doesn't sell." Don't try to tell that to today's buyers. Safety has become one of the most important factors in the purchase decision, and while automakers once dragged their feet whenever a new government standard was enacted, the smarter manufacturers now move even faster than the government mandates. As you peruse the specifications and features of the vehicles cataloged in this Buyers Guide, note the larger number that offer—at least as an option—side-impact airbags.

Is It A Car Or A Truck?

Another factor that should help minimize the compatibility issue is the emergence of the car-truck hybrid, vehicles like the Subaru Legacy Outback, Honda CR-V, Toyota RAV-4 and Lexus RX 300 which, despite their SUV-looking bodies, ride on passenger-car chassis. Many of tomorrow's SUVs will have more in common with the RAV-4 than the Chevrolet Blazer. The California market research firm AutoPacific estimates that by 2005 there'll be 68 sport utes on the market, but 29 of them will be passenger car-based

Car/truck hybrids could offer several advantages besides compatibility. There's ride comfort, for one thing. And the fact that trucks are generally a good bit heavier than similar-size passenger cars translates into lower fuel economy and increased emissions. Manufacturers are making giant leaps in their effort to reduce the output of traditional pollutants, like carbon monoxide and smog-forming oxides of nitrogen. But there's a direct and immutable equation that means the more fuel you burn, the more carbon dioxide you create. And if you believe in global warming, that's a problem.

In sum, light trucks don't handle quite as well, they're more prone to roll over, and even with four-wheel drive you can still skid off the road in a snowstorm. But all else being equal, bigger vehicles provide an added measure of protection in an accident. Says Adrian Lund of the IIHS, "The laws of physics work." So, if crashworthiness is your bottom line, SUVs do help put the odds in your favor.

You can split hairs all you want and cry "not fair" but it does alter the stark realities that firstly pickups are a less favourable vehicle to be in during an accident and many people are under the illusion that they are actually safer in one!

It "Does" alter the skark reality?

are a less favourable vehicle to be in during an accident

According to who? You? Cite your source. I gave you cold hard numbers from a government crash test safety agency. If you are going to dispute them, you need to use more than your "Basic theory"

Here is some information from the US NHTSA regarding rollover.

Causes

Rollovers are complex crash incidents and are particularly violent in nature. Rollovers, more so than other types of crashes, reflect the interaction of the driver, road, vehicle, and environmental factors. So while vehicle type does play a significant role, other factors such as driver behavior and road and environmental conditions can also cause a vehicle to roll over.

Vehicle Type

All types of vehicles can rollover. However, taller, narrower vehicles such as SUVs, pickups, and vans have higher centers of gravity, and thus are more susceptible to rollover if involved in a single-vehicle crash.

Speed

Fatal rollover crashes are speed-related more often than fatal non-rollover crashes. Some 40% of fatal rollover crashes involved excessive speeding . Additionally, nearly ¾ of fatal rollovers took place where the posted speed limit was 55 miles per hour or higher.

Alcohol

Nearly half of all fatal rollover crashes involve alcohol . Impairment can result from any blood alcohol concentration (BAC) above .00 . Even a small amount of alcohol will negatively affect your judgment, muscular coordination, and vision, making you more likely to lose control of your vehicle.

Location

Rural roads tend to be undivided and without barriers. They are thus more likely to be the scene of a fatal rollover. Almost ¾ of fatal rollovers occur in rural areas where the posted speed limit is typically 55 miles per hour or higher.

Routine Driving

NHTSA data also suggest that over 90% of the vehicles in fatal, single-vehicle rollover crashes were involved in routine driving maneuvers (going straight or negotiating a curve) at the time of the crash. This further suggests that driver behavior (distraction, inattentiveness, speeding, and impaired driving) plays a significant role in rollover crashes.

Single-vehicle Crashes

NHTSA data show that nearly 85% of all rollover-related fatalities are the result of single-vehicle crashes. This means that the majority of rollover crashes and fatalities do not involve any other vehicle besides the one that rolled over, further suggesting that driver behavior plays a significant role in rollover crashes.

"and it’s been demonstrated time after time that cars are safer than pickups."

I wanted to find some ratings to see what the general level of safety was on pickup trucks, so I went the the US government website, www.nhtsa.dot.gov On that website, they do rate trucks and provide crash test marks, and rollover marks. I looked at the 2006 models, and the results of the 2006 models would seem to indicate that trucks are equally as safe as cars.

Admittedly, they were testing US models, but this is the only comprehensive source I could locate, so that is what I am going by.

All Dodge pickup models scored 5 and 4 stars in all catagories, including rollover.

The Ford F-150s were all 5 and 4 stars, and the Ranger scored well in crash ratings, but only 2 stars in rollover.

Chevy trucks scored between 3 and 4 stars in crash ratings and 4 star in rollever

The new pickup by Honda, the Ridgeline, 5 star ratings across the board.

Nissan Frontier - 4 and 5 star ratings across the board.

Toyota Tundra, Tacoma, and Prerunner - 4 and 5 star ratings across the board.

I actually went added up all the ratings awarded (im a nerd,what can i say), and it came out to a 4 star average, for pickups in general.

Next i turned to ratings for 2006 passenger cars. This was more difficult as there were many more models.

Ford and Volvo turned in the highest marks overall, with several of their models having 5 star ratings across the board., but these were balanced by 3 and 2 star ratings turned in by our old friend GM, and Nissan, Kia, etc. The average rating for the passenger cars listed, also 4 stars.

So, what conclusions can we draw from this? Well, it would seem that pickup truck safety and car safety vary by model, but the general level of safety in both types is equal.

I would be curious to look up results from previous years, to see if pickups were lower, and have been catching up, but I am tired, and I don't want to, lol

Peace

Whatever you do, Don't drive like this guy!

As the Granddaddy of all Motoring Forum Threads, I felt bad that this slipped to page 7 so i am resurrecting it! lol

As for me, I don't care how fast my pickup truck goes because I always go the speed limit, lol. I don't find fast driving to be fun, especially in Thailand. It just makes me nervous, I would rather go slower, taking my time, and having a more relaxing drive. Maybe I arrive at my destination 5 minutes later, but this is Thailand, so who cares! lol

In 20 years of driving I've never had an accident, never gotten pulled over for a ticket (in the US or Thailand), so I think I'm on the right track regarding this philosophy.

Peace

As a big RPG fan, I am anxiously awaiting the April 20th release of The Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion. I was introduced to TES 3: Morrowind, last year, and it completely engrossed me, and became my all time favorite game.

While I am wating, I just bought XMen 2 - Rise of Apocolypse, and Half Life 2, which I havne't played yet.

April can't get here soon enough for me.

Peace