Crash Testing: MINI Cooper vs Ford F150

[a6m5]

OK. This is an old article(2002), but it was something I had never heard of, so I wanted to share it with you guys.

When I first saw this picture, I thought there was something wrong with my eyes. Then, I thought maybe it was some kind of hoax. I did little googling, and looks like this was all true:

Wow. Both of these vehicles hit the exact same off-set barrier at 40mph. Now there's no question what would win in a head-on collesion between the two but then again the majority of accidents involve only a single car. All you have to do is look at the dummy's legs and you can get an idea of what would happen if you hit a wall in either car. The MINI had almost no intrusion which "indicates that the driver's survival space was maintained very well" - the F150 on the other hand had "Major collapse of the occupant compartment that left little survival space for the driver."

You can find the full article here. And if you have time, this New Yorker Article is interesting as well.

 

[F1GTR]

Seems like the whole truck is a crumple zone in the F150 and the only the engine area is the crumple zone in the mini.

 

[Taurine]

The Mini has less weight to crumple the car then the F150 does.

Although in saying that, the Mini still holds together for it's weight compared to the Ford..

 

[Quick_Nick]

Size doesn't equal integrity. When will people learn this?

 

[Jondot]

Mmm, i've seen this kinda thing before:


Landrover Freelander: 3 Stars

Peugeot 1007: 5 stars

I'm better off in a small supermini than in in our freelander.

 

[1X83Z]

Ugh.

I'm better off in a small supermini than in in our freelander.

I'll deal with you first.

Yes - you are better-off in the 1007 than in a Freelander. That is, of course, assuming that you accelerate into a barrier and hit it at exactly 40mph in exactly the right spot, without slowing down at all. Land Rover builds sturdy, rigid vehicles, whereas Peugeot and Citroen have figured out how to beat NCAP and build cars that do well in NCAP tests. I personally would rather have the tough Freelander than a car that has been engineered solely for the purpose of getting a high rating on NCAP. I read an article about a year ago where PSA, NCAP, and leading UK engineers all agreed that this is what's going on: cars being engineered to beat NCAP. This is why NCAP is such a ****ing joke.

OK. This is an old article(2002), but it was something I had never heard of, so I wanted to share it with you guys.

Pickups are notoriously bad at crash-testing (and, really, crashes in general) because of their horrible structural rigidity. You should see side impact crash test shots: they can literally break in half and have the cab either become dislodged from or incredibly twisted at the bed.

But again, this is why crash-testing is such BS. Let's run a vehicle full-speed into a wall at 35mph hitting it exactly in the center without any braking. When would a human being ever encounter such a situation? The truck does crumple and crumple hard, and the crash test illustrates that, but I wouldn't put too much stock in anything else you hear from crash tests.

Consider all that.

 

[a6m5]

Pickups are notoriously bad at crash-testing (and, really, crashes in general) because of their horrible structural rigidity. You should see side impact crash test shots: they can literally break in half and have the cab either become dislodged from or incredibly twisted at the bed.

But again, this is why crash-testing is such BS. Let's run a vehicle full-speed into a wall at 35mph hitting it exactly in the center without any braking. When would a human being ever encounter such a situation? The truck does crumple and crumple hard, and the crash test illustrates that, but I wouldn't put too much stock in anything else you hear from crash tests.

Consider all that.

It's an "offset" crash test. Also, I think you might find the link to the New Yorker article in my first post, interesting.

 

[xcsti]

Well at least you can consider that the f-150 has been completely redesign since then.

In vehicle on vehicle accidents or accidents involving softer objects a larger vehicle may be (slightly) better off, but only for it's occupants.

 

[1X83Z]

It's an "offset" crash test.

Even worse. Slamming into an L-shaped block at 35mph, that happens to hit the vehicle EXACTLY in the center of the grille and to one side. Once again: no swerving, no braking, just acceleration up to an exact speed then impact.

And then they make real-world crash data impossibly hard to find. My advice for safety: buy a car with a lot of safety features, then completely disregard whatever the crash tests say.

The article is interesting, BTW.

 

[xXSilencerXx]

Ford has had a lot of saftey issues.

 

[Joey D]

Forward momentum anyone? P=MV. The F-150 is double the weight of the Mini so therfore more momentum being forced on a small area (center grill as M5 pointed out already). What do you think it go to win. Also how often are you going to hit a wall in your car head on? You have to be either pretty drunk or pretty blind to hit one.

Ford has had a lot of saftey issues.

Show me.

 

[Omnis]

It does kind of suck that the cab gets so bent up though. what they need to do is hook the cars up via R/C and take them to a crash zone.

 

[Driftster]

Ford Safety issue #1...The idiot in the commercial who stands under a pickup being hed by 1 bolt...

 

[1X83Z]

Ford Safety issue #1...The idiot in the commercial who stands under a pickup being hed by 1 bolt...

Ford truck commercials are mostly camera trickery. Has anyone else noticed that in the shot at the end of each commercial where the truck drives up and stops, Ford has slowed down the footage where the truck comes back to rest as it normally would, so it looks like the ride is smoother than it is? Pay attention and you can tell.

 

[Driftster]

Oh I know, almost as much as the whole....."My pickup can tow an ice crusher through ice, even when the ice crusher can't make it on it's own power"

 

[1X83Z]

I haven't seen that one yet, though the idea sounds absurd.

 

[Emohawk]

Oh I know, almost as much as the whole....."My pickup can tow an ice crusher through ice, even when the ice crusher can't make it on it's own power"

Yeah! Like that one where the truck pulls down a water tower half a mile away because it's trying to pull out a stump with its roots wrapped around a water pipe.
Oh, wait. That's Chevy.

(yeah, the Ford one is worse)

 

[Omnis]

I like how the ford pulls back that concrete block with the winch. (spellcheck)

Had anyone tried that, the block would obviously fall over. it must've been on rollers or something similar.

 

[xXSilencerXx]

Show me.

The explorers having rollover issues and tires blowing out. Crownvick's fuel tanks having a tendency to explode in accidents.

 

[1X83Z]

The first of those safety issues isn't Ford's fault, in my opinion.

 

[Omnis]

The first of those safety issues isn't Ford's fault, in my opinion.

agreed.

 

[a6m5]

The explorers having rollover issues and tires blowing out. Crownvick's fuel tanks having a tendency to explode in accidents.

Explorer's an SUV. I don't buy this SUV with an rollover issue thing. I don't know how bad the Isuzu Trooper's and Suzuki Samurai/Jimny's rollover tendencies were, but if you don't like rolloverprone vehicle, don't buy an SUV.

Also, as M5 noted, separating tire tread thing wasn't Ford's fault. Crown Vic's deal, I agree.

Did you guys know that U-Haul will not rent a trailer, if you are towing it with Explorers? U-Haul claims that due to the Explorers' defective design, you could "jackknife" the trailer. It's probably because of some pending lawsuit or something though. Don't worry Ford fans! U-Haul will still rent a trailer for your Escorts.

 

[Driftster]

Other ford saftey issues..

Their TFI ignition problems.....

Ford telling Ford-Volvo telling them to decrease roof strength to save money..Which has lead to a increase in deaths due to top landing rollovers...

Fords speed limiter switch in their 792,000 recalled trucks that could catch fire...

Fords SN95 and Fox Mustang fuel system problems ( Could/would catch fire after collisions)...

Even after failing the offset test and the inline test...And they decided it wasn't "necessary" to test it in the corner test..

Oh PS...
The Crown vic incidents also affect the Mercury Grand Marquis and Lincoln town car
(All Ford Panther platform cars)

 

[xXSilencerXx]

What I was saying is that the Explorers had a unusully bad tendency to roll over. I know any tall vehicle will roller easilly though.

 

[1X83Z]

I'm fairly sure U-Haul will rent a trailer to all Explorers except 1995-2001 5-doors (and counterpart 1996-2001 Mercury Mountaineer). Which leaves open the majority of Explorers. It's still a big issue though.

 

[Joey D]

My truck can't roll over, I've affected its center of gravity pretty damn good.

 

[Driftster]

i bet I can roll it over...
Give me a straight road with a curb on atleast one side..

 

[Joey D]

Well you can roll anything like that, but as far as normal driving I can drive my truck like a sports car. Sport suspension and extremely high grip tires, as long as the road isn't uber bumpy I'm good. Freeway off ramps are fun, 35mph is just a suggestion .

 

[xXSilencerXx]

I've seen pics of Blazin's truck and he's tellin the truth that thing would be harder than usual to roll. It's much lower than other SUV's.