UM no, i think they hit the car/truck w/ the same sled (truck sized). cars generally get a passing grade whereas these trucks didn't, but got a "poor" instead, even w/ side airbags.

Yeah, I completely misread that. I thought it said something to the effect of them using a "car" sized sled for cars and a "truck" sized sled for trucks.

That's what I get for waking up a 3:00am to catch a flight...

The problem isn't that the truck isn't stronger than cars, but rather the trucks do not move at all. Watch a car get hit from the side and it will move a foot, which in turn dissapates some of the energy.

What I got was that they hit the truck with a "car" and it passed. More structure in the rocker panel means it's stronger. Then they hit the truck with a "truck" and it didn't do so well.

A "truck" would hit a car higher in the door, where there's less structure. (higher even than the "truck" hitting the truck) It follows that a car would be worse off in a collision between a truck and a car.

:iagree:

No... Ridgeline FTMFW. :dthumb:

Exactly. I think this just exposes the weakness in utilizing this sort of testing.

It's definitely not perfect, but you need some kind of testing- otherwise you have nothing but marketing gimmicks. A lot like helmets. BSI, Snell, DOT, ECE... Who's right?

Not debating right, wrong, needed or not needed... Just saying this points out the weakness in the test.

BSI/ECE, because their helmets are lighter :dthumb:
Who gives a fuck if they are "less safe" than Snell/DOT

I want to be a crash test dummy! :D

I think the main issue for the trucks is the center beam dividing the front and back halves of the cab. It's a long piece of metal, and since they're trying to keep it as slim as possible to shorten the overall cab length while providing a large opening, it's fairly narrow.

I remember similar tests a few years back, done on extended-cab trucks with suicide rear doors and NO center column... they were really ugly :zowned: