SUV vs. mini

http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/Cra...operVsFordF150

Frontal crash test photo comparisons between a Mini Cooper and a Ford
F-150. In the Mini Cooper, the dummy looks to be unhurt (if he were human).
In the F-150, the driver/dummy looks to have sustained injury, possibly
life-threatening, and there is significant intrusion into the cabin.

Over half of all collisions in the US are single-vehicle. Given that
most SUV's are just trucks with a price premium (in fact, the Expedition is
built on the F-150), why do people assume SUV's are safer? Why hasn't 60
Minutes or some other news program spelled out this idiocy for all to see?
Firestone tires and rollovers are just the tip of the iceberg.

"Magnulus" > wrote in message
. ..
> http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/Cra...operVsFordF150

> Why hasn't 60
> Minutes or some other news program spelled out this idiocy for all to
see?

IMO, the first commentator on the page answers your question:

" Maybe because they all drive these ridiculous vehicles?"

"Magnulus" > wrote in message
. ..
> http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/Cra...operVsFordF150

> Why hasn't 60
> Minutes or some other news program spelled out this idiocy for all to
see?

IMO, the first commentator on the page answers your question:

" Maybe because they all drive these ridiculous vehicles?"

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 01:33:44 -0500, Magnulus > wrote:
>http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/Cra...operVsFordF150

> Frontal crash test photo comparisons between a Mini Cooper and a Ford
>F-150. In the Mini Cooper, the dummy looks to be unhurt (if he were human).
>In the F-150, the driver/dummy looks to have sustained injury, possibly
>life-threatening, and there is significant intrusion into the cabin.

> Over half of all collisions in the US are single-vehicle. Given that
>most SUV's are just trucks with a price premium (in fact, the Expedition is
>built on the F-150), why do people assume SUV's are safer? Why hasn't 60
>Minutes or some other news program spelled out this idiocy for all to see?
>Firestone tires and rollovers are just the tip of the iceberg.

The high center of gravity with it's lousy handling and rollover tendancies and
the lack of safety for the occupants is well documented. You've been living in
a cave if this is news to you.

What we need is a program to help first time buyers get SUVs. The idiots
driving them would do society a favor if they got themselves killed before
they had a chance to breed.

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 01:33:44 -0500, Magnulus > wrote:
>http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/Cra...operVsFordF150

> Frontal crash test photo comparisons between a Mini Cooper and a Ford
>F-150. In the Mini Cooper, the dummy looks to be unhurt (if he were human).
>In the F-150, the driver/dummy looks to have sustained injury, possibly
>life-threatening, and there is significant intrusion into the cabin.

> Over half of all collisions in the US are single-vehicle. Given that
>most SUV's are just trucks with a price premium (in fact, the Expedition is
>built on the F-150), why do people assume SUV's are safer? Why hasn't 60
>Minutes or some other news program spelled out this idiocy for all to see?
>Firestone tires and rollovers are just the tip of the iceberg.

The high center of gravity with it's lousy handling and rollover tendancies and
the lack of safety for the occupants is well documented. You've been living in
a cave if this is news to you.

What we need is a program to help first time buyers get SUVs. The idiots
driving them would do society a favor if they got themselves killed before
they had a chance to breed.

a F-150 is NOT an suvee.. it is infact a pickemuptruck. even if the
Expedition is built on the f-150 frame, its a totally different beast...
that's like saying a Porsche 911 and original Beatle are the same because
they shared frame parts and were built in the same factory by the same
company..

Snow...

"Magnulus" > wrote in message
. ..
> http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/Cra...operVsFordF150
>
> Frontal crash test photo comparisons between a Mini Cooper and a Ford
> F-150. In the Mini Cooper, the dummy looks to be unhurt (if he were
> human).
> In the F-150, the driver/dummy looks to have sustained injury, possibly
> life-threatening, and there is significant intrusion into the cabin.
>
> Over half of all collisions in the US are single-vehicle. Given that
> most SUV's are just trucks with a price premium (in fact, the Expedition
> is
> built on the F-150), why do people assume SUV's are safer? Why hasn't 60
> Minutes or some other news program spelled out this idiocy for all to see?
> Firestone tires and rollovers are just the tip of the iceberg.
>
>

a F-150 is NOT an suvee.. it is infact a pickemuptruck. even if the
Expedition is built on the f-150 frame, its a totally different beast...
that's like saying a Porsche 911 and original Beatle are the same because
they shared frame parts and were built in the same factory by the same
company..

Snow...

"Magnulus" > wrote in message
. ..
> http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/Cra...operVsFordF150
>
> Frontal crash test photo comparisons between a Mini Cooper and a Ford
> F-150. In the Mini Cooper, the dummy looks to be unhurt (if he were
> human).
> In the F-150, the driver/dummy looks to have sustained injury, possibly
> life-threatening, and there is significant intrusion into the cabin.
>
> Over half of all collisions in the US are single-vehicle. Given that
> most SUV's are just trucks with a price premium (in fact, the Expedition
> is
> built on the F-150), why do people assume SUV's are safer? Why hasn't 60
> Minutes or some other news program spelled out this idiocy for all to see?
> Firestone tires and rollovers are just the tip of the iceberg.
>
>

Magnulus wrote:
>
> http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/Cra...operVsFordF150
>
> Frontal crash test photo comparisons between a Mini Cooper and a Ford
> F-150. In the Mini Cooper, the dummy looks to be unhurt (if he were human).
> In the F-150, the driver/dummy looks to have sustained injury, possibly
> life-threatening, and there is significant intrusion into the cabin.
>
> Over half of all collisions in the US are single-vehicle. Given that
> most SUV's are just trucks with a price premium (in fact, the Expedition is
> built on the F-150), why do people assume SUV's are safer? Why hasn't 60
> Minutes or some other news program spelled out this idiocy for all to see?
> Firestone tires and rollovers are just the tip of the iceberg.

IN FACT, the Expedition has never been built on the F150
Frame. The 1997-2002 Expedition and F150 shared engine
choices, transmissions, rear differentials, front sheet
metal, some front suspension parts, and the dash but the
frame, rear suspension, and even the 4WD system were
different.

Furthermore, you are only looking at one test. In my opinion
the IIHS offset crash test is at best misleading. The Tundra
which did well in this particular test, has a much worse
injury loss record that the F150 which did poorly in this
one particular test. IIHS has never tested an Expedition.
Since the frame and body are completely different you cannot
assume that the Expedition results would be similar to the
F150 results.

One more thing, even the IIHS warns you to not compare
results between vehicles in different weight classes. Your
are crashing the vehicle into a fixed unyielding barricade.
Heavier vehicles have to dissipate a lot more energy that
light vehicle, so they tend to show more damage.

Ed

Magnulus wrote:
>
> http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/Cra...operVsFordF150
>
> Frontal crash test photo comparisons between a Mini Cooper and a Ford
> F-150. In the Mini Cooper, the dummy looks to be unhurt (if he were human).
> In the F-150, the driver/dummy looks to have sustained injury, possibly
> life-threatening, and there is significant intrusion into the cabin.
>
> Over half of all collisions in the US are single-vehicle. Given that
> most SUV's are just trucks with a price premium (in fact, the Expedition is
> built on the F-150), why do people assume SUV's are safer? Why hasn't 60
> Minutes or some other news program spelled out this idiocy for all to see?
> Firestone tires and rollovers are just the tip of the iceberg.

IN FACT, the Expedition has never been built on the F150
Frame. The 1997-2002 Expedition and F150 shared engine
choices, transmissions, rear differentials, front sheet
metal, some front suspension parts, and the dash but the
frame, rear suspension, and even the 4WD system were
different.

Furthermore, you are only looking at one test. In my opinion
the IIHS offset crash test is at best misleading. The Tundra
which did well in this particular test, has a much worse
injury loss record that the F150 which did poorly in this
one particular test. IIHS has never tested an Expedition.
Since the frame and body are completely different you cannot
assume that the Expedition results would be similar to the
F150 results.

One more thing, even the IIHS warns you to not compare
results between vehicles in different weight classes. Your
are crashing the vehicle into a fixed unyielding barricade.
Heavier vehicles have to dissipate a lot more energy that
light vehicle, so they tend to show more damage.

Ed

"C. E. White" > wrote in message
...
> One more thing, even the IIHS warns you to not compare
> results between vehicles in different weight classes. Your
> are crashing the vehicle into a fixed unyielding barricade.

But single vehicle crashes are more common than multi-vehicle crashes.
The odds of an SUV losing control and striking a solid, unyielding object
are about as great as a car being struck on the side at an intersection.