2019 Ford Ranger Crash Tests

[jrodrigu]

I wonder what the test results will for the 2019 Ford Ranger for both NHTSA and IIHS. Ford needs to improve on their ratings. Hopefully the tests will be as good as as the F150.

Crash tests are a big deciding factor for me.

[Assimilator]

The Ranger is an old design but hopefully they will reinforce it this time, on the F-150 it was largely done with bolt-in braces. There is certainly good reason to be skeptical but at least they are adding some useful safety amenities. The EcoSport and Ranger are going to be big question marks since all Fords designed from their generation have been notably poor performers and they haven't been unable to fix them with updates, but anything all-new from here on out should be up to industry standard with some industry leading standard safety amenities (CoPilot360). We won't know until the IIHS gets a hold of them which is still the world's most influential crash testing agency.

Edited July 21, 2018 by Assimilator

[akirby]

I wonder what the test results will for the 2019 Ford Ranger for both NHTSA and IIHS. Ford needs to improve on their ratings. Hopefully the tests will be as good as as the F150.

Crash tests are a big deciding factor for me.

Did you feel safe driving 10 years ago?

 

The statistical probability that you will be in a crash where the difference between life and death or major/minor injury is different in one vehicle versus another is almost 0. At slower speeds it won’t matter. At higher speeds it won’t matter. Change the impact angle just a few degrees and you get a different result. Different sized vehicles yield different results. There are too many variables.

 

I’m all for basic crash testing and ratings but the IIHS has gone so far overboard in their ratings that it’s nothing but propaganda and fear mongering to keep themselves relevant.

[Assimilator]

Did you feel safe driving 10 years ago?

 

The statistical probability that you will be in a crash where the difference between life and death or major/minor injury is different in one vehicle versus another is almost 0. At slower speeds it won’t matter. At higher speeds it won’t matter. Change the impact angle just a few degrees and you get a different result. Different sized vehicles yield different results. There are too many variables.

 

I’m all for basic crash testing and ratings but the IIHS has gone so far overboard in their ratings that it’s nothing but propaganda and fear mongering to keep themselves relevant.

 

 

I completely disagree, this is how we get better designs and scrutiny/regulation/competition is always how it has been motivated. If others can pass these tests than Ford certainly can but you need an independent party to do the testing. Lives are saved by better design and it's something to be highly encouraged since the highway death toll has dropped each year despite the increase in drivers. It's not going to keeping going down if you don't move the goal post. NHTSA is a particularly useless agency with methods decades out of date that doesn't track real world crash data like the IIHS to inform their testing. In fact, NHTSA crash testing has zero basis in real world crash data unless running into a fixed wall is the majority of crash scenarios.

Edited July 21, 2018 by Assimilator

[fuzzymoomoo]

 

 

I completely disagree, this is how we get better designs and scrutiny is always how it has been motivated. If others can pass these tests than Ford certainly can.

The problem is it is literally impossible to replicate every possible scenario.

 

You could take this years entire production run of F-150s so far and crash test every one of them and still not have enough vehicles to replicate every possible scenario.

[jpd80]

Keep in mind that this Ranger first appears in ROW back in 2011, it's had three MCEs since then

as part of continual upgrade and we know that changes were made to the frame for Nth America.

So it is possible that some changes were incorporated in the design but I think the short overlap

crash test will be interesting depending on what measures Ford has taken with the ROW design.

 

In any regard, this Ranger will be replaced by an all new one in mid 2021, so from launch,

that will be like 2 1/2 years away.

Edited July 21, 2018 by jpd80

[rperez817]

I wonder what the test results will for the 2019 Ford Ranger for both NHTSA and IIHS. Ford needs to improve on their ratings. Hopefully the tests will be as good as as the F150.

Crash tests are a big deciding factor for me.

 

Thank you jrodrigu sir. I feel the same way. 2019 or 2020 Ford Ranger is what I intend to purchase for my next truck. However if any IIHS crashworthiness rating for new Ranger is less than "GOOD", I will seriously consider buying a Honda Ridgeline instead.

 

Ford has taken a long time to introduce new Ranger in the U.S. Also recently they seem to be taking safety more seriously after years of ignorance. I hope that means Ford will make the effort to get IIHS TSP or TSP+ ratings with new Ranger.

 

Anyone know if Co-Pilot360 will be standard on 2019 Ranger?

[fuzzymoomoo]

Anyone know if Co-Pilot360 will be standard on 2019 Ranger?

I think on XLT and Lariat. Not sure about XL.

[rperez817]

I think on XLT and Lariat. Not sure about XL.

 

As always, thank you fuzzymoomoo sir for the quick response and the info. My sons have been pushing me toward XLT trim for our new Ranger purchase. I originally planned of getting an bare bones XL work truck. But now I think the additional safety and comfort features on XLT are worth getting since we'll use the truck every day for our small business.

[jpd80]

In ROW markets, it's called Tech pack and is optional on XLT, Standard on Wildtrak and Raptor.

I think XL and XLS misses out as they're the fleet special and retail special respectively.

[tbone]

 

 

I completely disagree, this is how we get better designs and scrutiny/regulation/competition is always how it has been motivated. If others can pass these tests than Ford certainly can but you need an independent party to do the testing. Lives are saved by better design and it's something to be highly encouraged since the highway death toll has dropped each year despite the increase in drivers. It's not going to keeping going down if you don't move the goal post. NHTSA is a particularly useless agency with methods decades out of date that doesn't track real world crash data like the IIHS to inform their testing. In fact, NHTSA crash testing has zero basis in real world crash data unless running into a fixed wall is the majority of crash scenarios.

I dont disagree that it is useful to have outside organizations testing your products, but I find it disengenuous when a vehicle receives a top pick one year and then the next year its a death trap because they changed their standards. Every manufacturers product has a life cycle, and I find it problematic when IIHS beats up the manufacturer when the product is at the end of the lifecycle without a proper caveat put in place as to the products previous rating prior to a test regimen change. IIHS is not completely independent either as it is funded by companies that can receive financial gain from higher standards, so while carrying the perception they are representing the consumer they are also representing themselves.

[akirby]

I dont disagree that it is useful to have outside organizations testing your products, but I find it disengenuous when a vehicle receives a top pick one year and then the next year its a death trap because they changed their standards. Every manufacturers product has a life cycle, and I find it problematic when IIHS beats up the manufacturer when the product is at the end of the lifecycle without a proper caveat put in place as to the products previous rating prior to a test regimen change. IIHS is not completely independent either as it is funded by companies that can receive financial gain from higher standards, so while carrying the perception they are representing the consumer they are also representing themselves.

 

THIS.^^^^^^^^^^^

[fordmantpw]

I dont disagree that it is useful to have outside organizations testing your products, but I find it disengenuous when a vehicle receives a top pick one year and then the next year its a death trap because they changed their standards. Every manufacturers product has a life cycle, and I find it problematic when IIHS beats up the manufacturer when the product is at the end of the lifecycle without a proper caveat put in place as to the products previous rating prior to a test regimen change. IIHS is not completely independent either as it is funded by companies that can receive financial gain from higher standards, so while carrying the perception they are representing the consumer they are also representing themselves.

 

[rmc523]

I dont disagree that it is useful to have outside organizations testing your products, but I find it disengenuous when a vehicle receives a top pick one year and then the next year its a death trap because they changed their standards. Every manufacturers product has a life cycle, and I find it problematic when IIHS beats up the manufacturer when the product is at the end of the lifecycle without a proper caveat put in place as to the products previous rating prior to a test regimen change. IIHS is not completely independent either as it is funded by companies that can receive financial gain from higher standards, so while carrying the perception they are representing the consumer they are also representing themselves.

 

This here.

 

Actually you proposed a good idea - all they need to do is put a "current rating" and "previous rating" category - current shows the rating with the newest added tests, previous shows the rating before those tests were implemented, with information listing what the new tests were.

[akirby]

 

This here.

 

Actually you proposed a good idea - all they need to do is put a "current rating" and "previous rating" category - current shows the rating with the newest added tests, previous shows the rating before those tests were implemented, with information listing what the new tests were.

 

All they'd have to do is add stars. If a car was a 5 star 10 years ago it should still be a 5 star. If newer vehicles are better make them 5.5 or 6 or 7 stars without all the "top safety pick plus plus" crap.

[blksn8k2]

I think I have already ruled out the Ranger as a replacement for my Sport Trac. The biggest reason is the lack of powertrain choices. I have already started looking at 2018 F-150s even though I never thought I would be interested in a full-size again. The Trac is fast approaching 160k and I have no desire to depend on it until Ford puts an engine in the Ranger that I would be happy with. I might reconsider the Ranger when the next gen comes out but for the time being Ford's efforts to keep the F-150's sales crown are working.

[akirby]

I think I have already ruled out the Ranger as a replacement for my Sport Trac. The biggest reason is the lack of powertrain choices. I have already started looking at 2018 F-150s even though I never thought I would be interested in a full-size again. The Trac is fast approaching 160k and I have no desire to depend on it until Ford puts an engine in the Ranger that I would be happy with. I might reconsider the Ranger when the next gen comes out but for the time being Ford's efforts to keep the F-150's sales crown are working.

 

Have you actually driven an ecoboost engine?

[jasonj80]

 

This here.

 

Actually you proposed a good idea - all they need to do is put a "current rating" and "previous rating" category - current shows the rating with the newest added tests, previous shows the rating before those tests were implemented, with information listing what the new tests were.

 

They already do that, Search a 2016 Lincoln MKX or 2013 Fusion and you will see that IIHS lists them as a Top Safety Pick+, even a 2010 Fusion is listed as a Top Safety pick.

[Assimilator]

I dont disagree that it is useful to have outside organizations testing your products, but I find it disengenuous when a vehicle receives a top pick one year and then the next year its a death trap because they changed their standards. Every manufacturers product has a life cycle, and I find it problematic when IIHS beats up the manufacturer when the product is at the end of the lifecycle without a proper caveat put in place as to the products previous rating prior to a test regimen change. IIHS is not completely independent either as it is funded by companies that can receive financial gain from higher standards, so while carrying the perception they are representing the consumer they are also representing themselves.

 

 

Much of this isn't true however. The TSP and TSP+ awards are assessed each year under new peramters but the awards remain historical. So if you're a TSP+ vehicle in 2015, you still are for that year but you may not be for subsequent years if you don't meet the latest criteria.

 

There are always new and better cars around the corner, as a shopper right now you need to know where they stand not tomorrow but today and in the future as a used product. It's up to the automaker to stay competitive and current and Ford is only stands out because of it's relation to others. Ford is a relatively poor but that isn't to say they are unsafe.

 

I like Ford but they really need a tremendous amount of scrutiny on their safety design, from the unequal protections in the 2015 F-150 small-overlap testing to the failure to reinforce the passenger sides of their cars, we really need an organization that at least motivates them to be honest and competitive in areas we otherwise can't see. They have developed such a reputation for notably poor safety scores that they are finally making it a mission to lead with Co-Pilot360 and presumably better crash-ratings on their all-new products. I know many researched consumers are specifically avoiding Ford because of their persistently poor safety ratings compared to their competitors, especially on their utilities where Ford has no good performers and lags the industry in standard safety amenities.

 

Ford will get better but they have to stop falling behind so conspicously like this and maintain their products better. Lincoln is able to make improvements on Ford platforms, the MKX outperforms the Edge for example, Continental is Ford's only TSP+ product in 2018. So I think the expertise is there, it really just comes down to making the right decisions and investments. Many Ford products are going from industry's oldest products to some of their most contemporary and innovative so they have to be making a huge leap from the stale mediocrity we've been dealing with for a few years now.

Edited July 23, 2018 by Assimilator

[rmc523]

 

All they'd have to do is add stars. If a car was a 5 star 10 years ago it should still be a 5 star. If newer vehicles are better make them 5.5 or 6 or 7 stars without all the "top safety pick plus plus" crap.

 

You can't do that because eventually you'd have the "8 million star Ford Model Z"

[akirby]

 

You can't do that because eventually you'd have the "8 million star Ford Model Z"

 

If you get past 10 stars then you should stop counting at that point anyway.

[akirby]

 

 

Much of this isn't true however. The TSP and TSP+ awards are assessed each year under new peramters but the awards remain historical. So if you're a TSP+ vehicle in 2015, you still are for that year but you may not be for subsequent years if you don't meet the latest criteria.

 

There are always new and better cars around the corner, as a shopper right now you need to know where they stand not tomorrow but today and in the future as a used product. It's up to the automaker to stay competitive and current and Ford is only stands out because of it's relation to others. Ford is a relatively poor but that isn't to say they are unsafe.

 

I like Ford but they really need a tremendous amount of scrutiny on their safety design, from the unequal protections in the 2015 F-150 small-overlap testing to the failure to reinforce the passenger sides of their cars, we really need an organization that at least motivates them to be honest and competitive in areas we otherwise can't see. They have developed such a reputation for notably poor safety scores that they are finally making it a mission to lead with Co-Pilot360 and presumably better crash-ratings on their all-new products. I know many researched consumers are specifically avoiding Ford because of their persistently poor safety ratings compared to their competitors, especially on their utilities where Ford has no good performers and lags the industry in standard safety amenities.

 

Ford will get better but they have to stop falling behind so consciously like this and maintain their products better. Lincoln is able to make improvements on Ford platforms, the MKX outperforms the Edge for example, Continental is Ford's only TSP+ product in 2018. So I think the expertise is there, it really just comes down to making the right decisions and investments. Many Ford products are going from industry's oldest products to some of their most contemporary and innovative so they have to be making a huge leap from the stale mediocrity we've been dealing with for a few years now.

 

The problem is the way that it's advertised. If you don't have all the latest safety equipment and crash test scores then they make it sound like you're driving a deathtrap and they do that on purpose to put pressure on the mfrs.

 

And the new tests are completely arbitrary as far as speed and angle and mass because that information isn't recorded in real world crashes.

[jasonj80]

 

The problem is the way that it's advertised. If you don't have all the latest safety equipment and crash test scores then they make it sound like you're driving a deathtrap and they do that on purpose to put pressure on the mfrs.

 

And the new tests are completely arbitrary as far as speed and angle and mass because that information isn't recorded in real world crashes.

Manufactures would do nothing to improve safety unless either publicly shamed by IIHS or required by the government. This is evident as they won't spend 10 cents on a vehicle to include amber rear turn signals even though many studies have all shown accidents reductions of up to 5%,and every study done has shown a reduction in accidents. That 10 cent savings per unit is more important and that is not a Ford issue - that is a full industry issue.

 

Difference is that OEM can whip out the check book and lobby to stop safety changes at the Federal level. They can't do that with IIHS. I would assume going forward IIHS is going to require standard AEB (Front and Rear) as well as blindspot and lane keeping systems. Ford and other OEM's know what changes are coming IIHS lets them know 5 years for structure changes.

Edited July 23, 2018 by jasonj80

[rperez817]

Manufactures would do nothing to improve safety unless either publicly shamed by IIHS or required by the government. This is evident as they won't spend 10 cents on a vehicle to include amber rear turn signals even though many studies have all shown accidents reductions of up to 5%,and every study done has shown a reduction in accidents. That 10 cent savings per unit is more important and that is not a Ford issue - that is a full industry issue.

 

Well said jasonj80 sir. The shaming is needed. Many automakers have taken action quickly based on IIHS crash test results. For example, 2016 BMW 3-Series had a marginal rating for both small offset crash driver's side and for headlamp performance. BMW improved both areas on 2017 3-Series. Ratings increased to good for small offset crash driver's side and to acceptable for headlamp performance. http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/top-safety-pick-awards-go-to-bmw-3-series-2-series

[Assimilator]

If you want to browse the TSP and TSP+ vehicles, here you go. You can click through the years and see how many vehicles come on and off the charts. Ford fully exited the charts in 2018 which is now largely all imports.

 

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/TSP-List

 

I am also thrilled that somebody is FINALLY testing and categorizing headlamp design. This is a piece of information that I personally find to be a crucial deciding factor but has been impossible to find and it's not something you can test before you buy a car. And considering how absolutely terrible Ford headlights have been from my personal experience, it's good to see we have some sort of tool to expose that as well.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Assimilator