By on August 21, 2013

silverado_r

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration stiffened its testing procedures in 2011. General Motors has announced that for the first time since those stricter standards have been in place its 2014 Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra pickups have earned overall vehicle scores of five stars, the first fullsize pickup trucks to earn that rating. The 2014 Ford F-150 and 2014 Ram 1500 from Chrysler have four-star overall ratings. NHTSA hasn’t yet released the rating of Toyota’s new 2014 Tundra, scheduled to go on sale in late August, but the 2013 Tundra received four stars from NHTSA as did the outgoing 2013 GM trucks.

Gay Kent, GM general director of Vehicle Safety and Crashworthiness, said in a statement, “Safety is as important to truck buyers as it is to car buyers. Silverado and Sierra set a benchmark for pickup truck safety by offering a full array of advanced features designed to protect occupants before, during and after a collision.”

Before NHTSA instituted more rigorous testing, almost 90% of models received four or five star ratings for side impacts and 95% were ranked with 5 stars after frontal collision testing. Those figures dropped after the new standards were implemented.

silverado int_r

In addition to new passive safety features like lap belt pretensioners, six standard air bags (including new dual stage frontal air bags), fully boxed frames and the use of high strength steel in critical areas, GM’s new pickups, the source of much of the company’s profits in its home market in the U.S. offer other optional safety upgrades like backup cameras, forward-collision alert, lane-departure warning, and a haptic safety-alert driver’s seat.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

77 Comments on “2014 GM Pickups First to Earn NHTSA Five-Star Rating...”


  • avatar
    rolosrevenge

    I’m still waiting for TTAC to report Model S getting the highest safety rating of any car ever built, but yeah, these GM trucks are almost as safe, except not really.

    • 0 avatar
      jmo

      +1

    • 0 avatar
      doctor olds

      GM is setting a higher bar in the pickup segment, is the new leader!

      Actually the Tesla is only a bit better than the second safest car- Chevrolet Camaro. These ranking are based on Clarence Ditlow’s rating system, which you may, or may not agree with. I usually don’t buy his logic.

      The Tesla is not the best in every category, either, so you better know what kind of crash you are going to be in to consider it the safest!

      The GM Trucks will actuarially be much safer than either the Tesla or the Camaro. Pickups are safer than cars. (Actuarially means the empirical experience in reality.)

      • 0 avatar
        jmo

        “The GM Trucks will actuarially be much safer than either the Tesla or the Camaro.”

        Actuarially? No, the risk profile of the typical Tesla owner is likely to be significantly lower than the average GM pick-up driver.

        Also, in terms of physics the Tesla and Silverado are close in weight and the Tesla is far less likely to roll over.

        So, “much safer” I don’t think there is any expectation that they will be.

        • 0 avatar
          orangefruitbat

          From Tesla’s press release (which I’ve quoted, because it provides much better detail than any of the major media reports):

          Independent testing by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has awarded the Tesla Model S a 5-star safety rating, not just overall, but in every subcategory without exception. Approximately one percent of all cars tested by the federal government achieve 5 stars across the board. NHTSA does not publish a star rating above 5, however safety levels better than 5 stars are captured in the overall Vehicle Safety Score (VSS) provided to manufacturers, where the Model S achieved a new combined record of 5.4 stars.

          Of all vehicles tested, including every major make and model approved for sale in the United States, the Model S set a new record for the lowest likelihood of injury to occupants. While the Model S is a sedan, it also exceeded the safety score of all SUVs and minivans. This score takes into account the probability of injury from front, side, rear and rollover accidents.

          The Model S has the advantage in the front of not having a large gasoline engine block, thus creating a much longer crumple zone to absorb a high speed impact. This is fundamentally a force over distance problem – the longer the crumple zone, the more time there is to slow down occupants at g loads that do not cause injuries. Just like jumping into a pool of water from a tall height, it is better to have the pool be deep and not contain rocks. The Model S motor is only about a foot in diameter and is mounted close to the rear axle, and the front section that would normally contain a gasoline engine is used for a second trunk.

          For the side pole intrusion test, considered one of the most difficult to pass, the Model S was the only car in the “good” category among the other top one percent of vehicles tested. Compared to the Volvo S60, which is also 5-star rated in all categories, the Model S preserved 63.5 percent of driver residual space vs. 7.8 percent for the Volvo. Tesla achieved this outcome by nesting multiple deep aluminum extrusions in the side rail of the car that absorb the impact energy (a similar approach was used by the Apollo Lunar Lander) and transfer load to the rest of the vehicle. This causes the pole to be either sheared off or to stop the car before the pole hits an occupant.

          The rear crash testing was particularly important, given the optional third row children’s seat. For this, Tesla factory installs a double bumper if the third row seat is ordered. This was needed in order to protect against a highway speed impact in the rear with no permanently disabling injury to the third row occupants. The third row is already the safest location in the car for frontal or side injuries.

          The Model S was also substantially better in rollover risk, with the other top vehicles being approximately 50 percent worse. During testing at an independent facility, the Model S refused to turn over via the normal methods and special means were needed to induce the car to roll. The reason for such a good outcome is that the battery pack is mounted below the floor pan, providing a very low center of gravity, which simultaneously ensures exceptional handling and safety.

          Of note, during validation of Model S roof crush protection at an independent commercial facility, the testing machine failed at just above 4 g’s. While the exact number is uncertain due to Model S breaking the testing machine, what this means is that at least four additional fully loaded Model S vehicles could be placed on top of an owner’s car without the roof caving in. This is achieved primarily through a center (B) pillar reinforcement attached via aerospace grade bolts.

          The above results do not tell the full story. It is possible to game the regulatory testing score to some degree by strengthening a car at the exact locations used by the regulatory testing machines. After verifying through internal testing that the Model S would achieve a NHTSA 5-star rating, Tesla then analyzed the Model S to determine the weakest points in the car and retested at those locations until the car achieved 5 stars no matter how the test equipment was configured.

          The Model S lithium-ion battery did not catch fire at any time before, during or after the NHTSA testing. It is worth mentioning that no production Tesla lithium-ion battery has ever caught fire in the Model S or Roadster, despite several high speed impacts. While this is statistically unlikely to remain the case long term, Tesla is unaware of any Model S or Roadster occupant fatalities in any car ever.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          In all fairness, it is a good thing that these pickups are becoming safer than they have been.

          But it only matters to the people predisposed to buy these trucks in the first place.

          I’m not one of them.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Highdesertcat,
            The “Black Box” came out in the early 1960′s. The concept has gone from planes to Automobiles. As far as technology goes yes there has been massive advances to make it more feasible and cost effective to be placed in Automobiles.

        • 0 avatar
          CJinSD

          I don’t know about Tesla drivers being particularly safe. With only a few thousand on the road, I’ve read about a Model S crossing the yellow line and killing the occupant of an old Accord, a Model S cruising into a restaurant, and a Model S taking out a utility pole and causing a blackout. The giant distraction in the dashboard is as likely to undo the passive safety of the car, and it certainly does nothing for innocents that have to share the planet with Teslas.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Its an apples and oranges comparison between the two. Can a Tesla go offroad? Haul a X thousand pound load or tow X thousand pounds? Even if it could, is it accurate to compare a niche product selling < 50K units to one that sells a million (from the standpoint of risk in ownership)?

    • 0 avatar

      It’s coming

      • 0 avatar
        rolosrevenge

        Ok, thanks, really thought it was odd to be a two day lag on something like this from TTAC, especially when it was reported all over the MSM.

        • 0 avatar

          If you look at the MSM reporting on this topic, they all are sourced on Tesla’s press release. While press releases can be news, I think most of us would agree they’re not always breaking news.

          It looks like the two crash test result stories were posted within minutes of each other. I guess that “TTAC Staff” must have finished one of them before the other.

          Knowing a little bit about the process of how things get posted on TTAC, it’s humorous when people think that the timing of when things are published around here, or the choice to run an article about this or that company is due to some kind of bias.

          News items are chosen for their newsworthiness and perceived interest to TTAC readers, nothing else. If something gets posted before something else, or if a story kinda gets lost in the shuffle, that’s just an artifact of the fact that there is more than one person doing news blogging and also, stuff happens. I know that when I log into my account I can find a bunch of stories that I worked on but that never got past draft versions. Things happen, stuff comes up, and other stories take on urgency.

    • 0 avatar
      billfrombuckhead

      Congratulations to GM and Tesla. I guess GM made more changes to these new trucks than so many armchair CEO’s gave them credit for.

    • 0 avatar
      mkirk

      In other news, these GM trucks are slower than a Ferrari so the really suck, yeah!

    • 0 avatar
      Pig_Iron

      It’s widely known that since the bankruptcy, GM has farmed out a lot of structural engineering overseas. The knowledge economy is the easiest one to offshore. It will be interesting to see how it does in the 25% offset crash test.

  • avatar
    Secret Hi5

    Pfft – Real Men (i.e. truck drivers) don’t worry about girly NHTSA safety ratings.

  • avatar
    doctor olds

    NHTSA is pushing back on Tesla claims. and noted safety expert, Clarence Ditlow said: “The lower the score, the better, said Ditlow, who analyzed the ratings data for the Los Angeles Times. The Model S scored lower than any other car, he said, posted a .42. The next best vehicle was the Chevrolet Camaro, at .47.”

    “There are individual tests where another car has done better than a Tesla,” Ditlow said. “But if you combine all the separate tests into one score, then the Tesla does have the best score.”

    http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-tesla-nhtsa-safety-rating-20130820,0,2050024.story

  • avatar
    segfault

    I can’t believe a backup camera is *optional* equipment on something that large with such huge blind spots, in 2014, when the actual cost of said backup camera is probably only a couple of dollars.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      A backup camera is another profit point, can’t have it standard, at least not until the gov’t regulations require it.

    • 0 avatar
      Carlson Fan

      When your backing up to a trailer you can’t physically move by hand, especially at an angle, those back-up cameras are the cats meow. So yes they would be nice to have as standard equipment. On our Tahoe you had to have the Nav to get the back-up camera, so it became a pretty expensive toy when all was said and done.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        Last week I spent a little time with my 16-year old grand daughter, teaching her how to tow a loaded 2-horse trailer with the Tundra and how to back up with it. Part of the lesson was how to backup the Tundra to the parked trailer and hook it up.

        I don’t have a backup camera on my Tundra and neither does her other grand father, Tom, have a backup camera on his F350.

        But the girl did alright, in both trucks. A little bit of sawing back and forth with the Tundra until she got the hang of it but she got it lined up all by herself. That is without either grandfather coming to her rescue. He and I did a fistbump when she got it right.

        I did put a piece of black electrical tape right in the center on top of the Tundra tailgate and told her if that black stripe was lined up with the center of the trailer, the ball would be right under the yoke. And it was.

        Then it was just a matter of her cranking down the trailer until the yoke covered the ball, secure the ball-lock, hook up the chains and plug in the wiring plug.

        And off she went. She later repeated that feat in Tom’s F350, but this time with his 16-horse trailer behind it when they ferried Tom’s horses from his Summer Ranch in the mountains to his Winter Ranch in the desert.

        Backup cameras are nice. We have one in my wife’s 2012 Grand Cherokee and even though it comes on automatically when the car is put in Reverse, we’ve never used it to back up, preferring instead to use the outside mirrors and the traditional look over the shoulder to see where we’re backing up to.

        • 0 avatar
          segfault

          There is a huge area behind the tailgate on the pickups that you can’t see with mirrors or over your shoulder, and that’s what backup cameras are designed to show. IMO, they’re not a substitute for looking over your shoulder, just something you check before you look over your shoulder.

          • 0 avatar
            Carlson Fan

            Yep with my smaller boat trailer, when empty, I usually have to roll back the tonneau cover and drop the tailgate just so I can see it while backing it into the water at the landing. Huge blind spot back there.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            segfault, I’m not against backup cameras but I’ve never had one since I got my drivers license at age 16 in 1963.

            So I don’t know any better than to backup without one, and have done so, successfully, for all these decades.

            As such, when we got the backup camera with the NAV system in my wife’s 2012 Grand Cherokee, we never rely on it because she never knew different either.

            For those people who need help backing their vehicle, there are all sorts of nifty backup camera add-ons available.

            IMO, backup cameras add unnecessary extra costs, but there’s also no doubt in my mind that NHTSA will mandate them before long, just like they will those on-board recorders (black boxes) to spy on and keep track of the driving public.

            BTW, I’ve been backing my 1973 31ft Southwind without the help of a backup camera and haven’t hit anything yet. The whole damn thing is a blind spot!

            People either know how to drive, or they don’t. But NHTSA will make it a moot point in the very near future, and we’ll pay the big bucks for it.

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            HSC: Those damn black boxes are in nearly all vehicles made today. I don’t understand why the outcry on this invasion of privacy has not made more people angry. Something I buy and own cant be read by me, and my state passed a law saying they can demand the recorder by court order. I hope this ends up in the Supreme Court but I am worried about the outcome…I strongly suspect that both of the political sides of the highest Court will uphold the snooping, albeit for dramatically different reasons…

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            golden2husky, I feel the same way as you do but those black boxes will be on all new cars real soon.

            And if the cars have connectivity, like internet access, I’m certain that the live data will be sent home to mama on a continuing basis.

            You see, they proved their worth for Toyota during the SUA debacle and more manufacturers will want to shift the blame to the driver/operator if there is any way to relieve themselves of culpability for anything.

            The black box in my wife 2012 Grand Cherokee leaves messages on the Vehicle Information Center display. Lots of live info there. All you gotta do is scroll through it, which takes your eyes off the road…

            I’m sure that the SCOTUS will uphold the government’s mandate of these black boxes.

            The only recourse we have is to keep our old pre-blackbox cars running as long as we can. I used to do that but I’m too old for tooling and wrenching on them now.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @highdesertcat
            It all started when an Australian working for our CSIRO designed a “black box” actually bright yellow, to record data in a plane crash.
            Now that technology has been expanded and moved to Automobiles.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            RobertRyan, the way I heard the story was that a long time ago some West Coasters in California (two Asian guys from the San Jose area) had a laptop hooked up to the OBD port and were monitoring the live data to improve performance of the car, which required a driver and someone holding the laptop watching the screen.

            So these two guys found a way to write the data to an external EEPROM which could then be read and analyzed back in the shop. This was before there were thumb drives and USB drives.

            In fact, this was before USB or Plug ‘n Play since the work was done on a Kaypro 2000 MS-DOS Laptop and the data dump was done through a serial port to the EEPROM reader/writer.

            To make a long story short, these guys found a way to address the Engine Management ROM, decipher the programmed performance routine, and alter it to produce more power and torque at points in the curve where they wanted them to be.

            They started a business that sold high performance “chips” for cars and trucks with altered power curves.

            They sold their business, retired early and lived happily ever after. But you can still get these enhanced performance ROMs from the new owners of the business.

            I’ve never used them, but they are very popular with high-performance addicts of both cars and trucks.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    @doctor olds – How do you figure GMC is setting the bar higher in the truck world? They came well back in 3rd place on the last truck shootout I read. They’ve done a decent job with the 1987 er 2014 Chevy and the Sierra but raise the bar?
    NO.
    Ram has raised the bar with the ZF 8 speed and VM Motori diesel.
    Nissan is coming out with a 5.0 Cummins V8, that is raising the bar.
    Ford is set to release new trucks next year and is rumoured to add multiple aluminum bits. An 800 lb lighter truck raises the bar.

    GMC released a good truck that raises the bar only if you happen to own a GMT800 or GMT900.

    • 0 avatar
      doctor olds

      @Lou_BC- They are the first trucks to every receive such a high safety rating. That is setting the bar higher than any other competitor in safety.

      What someone is going to release in the future is not what GM is offering for sale today. The GM trucks are the best available today, and measurably, the safest. The also offer class leading power and fuel efficiency.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    @DocOld
    Here’s an interesting link, it appears Ford (and VW) has beaten GM to the mark with 5 star safety rated pickups. Even the new Holden Colorado is 5 star safety rated, but they came out a year after the Ford Ranger and Amarok.

    http://www.euroncap.com/Content-Web-Article/bab01277-a8d0-4185-b071-4f09031da9cc/euro-ncap-awards-first-5-star-rating-for-a-pick-up.aspx

    ———————————————————————-

    It good to see the US is now coming out with 5 Star safety rated pickups. It’s become a trend here starting a few years ago.

    In the US and Australia pickups have become SUVs, so the family will ride in them. Any improvement to safety is long overdue in this segment of vehicles. Commercial vehicles now in Australia are becoming very safe.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      The problem with that is that the NCAP is not the same and has a pedestrian component that the US tests don’t and doesn’t have the rollover component that the US test does. So it is an Apples to Oranges comparison. Cars that are essentially the same can score lower on the US test than they do on the NCAP test. For example the Focus is a 5 star on NCAP and 4 star in the US test despite changes made to the US version to increase occupant safety at the expense of pedestrian safety.

      In the US we have a saying if you don’t like the way I drive stay off the sidewalk.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @Scoutdude
        I wouldn’t say the NHTSA is better or worse than the ENCAP system. It is just different. It’s a technical barrier to prevent imports.

        The US will eventually come on board with the rest of the world. Here is some interesting reading and links.

        As you can see the improvement of the general poor crash performance of pickups was a long time coming. Irrespective if they are ENCAP or US standards.

        ————————————————————————————————————————————–

        Research on the trends in use of heavy vehicles indicate that a significant difference between the U.S. and other countries is the relatively high prevalence of pickup trucks and SUVs in the U.S. A 2003 study by the U.S. Transportation Research Board found that SUVs and pickup trucks are significantly less safe than passenger cars, that imported-brand vehicles tend to be safer than American-brand vehicles, and that the size and weight of a vehicle has a significantly smaller effect on safety than the quality of the vehicle’s engineering.[55] The level of large commercial truck traffic has substantially increased since the 1960s, while highway capacity has not kept pace with the increase in large commercial truck traffic on U.S. highways.[56][57] However, other factors exert significant influence; Canada has lower roadway death and injury rates despite a vehicle mix comparable to that of the U.S.[54] Nevertheless, the widespread use of truck-based vehicles as passenger carriers is correlated with roadway deaths and injuries not only directly by dint of vehicular safety performance per se, but also indirectly through the relatively low fuel costs that facilitate the use of such vehicles in North America; motor vehicle fatalities decline as fuel prices increase.[49][58]
        NHTSA has issued relatively few regulations since the mid-1980s; most of the vehicle-based reduction in vehicle fatality rates in the U.S. during the last third of the 20th Century were gained by the initial NHTSA safety standards issued from 1968 to 1984 and subsequent voluntary changes in vehicle design and construction by vehicle manufacturers. [59]

        ———————————————————————————————————————————

        Versus international consensus[edit source | editbeta]

        In 1958, under the auspices of the United Nations, a consortium called the Economic Commission for Europe had been established to commonize vehicle regulations across Europe so as to standardize best practices in vehicle design and equipment and minimize technical barriers to pan-European vehicle trade and traffic. This eventually became the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations, which began to promulgate what would eventually become the UN’s ECE Regulations on vehicle design, construction, and safety performance. Although most of the world’s countries accept or require ECE-compliant vehicles—either as official signatories to ECE regulations or by national regulations effectively identical to ECE—the United States, virtually alone in the world, has declined to join the forum or accept ECE regulations, and blocks the importation of vehicles built to international ECE Regulations rather than the U.S. safety regulations.
        Because of the unavailability in America of certain vehicle models, a grey market arose in the late 1970s. This provided an alternate, legal method to acquire vehicles only sold overseas. The success of the grey market, however, ate into the business of Mercedes-Benz of North America Inc., which launched a successful congressional lobbying effort to eliminate this alternative for consumers in 1988, despite the lack of any evidence suggesting grey-market vehicles were less safe than those built to comply with U.S. regulations. As a result, it is no longer possible to import foreign vehicles into the United States as a personal import, with few exceptions—primarily Canadian cars with safety regulations substantially similar to the United States, and vehicles imported temporarily for display or research purposes. In practice the gray market involved a few thousand luxury cars annually, before its virtual elimination in 1988.[citation needed]
        In 1998, NHTSA exempted vehicles older than 25 years from the rules it administers, since these are presumed to be collector vehicles. In 1999, certain very low production volume specialist vehicles were also exempt for “Show and Display” purposes. However, the ban on newer vehicles considered safe in countries with lower vehicle-related death rates has led some to claim that the main effect of NHTSA’s regulatory activity is to protect the U.S. market for a modified oligopoly consisting of the three U.S.-based automakers and the American operations of foreign-brand producers. It has been suggested[2] that the impetus for NHTSA’s seeming preoccupation with market control rather than vehicular safety performance is a result of overt market protections such as tariffs and local-content laws having become politically unpopular due to the increasing popularity of free trade. This has driven U.S. industry to adopt less visible forms of trade restrictions in the form of technical regulations different but demonstrably not superior to those outside the United States.
        An example of the market-control effects of NHTSA’s regulatory protocol is found in the agency’s 1974 banning of the Citroën SM automobile, which contemporary journalists noted was one of the safest vehicles available at the time. NHTSA disapproved the SM due to its high-performance, low-glare, steerable headlamps which were not of the outmoded sealed beam design mandatory in the U.S., and its height adjustable suspension, which made compliance with the 1973 bumper requirements impossible; the bumper regulation was intended to control the costs resulting from low speed collisions, not enhance occupant safety.

        Here is the link to the above article.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Highway_Traffic_Safety_Administration

        • 0 avatar
          Onus

          NTHSA basically said a month ago that they couldn’t do their jobs anyway.

          Go on their website and see how many ideas are delayed due to lack of man power.

          Some of these are simple things like amber turn signals that have been delayed since 2009.

          I thin nthsa would work better if they used their limited manpower to work with other group in ece organization. They already do to some extent.

          One of the recent big things is engine testing procedures. This will allow companies to meet both emissions requirements at once with the same engine since the testing process will be the same.

          US automakers no longer see fmvss as a protection measure and more of a nuisance to even them. they are behind the big push for the us to recognize vehicles meeting the ece specs in TAFTA.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            @Onus- Bureaucrats always “need” more resources- be it people or money!

            That is all their statements are about.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The reality is that the existence of the UNECE does not mean that there is a single standard.

            Automakers can’t sell cars made for Latin America and other developing nations in Europe. They wouldn’t comply with European regulations.

            No automakers, including the Europeans, can sell cars in Japan without meeting Japanese-market type approval standards.

            Even US cars exported to Europe have to comply with European standards. The changes needed aren’t great because US standards generally exceed European standards. But there are differences that do require modification for European approval, such as lighting and the radio frequencies that are used to operate remote door locks.

            Bertel Schmitt devoted a lot of effort to making half-true and absolutely inaccurate statements about the nature of trade and regulations. This US vs. the world chatter is a bunch of nonsense.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Onus
            The NHTSA could shed unecessary jobs if it were part of the UNECE. This would save the US taxpayer lots of money in wages.

            This doesn’t include the billions of dollars the US is spending redesigning motor vehicles differently.

            The original idea of the UNECE was to facilitate Euro then global trade with motor vehicles.

            Why would the US replicate testing done in the Eurozone/Australia/Japan? Why re-invent the wheel. This is what is currently occurring.

            Before someones states why doesn’t the world use the US standards, the simple reason is economics.

            If the US wants FTAs it must support global trade, ie the standards the globe is using.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            @big al, and the Europeans could save a lot of money by adopting our standards.

            Fact is the priorities are different so they emphasize different things and unless there is a meeting of minds on the priorities then the difference in standards will continue.

            Fact is the standards are set on both sides of the pond by bureaucrats and if there is one thing the bureaucrats are better at than making rules it is protecting their jobs and asking, no taking more money.

            So it will be next to impossible to get either set of regulators to agree on anything since it could mean the end of their jobs.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Scoutdude
            Stick to discussing valve lead, lag and overlap and how to tune model aeroplanes.

            Economics obviously isn’t one of your virtues.

            How will the world save money by adopting a standard used by less than 20% of the global vehicle production.

            Again, provide a link to justify your belief or opinion.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Soutdude and @Pch101 Sure I posted this earlier, but the UNECE standards are a default Global not just European standard. Only person really concerned about this is Alan Mullaly at Ford. I have not heard other executives worry about it.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “but the UNECE standards are a default Global not just European standard.”

            This is absolutely not true.

            Japan has unique standards. Except for low-volume imports, cars cannot be imported into Japan without complying with Japanese type approval. They do not accept type approval from other nations (a fact that makes the ACEA very unhappy.)

            Cars made for developing countries can’t be sold in Europe. They won’t comply with European emissions or safety standards, and generally can’t be imported at all if they are under ten years old. (Per the UK Vehicle Operator & Services Agency, “Vehicles produced for use in developing countries are unlikely to have been built to standards that we are prepared to recognise as being comparable to those in Europe…Modifications will almost certainly be required and it is possible that some vehicle types cannot be converted economically to comply with European standards.”)

            Even US market cars can’t be sold in Europe without some modification, even though they usually exceed what is required by European safety and emissions standards in most respects.

            You and Al believe very strongly in “facts” that are simply untrue. The UNECE harmonization rules do not create the harmony that you believe that it does.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @PCH101,
            The UNECE standards are the recommendations of a UN Committee to work towards the HARMONIZATION of Austomobile standards across the Globe.
            As you even know the US it self has differing standards let alone any other Country outside the US and North America.. Allan Mullaly seems to be the main driver on some set standard. He appears to be very much a lone voice in the Wilderness.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The reality is as I’ve stated it. I’ve provided you with specific examples that show that your assertions are rather inaccurate.

            As of today, signers of the UNECE agreement do not have consistent vehicle regulations.

            As of today, member nations do not fully accept type approval from each other.

            Vehicles continue to be made that can only be sold in certain regions, due to differences in local rules.

            If you’ve been paying attention, then you ought to know that there are cars made for Latin America that get zero stars in LATIN NCAP crash tests. Those cars cannot be sold in Europe.

            The UN is supposed to provide world peace, but it doesn’t always work out that way. They’re a bit hit-and-miss on vehicle regulations as well.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          US/Canada standards are generally superior, but for pedestrian protection. The European Union doesn’t even require airbags.

          If the choice is between keeping Americans alive and bringing joy to right-wing Australians on the internet, I’ll choose the Americans any day of the week.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            What I want to know is why there is such a problem with Europeans standing in the middle of the road staring straight at the car coming at them and drives not noticing that there is someone standing in the middle of the road and stopping.

            I just don’t hear about many instances of people getting run over by cars in the US. When you do it is usually falls in one of the following categories. Mom or Dad back over their small child who rode their tricycle or walked behind the car. A child runs out into the street to retrieve his toy or pet and they came from a hidden position like between two cars. A drunk stumbling out in front of a car while walking down a busy street or freeway. Occasionally you do get the person that runs a red light and hits someone who is properly crossing at the crosswalk or intersection, though if the pedestrian would use a little common sense instead of just walking when they see the light there normally wouldn’t be a problem. Not that long ago I almost hit someone. I was at an intersection wanting to cross and saw a man approaching the intersection. He turned the corner and I proceeded. When he got about 20′ down the sidewalk from the intersection he decided to cut across the road that I was traveling on w/o looking to see if any cars were coming. Thankfully I was still 15′ or 20′ from him, going slow enough and paying attention and was able to stop in time. He gave me a dirty look like I was somehow in the wrong.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Pch101
            Patriotism or Nationalism?

            How are the US standards superior when your fatality rates are higher than most developed nations?

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            About one of every eight vehicle-related fatalities in the US involves a pedestrian.

            About one-third of pedestrians killed were walking under the influence (at or above 0.08), but that is true of few of the elderly who are killed.

            Based upon population, fatality rates are highest among middle-aged males. Children have low rates compared to the rest of the population.

            http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811625.pdf

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Pch101, @Scoutdude they are Global Standards not Europeasn ones, There is no “crisis” over the standards differing. Only Fords Mullaly thinks there is.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Pch101
            An opinion…….again.

            Pch101, you’re a good and convincing talker, but start to provide information to support some of your paridigms, that’s all they are.

            Where is the links to show that the US/Canada has better pedestrian safety standards? Come on, really. Dribble.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Al, if you would devote more time researching this stuff and less time offering repetitions of your opinions (which have minimal basis in fact and are often factually wrong), then you wouldn’t need to ask what the differences are.

            The US has a roof crush standard for rollover protection. Europe does not.

            The US has a 35-mph full frontal barrier crash test, which is the equivalent of a head-on collision of two vehicles traveling at 35 mph. Europe has no such test.

            The US side impact test involves a 3,015-pound barrier moving at 38.5 mph. The Euro NCAP test barrier weighs about 900 pounds less and travels at only 50 km/h (31 mph).

            US car interiors have to include padding to protect passengers in a crash that European market cars do not.

            US airbags are designed to work without seatbelts.

            The US mandates airbags. The EU does not.

            The Europeans do have a couple of advantages. They more strictly manage protrusions that can hurt pedestrians, and they require rear amber turn signals at the rear. (The US allows red turn signals at the rear.) The Europeans also mandate side marker turn signals, which are also a good idea.

            I would be happy to adopt European pedestrian and lighting standards if they would be willing to adopt US/Canada crash standards. In any case, I feel no need whatsoever to please Australians on the internet who are up in arms about stuff that they haven’t bothered to research for themselves.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            @PCH, Thanks for the link, I did not know that the pedestrian fatality rates were as high as they are. Not surprising that drunks make up a high percentage nor that many of the fatalities happen at night.

            @big al, you should learn to read responses and not read into it your agenda. He stated as did I that our NHTSA safety ratings don’t have a pedestrian safety component and have other components that aren’t included in the NCAP tests. You keep saying that our standards represent a barrier to doing business in the US and that mfgs must redesign to meet our standards but keep denying that our standards and test are more stringent. As I posted earlier the Ford Focus is a very similar car in the US and Europe and it only gets 4 starts overall in NHTSA testing and 5 on the NCAP test. Yet the car has different front end pieces 1 for Europe to do better on the pedestrian tests and 1 for US to do better at occupant protection.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          @BAFO – If US regulations were meant to block import cars, they’re a total and complete failure. And how is it that foreign OEMs sell more cars in the US than Big 3 domestics with all this “blocking” going on?

          If this “blocking” of imports was successful, foreign OEMs (Toyota, VW, Honda, Nissan, Subaru, BMW, Mercedes, Audi, etc), stand to gain the most from our lack of “blocked” British, French, Italian, Soviet, Turkey, Thia and Chinese selection of cars.

          So sad that a few car enthusiasts are denied “grey market” sports cars and niche vehicles, like the Nissan Skyline/Sylvia, Mahindra trucks or BMW M3 variants. Except it’s the OEMs that opt out of the US and others markets. Even Ford is currently opting out of the US market for all its world vehicles. So what? So is GM, Toyota, Honda, VW, Nissan, Mitsu and others.

          UNECE regulations are not the world’s standard. They are the standard of the biggest group of nations, but no one is saying US vehicles are “blocked” by UNECE regs around the world. US OEMs opt out of UNECE markets for various ‘reasons’, but their regulations are not one of them.

          Safely and fuel conservation are the ONLY concerns of US regulations. This import “blocking” nonsense is all in your mind. If, I repeat, if US regs did “block” imports for noncompliance, that would be Big 3 OEMs blocked from UNECE markets. Why would US lawmakers deliberately shoot Big 3 OEMs in the foot?

          UNECE regulations became 100% incompatible with US regulations for the sake of protecting UNECE vehicles from US and US compliant vehicles. Not that it works out that way, and UNECE regs inadvertently “protect” US vehicles (meaning all that are for sale in the US, including European OEMs)from UNECE vehicles. Not that it works though. And what do law makers know about building and marketing cars? They’re dumb as a box of rocks.

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          @Scoutdude ans @Pch101 The UNECE Standards are a Global not European default standard. Only Allan mullaly has complained about them.

      • 0 avatar
        doctor olds

        @BAFO- Thanks for the link. Just a reminder- Holden is GM. The truck you mention is certainly not engineered in Australia. The lead design center for the truck in GM’s global product development system is in Brazil. Expect all new vehicle releases to strive for top scores. It is good to set the bar high!

        Actually, as Scoutdude wrote, the US standards are higher and more comprehensive.
        You have made it clear that you see it as a barrier to entry.

        That may be true, but it is actually simple to enter the market here- you just have to be good enough to meet standards that apply to every manufacturer. Then you have to be able to compete and win enough sales to make the business worthwhile.

        Of course, CAFE is more of a burden to domestics than imports.

        I don’t expect NHTSA will be reducing US standards. The rest of the world will have to catch up in order communize.

        This is a comment on what exists. I would love to see commonized standards and no restrictions on consumer choice. I am not King, nor even the administrator of NHTSA

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @DocOlds/DenverMike
          WTF? Wow, comprehension.

          The UAW misinforms and attempts to create an ambiguous argument, again.

          Thanks for making yourselves look foolish.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @BAF0 – If you can not come up with a rebuttal or answer a simple question or 2, after you post such nonsense, just scamper off. Obviously, you’re trolling so there is no rebuttal. You’ve at least proven that………………………………….

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Why don’t you guys provide links and actual data and information to support your arguments.

            I continually provide links from discussion papers, news articles, industrial news etc.

            All you guys can come up with is “I FEEL or I THINK”. I do value your opinion, but it is baseless until you can actually support your arguments.

            I will stand by my views as they are supported by a plethora of information and data.

            I don’t live by the tenents/doctrine of the UAW and other socialist/nationalist movements.

            Give me some proof, or STFU.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            BAFO – What specifically do you need a link for? I can not read your mind. I provide a link everywhere it’s necessary. Facts, figures, laws, etc. Other than that, I speak of well known facts or commonsense logic, most of which you can not process.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            @BAFO- My knowledge comes from decades in the industry dealing with regulations, certification and compliance issues and government bureaucrats, initially just regionally, and in the end, globally.

            If you could condense the discussion into something other than personal attacks, your ideas might not meet with such derision.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @DocOlds
            Then support your argument with fact, not opinion. Your so called expertise means nothing to me as it is unproveable.

            Like I stated your views lack some corporate knowledge I would have expect from the claims you have made about your stature in the automotive industry.

            Call that view whatever you want, but you guys don’t provide any proof.

            What value is your word on a blog site?

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @DocOlds
            Actually, if you are what you claim you are, an ex-GM engineer with all of this fantastic corporate knowledge, then you should have no problems gaining links, information etc.

            If you can’t produce this, then my assumption of you as a fraud is correct.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            @BAFO- I presented a number of facts. Which do you question? Come on now, you can do it, focus. Try to think of one thing I said that you want proof for.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Soutdude and @Pch101, UNECE Standards are global default ones. Alan Mullay is the only CEO who has raised and objection.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @BAFO – If you had a questions about a statement or facts that didn’t include a link, you would have said so on the spot. Or why didn’t you? Alright, get specific right now…

            Your rebuttals are just insults and crap about UAW stooges, etc. Don’t change the topic if you have a point. Point is you don’t.

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    This is great. Really, it is. But the truth is that, aside from rollovers, hardly anyone who buys a truck needs to be *that* concerned about safety. I mean, just look at how large these new pickups are. I think it would make a bigger statement if the five-star rating was had on a smaller car, like the Malibu, Regal, Volt, Cruze or Sonic.

    • 0 avatar
      Carlson Fan

      Still if your like me and have 3 young kids all in car seats/boosters in the back of your crew cab PU the 5 star safety rating might have value. I’m not sure I would argue that a PU is all that safe in a side impact. Front and rear, yep, but not side.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        You can get around the side-impact safety issue by using frame-mounted steel-pipe side steps or running boards instead of the aluminum ones available commercially.

        I opted for 3″ steel pipe for my Tundra. Added about 50 pounds in total, but it looks very good. If you prefer Chrome, have it chromed then glue and screw the rubber anti-slip covering to it, like I did to the black pipe on mine.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    doctor olds – point taken in relation to safety but that is as far as I will agree.”The also offer class leading power and fuel efficiency.”
    I’m sure that the 5.7 Ram and 3.5 Ecoboost engineers would disagree. One can also throw in the 5.0 Cummins and 3.0 Ecodiesel. But hey, marketing types will point out that 2 of those engines are diesels and the EB3.5 is a V6.
    If one looks at the specs carefully, the only engine GM is trying to beat with the 5.3 is Ford’s bread and butter V8, the 5.0. It does that but then again, the EB 3.5 is Ford’s biggest seller. So which engine are you going to compare to the 5.3? It all depends on which payroll your PR department sits.
    We can’t talk about the new Chevy 6.2 because it hasn’t been released yet. It will easily beat the Ford 6.2 but I suspect that the Ford 6.2 will be dropped from the F150 lineup and rot away in Super Duty trucks and industrial vehicles. The 6.2 Chevy never did sell well and for the most part has been GMC’s “ringer” in all of the truck shoot outs. Send the engine that no one really buys.
    Next – that new 4.3. It isn’t out yet. Again, which V6 do you compare it to? The Pentastar V6 will most likely beat it in mpg but probably not torque. If GM marketing types avoid comparing V8′s to the EB 3.5, does it mean that it is fair game to compare it to the 4.3? After all, they are both V6′s.
    Like I said earlier, the only bar GMC raised was for GMT800 and GMT900 owners.

    • 0 avatar
      doctor olds

      You are probably right to refute my comment about the power, but in fuel efficiency, the 5.3L Silverado beats every other V8 full size truck and Ford’s EcoBoost.
      It also beats every other makers V6 trucks, except the 3.6L Ram, which it matches. That is class leading fuel economy, at least.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        I wonder just how well that fuel efficiency holds up when the engine is stressed, since these measurements were taken under the most ideal conditions and circumstances.

        We’ve seen other manufacturers have to walk back their optimistic mpg figures once their vehicles entered the realm of the real world.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        I will wait and see, as last year the 5.3 returned 1 mpg less than the Tundra 5.7 or F-150 5.0 and Ecoboost in CR’s testing. EPA numbers are not worth the ink they’re printed with. There is certainly the potential for the 5.3 to leap frog the others, but generally EPA numbers are achieved at the expense of buyers. Reality is that gearing is best chosen so that each upshift lands the engine at torque peak. EPA testing perverts that, because the physics model employed is pure O***a.

      • 0 avatar
        doctor olds

        The DI is a big step for the GM engines. The higher compression ratio it allows directly increases thermodynamic efficiency. The new truck is rated 2 MPG, or almost 12% better than the 2013.

        EPA fuel economy estimates are simply derived from emissions test results. The FTP (Federal Test Procedure) is a loaded dyno test that never achieves true highway speeds. I think the max is 50 something, don’t recall exactly. The EPA estimates have been modified and tweaked in attempt to bring them closer to what real owners achieve, but they may not always be representative, as you note. All fair enough. Every maker works very hard to achieve top results and GM’s new trucks are better in that test. They will have to be tested in real use to confirm whether that superiority is borne out on the road.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    @doctor olds – I do like the new GM siblings and in a years time (once the newbie bugs get worked out of them), I’d probably chose one if I had to replace my 2010 F150. I’d go with the Sierra as it is a muscular evolution of the GMT900. The Silverado was very attractive to me at first and was my preferred pick of the two but after seeing more of them, I have 1987 flashbacks. I think that was the retro look they wanted with the 2014 Silverado.
    I don’t have any warm and fuzzy feelings over the EB3.5. There seems to be two camps forming with that engine. Both camps love the power but one camp says the empty mpg sucks and the other camp says the empty mpg is great. It is highly dependant upon how you drive it.
    Call me conservative, but a V8 seems to be the best choice for a pickup and as you have pointed out, GMC sure knows how to come up with a good blend of HP and MPG. I like the fact that GMC added a 6.5 box to the crewcab line up. 5.5 is just a balcony.

    • 0 avatar
      doctor olds

      @Lou_BC- I like the Sierra, too. I have never really been a truck guy, but I like my ’08 Sierra. At $22,000 “out the door”, ($13,000 off!) it was a hard deal to turn down. The only failure in 5 years- driver’s power door lock. It apparently was the result of a supplier problem involving grease/material choice. Fortunately, a buddy put a couple in for me.
      I love the truck. It is roomy and comfortable. Z71 may make it sit higher, I don’t know, but it is a little high. I miss BIG cars!

      On the other hand, fuel economy is not great compared to a car. It is a very inefficient way to haul just myself around. I have the luxury of a few choices of vehicle. When I want to pull or carry something the Sierra is wonderful. I have to stay away from the new truck, I expect the engine torque and responsiveness to be a leap from the last gen, and I already like that a lot!


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States