2014 GM Pickups First to Earn NHTSA Five-Star Rating

TTAC Staff
by TTAC Staff
2014 gm pickups first to earn nhtsa five star rating

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.

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.

Join the conversation
7 of 70 comments
  • Lou_BC Lou_BC on Aug 22, 2013

    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.

    • See 3 previous
    • Doctor olds Doctor olds on Aug 22, 2013

      @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.

  • Lou_BC Lou_BC on Aug 23, 2013

    @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.

    • Doctor olds Doctor olds on Aug 23, 2013

      @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!

  • ToolGuy Question: F-150 FP700 (  Bronze or  Black) supercharger kit is legal in 50 states, while the  Mustang supercharger kit is banned in California -- why??
  • Scott "It may not be the ideal hauler to take the clan cross-country to Wally World considering range anxiety "Range Anxiety is a chosen term that conceals as much as it discloses. You don't care about range that much if you can recharge quickly and current BV's (battery vehicles) can't, no matter how good the chargers are. From what I've been reading it is likely that within 5 years there will be batteries in cars, most likely Tesla's, that can charge fast enough with no harm to the batteries to satisfy all of us with no need to increase range beyond a real world 300-ish miles.And that's when I buy one.
  • Charles I had one and loved it . Seated 7 people . Easy to park , great van
  • Jay Mason Your outdoor space will get better every year with a pergola. A horizontal, pole-supported framework for climbing plants is called a pergola. It creates a closed off area. pergola builder denton texas by Denton Custom Decks provide cover for outdoor gatherings. They would be more than happy to assist you with the pergola's framework.
  • Alan I would think Ford would beef up the drive line considering the torque increase, horse power isn't a factor here. I looked at a Harrop supercharger for my vehicle. Harrop offered two stages of performance. The first was a paltry 100hp to the wheels (12 000AUD)and the second was 250hp to the wheels ($20 000 (engine didn't rev harder so torque was significantly increased)). The Stage One had no drive line changes, but the Stage Two had drive line modifications. My vehicle weighs roughly the same as a full size pickup and the 400'ish hp I have is sufficient, I had little use for another 100 let alone 250hp. I couldn't see much difference in the actual supercharger setup other than a ratio change for the drive of the supercharger, so that extra $8 000 went into the drive line.