Crash Test 2004 - 2009 Chevrolet Colorado / GMC Canyon / Isuzu I-Seires (Frontal Impact) IIHS
Chevrolet Colorado
2004-09 models
results also apply to: 2004-09 GMC Canyon | 2006-08 Isuzu i-series
FRONTAL OFFSET TEST
OVERALL EVALUATION: Good
Structure/safety cage Injury measures Restraints/dummy kinematics
Head/neck Chest Leg/foot, left Leg/foot, right
Good Good Good Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable
Important: Frontal crash test ratings can be compared only among vehicles of similar weight.
Test details:
The Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon were introduced in the 2004 model year as replacements for the Chevrolet S-10 and GMC Sonoma. The Isuzu i-series pickup was introduced in the 2006 model year and discontinued after the 2008 model year.
Restraints/dummy kinematics — Dummy movement was well controlled. After the dummy moved forward into the airbag, it rebounded into the seat without its head coming close to any stiff structure that could cause injury. However, there was too much upward movement of the steering wheel.
Injury measures — Measures taken from the head, neck, and chest indicate low risk of injuries to these body regions in a crash of this severity. Forces on both tibias and the left foot indicate that lower leg and foot injuries would be possible.
2012 Ford Ranger T6 EuroNCAP Crash Tests (Frontal, Side, & Pole Impacts)
Five Stars
Adult occupant
The passenger compartment of the Ranger remained stable in the frontal impact. Dummy readings in the tests indicated good protection of the knees and femurs of both the driver and front passenger. Ford showed that a similar level of protection would be provided for occupants of different sizes and those sat in different seating positions. For the passenger, all body regions were well protected. For the driver, protection of the chest was adequate and that of other body regions was good. Maximum points were scored in the side barrier test, with good protection of all body areas. In the more severe side pole test, chest protection was adequate and that of other body regions was good. The front seats and head restraints provided marginal protection against whiplash injuries in a rear-end impact.
Child occupant
Forward movement of the 3 year dummy, sat in a forward facing restraint, was not excessive. In the side impact, both dummies were properly contained in the protective shells of their restraints, minimsing the risk of dangerous head contacts. The passenger airbag can be disabled to allow a rearward facing restraint to be used in that seating position. Clear information is provided regarding the status of the airbag and the system was rewarded.
Pedestrian
The bumper provided good protection to pedestrians' legs. The front edge of the bonnet was more mixed, with good areas and some areas which gave poor protection to struck pedestrians. However, in the areas likely to be struck by a child's head, the bonnet provided almost entirely good protection and was predominantly good in the areas likely to be struck by an adult's head.
Safety assist
Electronic stability control is standard equipment on all variants of the Ranger and met Euro NCAP's test requirements. A seatbelt reminder is provided for the driver and front passenger seats. A speed limitation device is not available.
Chevy Tahoe 2007 crash test
slow motion crash test of 2007 Chevy Tahoe.
35 mph. Ratings: 5/5 stars.
For full crash test details go to iihs.org or safercar.gov
Crash Test 2008 Mitsubishi L200 Sportero / Triton Euroncap
Crash Test 2008 Mitsubishi L200 / Triton Euroncap
Comments
Front impact
Protection of the driver's chest was rated as weak owing to the extent to which the dummy's chest was compressed in the test. The driver's footwell ruptured but the passenger compartment remained stable during the impact. Structures in the dashboard presented a risk of injury to the knees and femurs of the driver and passenger.
Side impact
The L200 scored maximum points in the side impact test. A head-protecting airbag is not available so no pole test was performed.
Child-protection
The passenger's frontal airbag can be disabled allowing a rearward-facing child restraint to be used in that seating position. However, information presented to the driver regarding the status of the airbag was not sufficiently clear. The presence of ISOFIX anchorages in the rear outboard seats was not well marked.
Pedestrian protection
The L200 scored only two points for pedestrian protection. All areas tested - bumper, front edge of the bonnet and the bonnet surface - were rated either as entirely poor or almost entirely so.
Crash Test 2004 - 2009 Chevrolet Colorado / 2004 - 2009 GMC Canyon / 2006 - 2008 Isuzu I-Series (Frontal Impact) IIHS
Chevrolet Colorado
2004-09 models
results also apply to: 2004-09 GMC Canyon | 2006-08 Isuzu i-series
FRONTAL OFFSET TEST
OVERALL EVALUATION: Acceptable
Structure/safety cage Injury measures Restraints/dummy kinematics
Head/neck Chest Leg/foot, left Leg/foot, right
Marginal Good Good Marginal Good Good
Important: Frontal crash test ratings can be compared only among vehicles of similar weight.
Test details:
The Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon were introduced in the 2004 model year as replacements for the Chevrolet S-10 and GMC Sonoma. The Isuzu i-series pickup was introduced in the 2006 model year and discontinued after the 2008 model year.
During the crash, intrusion by the tire and wheel into the driver footwell area combined with separation of the footwell from the rocker panel and door sill caused the dummy's left foot to be trapped underneath the brake pedal. The pedal had to be cut off to free the foot. This entrapment resulted in a structure rating downgrade from acceptable to marginal.
Restraints/dummy kinematics â Movement of the upper part of the dummy was well controlled. After the dummy moved forward into the airbag, it rebounded into the seat without its head coming close to any stiff structure that could cause injury.
Injury measures â Measures taken from the head, neck, and chest indicate low risk of injuries to these body regions in a crash of this severity. Forces on the left tibia indicate that injuries to the lower leg would be possible.
Stylin' Concepts Chevrolet Colorado Giveaway Winner!
The Chevrolet Colorado sweepstakes from Stylin' Concepts is finally over. The winner, Jennifer Eubank, from New Jersey, picked up her shiny new pickup truck on 2/16/07. Here's the video.
Crash Test Ford F150
Look at it fold up like a soda can...
Ford F150 Crash Test
ford f150 crash test ford f150 crashetest smash bash crash ford f150 unsafe f-150 f-150
Chevy Impala (2006) side crash test
***Visit safercar.gov and iihs.org for crash ratings and details***
slow motion side crash test of 2006 chevy impala
Crash Test 2005 - 2008 Toyota Tacoma (40 M.P.H Offset Test) IIHS
Toyota Tacoma
2005-08 models
FRONTAL OFFSET TEST
OVERALL EVALUATION: Good
Structure/safety cage Injury measures Restraints/dummy kinematics
Head/neck Chest Leg/foot, left Leg/foot, right
Good Good Good Good Good Good
Important: Frontal crash test ratings can be compared only among vehicles of similar weight.
Test details:
The Toyota Tacoma was redesigned for the 2005 model year. Two tests of the Tacoma were conducted, one by the Institute of a 2wd Access Cab and the other by Toyota of a 2wd Double Cab as part of frontal crash test verification. The overall rating of Good is based on review of both tests, which independently result in overall ratings of Good. The ratings and vehicle specifications based on Toyota's test are shown below because the 2wd Double Cab is similar to the crew cab configuration of other pickups tested more recently.
Restraints/dummy kinematics — Dummy movement was well controlled in both tests. During rebound in the Institute's test, the dummy's head hit the roof rail.
Injury measures — In each test, measures taken from the neck, chest, and both legs indicate low risk of injuries to these body regions in a crash of this severity. In the test conducted by Toyota, measures taken from the dummy's head also indicate low risk of head injuries. (In the Institute's test, a high head acceleration occurred when the dummy's head hit the steering wheel through the airbag, indicating that head injuries would be possible.) Head acceleration from the roof rail hit in the Institute's test was low.
