The 5th percentile occupant was added to testing protocols during a change in the FMVSS 208 ruling in the early 00's. The 5th percentile female occupant is considered a "high risk" occupant when involved in crashes. (5th percentile is designed to replicate a short-stature female occupant - 5' 110lbs) During that aforementioned FMVSS 208 ruling change, NHTSA set out to have manufacturers to use a form of airbag "suppression" known as an occupant classification system to mitigate injuries during occupant-to-airbag interactions. By placing the 5th percentile occupant in a close seating position, it's designed to ensure that occupant classification system (or even just the basic programming of the SRS ECU) would ensure even a "high risk" occupant would not be severely injured by the SRS system, even if seated close to the dashboard. This ruling change was mandated starting with (I believe) the 2007 model year, but initial rollout (optional phase-in) started with the 2004 model year. When NHTSA updated the NCAP testing for the 2011 model year, they decided to add the 5th percentile occupant as part of rating criteria. (before 2011 for frontal impacts, both front occupants were 50th Percentile occupants - 5' 10" 180lb male) Part of that addition utilized the 5th percentile occupant in the close-seated "high risk" passenger position used in FMVSS 208. Long story short, airbags were dangerous to occupants that were unrestrained or seated in non-ideal positions, and the US Government changed the FMVSS 208 requirement to ensure that SRS systems were less dangerous to those at "high risk".
I have to question the logic behind how the pass side front seat was positioned as far forward as possible. Leg contact was due to unreasonable seat positioning outside the norm. And details like this makes you want to question how testes can at times be misleading in both positive and negative results.
I never understand this - all of these tests I see have the seat jammed as far forward as absolutely possible which is the worst possible way to have it.
@TheTitaniumSkull A large number of people have this question/concern, but NHTSA has the passenger close to the dash to place them in an "at risk" seating position to ensure the occupant classification system and restraints work well to mitigate injuries to those "at risk". In regards to those who say the same about the driver, they don't understand that this is the ideal seating position for a 50th Percentile Male occupant. While people claim that's "too close" to the steering wheel, as someone who falls into that 50th Percentile Male classification, that's right about where I sit in all of my cars.
The footwell intrusion on a full frontal test doesn’t give me warm, fuzzy feelings about its performance during a SORB test. Body on frame vehicles tend to suck at that test anyway, especially ones that way 8000+ lbs
The problems I see with these crash tests are they are not fast enough to reflect what it might be like on the interstate during a crash 35 miles an hour isn't fast enough to show that the speed should be more like 50 miles an hour so you at least get somewhere in the middle of the two for city street speeds and also for highway speeds.
Man I hate those goofy mirrors! If you were worried the arms caused a blind spot, keep the same mounting location just use the lower bar! There isn’t any interference from my 2016 lower arm to these new ones. Looks dumb sticking out of a body panel
That is how they protect you. The longation reduces max G force. Many late model vehicle use a torsion bar in belt spool to let the belt havea bit more yield. A few use explosive charge and a two force level belt spool and high force does the initial anchoring of belt and once that has twisted a charge blows and the spool has another portion of a turn to let belt out to limit force on human.
@@jimmyaber5920these trucks do have the explosive charges in the seat belt retractors. The boxes they come in have an explosives placard. I work at the plant where these trucks are built, in Flint Michigan.
How can that be when the "A" pillars did not collapse and the cab (passenger compartment) is still intact? Even the dummies just hit the lower portion of the dashboard. People could have walked away from that one.
@melvinpinkard5333 they dam right had better walked away from this crash this set up same as in school zone 30 clicks an hour hitting solid object big God dam deal have the other object move at 30 clicks at you too ! We do know riding bicycle at 15 clicks is very survivable how money of us crashed over that and went home plenty sitting in a crew cab full box 70 thousand dollar truck ya 70 thousand dollar air bag going 30 clicks hitting solid object and saying that was survivable is a bit sad.
Add to last post there has been alot of talk about towing trailers with truck box at the cab bends right down to road its not a one off thing either just saying if you have something like 500 pounds or more strapped down like no tomorrow id say tits up for the king cab riders.
This is not a diesel truck, the engine bays between the gasoline and diesel are distinctly different. Diesel: www.motortrend.com/reviews/2024-chevrolet-silverado-2500-hd-duramax-first-test/ Test vehicle: nrd-static.nhtsa.dot.gov/photos/vehdb/v10000/v15200/v15299P020.jpg
The 5th percentile occupant was added to testing protocols during a change in the FMVSS 208 ruling in the early 00's. The 5th percentile female occupant is considered a "high risk" occupant when involved in crashes. (5th percentile is designed to replicate a short-stature female occupant - 5' 110lbs) During that aforementioned FMVSS 208 ruling change, NHTSA set out to have manufacturers to use a form of airbag "suppression" known as an occupant classification system to mitigate injuries during occupant-to-airbag interactions. By placing the 5th percentile occupant in a close seating position, it's designed to ensure that occupant classification system (or even just the basic programming of the SRS ECU) would ensure even a "high risk" occupant would not be severely injured by the SRS system, even if seated close to the dashboard. This ruling change was mandated starting with (I believe) the 2007 model year, but initial rollout (optional phase-in) started with the 2004 model year. When NHTSA updated the NCAP testing for the 2011 model year, they decided to add the 5th percentile occupant as part of rating criteria. (before 2011 for frontal impacts, both front occupants were 50th Percentile occupants - 5' 10" 180lb male) Part of that addition utilized the 5th percentile occupant in the close-seated "high risk" passenger position used in FMVSS 208. Long story short, airbags were dangerous to occupants that were unrestrained or seated in non-ideal positions, and the US Government changed the FMVSS 208 requirement to ensure that SRS systems were less dangerous to those at "high risk".
I have to question the logic behind how the pass side front seat was positioned as far forward as possible. Leg contact was due to unreasonable seat positioning outside the norm. And details like this makes you want to question how testes can at times be misleading in both positive and negative results.
I never understand this - all of these tests I see have the seat jammed as far forward as absolutely possible which is the worst possible way to have it.
@TheTitaniumSkull A large number of people have this question/concern, but NHTSA has the passenger close to the dash to place them in an "at risk" seating position to ensure the occupant classification system and restraints work well to mitigate injuries to those "at risk". In regards to those who say the same about the driver, they don't understand that this is the ideal seating position for a 50th Percentile Male occupant. While people claim that's "too close" to the steering wheel, as someone who falls into that 50th Percentile Male classification, that's right about where I sit in all of my cars.
Virtually no one would sit like that.
Call bs on the searing position. Even my wife that’s 5’4” doesn’t sit that close to the steering wheel.
Nobody ever has to sit that close on the passenger side.
The door shut lines stayed impressively open during impact.
Huh?
on the hood it shows a 6.6 non duramax but under that hood is a 6.0 . what lie or cheating did the government do this time and why?
The footwell intrusion on a full frontal test doesn’t give me warm, fuzzy feelings about its performance during a SORB test. Body on frame vehicles tend to suck at that test anyway, especially ones that way 8000+ lbs
It would certainly flunk an offset
The underside of the truck looks like it was taken apart to paint it
if theres anything GM does well, its usually their trucks.
The problems I see with these crash tests are they are not fast enough to reflect what it might be like on the interstate during a crash 35 miles an hour isn't fast enough to show that the speed should be more like 50 miles an hour so you at least get somewhere in the middle of the two for city street speeds and also for highway speeds.
Man I hate those goofy mirrors! If you were worried the arms caused a blind spot, keep the same mounting location just use the lower bar! There isn’t any interference from my 2016 lower arm to these new ones. Looks dumb sticking out of a body panel
They look like moose antlers. It would have been nice if they had come up with a simpler design.
Why do the seat belts stretch so much ?
That is how they protect you. The longation reduces max G force. Many late model vehicle use a torsion bar in belt spool to let the belt havea bit more yield. A few use explosive charge and a two force level belt spool and high force does the initial anchoring of belt and once that has twisted a charge blows and the spool has another portion of a turn to let belt out to limit force on human.
@@jimmyaber5920these trucks do have the explosive charges in the seat belt retractors. The boxes they come in have an explosives placard. I work at the plant where these trucks are built, in Flint Michigan.
Looking at truck bed moving forward hitting cab and its empty! Ever so slightly you can see the fram bend between cab and bed . Not good at all
How can that be when the "A" pillars did not collapse and the cab (passenger compartment) is still intact? Even the dummies just hit the lower portion of the dashboard. People could have walked away from that one.
@melvinpinkard5333 they dam right had better walked away from this crash this set up same as in school zone 30 clicks an hour hitting solid object big God dam deal have the other object move at 30 clicks at you too ! We do know riding bicycle at 15 clicks is very survivable how money of us crashed over that and went home plenty sitting in a crew cab full box 70 thousand dollar truck ya 70 thousand dollar air bag going 30 clicks hitting solid object and saying that was survivable is a bit sad.
Thank god they didn’t smash a duramax
Probably would have broke the wall.
Looks like a square body after the impact ! Wonder if it still runs n drives ?
Add to last post there has been alot of talk about towing trailers with truck box at the cab bends right down to road its not a one off thing either just saying if you have something like 500 pounds or more strapped down like no tomorrow id say tits up for the king cab riders.
It least the looks of this truck has been improved by the crash.
You might want to spell check your burn before sending.
Don’t mock what you can’t afford.
everyone look! it says 6.6 on hood which im sure its a non duramax but under that hood is a 6.0! government lies again
Nope. Both the Duramax and the Vortec are 6.6 liter in the current gm HD trucks.
Say 6.6 for the Gas engine now. It would say Duramax for diesel
This is not a diesel truck, the engine bays between the gasoline and diesel are distinctly different.
Diesel: www.motortrend.com/reviews/2024-chevrolet-silverado-2500-hd-duramax-first-test/
Test vehicle: nrd-static.nhtsa.dot.gov/photos/vehdb/v10000/v15200/v15299P020.jpg
@@garybrown4671no longer Vortec. It’s the 6.6 L8T Gas engine.
You are behind on gas engine charges from GM!! lol