As much as we like to think our modern cars are getting better and safer, apparently they can't beat an old Escort when it comes to low-speed collision damage. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) just released a report detailing their latest test results for the bumpers of midsize cars. More specifically, they tested how their bumpers held up to low-speed 3 and 6 mph impacts. "Most bumpers on midsize cars do little to resist damage in the kinds of low-speed collisions that are common in commuter traffic and parking lots," is how the report begins. And it only gets worse from there. Out of the 17 cars tested, only three managed to stay under the $1500 level for each of the four impact tests the agency conducted. "Our tests measure how well bumpers protect cars from damage in everyday bumps," says Institute president Adrian Lund. "The whole purpose of bumpers is to keep damage away from headlights, hoods, and other parts that are expensive to repair, but this purpose was accomplished in only two of the 68 tests we conducted. In the rest, what we found is that bumpers aren't up to the job." And apparently they aren't even doing as good a job as a 1981 Ford Escort. That model was chosen because it is indicative of the kind of bumpers required in the pre-Reagan-era 5 mph crash standards. Reagan rolled back the standard to 2.5 mph starting in 1982 and since then, bumpers have never been the same. The test itself changed a couple of times and now the IIHS is using a three and six mph battery of tests that tries to approximate the kinds of front and rear impacts that are the most common in the real world. They state that these low speed impacts, with sub $4,500 insurance claims, end up accounting for more than $6 billion in claims each year. Newer auto designs, particularly in the bumpers, often lead to mismatched bumper heights in collisions. If the impact isn't a straight bumper-on-bumper affair, one vehicle's bumper will often over- or under-ride the other's, striking the other vehicle's grille and/or lights, which are more expensive to repair. The full report explains the testing procedures more thoroughly and gives a detailed analysis of the costs incurred by each of the tested cars. Total combined damage for the four tests ranged from $4,277 for the Mitsubishi Galant, to more than $9,000 for the VW Jetta and Nissan Maxima.
[Source: IIHS]
New KITT Attack Mode revealed at Comic Con
London 2008: Honda OSM concept roadster says, "Cheerio!"
London 2008: Lotus unveils the Evora
2010 Chevy Camaro - Official Details and Images
2010 Chevy Camaro - LIVE from the reveal
First Drive: Maserati Quattroporte S in Europe
First Drive: 2008 MINI Cooper S JCW
In the Autoblog Garage:2009 Nissan GT-R
North American Exclusive First Drive: Alfa MiTo
First Drive: 2009 Kia Borrego
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
M @ Mar 2nd 2007 11:50AM
....Great... because people don't know how to drive, and aren't willing to pay for thier mistakes, now "we" in the design industry will have to design cow catchers (remember those old trains?) for the fronts of all new cars....
drewp @ Mar 2nd 2007 12:01PM
depending on who you design for, number one, a cow catcher may be an improvement.
Hamud @ Mar 2nd 2007 12:06PM
#1 Are you for real??? Cars can be developed with good and usefull bumpers without the need to be necessarily a bus-like car. Something that might be avoid is designing cars only thinking about the apparency and forgetting the safety.
david @ Mar 2nd 2007 12:08PM
no, #1, accidents happen. that's why they call them accidents. maybe if you "designers" "designed" it right then perhaps costs would come down and i could save on my insurance. i mean, what part of the word "bumper" don't you get. so if you get paid for "designing" do your job or go "design" for matchbox and quit blaming everyone else.
MattS @ Mar 2nd 2007 12:09PM
So there are requirements/expectations on auto makers to protect people if you hit them with your car (pedestrian impact) so you design a car meant to roll a human not smash them and guess what? The bumper cant stick way out. You put a section of guard-rail out infront of the car and it's not so easy on the knees..
Other than putting the lights on the roof or designing jabba-the-car what are car makers supposed to do?
Vickie @ Mar 2nd 2007 12:11PM
Uh no. A bumper is SUPPOSED to prevent excess damage in a low-speed collision. Just because you designers forgot that, doesn't mean we don't want to pay for our mistakes. We want all the parts of our cars to do what they are supposed to do.
Tim UF @ Mar 2nd 2007 12:17PM
Too bad they don't test what happens when a smaller car runs into the back end of an SUV and the HOOD of the small car takes the brunt of the damage.
And, aesthetics aside, that ford tempo was well engineered. it was supported by two spring loaded pistons that would absorb basically all the energy of impact... unless the vehicle in front of it happened to have a high enough bumper that the tempo's bumper misses it, then the grill and hood still gets all knarled up.
and #1 'M'... Suck it up, or cry me a river. im playing you the worlds smallest violin right now.
DriftPunch @ Mar 2nd 2007 12:22PM
I was given a wrecked '78 malibu as a kid. My challenge was to get it roadworthy. I was astonished at the mass of the bumper and associated structures. It wasn't just the bumper itself, but the reinforcements and the shock absorbers (yes, the bumper had shock absorbers).
While it's a great idea to have such sturdy components to shrug off damage from minor accidents. I wonder what that solid face would to to the 'crumple zone' concept of safety. Also I wonder if any group has done a study on the insurance negatives, to the less material/fuel and occupant safety positives.
I also wonder how well a unibody car could take a 6 mph hit even if a meaty steel bumper was anchored to a 'strong point'.
Life is full of trade offs...
Will @ Mar 2nd 2007 12:23PM
All I have to say is: '81 Escort FTW!
david @ Mar 2nd 2007 12:28PM
#7, and it's too bad they don't test the impact of a large suv hitting head on with a cement mixer.
Juan @ Mar 2nd 2007 12:41PM
Bumpers should protect the front and rear ends of cars alot better than they have been doing. There has to be a way to protect the cars and make it stylish simultaneously. I guess we'll see in a few years
m @ Mar 2nd 2007 12:47PM
did you say "everyday bumps"? please don't park anywhere near me.
to everybody bitching at the designer, get over it. yeah, your car's going to take some damage when you hit something. it might look a little ugly afterwards. it's either that or it can look ugly from the day you buy it, and it won't look so much uglier after an accident. (i.e. old escort, no offense to any escort fans) i'll go ahead and take something good looking from the start and take responsibility for keeping it that way.
Jim Sanders @ Mar 2nd 2007 12:47PM
Everyone lobby your Congressmen to pass laws to legislate those "design industry" bastards!
We pay thousands of dollars for nothing because they think their designs are all that!
BGJ @ Mar 2nd 2007 12:54PM
#8 You got it mostly right. It is quite difficult to balance the low speed impact requirements with the more meaningful frontal impacts at 25mph to 35mph with both unbelted and belted occupants.
Making the bumper overly stiff will look great for low speed impact, but can greatly increase the relative velocity of your head/body toward the seatbelt and airbag in a higher speed collision.
EnviroBob @ Mar 2nd 2007 12:59PM
OK, so which do you want?
A) A vehicle that has crumple zones, and thus crumples upon impact, or do you want a solid steel bar in front that doesn't give and transfers the impact on the passenger compartment?
B) A smooth, aerodynamic bumper cap that gets damaged when it makes contact with another object ro do you want a solid steel bar that adds weight to the vehicle, decreasing MPG and hampering handling characteristics.
You can't have it all.
salguod @ Mar 2nd 2007 1:01PM
The article opens with this:
"As much as we like to think our modern cars are getting better and safer, ..."
The test had nothing to do with safety. It was all about damage, costs and claims. It also seems to have made no claim as to whether these cars meet the federal standards or not. It simply points out that costs are higher than they used to be. Oh-Kay.
It also isn't about judging 'better'. Sure, the ability to take an impact isn't better, but they certainly look a lot better. Anyone really want to go back to cars that look like a 1981 Escort or Tempo?
The other thing that wasn't mentioned was how much extra would a car cost if it had 5 MPH bumpers compared to the cost of repair? How much extra weight which translates into extra fuel? Pay for the prevention or pay for the cure.
Paul G. @ Mar 2nd 2007 1:08PM
Wait, is this autoblog? I would expect comments like this on soccermomblog.com maybe. Are these the same people who drool all over new sports cars and complain when cool European cars can't come to the US because of some "dumb" US standard they can't meet. Well THESE are those dumb standards. I'm with #1. Quit hitting things! I guess you guys will all be in heaven when the US spec 911 has a 3'x8'x1' chunk of Nerf stapled to the front, so you can bounce around in a parking lot like a bumper car at Coney Island.
Jeff the Baptist @ Mar 2nd 2007 1:11PM
MattS has it right with number 5. You can have a car that is has big solid bumpers that can shrug off impact with another car, but they will also kick the crap out of any pedestrian in an impact. Now you may say "who cares" but in Europe they actually have pedestrian impact laws. Currently you can meet both the American bumper standards and the European pedestrian standards. If you start cranking the bumper standard up, you won't be able to. Once again the barrier to entry of the American marketplace will go up.
iQuack @ Mar 2nd 2007 1:11PM
Bumpers on new cars are usually painted the color of the car which is stylish, but ridiculous. Unless the car is black or other dark color, the bumpers look like hell after the paint is bumped off in parking lots.
If bumpers will soon look scratched up and ugly anyway, maybe it would be best to forget the elegance and design cars that aren't as fragile as they've become.
Bryan @ Mar 2nd 2007 1:17PM
This is one of the reasons I drive a truck. Plastic bumpers..ha! I think all vehicles should have metal bumpers on them again. Pedestrian safety should come in the form of the driver paying attention AND the pedestrian paying attention. Of course thats a perfect world, and we are far from living in that. I can say though, that when my grandmothers LTD 2 was rearended by a Toyota in the 80's, the cop asked where the "other" vehicle in the accident was. She pointed to the LTD 2 and said thats it. The Toyota was totaled. Metal = better. Plastic = worthless.