IIHS recreates fender benders, then heads for the body shop
Click the image above to check out the (mild) carnage.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has been conducting a series of studies to test the extent of damage caused by low-speed crashes – one of the most common collisions around. The tests included running a bumper-shaped barrier into the front and rear corners of select vehicles at 3 mph and full-width impacts at 6 mph.
The financial results aren't surprising for anyone who's sustained what used to be minor damage. Of the vehicles tested, the Nissan Quest "failed miserably," when the bill for the damages amassed $8,102 for the corner and full-width impacts. Honda faired slightly better, with an estimate of $5,258, with the Chevrolet Uplander, Dodge Caravan and Toyota Sienna all coming in under $6-grand.
The IIHS' full press release is printed in full after the jump and proves that even a slight bump in the parking lot can result in repairs well into the five figures.
Gallery: IIHS Bumper Crashes
PRESS RELEASE
Minivan bumper test results: Nissan Quest is by far the worst performer
ARLINGTON, VA - None of 6 minivans, all 2008 models, is designed to resist vehicle damage in many low-speed collisions. The front and rear bumper systems on these minivans allowed $5,000 or more damage in a series of 4 crash tests conducted at 3 and 6 mph. The Nissan Quest was the worst, sustaining damage that cost more than $8,000 to repair. These are the results of recent crash tests conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety to assess and compare how well vehicle bumper systems resist damage in the kinds of low-speed collisions that frequently occur in commuter traffic and parking lots.
"These minivans don't have the worst bumpers we've tested, but they still allow way too much damage in minor impacts. It's damage that consumers shouldn't have to pay for or put up with the aggravation of having to get their vehicles repaired," says Institute senior vice president Joe Nolan.
In the Institute's bumper tests, each vehicle is run into a barrier designed to mimic the design of a car bumper. The steel barrier's plastic absorber and flexible cover simulate cars' energy absorbers and plastic bumper covers. The series of 4 tests includes front and rear full-width impacts at 6 mph and front and rear corner impacts at 3 mph. The bottom of the barrier is 18 inches off the ground in the full-width tests and 16 inches from the ground in the corner impacts. These heights are designed to drive bumper improvements and lead to better protection from damage in a range of real-world crashes.
Minivan designs help in bumper tests: The minivans performed somewhat better in the 4 bumper tests than the midsize cars the Institute tested earlier this year. This is in part because the minivans' front bumpers are an inch or so higher off the ground, compared with car bumpers (about 17 inches versus 16). The extra height means the minivans' front bumpers usually didn't underride the test barrier, which exacerbates the damage.
Another important design aspect is that most of the minivans the Institute tested have third-row seats that fold into the floor, which requires pushing the vehicles' frame rails out wider. Because the bumper systems attach to the ends of the rails, the rear bumpers (but not the front ones) also are wider. This means they do a better job of protecting the rear corners of the minivans from damage in low-speed collisions. For example, the taillights on the minivans weren't damaged in any of the rear corner tests while the headlights were damaged in 4 of the 6 corresponding front corner tests.
Nissan Quest failed 'miserably:' The worst performer overall, the Nissan Quest, "miserably failed the rear full-width test, sustaining more than twice as much damage as the best performer, the Honda Odyssey," Nolan points out. "This is disappointing because full-width tests are the easiest ones. They spread the energy of an impact across a vehicle's whole back or front. But the Quest's rear bumper system failed when its reinforcement bar cracked and was driven into the rear body of the vehicle, resulting in expensive repairs. The tailgate was so badly damaged that it had to be replaced."
The tailgates on 5 of the 6 minivans the Institute tested - all but the Chevrolet Uplander - sustained damage in the rear full-width test. Only the Quest and Toyota Sienna required tailgate replacement. Those on the other minivans could be repaired at less cost.
The Quest's performance wasn't much better in the two frontal tests. It was the worst performer in the corner test and second to worst in the front full-width test, during which it slid under the bumper barrier and sustained damage to the hood and grille. This was the only minivan with hood damage in the front full-width test.
"Quest owners can expect huge damage repair bills after all kinds of low-speed collisions. This isn't a good vehicle choice for consumers looking for a minivan with reasonable repair costs," Nolan says. Nor are a couple of other Nissans. The Maxima racked up more damage in an earlier series of the same bumper tests than 16 other moderately priced midsize cars, and the Infiniti G35 was worst among 11 luxury midsize cars.
Honda Odyssey performs best overall: Damage to the Odyssey in the two frontal tests, full-width and corner, was in line with damage to the other minivans, but this vehicle performed better in the rear tests. It was the best performer in the rear full-width configuration, sustaining damage costing half as much to repair as the damage to the Quest. In the rear corner test, the Odyssey was the second best performer. Damage was largely confined to the bumper system - the plastic cover, reinforcement bar, and the energy-absorbing foam. The Dodge Grand Caravan was the best performer in this test, sustaining the least amount of damage ($483) in any of the 24 individual tests in this round of bumper evaluations. Damage to the Grand Caravan, as well as the Odyssey and Sienna, was limited to the bumpers.
The Toyota Sienna sustained the least amount of damage in the front corner test. But if the crash configuration had differed slightly, the outcome could have been very different because there's little underneath the Sienna's bumper cover to absorb crash energy. The Sienna and Chevrolet Uplander were the only minivans to withstand the front corner test without headlight damage.
"There are good examples in these results," Nolan says. "Although neither the Odyssey nor the Grand Caravan performed particularly well in the frontal tests and the Sienna didn't do particularly well in the rear tests, all three of these vehicles did turn in good performances in one or two tests apiece. What we want is for all passenger vehicles to perform as well or better than the best minivan examples in each test."
All parts don't cost the same: Besides the amount of damage sustained in a low-speed impact, repair costs are influenced by both the price of replacement parts and the complexity of the necessary repairs. For example, the one-piece plastic radiator supports on both the Quest and the Grand Caravan had to be replaced after the front corner impact. Although the repairs were essentially the same, the price of the jobs differed a lot - $347 for the Grand Caravan compared with almost twice as much ($674) for the Quest.
"Because minivans and other passenger vehicles allow so much damage in low-speed collisions, we have to pay attention to comparative repair and replacement costs," Nolan concludes. "The best way to avoid these costs is for automakers to equip their vehicles with bumper systems that resist damage in the first place. Until manufacturers do this, consumers will have to study our crash test results and shop accordingly."
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg "2011 Audi A8: Live from Miami")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
compy386 9:33AM (12/20/2007)
Most consumers probably would rather have a spiffy looking bumper rather than a bumper that functions better. Ford lowered their engineering tolerance for bumpers because the designers wanted more leeway.
Reply
dan 12:21PM (12/20/2007)
Most consumers would rather have a spiffy looking bumper than one that absorbs impacts because they typically only pay the $250-500 deductible and the rest of the cost is hidden in their (and our) insurance premiums.
If people walked into the showroom knowing full well that a 3mph bumper tap would cost them $2500 (or $5-10k on a luxury car) out of pocket, you'd better believe that A) every model on the lot would have effective bumpers and B) going for that 5 star bumper rating would be a major competitive point between models.
This would be easy to create. Mandate that insurance only cover the first $1500 of body damage from a low speed impact. Drop that to $1000 in 5 years and then to $500 in 5 more. Problem solved.
anagogue 1:23PM (12/20/2007)
Don't be an ass. Current flimsy bumpers are the result of years of lobbying and public outcry to decrease the mortality rate in accidents involving pedestrians.
Bumpers used to be there to protect the car. Now they're there to protect someone you hit. It's not that they're not sufficiently tested at speeds above "x," it's that they're specifically designed to crush like a bicycle helmet on any impact over 3 mph (though several months ago, I saw a press release from Ford about how they were going to buck the trend and switch to 5 mph bumpers, to reduce insurance costs).
The fact that people routinely have "fender benders," which should be minor repairs, and only rarely run into pedestrians never seemed to cross anyone's mind. Now we are paying the price. Even those who only drive older cars with real bumpers still have to live with the increased insurance premiums of the market in general.
DriverG 9:36AM (12/20/2007)
First of all, while $8000 sounds excessive that's the TOTAL cost of the 4 impact types. Not to often you get into four different accidents on the way home.
The other noteable thing here is how much cheaper it is to repair the Grand Caravan. While Japanese products are generally superior to American-made vehicles, they still cost a lot more to fix.
Reply
psarhjinian 12:57PM (12/20/2007)
A lot of that is due to parts availability. Grand Caravans, F150s, Impalas and Crown Vics are wrecked by the thousands and parts are cheap and plentiful. Try getting a bumper for a Saab or (god help you) a Renault in North America and you'll understand.
This is one of my points of contention about the way reliability is discussed with any half-ton truck or the Ford Panther platform cars. They're not safe, reliable or well-performing. What they are is cheap to fix. People who can do their own wrenching equate this with reliable--they're wrong. For a fleet manager, they're a good buy; for a consumer, they're not so much.
Alex 9:36AM (12/20/2007)
This why i always laugh when i hear people say they want to get their car fixed without going through their insurance. Yeah, good luck with that one.
Reply
tekdemon 8:38PM (12/20/2007)
Depends on the car...some cars are still fairly cheap to fix. I got an estimate for $800 when someone rear ended me, and that was with the repair done to insurance company specifications.
Yeah, $800 still kinda bites, but his insurance sounded like it would have gone up a lot more over the next 3 years if he had admitted fault to his insurance company. Of course the guy was mostly lucky that I drive a car with very easy to obtain and cheap parts (Camry), if I drove anything else he'd have been screwed.
Benfolio 9:37AM (12/20/2007)
Not suprised. There is little or NO reinforcement behind the conrners of bumpers anymore. The main structure is across the front and usually ends before the edges of the head and tail lights. Leaving that whole corner unprotected, any tall obstacle will penatrate far enough to damage not only the bumper, but brackets, head/tail lamps, and fenders. Not to mention what's underneath. In the event of a Mazda3 or Mazda5, it's a $1500 electric power steering pump.
My wife got a bump in a WalMart parking lot by an Odyssey in her Mazda5, and while the Honda was unscathed, our bumper was damaged enough to need replacing, and because it was hit in the corner, and high enough, there was a golf ball sized dent in the quarter panel. Total damage was around $5,000 with all the labor ro repair the dent.
Reply
wrussi 9:40AM (12/20/2007)
all nissans cost more to repair. a minor fender bender on a sentra costed me 7k!!
Reply
Dan 9:49AM (12/20/2007)
The insurance industry paid how much for testing to show that bumper covers are fragile eggshells? I could have told them that.
Reply
Dave 10:29AM (12/20/2007)
The IIHS works for insurance companies.
This study helps to set collision insurance rates for various models.
Theoretically, the Nissan should be slightly more expensive to insure than the Honda.
Gardiner Westbound 10:12AM (12/20/2007)
To the 1970s bumpers were strong enough for vehicles to push each other Cars were well protected in most supermarket parking lot mishaps
The insurance cartel harassed congress into legislating bumpers that will protect headlights at 8-mph, later reduced to 5-mph. The repair savings were to be reflected in reduced insurance premiums. Hah!
The manufacturers responded, and are making tons of money on replacement parts, by supplying deformable bumpers.
Reply
psarhjinian 1:43PM (12/20/2007)
Cars in the 1970s would also kill their occupants quite effectively. Those strong bumpers and frames were really good at transferring crash energy into occupants.
There's nothing wrong with designing cars to reduce insurance premiums (the headlight/bumper/rad on, say, the Yaris or Mustang are designed this way: they'll break, but they'll break in such a way that the expensive parts survive).
Where things have gone awry is that manufacturers really aren't meeting the low-impact standards. By and large, they do a very simple front-on test that any car should be able to pass. The IIHS is illustrating this deficiency: cars are being designed for aesthetics, rather than
Take a look at the Audi Q7 (the intricacy of the grille) or the Evo IX (the intercooler). In a low-speed crash with a pole or other car, those two will run into the thousands to repair. Heck, the Evo IX couldn't even be sold in Canada because of how poor it's bumper-bash results were.
Hey, I'll trade bumper-bash for overall safety cage in a heartbeat, but that's not what the IIHS is saying here.
Pat 10:14AM (12/20/2007)
I miss my green Tercel with it's black mat bumpers. I didn't have to worry about scratches when parking. And as a bonus, the mirrors and door handles even matched ;-)
Reply
Dave 10:26AM (12/20/2007)
I wonder if IIHS is hiring. Crashing cars sounds like fun.
Reply
Dave 10:28AM (12/20/2007)
The IIHS works for insurance companies.
This study helps to set collision insurance rates for various models.
Theoretically, the Nissan should be slightly more expensive to insure than the Honda.
Reply
Kumar 10:38AM (12/20/2007)
One of my local news stations was trying to talk up this report as if this test revealed that some of the 2008 minivans were some how less safe as a result. What morons.
The price tag sucks, but I'd rather have my bumper shatter at 5 mph while acting as a crash system with the rest of the car at a higher speed real wreck to hopefully save my life and or keep me from serious injury.
Reply
Hank 10:43AM (12/20/2007)
Current federal regs are not even 5 mph. That ended in '82. Current regs only require testing at 2.5 mph. That's pathetic when most soccer moms soar through the Wal-Mart lot at 20 mph in a rush to buy fake Crocs and shampoo.
Reply
Jeff 11:25AM (12/20/2007)
"That's pathetic when most soccer moms soar through the Wal-Mart lot at 20 mph in a rush to buy fake Crocs and shampoo."
Well Said!!!
dan 12:27PM (12/20/2007)
And those federal regs don't even require the bumper to survive that 2.5mph frontal - or 1.5mph corner - impact. They have to protect 'safety equipment (headlights) and body', but if that single nudge destroys the bumper itself requiring a replacement - which it usually does - you pass anyway.