Recent SUV 5 mph crash tests (Pacifica ranked poorly)

NOT SO TOUGH AFTER ALL?
Eight of 9 new mid-size SUVs sustain big damage in 5 MPH bumper tests

Vehicle tested / Average damage per test / Bumper rating
2003 Honda Pilot $404 ACCEPTABLE
2004 Mitsubishi Endeavor $789 MARGINAL
2003 Nissan Murano $890 MARGINAL
2004 Lexus RX 330 $988 MARGINAL
2003 Toyota 4Runner $1,246 POOR
2004 Chrysler Pacifica $1,315 POOR
2003 Infiniti FX35 $1,436 POOR
2004 Cadillac SRX $1,644 POOR
2003 Kia Sorento $1,646 POOR

* All repair costs reflect September 2003 parts and labor prices.
Source: the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

The U.S. insurance institute's chief operating officer, Adrian Lund,
said the makers of the SUVs tried to create a rough-and-tough image,
but the vehicles' bumpers proved to be flimsy in four tests of how
well the bumpers absorbed low-speed impacts. "Vehicles shouldn't
sustain major damage in a minor collision at a fast walking speed,"
Lund said.

Rear bumpers fail to protect tailgates: Three of the poor performers
had the largest damage costs in the rear-into-pole test. The rear
bumpers on the Chrysler Pacifica, Cadillac SRX, and Kia Sorento
weren't robust enough to keep damage away from the vehicles' body
parts and sheet metal. Damage totals for these vehicles were five to
six times more than the Pilot in the same test.

"Repair costs in the pole test were about $2,200 for the Sorento and
more than $2,800 each for the Pacifica and the SRX because the bumpers
didn't protect the expensive-to-repair tailgates," Lund says. "In each
case, the tailgate was crushed and had to be replaced. Those are big
repair bills for a minor bump."

http://www.highwaysafety.org/news_releases/2003/pr112803.htm

http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/28/pf/autos/suv.reut/

http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=837F8483-5A26-419C-8227-4145398EB463

 

:

I find this quite interesting, but not surprisng and actually quite typical for
you.

Immediately upon release of information (November 28) you posted how the
Pacifica ranked poorly in this test................but you have yet to post
any comments about the information released two days later (November 30) which
states "NEW 40 MPH CRASH TEST RESULTS: 8 OF 9 MIDSIZE SUVs EARN TOP RATING OF
GOOD" - plus the fact that the Pacifica was one of five to receive a "Best
Pick" rating.

 

Yep, crash at 5 mph and pay hundreds or thousands of dollars in damage; crash
offset to the front at 40 mph and you'll likely survive. The second is what
should be expected from any modern vehicle; the former is well below what
should be expected from any modern vehicle.

 

You can thank congress for it (both parties). They have ignored the
issue for decades. All it would probably take is a little styrofoam
to reduce the repair cost by a factor of 5. That is what they use in
car bumpers and is missing from the SUV's because manufacturers
apparently won't add it without an act of Congress.

 

Are you old enough to remember when the government mandated 5 mph
bumpers? I was glad to see them go and don't want them back. People who
think mandating 5 mph bumpers is a good idea don't understand physics.
People that value such bumpers should study the CR and IIHS bumper tests
and purchase their vehicles accordingly. I don't value such bumpers and
ignore these tests. In over thirty-five years of driving cars, trucks,
and SUVs I have had never had to replace a single bumper. I have no idea
why I would want to waste my money to burden my vehicles with the sort
of bumpers IIHS and CR advocate. The whole concept of massive bumpers
was discredited 20 years ago. CRs and IIHS continual advocacy for
massive bumpers borders on insanity.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/807072.html

Ed

 

Carter put in a 5-mph bumper requirement; Reagan reduced it to 2.5 mph.
Before that, Saab did have a bumper with foam in it that protected quite well,
but they don't anymore.

 

Did you see, for example, the SAAB bumpers of the late 70s? Simple plastic
foam inside; did a good job.

 

The 5 mph mandate was for no damage and required a massive bumper. No
one is advocating that now. But a little bit of styrofoam could
probably reduce a $1500k accident to less than $500.

 

And better driving instruction and licensing requirements could
eliminate the accident and reduce the cost to $0, and would likely cost
less than reverting back to the old 5 MPH bumpers and would have many
other benefits.


Matt

 

Didn't know about it. Do now. Notice that Jeeps ranked pretty poorly
- but better than the shit that GM puts out.

Yes, and so did the Honda Pilot and the Murano, both of which had
better bumper performance than the Pacifica. BMW X-5 and Acura MDX
also had great crash test results and acceptible bumper performance.

Is it asking too much to be able to take a trivial front or rear
impact without dammaging either the lift-gate, fenders and lights?
Especially in a class of vehicles that are portrayed as rugged and
tough?

Or are automakers incapable of designing foam-core, spring-loaded
bumpers that don't trigger air-bag deployment during a 5 mph impact?

 

The LH cars have styrofoam inserts behind their front fascias. Is that
the sort of thing you're referring to?

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

Haven't seen the LH taken apart but that is what most manufacturers do
now because the current requirement sacrifices the bumper (a
reasonable policy, in my opinion) to protect expensive components in
the car so stryofoam is the material of choice. SUV's don't even try.

 

The bumpers you describe are probably not economically viable, but
they could certainly be a lot better than they are currently. All it
takes is some styrofoam.

 

Right, because the Reagan adminstration correctly realized that a 2.5 mph bumper
could absorb impact of higher speed crashes, where doing so can protect human
life. Notice that cars have become safer to humans since, at the expense of
bumper prices. Of course nobody forced Saab to NOT have a 5 mph bumper, but the
forces of physics make it difficult to have a bumper that can both withstand a low
speed impact with no damage and absorb energy in a high speed crash to protect the
humans inside. That being said, the bumpers probably could be improved to lessen
the damage, if not eliminate it from such low speed impacts.

 

Which laws of physics? I've studied physics for a long time and haven't
come across this law yet.


Matt

 

Read again more carefully. I didn't specify any laws of physics. But only one piece
of matter can occupy a space at the same time. The energy of an object attempting to
occupy another's space is either going to be absorbed or passed on. I would rather the
bumper sacrifice itself to absorb the unwanted energy, rather than a body absorbing it
instead.

 

Wow. You could not be more misinformed on the matter if you tried. The
5mph and 2.5mph bumper standards have *nothing* to do with occupant
protection in a crash. There is no standard for bumpers in this regard,
for it is not their purpose. The bumper standards were promulgated
primarily as a consumer cost reduction measure, and secondarily to protect
safety-related components (e.g. hood latches, lights) in low-speed
collisions. That is why they are not Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards, but rather are located elsewhere in the CFR.

Read the regulatory analysis of the bumper requirement. It was posted a
few days ago in this thread and will get you up to speed on the matter.

DS

 

Which explains why the bumpers are so costly to fix/replace for such minor
accidents at below walking speed.

All may be found in Title 49, Volume 5, Chapter V.

"The purpose of this standard is to reduce physical damage to the
front and rear ends of a passenger motor vehicle from low speed
collisions. 49 CFR 581.2

The bumper protects the car (at low speed) , the car protects the occupants.

 

Given the alternative (bumpers that transmit impact force directly to the
body, body-frame unit or frame of the vehicle)...yes!

Yes, as may all automotive-related standards, but the fact remains: bumper
standards are not FMVSSs.

Yes. Exactly. This is correct, but it contradicts your earlier nonsense
about 2.5mph bumpers offering superior occupant protection.

DS

 

Point taken, thanks for the clarification.