Recent SUV 5 mph crash tests (Pacifica ranked poorly)

Discussion in 'Pacifica' started by MoPar Man, Nov 29, 2003.

  1. MoPar Man

    MoPar Man Guest

    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."
    MoPar Man, Nov 29, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. MoPar Man

    RPhillips47 Guest


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

    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
    GOOD" - plus the fact that the Pacifica was one of five to receive a "Best
    Pick" rating.
    RPhillips47, Dec 4, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. MoPar Man

    Lloyd Parker Guest

    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.
    Lloyd Parker, Dec 4, 2003
  4. MoPar Man

    Art Begun Guest

    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.
    Art Begun, Dec 4, 2003
  5. MoPar Man

    C. E. White Guest

    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.

    C. E. White, Dec 5, 2003
  6. MoPar Man

    Lloyd Parker Guest

    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.
    Lloyd Parker, Dec 5, 2003
  7. MoPar Man

    Lloyd Parker Guest

    Did you see, for example, the SAAB bumpers of the late 70s? Simple plastic
    foam inside; did a good job.
    Lloyd Parker, Dec 5, 2003
  8. MoPar Man

    Art Begun Guest

    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.
    Art Begun, Dec 5, 2003
  9. 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.

    Matthew S. Whiting, Dec 5, 2003
  10. MoPar Man

    MoPar Man Guest

    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

    Or are automakers incapable of designing foam-core, spring-loaded
    bumpers that don't trigger air-bag deployment during a 5 mph impact?
    MoPar Man, Dec 6, 2003
  11. MoPar Man

    Bill Putney Guest

    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")
    Bill Putney, Dec 6, 2003
  12. MoPar Man

    Art Begun Guest

    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.
    Art Begun, Dec 6, 2003
  13. MoPar Man

    Art Begun Guest

    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.
    Art Begun, Dec 6, 2003
  14. MoPar Man

    Greg Guest

    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.
    Greg, Dec 6, 2003
  15. Which laws of physics? I've studied physics for a long time and haven't
    come across this law yet.

    Matthew S. Whiting, Dec 6, 2003
  16. MoPar Man

    Greg Guest

    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
    Greg, Dec 6, 2003
  17. 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.

    Daniel J. Stern, Dec 6, 2003
  18. MoPar Man

    Greg Guest

    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.
    Greg, Dec 6, 2003
  19. 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.

    Daniel J. Stern, Dec 6, 2003
  20. MoPar Man

    Greg Guest

    Point taken, thanks for the clarification.
    Greg, Dec 6, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.