Midsize Low Speed Bumper Tests

[ANTAUS]

LINK-IIHS

[BrewfanGRB]

LINK-IIHS

 

 

Pfft. I understand this is the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety and Insurance companies have an interest in minimizing the cost of repairs to cars, especially for relatively minor losses. But these tests have nothing to do with either 1) Highways or 2) Safety.

 

One of the main reasons I bought my Fusion was because it's an IIHS Top Safety Pick. I couldn't care less about the damage to the bumper in a low-speed accident or the damage to anything on the car in a high-speed accident, for that matter. I only care about damage to me--that's the car's job: Protect ME (and fine, I suppose anyone else in the car, too). I sure hope people don't buy the car just because of this test.

Edited August 6, 2009 by BrewfanGRB

[twintornados]

Insurance companies and their "institute" are a real drag. I understand the reasoning of trying to save money, but c'mon now....for an item to absorb the impact of a crash, it would have to be designed to buckle in a controlled manner....here's an idea, how about watching where you are going?

 

Short story....Kid driving mommies Honda Civic backs out of the driveway into my car (2006 Fusion) as I am driving past. Kid gets a ticket for unsafe backing. His insurance company gives me a check for 90% stating that there is a law in NY that "allows" them to assess comparative loss, and "blame" me to the tune of 10% liability simply for driving by when "Little Johnny" decided to carelessly back out of his moms' driveway. No amount of arguing would convince them otherwise....I took the mother and son to small claims for the 10%, the use of a rental while my car was in the shop, and the associated court fees and won....the insurance company cut the check last night and it is on it's way to me. My insurance company you ask?? I didn't run it though my insurance company....the kid hit ME...his insurance needs to pay.

[NickF1011]

Changed thread subtitle. Mazda6 was rated "acceptable", not "good".

 

And well...none of the vehicles tested really fared WELL. All but the Mazda rated "poor" also.

Edited August 6, 2009 by NickF1011

[ANTAUS]

They had a video on it, it was interesting to see it and you can understand why it is that they feel it's a concern. The Malibu was probably the worst because the bumper is behind the front fascia, so obviously the front fascia/grill got the impact first before the bumper did. I'm sure if the Passat were tested, it would have does just as bad. And they do this testing with common conventional sedans because it's what's common out there. There's many cars like the CTS, they wouldn't even bother testing.

[aneekr]

Pfft. I understand this is the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety and Insurance companies have an interest in minimizing the cost of repairs to cars, especially for relatively minor losses. But these tests have nothing to do with either 1) Highways or 2) Safety.

That's true, but I don't see why overall safety and bumpers that actually work as bumpers would be mutually exclusive. The latter isn't a high priority for the automotive manufacturers apparently, given that only four cars (Mazda6, Ford Focus, Smart ForTwo, and Scion xB) earned even an "acceptable" rating in this test.

 

By comparison, a 1981 Ford Escort incurred $469 in total damages across all four scenarios (which would qualify for a "GOOD" rating).

 

Is it fair to point all the blame at the manufacturers for prioritizing style over substance, though? U.S. federal regulations on bumper performance were made less stringent in 1982, and Canada vitiated its standards a couple years ago. I don't know about Mexico.

 

All but the Mazda rated "poor" also.

The Accord and Sonata improved to "marginal", though that classification still comes to over $1,000 in damages.

[Deanh]

funny...I was going to start a thred titled USELESS studies...this morning, CNN, emblazed on the bottom of the screen....6 mph crash can cause up to $3000 in damage....yet another DUH study...oh, and eating too much junk food can be bad for you....gargling with hydrochloric acid NOT recommended.....yadda yadda yadda

Edited August 6, 2009 by Deanh

[macattak1]

Is it not just one additional figure you add in to the cost of owning the car?

 

I 'like' to know what the bumper bash cost is. Certainly I think twice if the average large sedan costs $1200, but the one I am looking at cost $2700. That means the parts for the car are potentially way over priced, the vehicle is a nightmare to work on, or the car 'may' not be made that well?

 

I mean, its way down on my list of concerns, but non the less, something I like to be aware of. Its just another selling point for me after many others.

 

Peace and Blessings

[joihan777]

While these tests may seem irrevelant, you KNOW these cars will not have lower premiums. THAT is relevant.

 

BTW... In "ye olde" days of steel bumpers, a low speed impact would be stopped by the impact, but the occupants wouldn't!

[ANTAUS]

IN the olde' days, which is the test they like to refer to is the one with an 80's Escort, where it had some sort of crush tube that absorbed the impact with no damage to the steel bumper. Thats usually the test they use as an example and they state we are going backwards when it deals with bumper design.

[BORG]

Here is the video. The Fusion is disappointing, but the Malibu is a major fail.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eViTod8ty5s

[Deanh]

Here is the video. The Fusion is disappointing, but the Malibu is a major fail.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eViTod8ty5s

hmmm, must admit its the first thing i would ask about when buying a new car because thats the reason i buy one anyway, to smash it up.....talk about the cart leading the horse....hey I could get hit by lightening on the way home...

Edited August 6, 2009 by Deanh

[BORG]

hmmm, must admit its the first thing i would ask about when buying a new car because thats the reason i buy one anyway, to smash it up.....talk about the cart leading the horse....hey I could get hit by lightening on the way home...

 

I was involved in a bumper incident a year ago and fortunately, the MKX rear bumper is tall and spacious . So yeah, this does play a small part in my purchasing decision now.

Edited August 6, 2009 by BORG

[Deanh]

I was involved in a bumper incident a year ago and fortunately, the MKX rear bumper is tall and spacious . So yeah, this does play a small part in my purchasing decision now.

why? Insurance is there for that specific purpose...I refuse to live wandering around in fear....so, they cost money to repair? So what? We are constantly fed this crap to justify outrageous premiums on the PRESUMPTION we may or may not have a fender bender....nice how the crystal ball costs us all don't you think?

[BORG]

why? Insurance is there for that specific purpose...I refuse to live wandering around in fear....so, they cost money to repair? So what? We are constantly fed this crap to justify outrageous premiums on the PRESUMPTION we may or may not have a fender bender....nice how the crystal ball costs us all don't you think?

 

The repair was so minor that I could afford to pay for it without making a claim.

[Deanh]

The repair was so minor that I could afford to pay for it without making a claim.

point is, if you bang into something there is going to be damage and going to be a bill...why we need a SURVEY to tell us this i have no idea,,,and yeah, of course some cars are going to be more expensive than others...Porsche anyone? I'm sure those buyers check out surveys like this all the time and start second guessing....

[aneekr]

Here is the video. The Fusion is disappointing, but the Malibu is a major fail.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eViTod8ty5s

For comparison, here is the video of that 1981 Ford Escort that aced IIHS' battery of low-speed bumper impacts:

[aggoodin]

Short story....Kid driving mommies Honda Civic backs out of the driveway into my car (2006 Fusion) as I am driving past. Kid gets a ticket for unsafe backing. His insurance company gives me a check for 90% stating that there is a law in NY that "allows" them to assess comparative loss, and "blame" me to the tune of 10% liability simply for driving by when "Little Johnny" decided to carelessly back out of his moms' driveway. No amount of arguing would convince them otherwise....I took the mother and son to small claims for the 10%, the use of a rental while my car was in the shop, and the associated court fees and won....the insurance company cut the check last night and it is on it's way to me. My insurance company you ask?? I didn't run it though my insurance company....the kid hit ME...his insurance needs to pay.

 

You were in your car driving. You have some fault.

 

How could you have avoided it?

-Look ahead, move your eyes, you should have seen reverse lights, or movement, you might have even seen him get in the car if you were looking real far ahead.

-If your horn works you should have used it to alert him that you were approaching. Leave nothing to chance.

-Were you driving too fast for the conditions? Like if there are structures blocking your view of the sides of the road or thick parked traffic or anything that can keep you from seeing a hazard like that from a distance. You have to slow down so you have a chance to react.

 

I judge auto accidents, amongst other things, for one of the largest transportation companies in the world. We hold our people accountable for nearly every auto incident. There are almost no no-fault accidents.

[twintornados]

You were in your car driving. You have some fault....

 

....I judge auto accidents

But without you being there, you have no clue....10:30 at night, in February, snow banks of the insureds driveway were over 5 feet tall masking the lower Civic completely, the driveway was on the blind side of the house meaning it was on the side facing away from the direction of my approach and the front of the house is only 8 feet from the curb. When did I see him? When the rear of his car contacted my right front fender as I passed. I have avoided many an accident...but this one...not a chance.

 

NY State is a "no-fault" state...unless a ticket was issued assigning fault. He got a ticket for unsafe backing since, in NY State, it is against the law to back out of your driveway onto a roadway. Do people do it all the time? Sure they do...but when you cause an accident, you are liable.

 

As an aside, a judge in a court of law judged that I was not liable in this case, I presented my evidence and I prevailed. The gal at the insurance company tried the same excuse of, "You were in your car driving. You have some fault..." I told her what I am now telling you...you are wrong.

Edited August 7, 2009 by twintornados

[twintornados]

I'll give you another example....several years ago I had a minor bumper banger in another town....she stopped suddenly and I was caught short and bumper tagged her...did I cry and whine that she stopped short and demand that due to the fact she was driving her car she was liable in a minor (10%) way? Hell no! I called my insurance agent and company, told them what happened and they paid her damages ,100% of it. The lady called me as I told her if she had ANY problems to contact me, she was pleasantly surprised that my insurance agent and company gave her ZERO grief. my damages were so minor that I repaired it myself and didn't even bother with a claim for my car...her bumper fascia had some minor scratching that was quickly repaired to her satisfaction.

 

The kid that hit me?? Was all worried that mommy would be pissed and tried to say I didn't even swerve to avoid him....cop saw my tire tracks where I clearly tried to avoid him...his insurance company tried to bone me anyway based on statement from a scared 19 year old kid that did not want to accept responsibility for his errant actions.

 

Bottom line is....accept responsibility for your actions...I was made whole for my loss due to his actions, my insurance rates do not go up, and he has to explain to mommy why she needs to pay a higher insurance rate for the next 3 years due to his actions.

[aggoodin]

But without you being there, you have no clue....10:30 at night, in February, snow banks of the insureds driveway were over 5 feet tall masking the lower Civic completely, the driveway was on the blind side of the house meaning it was on the side facing away from the direction of my approach and the front of the house is only 8 feet from the curb. When did I see him? When the rear of his car contacted my right front fender as I passed. I have avoided many an accident...but this one...not a chance.

 

NY State is a "no-fault" state...unless a ticket was issued assigning fault. He got a ticket for unsafe backing since, in NY State, it is against the law to back out of your driveway onto a roadway. Do people do it all the time? Sure they do...but when you cause an accident, you are liable.

 

As an aside, a judge in a court of law judged that I was not liable in this case, I presented my evidence and I prevailed. The gal at the insurance company tried the same excuse of, "You were in your car driving. You have some fault..." I told her what I am now telling you...you are wrong.

 

A judge judges law not accident avoid-ability.

 

Adjust speed to conditions. When approaching blind corners use your horn. You did not do everything you possibly could have done. You will continue to have accidents until you take control of the situation and leave nothing to chance.

 

This isn't rocket science, its breaking the situation down, finding the failure and retraining. Thats it.

 

Its a heck of a lot easier to point the finger at someone else than look for what you did wrong or failed to do or could do better.

[aggoodin]

I'll give you another example....several years ago I had a minor bumper banger in another town....she stopped suddenly and I was caught short and bumper tagged her...did I cry and whine that she stopped short and demand that due to the fact she was driving her car she was liable in a minor (10%) way? Hell no! I called my insurance agent and company, told them what happened and they paid her damages ,100% of it. The lady called me as I told her if she had ANY problems to contact me, she was pleasantly surprised that my insurance agent and company gave her ZERO grief. my damages were so minor that I repaired it myself and didn't even bother with a claim for my car...her bumper fascia had some minor scratching that was quickly repaired to her satisfaction.

 

The kid that hit me?? Was all worried that mommy would be pissed and tried to say I didn't even swerve to avoid him....cop saw my tire tracks where I clearly tried to avoid him...his insurance company tried to bone me anyway based on statement from a scared 19 year old kid that did not want to accept responsibility for his errant actions.

 

Bottom line is....accept responsibility for your actions...I was made whole for my loss due to his actions, my insurance rates do not go up, and he has to explain to mommy why she needs to pay a higher insurance rate for the next 3 years due to his actions.

 

All you are telling me is you have a record of not operating a vehicle safely and you preach accepting responsibility for your actions but what about accepting responsibility for not taking action? As in action to avoid the incident to begin with in both situations.

 

Am I supposed to congratulate you for accepting responsibility when you rear ended someone?

 

It doesn't matter how fast she stopped. You were following too close. Case closed. There is no excuse for no space in front of your vehicle. That space is under your control, you decide how much space to keep in front, you decide to adjust if someone moves over in front of you. Whether you like it or not, you decided to hit her by not maintaining a following distance appropriate for the speed, traffic and road conditions. You aren't a hero for accepting fault. You should be ashamed for causing an accident.

 

Sorry more horrible truth. Write my name on another bullet.

[fordtech1]

Cars are not designed to be wrecked into stuff. Its meant to drive. In the event of a collision it will protect you. I personaly don't care about low speed bumper test. Thats what insurance is for.

 

The American way of thinking; I don't want to be responsible for my mistakes and the engineers need to make everything fool proof. I want it to be as tough as a tank, yet look pretty and get 100mpg for about $10k.

 

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

Also, remember Nationwide is on its stock holder's side, not yours.

[twintornados]

All you are telling me is you have a record of not operating a vehicle safely and you preach accepting responsibility for your actions but what about accepting responsibility for not taking action? As in action to avoid the incident to begin with in both situations.

 

Am I supposed to congratulate you for accepting responsibility when you rear ended someone?

 

It doesn't matter how fast she stopped. You were following too close. Case closed. There is no excuse for no space in front of your vehicle. That space is under your control, you decide how much space to keep in front, you decide to adjust if someone moves over in front of you. Whether you like it or not, you decided to hit her by not maintaining a following distance appropriate for the speed, traffic and road conditions. You aren't a hero for accepting fault. You should be ashamed for causing an accident.

 

Sorry more horrible truth. Write my name on another bullet.

No kidding...I know I was following her to close...she stopped short and I tagged her....case IS closed since I accepted responsibility for hitting her car...I guess in the accident where the kid hit me, I should have accepted responsibility since I was not honking my horn at 10:30 in the evening up a street of a residential neighborhood....a Judge judges the entire scene, not just the liability avoidance issues...if you had "judged" my accident, you would have been wrong too....just as the insurance gal was....

 

Just like you as a "judge" of other people to twist words.....their are plenty of horrible drivers out there making horrible errors......safe drivers (like you and I) spot the on-coming errors and adjust our driving to avoid them....you. however want to sit back and "judge" others and proclaim who is at fault without knowing all the facts

 

Your "bullets" are made of styrofoam...no weight and no meaning....

Let me state this one....more.....time......

You are wrong

 

I increased the font size and highlighted it for you so you can read it better since your nose seems so high up in the air...hope it helps there "judge"

Edited August 9, 2009 by twintornados

[aggoodin]

You are wrong

 

You will continue to fail and it could one day cost a life. Don't feel bad. You aren't the only one. You are part of the majority of drivers out there. Stop making excuses and raise the bar or one night you will not make it home.

 

Anyways it sucks that the Fusion scored poorly in this test. Its the only negative press I have seen about the 2010's.