I'-SURANG
1NS1lTUTE
FOR
HIGH\\"y
March 2,1996
Utility Vehicles Betray Their flimsy Designs in 5MPH Bumps
A main attraction of utility vehicles is
their supposed ruggedness. Yet based on
~Jsuzu engineers completely ignored
damage resistance in low-speed crashes
the Isuzu Rodeo's performance in crash
when they designed the Rodeo, and it's
tests at a very slow speed, this vehicle and
its identical twin, the Honda Passport, are
costing consumers," says Institute Presi-
anything but rugged. They're more likely
to end up in repair shops because of dam.
age sustained in parking-Iol bumps than to
perform their advertised purpose of transporting people on off-road adventures.
dent Brian O'Neill.
Honda has gone out of its way to improve the bumpers on ils cars, and it has
succeeded (see Status Report. Vol. 30, No.
2, Feb. 25, 1995). "Engineers at Honda
should be embarrassed by the Rodeo's
performance," O'Neill explains, ~because
the Honda nameplate is on the Rodeo's
twin." These two vehicles are the same except for their nameplates and trim.
The rear window on the Rodeo shattered in two rear crash tests at 5 mph even in the relatively undemanding f1atbarrier test (see photo, above). The Rodeo's
tailgate also had to be replaced after each
01 the two rear tests. Damage in each test
tops 52,500. Total damage to the Rodeo in
four crash tests at 5 mph tops $8,000.
"This is worse than any passenger car
the Institute has tested al 5 mph since the
early 1970s,~ O'Neill points out. "Isuzu
ought to work as quickly as it can to improve the Rodeo's design.
The Institute's crash tests at 5 mph involve six 1996 midsize four-door utility vehicles, all four-wheel-drive. Not even the
best of the six, the Chevrolet Blazer/GMC
Jimmy, is good at reducing low-speed crash
damage - repair costs afler lour tests at 5
mph exceed S4,000. Yet Blazer damage totals about $1,500 less than damage susft
tained by the next-best vehicle, the Ford
Explorer, and amounts to only aoout half of
the Rodeo's damage (see table, facing page).
The four Institute tests at 5 mph are
front- and rear-into-flat barrier, front-intoangle-barrier, and rear-into-pole. The f1atbarrier tests should be easier than angle
and pole tests because they spread the
energy of the impact over the whole face
01 the bumper. Angle and pole tests localize energy at specific points.
"All passenger vehicles, including utility
ones, should withstand at least flat-barrier
tests at 5mph without damage O'Neill says.
"Yet few cars do this, and not one utility vehicle tested. They didn't even come close,'
How Bad Are Tbey? Five of the six utility
vehicles ran up more than 51,000 in repair
costs in one or both of the simple flat-barrier
tests. The three imports, including the Rodeo, sustained about S2,000 or more damage
in the rear flat-barrier test alone.
Three of the six utility vehicles sustained
total damage costing more than $6,000, The
three domestic models from Chevrolet/GMC,
Ford, and Jeep performed better overall than
the three imports - Rodeo/Passport. Toyota
4Runner, and Land Rover Discovery. In the
rear-into-pole lest, both the Rodeo and 4Runner sustained more than twice as much damage as the best performing vehicle in this
test, Ford's Explorer.
None of the six utility vehicles escaped
the pole test with less than 51,000 damage. In
Stotus Report, Vol, 3/, No, 2, March 2, /996
Damage Repair Costs
5 MPH Crash Tests, Midsize Four-Door Utility Vehicles
Front
Into Angle
Rear
Barrier
Pole
Total
Damage
S 875
$1,555
$1,148
$4,168
$1,112
$1,291
$2,195
$1,041
$5,639
Jeep Grand Cherokee
$27,225
$700
$1,515
$1,B09
$1,739
$5,763
land Rover Discovery
$32,975
$ 743
$2,045
$2,591
$1,176
$6,555
Toyota 4Runner
$31,893
$ 816
$1,985
$2,002
$2,344
$7,147
$1,151
$2,532
$1,925
$2,565
$8,173
Front
Rear
Into
Barrier
Into
Barrier
Chevrolet Blazer!
GMCJimmy
$26,331
$690
Ford Explorer
1996
Utility Vehicles
Into
$27,335
Isuzu Rodeo!
Honda Passport
$26,353
Notes: Repair cosls are Jan. 1996 costs of restoring vehicles to condition before 'ests,
Vehicle prices are mfg. suggested retail, including options & Ifl~ight, for tested models.
the angle-barrier test, about $1,500 was the
least amount of damage.
Only the Jeep Grand Cherokee escaped
the fronl-into-angle-barrier test without interference with the right front tire. The other
five vehicles couldn't be driven because
damaged parts pushed against the tire. The
interfering part on the Blazer could be
pulled away or broken off by hand so the vehicle could be driven, bUlthe other lour utility vehicles reqUired lools to pry away the
damaged part enough to drive. Land Rover
damage prevented normal opening of the
right front door.
A tested vehicle was immobilized this
way only acouple of other limes in the hUlldreds of 5 mph crash tests the Institute has
conducted. The other two vehicles were the
1992 Daihatsu Charade and 1994 Mazda MPY.
In contrast, five out of six supposedly rugge{\
1996 utility vehicles were immobilized by the
damage sustained in 5mph impacts.
Some of the low-speed crash damage to
the utility vehicles is safety-related. For example, every vehicle tesled except the Blazer
sustained headlight damage in the front-intaangle-barrier test. Whole headlight assemblies
had to be replaced. Researchers found the
Land Rover's headlights so poorly attached
that they dislodged in the flat-barrier test.
The Rodeo exhibits another problem, and
this one's unusual. After the front-inta-f1atbarrier test, the key wouldn't readily turn
to the lock position so it couldn't be removed from the ignition. Plus, it was difficult to shift out of park. Researchers found
the transmission had moved forward during the impact to cause the problems.
No Requirements to Reduce Damage:
One reason the utility vehicles performed
so poorly may be that they aren't subject
to federal requirements to reduce damage
in low-speed impacts. This means high repair costs not only for the utility vehicles
themselves but also for the automobiles
with which they collide.
The problem for the cars is bumper mismatch. Car bumpers are about the same
height because that's what (wnt'd on p.6)
Anything But Rugged
Think utility vehicles are rugged?
Think they're designed to drive off·
road and in bad weather, so let's go?
Think again. Advertisements tout
these vehicles as ideal for userious
adventure ... no matter what Mother Nature dishes out.~ Isuzu tells pc7
tential Rodeo buyers they can udrive
it to the Arctic or anywhere else the
road to adventure leads.n
The adventure may lead directly
to a repair shop because 01 designs
that exacerbate instead of reduce
damage in low-speed impacts. The
spare tire on back of the Rodeol
Passport provides an excellent eICample of a poor design - one that
may enhance the rugged image and
increase cargo space but wreaks
havoc on repair costs. Swing out the
tire after a 5 mph impact and see
the eICtensive damage (cover photo).
Insurance data quantify Ihe issue.
In rear-end collisions, damage is sustained almost twice as frequently 10
parts other than the bumpers of Rodeos, compared with Ford Explorers
without the extemal tire.
The problem is, that tire on back
hits first in a collision, concentrating
crash force in this one place. The
tire is then pushed inlo the tailgate.
The Rodeo isn't the only utility vehicle tested with this design. The Land
Rover's spare tire is on back, too.
3
inally: New Rule
fier th Last Action
~ C!. Redu e Underride
In a new rear underride protection
standard issued last month by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), the agency says it has been considering the problem of passenger vehicles sliding underneath trucks and trailers
~from time to time.~
This is putting it mildly. Issuing a new
underride standard has been an on-againoff-again proposition - mostly off again
- at NHTSA for decades (see ~43 Years Is
a Long nme,~ facing page).
-The new rule is far from perfect. After
all these years, NHTSA should have done
beller. But some progress is better than
none,-Inslitute President Brian O'Neill
says. ~And no progress at all is what we've
had on this issue since it was identified as
a problem decades ago."
The new rule takes effect in 1998. A
rear underride crash occurs when a pas-
senger vehicle slides into and under the
rear of a large truck or a trailer, often causing major occupant compartment intrusion. The result can be deadly, including
even decapitation.
To reduce the chance of this happening,
large trucks involved in interstate commerce have been reqUired since 1953 to be
fitted with rear guards to prevent underride. But the guards aren't effective unless
they're strong and extend down from trailers far enough toward the ground to keep a
passenger vehicle from sliding underneath.
The 1953 standard that's finally being
upgraded fails on both counts. NHTSA's
new standard makes progress. It represents a big improvement compared with
the 43-year-old requirements, and it's better than the agency's most recent set 01
proposals, issued in 1992 (see Status Report, Vol. 27, No.9, July II, 1992). But the
new standard still falls shorl of what technology allows and what the Institute and
others requested the agency to do during
the rulemaking process.
Guard-to-Ground Clearance: The first
thing an underride guard has to do is contact the solid structure 01 a passenger vehicle - at a minimum, the engine blockto stop the vehicle from going under the
rear of the truck. This means the guard
has to be set sufficiently low, or else there's
nothing to prevent the passenger vehicle's
front end from sliding underneath it.
Status Report, Vol. 31, No.2, March 2, 1996
The Institute and others told NHTSA
the maximum allowable guard·to-ground
distance should be 18 inches, but NHTSA
chose 22 inches instead. Still, this represents improvement compared with the 30
inches allowed under the 1953 standard.
Strength Requirements: Underride
guards and their allachment hardware
should be strong enough so they don't fail
when they're hit by a passenger vehicle,
NHTSA specifies some strength requirements for the guards themselves but not
for their attachments.
The Institute urged NHTSA to either require minimum strength for guard attachment hardware or test guards together
with the types of trailers to which they
would be attached. Yet the agency says it
"does not at this time believe that it is
necessary to define strength
requirements, ..
5
43 Years Is a L.ong Time
It has been decades since action last was taken to reduce underride
deaths and injuries. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says it has considered such action "from time to time" but
never followed through. In the meantime, mifestones have passed.
1953: Queen Elizabeth /I takes throne.
First - and only - underride standard issued.
1967: New Mercedes 200 sedan sells for 54,084.
Consideration given to upgrading underride standard.
1969: Apoflo 11 module lands on the moon.
Proposal introduced to upgrade underride standard.
1970: Archie Bunker debuts on CBS.
Proposed underride standard revised.
1971: Gasoline costs 18 cents per gallon.
Underride rulemaking terminated.
1977: Elvis Presley dies in Memphis, Tennessee.
Institute petition prompts reconsideration of underride rule.
1981: Iran releases hostages aher 444 days of captivity,
Proposal introduced to upgrade underride standard - again.
1992: The Soviet Union disbanded, Gorbachev steps down.
Third proposal introduced to upgrade underride standard.
1996: New underride standard issued - finafly.
because the ne<:essary
strength is dependent on the
design of the guard." Nor does
NHTSA require testing of attachment
hardware, at least not directly.
NHTSA addresses the testing issue indirectly. The standard requires manufacturers of guards to provide detailed installation instructions, and it holds trailer
manufacturers accountable lor following
the instructions.
~This probably means attachments will
be tested for strength, even though the
agency doesn't explicitly require testing.
Still, the new requirements don't guarantee tests the way a standard would,"
O'Neill notes.
How Many Deaths? One reason NHTSA
doesn't go as far as the Institute and others recommend to reduce underrides may
be that the agency doesn't recognize the
extent of the problem (see Status Report,
Vol. 29, No. 12, Oct. 29, 1994). In fact, passenger vehicles may be fatally underriding
truck trailers about three times as often as
NHTSA estimates.
The problem involves how the agency
counts underride crashes. One of its data·
bases - the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS), an annual census of motor
vehicle crash deaths - fails to identify
many underrides. FARS analysts rely on
police reports, which often don't include
enough information to determine whether
underride occurred.
Another agency database, the National
ACCident Sampling System (NASS), is
based on detailed investigations of a sample of serious crashes. These investigations
usually involve careful study of involved
motor vehicles and provide much more information than is in police accident re-
ports, so it's not surprising that NASS estimates more underrides than are identified
by FARS.
Still, NHTSA relies on FARS, acknowledging it's ~not perfect~ but insisting that
NASS ~has the potential to build sampling
error into the conclusions."
The Institute strongly disagrees. "It's
axiomatic in research that findings from a
census based on limited information
won't be as good as those from a representative sample that's studied in detail,"
O'Neill explains.
He concludes that neither the way
NHTSA counts the fatalities from rear un·
derride crashes nor what the agency is
doing to reduce deaths in these crashes is
all it should be. On the other hand, the
new standard ~is something. Now let's not
waste additional decades waiting for some
more progress.
n
6 Status Report. Vol, 31, No, 2, March 2,1996
Flimsy Utility Vehicles
(cont'd from p.2) federal standards require.
The idea is to ensure that bumpers - not
sheet metal parts - contact each other in
collisions. But utility vehicle bumpers typically are higher than those on cars, so they
don't line up with car bumpers in crashes.
Consumers Pay, Pay Again: Consumers
who own these flimsy vehicles are paying the
price for all thiS damage. They pay not only
in higher insurance premiums but also de·
ductibles whenever claims are filed for damage in low-speed collisions, Insurance collision coverage loss experience generally par·
allels the Instltute's crash test results - that
is, the three domestic utility vehicles have
much lower insurance collision coverage
losses than the three imports.
Consumers also pay in terms of the time
and aggravation involved in getting their vehicles repaired after low-speed bumps.
O'Neill points out, "This isn't fair because
most 01 the damage doesn't have to happen."
Most cars have bumpers that include
foam or other material to absorb crash ener·
gy. But the bumpers on live of the six utility
vehicles the Institute tested - all but the
Jeep - lack energy-absorbing materials,
These bumper systems consist 01 rigid bars
attached directly to vehicle frames or bodies.
Manufacturers know how to make cars
and other passenger vehicles that prevent
damage in crashes at 5 mph. Under federal
standards in ellect in the early 1980s, all cars
were required to withstand flat·barrier im·
pacts at 5 mph without damage. The 1996
Ford Taurus also sustained no damage in 5
mph f1at·barrier tests. It sustained a total of
less than $1,300 damage in the more demand·
ing angle·barrier and pole tests. lIs damage
total after four crash tests is about 15 per·
cent of the Rodeo's. The Taurus also costs
about 520,000 to purchase. compared with
about 526,000 for the Rodeo.
"The bottom line is that the sticker prices
on utility vehicles are just the beginning,~
O'Neill concludes. "Consumers can expect to
pay thousands of dollars when they're un·
lucky enough to bump these so·called rugged
vehicles into something at slow speeds."
Economic Indicators Help Researchers
Track Trends in Motor Vehicle Deaths
Employment Statistics Provide Best Predictor
Of Short-Term Changes in Annual Fatalities
The increase in motor vehicle deaths
during 1993 and 1994 has raised concern
about the start of a long·term upward fa·
tality trend. But this doesn't appear to be
the case. The nation's long-term decline in
motor vehicle deaths doesn't appear to
have been reversed, despite the recent rise
in deaths.
Motor vehicle deaths hit about 51,000
annually in 1979·80. Twelve years later,
deaths dropped to just over 39,000 but in·
creased again during 1993-94 to more
than 40,000 annually.
Many short·term changes in motor vehicle deaths have historically been related to the state of the economy. To see if
this was the case for the increase in
deaths that occurred during 1993-94, In·
stitute researchers studied relationships
between economic indicators and month·
ly motor vehicle fatality counts from 1975
50,000
40,000
1975
through September 1995. They used linear regressions to model monthly fatali·
ties as a function of vehicle miles traveled,
statistics on employment, and sales of
new automobiles.
The best predictor of short·term
changes in deaths, researchers found, is
the number of unemployed people. Adecrease of 100,000 in unemployment without any change in number of miles
traveled - during one month compared
with the same month the previous year
predicts an increase in motor vehicle
deaths of about 12 in the same month
compared with a year earlier.
Researchers conclude that the recent
increases in motor vehicle fatalities are associated with an improved economy and
that they are not related to short-term
changes in total miles traveled. Why the
relationship between fatalities and the
economy exists isn't
fully understood. It
could be, the reo
Annual Motor Vehicle Deaths
searchers note, that
changes in economic conditions affect
type of driving rather
than the amount propie drive. For exam·
pie, improved economic conditions
may lead people to
an increase in recreational driving.
For a copy of
"Trends in Motor
Vehicle Fatalities"
by C.M. Farmer,
write: Publications,
1005 North Glebe
Road, Suite 800, Ar·
79
83
87
Iington, VA 22201.
9' 1994
More than one in four motor vehicle deaths on U.S. roads
doesn't involve a collision with another vehicle or vehicles. It involves hilling a roadside hazard like a tree, utility pole, or bridge
support. Such crashes are a problem especially on secondary
roads. Interstates have been improved, but secondary roads still
are c1unered with roadside hazards. In a new Institute videotape,
experts explain which roadside hazards present the worst prob-
lems. They tell how to alleviate the hazards. These aren't problems
that can be removed all at once because the solutions often are
costly, but there are common-sense approaches to the hazards
along the roadside.
~Making Safer Roads~ is available for sale at 35. To order this
12-minute videotape, call or write: Films, 1005 North Glebe Road,
Suite 800, Arlington, Virginia 22201.
Yol, 31, No.2, March 2,1996
On the Inside
Utility vehicles perform poorly in 5
mph crash tests
p.l
Damage repair costs lor six 1996 midsize four-door utility vehicles
p.3
Mounling spare Ure on back adds con·
siderably to repair costs
p.3
New undenide standard finally on the
books at NHTSA
pA
43 years since last underride ruJe p.5
Short·term changes in crash deaths are
related to the economy
p.6
ew Institute video shows common·
sense approaches to reducing the haz·
ards along our roadsides
p.7
The 1996 Toyota 4Runner is one of three utility vehicles that sustained more
than $2,000 damage in the 5 mph front·into-angle-barrier test. None 01 the six
vehicles the Institute tested sustained Jess than $1,500 damage in this impact.
STATUS~REPORT
1005 North Glebe Road
ArlinBlon, VA 22201
(103) 247·1500 FAX (703) 247·1678
OifKIOf 01 PublicatJons{Editor: Anne fleming
Wrllm: Mari~ Klufmann, Kim lml:uler.
iIIMl S~ron J. R.umUSSftl
f.dilorlal Aulstillt UrIeDe Hughes
Art Director Joytt ThomP5Oll
Grlphk 0e5iper leslie Oakey
Tht Insurance Institutt lor ttiglwray SaItty Is III indtpm.
dtnl. lIOOproliL sdmtiIIc IDd edurat1llRll orpniUtlon. It
Is dedicated to rtdlldng tilt lo5seI- dnths., 1njurits,1Dd
proptrt). dlllllgt - ruultinl frOlll crubes on lilt !lIInstitute Is tuppOrted by lbe AmtJI.
CIJI lnsUJance Hittnny Salety AuociatloIl, the Amtrlc:1JI
_ureu HIgb...ay ~dy AIliIJIct, the Saliooal AssociItloo
hOllS hlgbwJ~ Tht
01 !ndtptlldenllntureu s.Jery AssodalJon, IDd a Dumber
01 lndl'lidu.al1ltsurana COIIIplIIies
CooltnlS may be published .."hole or in pirI ..ilh anribo-
lion. ThIs publicatiOrl is printed on rtc)'Cled paper
ISSN 0018·988X