,
,
When a car bumps Into something lit a
speed as slow as 5 mph, the result too often is a severely damaged bumper plus a
crumpled fender. Damage to other car
parts and lights can push repair costs into
the thousands of dollars.
oney
isn't the only problem. There's the considerable time It takes to get car repair estImates and complete the work. There's the
aggravation of having to arrange for alternative transportation plus the added ago
gravatlon of knowing the co Uy damage
didn't have to occur in the first place.
Car bumpers can be designed to live up
to their nam - that is to bump and p~
teet instead of bending, denting. collapsing, and allowing extensive damage in low-
s~
4
impacts. Building a better bumper
Isn't all that complicated," Insurance Institute for Highway Safety President Brian
0' eill point ou But, he notes. "when
bumper styling becomes more Important
than bumper function. the result too often
is unnecessar and expenslve-to-repair
damage in Iow-speed crashes."
All new cars used to be required by
federal standard to withstand front and
rear crash tests at 5mph with no more
than minor cosmetic bumper damage. Not
anymore. Federal bumper standards were
roUed back to 2.5 mph in 1 .·nce then.
unlimited bumper damage ha been allowed in the required tests at the slower
speed. The result is OilDSy bumper systems, lots of damage in low-speed iDl-
pacts, high repair costs, wasted time
and aggravation just because of the
kind of bumps that happen all the
time, commonly in parking lots.
In the absence of effectlve
federal bumper requirements,
are all bumpers equal1y flimsy? Do some perform better
than others? U so, why? To
answer these questions, Institute engineers recently
crash tested, disassembled,
examined, and compared the
bumpers on 24 small 1992 model
two-door cars, finding many that apparently were deslgned to look sleek or
serve some function other than bumping
and protecting the car from damage in . .
pacts at low speeds. Based primarily on
the visible damage sustained in the lnstitute's four crash tests - front-Into-flatbarrier, rear-Into-nat-barri~ front-into-angle-barrier, and rear-into-pole - ratings
from "very good" to "very poor" were assigned to the bumpers on all 24 cars. The
ratings begin on page 4.
a single
one of the 24 small two-door cars tested
this yearperformed as well as the best car
a decade ago. Even the best new cars,
Dodge Colt and Mltsubishl Eclipse, sustained more than $750 damage in the
5 mph tests (see table, page 3). The worst
car sustained more than 3,800 damage.
The Colt ustaioed DO damage in the
front-into.flat-barrier test and relatively
low damage totals In the other three tests.
The Eclipse sustained no damage at all in
(COIIt'd on page 3)
2-11HS Status Report, Vol. 27, No. J, January 25, 1992
Are AU Alike . • • Or Arelbey?
Most bumpers on new cars ar~n't anything like as damage-resistant as they
should be, but some do perform better
than others in low-speed impacts. The
problem is Jjguring Ol,lt which ones are
good and which are bad - no easy task because the only Visible part of most bumper
systems is the plastic cover. The diflerences among bumpers that determine effectiveness Involve primarily what's underneath the cosmetic bumper cover.
Bumper Components Typically, the basic bumper component is a reinforcement
bar made of steel, aluminum, fiberglass
composite, or plastic. Institute tests conducted over the years indicate that, in general, steel and aluminum ones perform
best. Fiberglass bars tend to crack, even in
less demanding impacts. Plastic ones generally aren't strong enough in concentrated
hits to keep damage away from body parts.
Besides the reinforcement bar, a
bumper system may include mechanisms
that compress to absorb crash energy.
When they're hydraulic and there's enough
room between the car body and the
bumper for fuJI compressIon without allowing the bumper reinforcement bar to con-
tact body parts, such absorbers tend to
perform well. Yet they're on lewer and
fewer new cars. Only 2 of the 24- cars the
Institute tested this year have hydraulic
energy absorbers front and rear. Others
have rigid brackets while aJew cars bave
collapsible brackets or other attachments.
Instead, most cars have energy-absorlr
ing material like polystyrene foam or plastic honeycomb, also called "eggcrate."
These help prevent damage in flat impacts, which spread the force of a crash
evenly over the whole face of a bumper
system. But most of ilie energy-absorbing
material in bumpers either isn't absorbent
enough, isn't extensive enough, or it's not
positioned correctly to prevent damage in
concentrated impacts - for example,
when a car is backed into a pole or runs
into something at an angle.
StyUng VI. Damage Resistance Why
don't all car bumpers do a better job of
preventing damage in low-speed impacts?
One reason is that styling often dictates
how bumpers are made and how they're
attached to cars. Damage resistance is
bumped to a secondary concern. For ~x­
ample, some cars have rear bumpers de-
Many ofthe /992 small tWO<ioor cars the Institute tested this year have large, flexible bumper cove~
backed by teinforcement bars and, in between, foam energy-<1bsorbing material (above left). Most of
the cars aren't equipped with hydraulic energy absorbers. like the one pictured above (right), thai
compress and then rebound to help prevent crash energy from damaging car bodies.
signed to accommodate license plates - a
styling decision that weakens the bumper
because it usually means a gap in the energy-absorbing material where the license
plate is inset. The same is true for built-in
exhaust pipes, which. may enhance sleekness but only by cutting through and reducing the material in the bumper that's installed specifically to absorb crash energy.
When lights are built into bumpers the
result is equally predictable - styling may
be enhanced but damage increases in lowspeed collisions. The extra damage occurs
because, instead of being protected by the
bumper, the lights are part of the bumper
system that absorbs the impact.
And what about the aerodynamic look
that's so popular today? To accomplish it,
stylists design many cars with jow hoods
and no grilles. Instead, air comes in
through openings in the bumper - openings tha~ once again, preclude the addition
ofmaterial to absorb energy in crashes.
Also to enhance sleekness, many automobiles have bumpers that are set right
up against fenders and other body parts.
This styling consideration reduces available space for absorbing crash energy by
the bumper before damage is transferred
to expensive body parts.
Still another bumper styling consideration involves color. Many bumper covers
are painted to match car bodies. Some are
two-tone or have textured surfaces. Some
even have stripes or emblems molded in
lor purely decorative purposes. Such features have nothing at all to do with damage resistance, but they increase the cost
of repairing or replacing a bumper cover
that's damaged in alow-speed collision.
The best bumper would emphasize
damage resistance along with styling. It
would have a flat cover, a strong reinforcement bar, and effective energy absorbers.
The whole system would wrap around the
car body, extending out tar enough so
crash energy is absorbed before being
transferred to the' body. In short, the best
bumper would not only be made. of energyabsorbing material but also be attached to
the car so that damage is minimized.
DHS Sra(US Report, Vol. 27, No.1, January 25, 1992-3
Bump, Crumple (cont'd)
three of theJnstitute.'s four tests, but it did
sustain ,$868 damage in the rear-into-pole
test. In contrast, the Daihatsu Charade
performed worst, sustaining $3,864 damage in the same four t~ts.
~The Charade's damage total amounts
to more than half of the car's sticker
price," O'Neill points out. ~This car has
lousy bumpers, and it's not the onlyexample of IQUsy bumpers we found in testing
the 1992 models."
Nearly all of the cars tested - 22 of 24
- sustained more than $1,000 damage in
the series af femr crash tests. Two-thirds
- 16 of 24 - sustained more than 52,000
total damage. Five sustained more than
$3,000 damage in the fOUf tests.
Only 2 of the 24 models, on the other
hand, sustained no damage in front- and
rear-into-ftat-barrier tests. Six sustained
mme than $500 damage in the rear-Intoflat-barrier test alone. Two sustained mor~
than $1,000 damage in this test.
~Flat-barrier tests are so simple, so undemanding that all cars should withstand
them without damage. Any competent engineer CQuid design bumpers to do so. But
automakers apparently aren't trying to
build effective bumpers, because their
cars are going through these tests and
sustaining'lots of damage,~ O'Neill says.
In the front-Into-angle-barrier test, only
the Mitsubishi Eclipse sustained no damage. Two cars sustained more than $1,000
damage in this test. Half of the 24carsthe
Institute tested sustained mor,e than
$1,000 damage in the rear-into-pole test.
Not a single car among all 24 got through
this test unscathed. O'Neill notes that
~there are even cases - more than a few
- of damage to safety-related components like lights."
"Bad news fQr consumers - that's the
message from this year's low-speed crash
tests.~ 0' elll says. ~Instead of making
cars with bumpers that protect against
damage in minor collisions, autmnakers
apparently are allowing styling considerations to dominate their bumperdesigns."
-~~~ ~~~~~ ~:w..I'''-='''
4-IlHS Status Report, Vol. 27, No. J, January 25, 1992
The Colt's front and rear bumper are
far from exc II nt - th rear n allowed
a safety-related problem in one crash test
- but in tenos of repair costs they're the
besl of those t ted this year. The steel reinforcement bars, front and rear, plus the
pol s rene foam ab orber in the front
bumper and h draulic energy absorbers
in the rear mmimized damage.
er Ihe an le-barrier test, little damage to the front bumper was vi ible. In the
rear-int(;J)Ole t I, Ih reinforcement bar
bent and allowed a mall dent in the body.
The bigg t problem is that the hatchba
lid ouldn't latch after Ihi test - a clear
safety problem becaus f po sible exhau t gas intrusion. Repair costs for the
olt, h wever, wer far I s than the average for all cars.
erall the Colt' front bumper is rated very good becau e vi ible damage was
virtually nil after the demanding angltHlarrier t l The rear bumper is rated very
poor, on the other hand, because of the
safety-related problem after the pole test.
10 terms of dollar damage, this car performed next-to-best among all 24 mall
two-door models that were tested. It sustained no damage at all in either the frontor rear-into-Oat-barrier test.
Most impressive is that the Eclipse i
the first car tested by the Institute in more
than a decade to sustain no damage at all
in the front-into-angle-barrier test. Its right
front hydraulic energy absorber compressed and then rebounded to keep
crash energy from reaching and damaging
the Eclipse's front fender and other car
body parts.
The problem' with the Eclipse occurred
in. the. rear-Into-pole test, dUring which the
bumper system wa damaged enough to
require replacement. till, there was no
damage to the hatchback lid or other
body parts except for a cracked plastic
trim piece between the taillights.
Overall, the Eclipse's front bumper i
rated very good. The rear bumper, however, is rated only average because 01 the
obvious damage it allowed In the rear-into-pole test.
The front and rear bumpers on this car
have teel reinforcement bars. In the
front. the headlights are inset into the
large bumper cover.
The Daytona's bumper performed
weD in the two flat-barrier tests. allowing
some damage but none noticeable and
none requiring bumper replacement. Howver, all four elastomeric energy absorbers did have to be replaced.
Plymouth undance on page 9 for a discussion of elastomeric absorbers.)
In the angIe-barrier test, the front
bumper cover ripped slightl and there
was minor fender damage along the lront
edge. The rear bumper allowed some damage - virtually all of it hidden under the
bumper cover - in the rear-into-pole t t.
In fact, this was the best perfonning car
among all 24 in the pole test, even though
the reinforcement bar did have to be replaced. There wasn't any body damage.
Overall, the Daytona's lront bumper is
rated average because there was some
body damage. The rear one is very good.
I/H. Stalus Report, Vol 27, o. 1, January 25, 1992-5
This car's bumpers are heaviest, In relation to vehicle weight, among all 24 cars
tested. This is also one of only two cars
( it ubi hi's Eclipse i the other) with hydraulic energy absorbers front and rear.
The tonn' bumpers allowed no damage in the rear-into-Oat-barrier test and lit·
lie damage in the corr ponding frontal
t t. In the angle-barri r lest, though, the
front fender crumpled. tructural damage
occurred under the bumper covet
After the rear-into-pole test, there was
very little visible exterior damage. But
when the bumper cover was removeq, engineers found that a section of the rein-
forcement bar was damaged. rr repaired,
all of the damage would cost 409, aJ·
though many owners would either be una are of it or choose not to have it fixed
OveraU, the torm's front bumper is
rated poor primarily because of the crum·
pled fender. The rear one Is very good.
Some of the damage allowed by the
Saturn's bumpers in the four crash tests
was expensive to repair. However, it by
and large wasn't noticeable damage. Car
owners might choose not to have it fixed.
One problem is the front bumper's twotier styling. with the lower portion protruding farther out from the car than the
upper portion. It was the lower portion of
the flexible cover, with no energy.absor~
iog filler at all, that took the initial hit into
the Oat barrier and split. The result was
$446 damage In the simplest test, front In·
to flat bafrler.
Hydraulic energy absorbers in the rear
bumper (not In front) helped the Saturn
fare better in rear tests.
damage at all
occurred in the Oat-barrier test- virtually
no visible damage even In the rear-intopole test. The aluminum reinforcement bar
in the rear bumper system did bend slight·
ly, though. and the cover had a small rip.
The Saturn's front bumper is only aver·
age because of damage in the flat-barrler.
test. The rear is very good because dam·
age after the pole test wasn't noticeable.
Unlike Toyota's Celiea and most other
small Japanese-made cars, the Tercel has
front and rear bumper systems devoid of
energy-ab orbing material like foam.
Crash energy is managed by the flexing of
the steel reinforcement bars, the collapstble bracket ,and the bumper co
Virtually no visible damage was aJlowed in either the front-inlo-flal-barrier
or fronl-into-angle-barrier lest. However,
damage was extensive in both the rear-into-flat-barrier and rear-into-pole tests. In
the flat·barrier test, the bumper allowed
damage to the car body, though it wasn't
especially apparent damage. In the pole
lest, the rear reinforcement bar collapsed
and allowed the pole to damage the trunk
lid. Damage was extensive enough. in fact.
that the lid wouldn't even latch.
Overall. the Tercel s front bumper is
rated good. The rear one is very poot
6-HHS StatusRe(JOtt, Vol. 27No.1, January 25{ 1.992
The CeJica-'s bumper systems are typical of those found on many small
Japanese-made cars - a steel ,reinforcement bar accompanied Dy foam energy-absorbing matedal (in the Cell<:a's case, urethane foam) plus a laJge, flexible bumper
cover that matches the car body in color.
This system allowed no visible damage
at all after either the front- OT rear~into­
flat-barrier test. The repair costs after
these tests involved bumper damage underneath t'he cover.
Damage after the rear-into-pole test
waS noticeable but didn't invofve exten-
sive body damage. There was obvious
damage after the angle-barrier test,
though. The bumper was pushed back
enough to keep the retractable headlight
from closing once it was opened.
Overall, the Toyota Celica's front
bumper system is rated poor because of
interference with the headlight mechanism, a safety-related part. The rear
bumper ls rated average.
The Excel's bumper systems, front and
rear, consist of f1exibJecovers over steel
reJnforeement bars and urethane foam for
energy absorption. The dollar total of
damage allowed by these bumpers was
more in r!ear than in frontal tests. Especially notable was the hatchback lid that
couldn't be Jatched after the pole test.
A problem in t'he front-into-angle-barrier test involved the composite headlight
assembly, which was damaged enough to
require replacement. If the headlights
were ordinary sealed beams, they might
have cost '$10 or less to replace. But the
compo!ilte assembli€$ are tar more expensive - more than $100 on the Excel- and
this drove up the repair cost considerably.
Expensive headlight assemblies aren't
confined to the Excel. Tbey1re on mote
and morenew cars.
Overall, the Excel's front bumper is rated very' poor because 01 damage to the
light, a safety-related part. The rear is, also
very poor.
The 323's front and Iear bumper reinfo~cement bars are composed of a fiberglass composite, which is tight but also
weak and likely to break. Plus, the reinforceme,nt b rs are bolted directly onto
the 323's car body. These design factors
usually mean a lotof damage in low-speed
impacts, despite the presence of
poly.styrene foam.
On the other hand, the 323's bumpers
extend far enough out from the car body
to allow the bumper system its.elf to flex
and absorb Cfash energy in low-speed impacts without lnvo]ving other car parts.
Such extension is a definite plus when it
comes to damage reduction.
The results, in the case of the 323, were
mixed. The worst problems were in the
rear, where the bumper cover deformed
noticeably in the pole test. There was also
extensive car body damage.
Overall, the 323'5 front bumper is rated
average. The rear bumper system on the
323 is rated poor.
OHS Statu Report, Vol. 27, o. 1, January 25. 1992-7
Thi is one of the lightest cars among
all 24 tested. But the Festiva' front and
rear bumper systems, which include steel
reinforcement bars plus polystyrene foam
to ab orb energy, are relatively heavy.
Th damage these bumpers allowed in
the f1at-barri r lests wasn't noticeable. After the front·into-angle-barrier test,
though, the bumper cover was wrinkled,
and a metal strip below the right headlight
was damaged.
The rear-int~pole test produced even
mor damage, largely because the foam
en r -ab orbing matenal wa n't uffi·
dent to manage the concentrated hit. Aft r thi t t, the bumper cover was daJn..
aged en ugh to require replacement at a
c t of nearly S350 for the part alone.
verall. the Festiva's front bumper is
rat d average. Damage wa allowed in
frontal t Is, but it wasn't immediately obvious. The rear bumper is rated poor because structural damage - Including
damage to the floor of the hatch area was allowed in the pole test.
This is one of the heaviest and mostG
pensive cars tested. Its bumpers allowed
no damage in the f1at-barrier tests.
The rear bumper allowed extensive
damage in the pole test, partly because of
a cutout in the foam for the license plate
right where the car hit the pole. There was
enough damage to keep the trunk lid from
latching and. in fact, damage extended to
within two inches of the gas tank. The ang1e-ba.rrier test caused a crumpled fender
and a headlight that wouldn't retract once
It was opened.
The 240 Coupe' front bumper is
rated poor, In part because of interferencewith the headlight. The rear bumper
is rated very poor.
The entra's bumper systems, both
front and rear, have steel reinforcement
bars with polystyrene foam to absorb energy. How did the front bumper perform?
Damage was sustained in the front-intoflat·barrier test, but it wasn't noticeable.
There wasn't much obvious damage after
the more demanding frant-into-angle-barrier te t, either.
Problems occurred in both rear tests,
however. The steel reinJorcement bar
buckled in the Rat-barrier test near where
it right mounting bracket is located allowing crash energy to be transferred to
the car body. The right rear quarter panel
buckled slightly, just behind the door, and
the trunk lid was knocked out of align.
men bout the same dollar amount of
damage was a110 ed in the rear-in~le
test - unusual because this is a more demanding test than the rear-into-Oat·barr!er
one, so more damage usually Is ustalned.
Overall the Sentra's rear bumper i
rated poor. primarily because of the exten·
sive damage allowed in the simple Oat·barrler test. The front bumper is rated good.
8-lDfS Status Report,
Vol. 27, o. I, January 25, 1992
The Paseo's bumpers are structurally
ImUar to the Tercel's In that there's no
material at all included for absorbing
crash energy. There's only the reinforcement bar and the plastic cover - enough
to handle Oat-barrier tests which disperse
crash energy across the whole face of the
umpet HOWevel the Paseo allowed su~
tan ·at damage in the other crash tests.
In the rear-intcrpole test, damage involved n01 only cru hlng of the bumper
over but also enough damage to the car
body so the trunk lid wouldn't latch.
The front-in to-angle-barrier test produced damage, too - not noticeable damage to the bumper Itself but some structural damage underneath plus a dented
fender. In particular; the Paseo's parking
light mounting broke so that the light was
lett auached to the car only by wires.
eralI. the lroot bumper is very poor
because of the damage Uallowed to the
car body and a safety-related part, the
light. The rear bumper is very poor, too.
The NX 1600's lront bumper Is composed QI a steel reinforcement bar plus
polystyrene loam absorber and large, flexible bumper cover. This system worked
well in the ftat-barrier test. There was no
damage. light dent in the fender did result from the front-ioto-angle-barrier t t.
The maio problem was with the rear
bumper system. It's composed of the
same material as the front bumper, but
there's a large gap for the license plate in
the foam absorber right where the car hit
the pole. The result was huge damage In
The Scoupe's bumpers consist of molded plastic reinforcement bars bonded with
silicone to plastic outer (overs in a onepiece design. In this the Scoope's bumpers
are unusual and, given a concentrated impact, generally not strong enough to prevent damage. In the angie-barrier test, lor
example, the bumper cover ripped. Damage in the rear-Into-flat-barrier test was
slightly more expensive to repair to original condmon, even though this damage
wasn't noticeable.
The Scoupe's main problem came in
the rearintcrpole test, during hieh the
pole tore right through the Scoupe's weak
bumper system and allowed extensive
damage. In fact, the Scoupe's rear body
panel and trunk Ud absorbed most of the
crash energy. Atailllght cracked.
Overall, the Scoupe's lront bumper Is
rated average. The rear one is very poor.
the rear-lntcrpole test. Damage occurred
moreover, even in the rear nat-barrier test.
Overall, the NX 1600's front bumper is
good. The rear one Is very poor.
.
UHS Status Report, Vol. 27, No.1, January 25, 1992-9
The bumper on an earlier ver ion of
Golf Rabbit - were equipped
with hydraulic energy absorber to help
manage crash energy. The result was that
Rabb' made during the early 1
perlorm d well in the In titute's bumper
t ts. Th '92 G If did not perform elL
how vert becaus the h draulic energy absorber n th Rabbit Oater the Golf) ere
replaced b brackets. Anoth.er problem is
at, in witchin to bra et.
tylists
redu ed th clearance bet een the
bumper and the car body, so there' less
r mto absorb crash energy before transferring it to fend rs and other bod parts.
In the angie-barrier test, the bumper
cov r was forced up and out lrom the side
of the car; The edge of the right front fendr was damaged. In the rear-into-pole tes
a body panel crushed enough to keep the
ha chback lid from lat hing without being
lammed v ry hard.
erall. th Golf front bumper i rated poor. The rear bumper I very poor.
This car's bumpers are different from
those on nearly all the other cars tested in
that both front and rear systems are contructed in one piece - bumper co ~ re-
inforcement bar. everything except the
steel mounting plates. The integrated
system is all plastic. Even the bar is plastic instead of the more commonly u ed
steel, aluminum, or fiberglass composite.
And the bumpers are mounted directly
onto the car body without hydraulic energy absorbers or foam. The only energyabsorbing mechanism in the bumper Is
the flexing of the plastic system Itself.
This system performed adequately In
the front-into-f1at-barrier test. It didn't al·
low any visible damage in the angle-barrter
tes~ although bumper damage underneath
the cover did necessitate replacement.
The Escort s main probfem came in
the rear-int()-JloJe test. This concentrated
impact caused irreparable damag to the
expensive, one-piece bumper sy tem. Replacing it cost 92 plus installation and
paint There was also visible body damage after the pole test.
Overall, the Escort's front bumper is
rated average, but the rear one is poor.
Th undance's bumpers allowed hundred of doOars worth of damage in each
of the four crash tests - most in the rearint~pole test, during which the bumper
cover was pushed in and the hatchback
lid as damaged enough to require replacement at considerable cost.
Interesting features about the UDdance s bumper s stems are the elastomenc energy absorbers. These resemble hydraulic absorbers, which tend to
perform well in preventing damage in lowspeed impacts. However: elastomenc on
aren't filled with fluid. They have plastic
leeves with springs mounted on teeI
tubes. These help absorb energy but
they're one shot~ absorbers becau e
their plastic sleeves often don't restore to
original shape and, therefore aren't as
useful in a second impacl The bottom line
on elastomencs is that, right now, they're
better attachments than the rigid brackets
on many new bumper ystems but not as
good as hydraulic energy absorbers.
The undance's front bumper is average. The rear one is very poor.
ID-llHS Status Report, Vo./. 27, No.1, ){}Jurary 25, 1992
This is the lightest car among all 24
tested, and it sus.tained the most damage
in the Simplest test, front into flat barrier.
Why? At least in gart because the Metro's
front ilnd rear reinforcement bars are a
~berglass 'Composite, lightweight but
weak. The front one cracked In the flat
barrier test Plus, the very expensive main
portion of the bumper cover had to be replaced. Even more damage came in theangte-barrier test.
The rear bumper's fiberglass bar also
cracked in the pole lest. The resulting
damage includ.edcracked taillights and
enough damage to the hatchback lock that
it wouldn't allow key entry.
Overall, the MetrQ's frQnt and rear
bumpers are rated VP:ty poor.
The rear bumper system has a steel reinfoKement bar. The bar in front Is fiberglass composite. Both front and rear have
polystyrene foam to a/:lsorb crash energy,
th.ouglI the feam is minimal around the..
car's front comers. These systems didil't
perform well in any l~st. In fact, the. MX-6
was among the cars with the most damage
in the simple front-into-flat-barrier test.
rn the angle-barrier tes~ there was extensive structural damage. This wasn't
visible damage, but it did extend far back
into the MX:&'s car booy.
After the rear-into-pole test, damage
was such that the MX-6's entire bumper
cover had to be replaced. In addition, extensive car body repair was necessaJY to
allow the lid of the trunk to latch - a
clear safety problem if left unrepaired because ofpossible exhaust gas intrusion.
OveraU, the Mazda MX-6's, front
bumper system is rated very pMr. LikewiSe, its rear bumper is rated very poor.
The Probe's front bumper has hydraulic energy abSOfbeJs and a steel reinforcement bar. The rear has foam plus a
fil;>erglass l;omposite reinforcement bar.
Partly because of the hydraulic absorbers,
the Probe sustained no damage in the
front-into-flat-barrier lest. There was $470
rlamage in the corresponding Fear test.
Damage in the rear-into-pole test was
much more extensive. The Probe's fiberglass reinforcement bar crac.ked. There
was damage to tile rear body panel plus
enough damil$e to the Probe's hatchback
lid that it wouJdn't latch.
Damage. in the angle-barrier test was
mOTe than for any other Car. The hydraullc
energy absorbers kept StruCtU1~al damage
below that sustained by the Mazda MX-6
a similar car witheut hydraulic absorbers.
Amain problem was the positioning of the
Probe's large bumper cover right up
against the fender. Th effect of thls
styling decision was that, when the energy
ab.smber compressed, the bumper cover
was forGed against the fender and damaged it in several places.
Overall, th Probe's front and rear
bumpers are rated very poor.
lOIS Status Report Vol 27, No.1, JCI/l1lUTY 25, 1992-11
The -3's front bumper performed
lairl well in both the flat and angie-barrier te ts. Its front bumper reinforcement
bar i unique among the 24 cars in that
it's neither steel, aluminum nor fiberglass -It's flexible polypropylene, and It
fI xed enough to keep most visible damage from occurring in the Irontal tests.
Damage was sustained in the Iront-Intoangle-barrier test, although it wasn't especially noticeable and an owner might
elect not to have it fixed.
The rear bumper's fiberglass reinforcement bar pUt in the f1al-barrier test. Plus,
crash enetgy was transferred through the
right r ar bumper mount into the car
body, causing a roof pillar to buckle. Damage in thi test was second to the DaihatuCharade among all 24 cars tested.
In the rear~to-pole test, the problem
was a big gap in the polystyrene loam for
the license plate where the car hit the
pol . The result was another round 01 ex·
penslv~o-repair ($1,324) damage.
o erall, the front bumper i
rated
good. The rear one is very poor, however,
becau e of the huge amount of damage
that occurred even in the lIat-barrier t t.
This car performed econd to worst
among aD 24 cars in terms of the amount
of damage allowed in the Institute's four
low-speed crash tests. The main problem
was the presence of only skimpy material
to absorb crash enetgy. There was enough
material to perform about average among
all 24 cars In the simplest tests, Iront and
rear into flat barrier. But in the other
tests, huge amounts of damage were allowed. The dollar total for damage after
the pole test was highest among all cars.
Energy-absorbing material Is especially
sparse in the center 01 the LeMans' rear
bumper system because 01 this car's recessed license plate. The result was that,
in the pole test the rear body panel caved
in. Plus, the hatchback lid was damaged
so extensjvely that it had to be replaced
at a cost 01 nearly $600.
Overall, the Le ans' front and rear
bumper systems are rated very pool.
Sustaining nearly ,000 worth of damage overall, the Charade performed worst
among all 24 small two-door cars tested
by the Institute. Its poor performance is
measurable in terms of not only high repair costs but also visible damage both
front and rear. especially after the front-into-angle-barrier and rear-into-pole tests.
The fact is, the Charade's bumpers essentially collapsed.
This car is apparently equipped with
the minimum bumpers necessary to meet
weak federal requirements - that Is,
bumpers with flimsy steel reinforcement
bars and virtually no energy-absorbing
material. The result in the angle-barrier
test was that the Charade's front bumper
moved enough to interfere with operation
of the tire. All four lights on the right front
of the car, including the headlight, were
damaged. The rear-illto-pole test produced even more damage because the
bumper itself did virtually nothing to
manage crash energy.
The Charade's front and rear bumper
systems are rated very poor overall.
SPECIAL ISSUE
VoL. 27 No. 1 January 25, 1992
fATUS ~ REPORT
1005 orin Ct be Road
Arlington, VA 22201
(703) 247·1500
Editor. James H. Mooney
As ale EdItor Rea Kerr IIomh
Editoria1
tant Carlent Ilughts
ProductIOn; hella Jackson
ill put.
00 8-988X
th atl1l-