The name indicates a car part that'ssupposed to bump and protect Instead ofallo Ing damage. But the bumpers onmost cars don', bump and protect in

peed bnpacts. They bend They dentThey don't bold up. They allow damage tocar bodies In Impacts as slow as 5mph.

Among 22 midsize lour~r cars, theom sustained more than five tim as

much damage as the best In crash tests at5 mph. I cars have bumpers that al­lowed more than 3,000 damage. Only twohad damage totals under 1,000. (See"1991 Crash Test Results," this page.)

Car bumpers can be designed to pre­vent most damage in crashes at lowspeeds. The 1981 Ford Escort's bumpersdid so. They withstood front- and rear-ln­to&t-barrler crash tests at 5mph with nodamage. Even more impressive Is that the

1Escort withstood two more demanding5 mph tests, front-:into-angle-barrler andrear-into-pole, without any damage at all.

For nearly adecade. boweYer, automak­have fa1led to follow the Escort' exam­

ple. They have designed bumpers seem­Ingly to assure that damage occurs in 10speed Impacts. Some cars perform muchbetter than others but, in general,bumpers allow hundreds and even thou­sands of dollars worth of unneces arydamage, even in 5mph impacts.

This year there's something new in theInsurance Institute for Highway afety'sannual report on the bumper perfonnaoceof new cars. In addition to publishing therepair costs for damage to 1991 models,the Institute is lnduding In this spedaI is-ue of Status Report Information aboutby damage I occurring in low-speed

tests. What are the components of abumper system in the first place? How do

1991Midsize four-door cars, all new 19,91

models, sustained damage costing fromabout $600 to more than $3,000 to fix afterthe Insurance Institute for Highway Safe­ty's latest series of low-speed crash tests.The four tests include front- and rear-into­nat-barrier plus froot-Into-aogle-barrierand rear-ioto-pole. all at 5mph.

Hondas Accord with 1 damage per-­formed best among the 22 popuIar-pneedcars. The wor t car ere Hyundai'sSonata and ubaru's Legacy, each withabout 3,300 damage (see table. page 7).

The Legacy's bumpers. hich per­formed so poorly, are among the heaviest.The best-performing Accord's are amongthe lightest. So damage reduction has lit·tle or nothing to do with bumper weight.

these components work together or, morethan UteIy. fail to work together?

In tltute engineers disassembled, ­amined, and compared bumpers on 1991cars In order to answer the question. whdo ome perform 0 much better, or

one. than others? The bumpers on 22cars are rated, based primarily on . tbledamage, from "very good to pootThese assessments begin on page 4.

IsNor does It have to do with car price. Theleast expensive car tested, Chevrolet'sCavalier, outperformed all but the Accord.Some of the more expensive cars, on theother hand, didn't fare well

"The damage we're seeing is unneces­sary. not to mention expensive.W InstitutePresident Brlan 0 eiIl said AD 22 carshould have been designed to perform atleast as well as the Accord.

The ccord and 'tsubishi Galantwere the only 1991 cars to sustain no dam­age In flat-barrler tests. Plymouth's 1990Acclaim also performed without damageIn these tests, and hasn t changed for '91.

"There's no excuse for any damage Infront and rear flat-barrier tests. These are

(Confd on page 7)

- - ~ - - - - - - - --

-- - - - - - - - - - - - - . . - -- - - - - - -

2-DHS Status Report, VoL 26, No.2, february 16, 1991

Short History OfAUTOB

Bumpers that protect cars from dam­age in low-speed collisions aren't a newId~. As early as about 1915'1 before au­tomakers even started equlppJng cauwith bumpers, dealers sup~lied them asadd-ons. These bumpers were sturdilymounted on spring steel brackets that re­duced crash damage.

Bumpers of the 1920s and '30s weredamage-resistant, t-oo. Allstate InsuranceCompany tested the bumpers on a 1931Buick Into a barrier at 5mph. The result:virtually no damage,

related equipment like lIghts and hoodlatches in low-speed crash tests. In thefirst year of the standard, 5mph lront-tnto­flat-barrier and 2.5 mph rear-Into-barriertests werep~bed.

The following year, the test speed forrear impacts was upgraded to 5 mph. Oth~er tests were added to ensure, uniformbumper heights. Although thlll standardprotected only safety-r~lated equipment, itwas expe,cted that property damage reduc­tions would follow.

federal standards. The.,'74 Pinto sustainedonly $29 dam-age in the same. tests. Ford's981 Escort sustained no damage not only

in flat-barrier tests but also in two moredemanding crash tests at 5 mph. (See"Bumpers That Don1t Bump," page 1.)

Despite the success of the federal no­damage bumper standard, the U.S. Depart­ment of Transportation bowed to preSiurefrom ollUtomakers and rolled back requJre­ments from 5to 2.5 mph for 1983 and latermodel cars. Plus, the no-damage criteriawere relaxed to permft unlimited damageto the bumper and attachments.

As a result, bumpers on many carswere immediately weakened. Expensive--to­repair damage increased. Proof of this

Bumpets on l1ars of the J950s and '60s (left) wete derorative but didn't provide mudl at all in the UJay ofdanlage resistance. Jor abrid three model years(J98CJ.82), all new cars were required to have 5mph ncrdamage bumpers. They weren't as ornamental, but they were definitely more energyflbsorbing (right).

By the 1950s and '60s, though, car de- The Motor Vehicle Information and comes lrom insurance claims for vehiclesigns were being dominated by styling. Ex- Cost Savings Act e11972 required the U.S. damage. Buick, for example, put strongpensive and fragile sheet metal parts were Department of Transportation to issue a bumpers on 19.83 Regals and then weak-added tD cars exactly where they were property damage bumper standard. Effec- ened the bumpers Qn later models. Claimmest likely to be hit in minor collisions. live for 1979 models, this stantlard allowed frequencies lor 1984 and '85 Regals wereBumpers set flush against these parts pro- unlimited damage to bumpers and their at- 21 percenthigher than for 1983Regals.vided little or no protection. Plu$, front tachments in 5mph Oat-b~rtier tests, but it The same was true for Buick's Le5abre.and rear bumpers were often different specified no damage to other .car paris. Be- Clalms went up 20 percent when bumpersheights, causing either underride or over- ginning with '80 models, all but very minor were made weaker early in the '84 modelride In car-to-car crashes. cosmeticbumper damage was prohibited. year. Then General Motors put strong

By the early 1970s, both CODgre$s .and The effe(!\$ were dramatic. C~ alter car bumPerS back on LeSabres, aQd insurancethe U.S. Department of Transportation was designed to withstand lew-speed 1m- claims went down again. Meantime, thewere c.onsiderlng measures to require im- pacts virtually without dam~. The 1972 bumpers on comparable cars fromproved bumpers. The first federal bum~r Ford Pinto, for exampleJ sustained more Oldsmobile were unchanged. So were thei'rstandard, which took effect in the 1973 than $500 damage (1"991 dollars) in front- coUision claim frequencies.model year, required protection of safety- and rear-Into·barrler crash tes~ before Uconsum'ers wanted 5 mph bumpers,

/HIS Status Report, lbl. 26, No.2, February 16. 1991-3

tween the beam and cover. Only a fewbumper systems have botb shock ab­sorbers and foam or eggcrale.

Bumper performance doesn't dependon the presence or absence of one ofthese components. It depends instead onhow well the whole bumper system worksin relation to the car body.

The best car bumper would be Oat,smooth, and free of sudden contourchanges. It would include a strong rein­forcement beam plus both shock ab­sorbers and generous amounts of energy­absorbing material like foam. Front andrear bumpers would wrap around the carbody, extending out far enough so therewould be room to absorb crash energy be­fore it could reach beet metal body parts.

Ho many new car bave suchbumpers? ot a single one. Styling, notdamage resistance, usually dictates howbumpers are made and attached to cars.

,,,,~.,,,.•, ,Bumpers aren't unilormly bad. They

vary a lot in terms of both components andperformance. This is true among cars ofsimilar size and type and among cars fromthe same automaker. It's even the case thatfront and rear bumpers on the same carcan perform very diHerently.

Car buyers cannot lookat abumper sys­tem and tell whether it s better-tban-aver·age or very poor. Why? Because the onlyvisible part of a bumper is usually the plas­tic outer cover which, while expensive, islargely cosmetic and serves virtually no en­ergy-absorbing purpose.

Energy is what causes crash damage.The purpose of a bumper is to absorb low·speed crash energy without allowing anydamage to either bumper or car body. Theplastic cover doesn't do this. It's what's un­derneath the bumper cover that counts.

The basic bumper component is a rein­forcement beam that supplies' strength.Usually made of steel but sometimes of alu­minum or even plastic, the beam is u~

posed to keep crash energy from damagingfenders and other car body parts. To helpdo tbis, beams may be attached to the carwith shock absorbers that compress andthen rebound to absorb energy. Or energy·absorbing material may be added - ure­thane foam or plastic honeycomb, alsoknown as "eggcrate" or "guideOex" - be-

per?MHfIVe miles per hour is a beocbmark for

damage resistance. It's an impact speed athleb car bumper could easily - but

generally don't - prevent all but the mostminor cosmetic damage in barrier tests.

The '"5 mph"labeI d~'t mean that inreal. as opposed to test, crashes thebumper would prevent damage only atspeeds slower than 5 mph. It Indicates abumper that would prevent much or all ofthe damage In actual caHoc.ar crashes atpeeds 0110 mph and higbet

Some automakers are confusing the "5mph" label by putting It on bumpers thatprevent damage to the car body but allowvery expensi e-t<H'epair bumper damageIn 5 mph tests. Atrue 5mph bumper al­l no damage to either the car body orbumper In crash tests.

The benefits 01 damage·resistantbumpers are obvious. Fewer impacts re­sult In damage. The costly and liJne.coo-uming chore 01 repairing cars is reduced.

and repair costs are lessened. Avery highpercentage 01 all motor vehicle crashesoccurs at low speeds, so damage-reslstantbumper could save consumers a lot oftime. money. and aggmatioo.

the U.S. Department of Transportationsaid when It roUed back federal require­ments, competition among automakerswould make them available. But thishasn't happened. Bumpers are sUU a lotweaker than they were when no-damagerequirement were In effect. even thoughconsumers ha e repeatedly said theywant damage-resistant bumpers.

Recent evidence of this consumer pref.erence comes from a 1990 Insurance Re­search Council survey. (See SIa1rLs Report,~ 25, o. 11.) Seventy percent of resp0n.­

dents said cars should have bumpers thatprovide protection In crashes at 5mph orhigher. To date, they don't

4-lIHS Status Report. Vol. 26, No.2. February 16, 1991

The front and rear bumper systems onthe lumina have eggcrate material to ab-orb energy. There aren't any hock ab­

sorbers, and the front reinforcement beami eat that it erae ed and had to bereplaced after the least demanding test.front~nto.flat-barrier:

design problem Is that the Iront ofthe Lumina' bumper Is pointed, thus c0n­

centrating crash energy at a specific spoton the reinforcement beam. The frontbumper on the Pontiac Grand Am Is simi­larly designed and also sustained a greatdeal of damage in the front~to.flat-barJi.

er crash test at 5mph.

The most damage to the Lumina, in­cluding the most noticeable cosmeticdamage, occurred In the 5 mph rear-lnto­pole impact test ( 1,040). The combina­tion of too little eggcrate energy-absorbingmaterial plus a weak reinforcement beamallowed the pole to hit and damage thiscar' rear body panels.

Overall, the Lumina's Iront bumper Isaverage. Th rear bumper very poo[

The Corsica II has hydraulic shock ab­sorbers front and rear to help managecrash energy and, compared with othermodels tested, performed better than a -

erage in the Institute's tests. Damage wassustained in all four tests at 5 mph, eventhe Oat-barrier tests. But, with the exce~

tion of the angle-barrier test, the damageto the Corsica wasn't especially notice­able. Damage in the front-lntMllgie-barri­er test included a severely bent reinforce­ment beam, extensively distorted outerplastic bumper cover, and damage to theheadlight mounting panel.

Overall, the Corsica's front bumper Ispam: The rear bumper system on the Cor­sica Is rated as good, because the damagewas largely Inconspicuous.

The atum's relatively light (23pounds) front bumper with foam paddingdido't perform as well as expected in the10 ~peed tests. It allowed nearly $400damage in the simplest test, froot-into-Oat­barrier. A problem as that. on Impact,the front llexibIe bumper cover was drlv·en back Into the hood. Both cosmetic andstructural damage occuned in the Iront·intMllgle-barrier test.

The Saturn's rear bumper system in­cludes eggcrate for energy absorption.The reinforcement beam, although light,prevented all damage in the Oat·barriertest and allowed only $357 damage in thepote test - a better result than all but twocars, probably because the eggcrate mate­rial is reinforced at the point on thebumper where the pole hit.

Overall, the Saturn's front bumper isaverage. It allowed damage in the Insti­tute's low-speed tests, even the f1at-barri­er test, but the damage wasn't obvious.The rear bumper Is very good and, at 25pounds among the lightest. With a littlemore effort, General Motors could have in­troduced the Saturn with the best per­forming bumpers.

/l1IS Status Report, \tit. 26, No.2, February 16. 1991-5

The rront and rear bumpers on theCavalier VL have eggcrate to absorb ener­gy. It's relatively soft eggcrate, which re­duces the concentration of crash energyon the reinforcement beams. The beamsthemselves are strong enough to preventmost low-speed crash damage. The dam­age that did occur 10 the Institute's testswaso't particularly noticeable.

The rear bumper on the Cavalier is thebest of the bunch. Jb eggcrate and beamhave extra reinforcement at the center,normally one of the weakest points.

One problem Is that the bumper cov­ers, front and rear, are textured and wouldhave to be replaced Instead of repaired af­ter reJatively Uttle scuffing or scratching.This means higher repair costs.

Overall the Cavalier's front bumper isgood. Its rear bumper y tem is erygood. This car perfonned better than another General otors car and second best

(behind only the Honda ccord) among all22 cars tested this year. despite the factthat Irs the least expensive car. UGeneral

otors had simply equipped the Cavalierto perform better in the easiest tests, theflat-barrier ones it would have been ableto claim the best performing car.

The front bumper system on the Clera,but not the rear one, has hydrauUc shockabsorbers. The aluminum reinforcementbeam 10 front, weakened by large cutoutsto mount the parking lights, doesn't keepcrash energy away from the car body 10impacts as 510 as 5 mph. Plus, the frontbumper doesn't extend far enough outfrom fhe car body, especially at the cor­ners of the car, to allow space for crashenergy management

The Clera wa the worst performeramong all 22 cars tested in the front-into­angle-barrier test. Damage amounting to$1,584 Included a ripped bumper coverand severeJy bent reinforcement beam,both of which had to be replaced follow­ing the angle-barrler test

The rear bumper's performance waspoor, too. The reinforcement beam astoo weak to eep the pole from intrudingIoto the Ciera's rear bodypaoels and caus­ing damage. There aren't any hock ab­sorbers in the rear. There's only eggcrateto manage crash energy.

Overall, the Ciera's bumpers, bothfront and rear, are very poor.

Both front and rear bumper systemson the Calais have foam padding to ab­sorb crash energy. There are no shock ab­sorbers front or rear.

The front bumper wraps around theCalais, a good feature as long as It isn'tplaced where the bumper cover can hitsheet metal parts and damage them on im­pact The problem is, that's just where theCalais' front bumper is placed 0 that,when it bent In the 5 mph front-into-angle­barrier test, the fender necessarily ben~

too. There was even damage in the sim­pler front-into-flat-barrier crash test, al­though cosmetic damage in both rear im­pact tests was less.

Another note of interest is that theCalais like the Nissan Stanza and PontiacGrand Am, has weight added to the frontbumper for no apparent purpose otherthan to reduce vibration. ThIs weight addsseven pounds to the front bumper.

Overall, the Calais' front bumper sys­tem Is very poor. The rear bumper Is ratedgood, because most of the damage It al­lowed in the tests was hidden.

6-IJHS Status Report. ~ 26No.2. February 16, 1991

The Grand Am bas bumper compo­nents similar to those on several othercars from General Motors, Including theOldsmobile Ciera and Pontiac 6000 - hy­draulic shock absorbers In the front,eggcrate In the rear.

Among all 22 cars, this one performedabout average in the angle-barrier test.But in the front-into-fJat-barrier test, the

The Skylark's front bumper bas foam toabsorb crasb energy but no shock ab­sorbers. It allowed extensive damage, es­pecially in tbe angle-barrier test. Tbebumper design is such that, in this test,the cover transmitted much of the crashenergy directly into the fender.

The added extension 01 the Bukk Skylark's rear bumper. compamJ with the Pontiac Gnmd Am s,helps explain the obvious differences in damage amounts in the rear';ntopo#e cmsh test al 5mph.

The front bumper on the Century Cus­tom has hydraulic shock absorbers plus arelatively strong steel reinforcement beamthat prevented most damage in the flat­barrier test but aJlowed almost 1,000damage 10 the angle-barrier test. Theproblem, In part, was not enough exten­sion of the bumper l)eyond the car body,especially at the corners, to keep crashenergy away from the car. More clearanceprobably would have made this a muchbetter bumper system.

The rear bumper on tbe Century in­cludes eggcrate as well as bydraulic shockabsorbers. But the eggcrate crushed, thehoc absorbers compressed all the way.

and the reinforcement beam deformed inthe rear~nto-pole crash test at 5 mph, al­lowing 1,256 ortb of damage.

verall, both the front and rearbumpers on the Century are very poot

The rear bumper also has foam. In therear-into-pole test, most cosmetic damagewas prevented, In large part because thebumper extends far enough out from thecar body to keep the pole from bitting thetrunk and causing obvious damage.

The front bumper, like the rear one,has this disadvantage - the brackets thatattach it to the car body are part of the re­inforcement beam. They cannot be re­placed separately, so repair costs aremore than If beam and brackets ere~arate. as they are on many cars.

Overall, the kylar '5 front bumper Isvery poor. The rear one Is good.

reinforcement beam was extensively dam­aged because of a sharp, unpadded con­tour. There was more than 1,000 damagein the rear~nto-pole test. mostly becausethe beam wasn't strong enough. It bentand allowed the pole to bit body panels.

Engineers found seven pounds ofweight added to the front bumper systemfor no apparent. purpose other than to re­duce vibration. This addition Increasesthe Grand Am's total front bumper weightby 15 percent. but it does nothing at all toenhance damage resistance.

Overall, the Grand Am's front bumperIs average. The rear bumper Is very poor

(Confd from page 1)simple tests requiring minimal bumperperformance: O' elU pointed out. Yetonly 2cars out of 22 sustained no damage.It' a candal manufacturers don't do abetter job on bumper design. flat-barrlertests spread the force of an Impact overthe whole face of a bumper, which Is whythey houJd be the easiest tests to ace.

"There's no way for consumers to teUbumpers that are at least SMO from thosethat are all but useless. This Is why weonduct 5mph tests -to give consumers

useful information and eep the beat onautomakers to do better,· 0' em added.

Honda has demonstrated ho an au­lomaker can Improve Its bumpers If Itchooses. The 1987 Honda Accord bad themost damage amoog 22 midsize cars theInstitute tested that year. The ' CivicCRX was the worst of 27 small cars tested.

tung by negative publicity aboutthese results, Honda set out to improve itsbumpers. The result: The 1990 Civic OX

the best small car tested. and the '91ccord was the best of the midsize cars.

The In tltute tested a number of thesame car mode In 1987 and 1991. Thir­teen of these models are largely un·changed lnce' 7 - unchanged. that Is,e cept for redesigning the bumpers,which has affected performance. Afour­teen h car. the ccord. has been moresubstantially redesigned.

In general. bumper performance Isorse now than It was four years ago. 0n­

ly the Accord and Chevrolet Cavalier haveImproved. The other 12 cars performedworse In 1991 than In '87 (see table).

11HSStatus Report. \bl. 26, No. 2, February 16, 1991-7

8-llHSStatus Report. VoL 26. o. 2. February 16. 1991

The Sunbird's front bumper has plasticeggcrate to absorb crash energy. The rearbumper is equipped with hydraulic hockabsorbers, and the bumper extends outfar enough from the car so that, with theshocks and a relatively strong steel beam,most obvious cosmetic damage was pre­vented In the rear-into-barrier crash test.

However, the Sunbird did sustain ex­tensive damage under the bumper coverIn both flat-barrier tests - 262 damage inthe front-into-flat-barrier test and 516(third highest among ail 22 cars) in therear-into-lJat-barrier test. This isn't neces­sarily damage an owner would bother tohave ftxed because it doesn't show. But.anytime a damaged automobile bumperisn't lixed,' performance in ubsequentlmpa could be compromised.

Overall, the unbird's bumper areabout average among the 22 cars tested.Damage was sustained in all four crasht ts at 5mph, including the simplest flat­barrier ones. There's no excuse for dam­age in such tests.

The 6000 LE's bumper components In­clude thin plastic eggcrate plus hydraulicshock absorbers In the front. The rearbumper bas thicker eggcrate but no shockabsorbers. The steel reinforcement beams

are too weak to manage crash energy. An­other problem is that the bumpers don'textend far enough out from the car bodyto ailow room for full energy absorption.The result was moderate damage In theflat-barrier tests plus huge amounts ofboth structural and cosmetic damage inthe angle-barrier and pole tests.

In the angie-barrier test, the 6000'sshock absorbers compressed fully; butthere wasn't enough extension of thebumper system to keep the barrier fromcontacting the fender and headlight, caus­Ing the extensive damage. In the pole test,the ea reinforcement beam allowedheavy damage to rear body panels.

Overall, the 6ooo's bumper systems,both front and rear, are very poor.

The tanza XI's bumper systems in­clude very solid bumper reinforcementbeams, front and back, with foam pads toabsorb crash energy. This car's perfor­mance In the front·into-f1at-barrler testwas good ($64 damage, most of It incon­spicuous). There was much more damage

in the rear-into-flat-barrier test ( 614).Still, most of it was invisible, hidden insidethe trunk under the mat. The Stanza's per­formance In the other two tests, front-lnto­angle-barrier and rear-into-pole, wasabout average.

Aproblem engineers found with thiscar's bumpers is two la-pound weightsadded 10 front, apparently to minimize vi­bration. There's no strength advantage.The weights merely reduce vibration atthe cost of an extra 20 pounds of car

eight. Pontiac's Grand Am and Oldsmo­bile's Calais also have weights OIl the frontbumper to reduce vibration, but they'renot as heavy as the ones on the Stanza.

Overall, the tanza's front and rearbumpers are average among all 22 cars.

UHSSIalus Report, \bl. 26, o. 2. February 16, 1991-9

The front and rear bumper$ on Tempoand Taurus GLs consist of two pieces ofmolded plastic, bonded together and at­tached to the car body with hydraulichock ab orber . This means the rein­

forcement beams are plastic instead of theusual steel There was eoougb strength inthi tem to protect the lighter Tempofrom most damage In Oat-barrier tests, butthe beam wasn't strong enough to preventdamage in the other tests.

The Taurus is a heavier car, so thesame type of bumpers aren't even as effec­tive as they are on the Tempo. (Heaviercars produce more energy In a crash.) Theresult was extensive damage. An addedproblem was that one of the Taurus' shockabsorbers failed to compress fully in thefronl-into4lat-barrier lest, putting extrasires on the beam. Damage in anothert t, rear-into-pole, was huge.

Overall, the bumpers on these cars arepoor In front very poor in the rear.

TIle Monaco LE's front and rearbumpers, equipped with hydraulic shockabsorbers, are designed so that the cov­ers wrap around the fenders. The

bumpers are mounted on a track so that,in a low-speed Impact, they're supposedto slide toward the car and alongside thefenders instead of jamming into the fend­ers and causing expensive-to-repair sheetmetal damage.

This is a good feature if It works. But,In the front-in to-angle-barrier test, theshock absorbers couldn't handle all of thecrash energy, even at 5mph. The weak re­inforcement beam bent in the impact. Theresult was that the barrier broke the frontparking light in the angIe-barrier test.

0veraD, the onaco's rear bumper sys.­tem is poor. The front bumper is rated av­erage mostly because the parking Ught, asafety-reJated part, was broken in the an­gie-barrier test. Otherwise, the frontbumper would have been rated good.

The Dynasty LE's bumper componentsare much like the Monaco's - reinforce­ment beams attached with hydraulicshock absorbers. The difference is thatthis car's bumpers are set flush againstthe fenders instead of wrapping aroundthem. This makes it more likely that crashenergy wiD be transferred from bumper tofeodet producing expensive damage.

An interesting note about the Dynastyis the bumper guards. These were put oncars beginning in the 1930s to keepbumpers of different heights from lockingwhen they hit. Now that bumper heightsare standard, such guards are mostly cos­metic. Their practical effect is to create astress point that localizes crash energyand tends to increase damage on impact.

Another problem is the Dyoasty's pr0­

truding emblem on the trunk. If It weresmaller or set In, damage would have beenlessened In the rear-into-pole test.

Overall, the Dynasty's bumper sys­tems, both front and r~ are poor.

lo-nHSSlatus Report, \t1l 26, No.2, February 16, 1991

The Camry DX' bumper system illus­trates the typical makeup of bumpers onmany Japanese cars - urethane foamfront and rear to absorb crash energy butno shock absorbers, Some of tbese

bumper systems perform well, but manyallow noticeable damage. especially in therear-into-poJe test

Overan. and in comparison with othersystems tested, the Camry's front bumperis average. The rear bumper is rated aver­age. too, because the only visible damageafter the pole test Involved the bumper.

The front and rear bumper systems ofthe 626 DX have foam padding to absorbenergy. Reinforcement beams are large butrelatively light and not very strong.

The front bumper Is constructed muchlike the Honda Accord' , but it's not asstrong as the Accord's. Plus, the 626'sbeams are attached with brackets that, ina collision actually channel crash energy

into the car frame at a vulnerable spot,thus maximizing damage. In the simplesttest, front-Into-nat·barrler, the reinforce­ment beam cracked (see above photo).This kind of damage isn't easy to find, butit does diminish bumper strength and con­tributes to the highest repair co t fordamage in the froot-into-ftat-barrier test.

Damage to the 626ln the 5mph rear-in­to-pole test amounted to a very expensive$1,684, In part because the bumper sys­tern doesn't extend far enough out fromthe car body to prevent the pole fromdamaging rear sheet metal panels.

Overall the front bmnper OIl the 626 ispoor. The rear bumper is verypoot

Like the bumper systems on otherJapanese cars, the Galant's have foam butno shock absorbers front and rear. Thissystem was sufficient to prevent damagefrom occurring in flat-barrler tests, aJ·though visible damage was allowed in theangIe-barrier test. Among all 22 cars, theGalant's front bumper system is average.

Overan, the rear bumper system ispoor. Jt prevented damage in the f1at-barrf·er test, but it allowed visible damage tothe car body in the rear-into-pole test.

UHS Status Report. \obI. 26, No.2, Februmy 16, 1991-11

The front bumper OIl the Legacy L isrigidly mounted against the fenders 50

that crash energy is more easily chan­neled Into the body, espedally In the an­gie-barrier t t. The r ult as 1.005damage In this test plu another 219damage in the fJat-barrier test.

The Legacy's rear bumper has thesame composition as the front (steel rein­forcement beam plus foam), except thatthe foam padding I divided Into twopieces. There's DO padding In the middle,which is the weakest point. The only thingto manage energy In the middle Is the rein­forcement beam, which I upported onsuch widely spaced brackets that stress atthe beam' center Is great. The result wasthe high damage amount among all 22cars in the rear-into-pole test.

Overall, the Legacy's front and rearbumpers are very poot The rear bumperIs also among the heaviest of aU 22 cars.

The Sonata's bumpers consist of blow­molded plastic reinforcement bonded toplastic outer covers with neither steel ~iDforcement, shock absorbers, nor energy­absorbing material like eggcrate or foamunderneath the COV'el'S.

The general performance of the ebumpers as orse than that of the other21 midsize cars tbat ere tested. Themain problem is that the Sonata' bumperreinforcement beams aren't strong enoughto prevent cooceotrated energy loads, Utethose transmitted in the angIe-barrier andpole tests, from causing car body damage.

The Hyundal's rear bumper aUowed byfar the most damage among aU 22 cars Inthe rear-into-flat-barrler test, a test all carsshould withstand without damage. Therear bumper allowed even more - andhighly visible - damage In the rear-int~

pole crash test at 5mph.0veraU, the Byundal's front bumper Is

average. Damage occurred in both frontaltests. but it was largely hidden. The rearbumper is very poor. The Sonata5 total re.pair cost was the highest among aU cars.

The bumpers on the Accord 0 didn'tprevent damage in aU four crash tests at 5mph, but they did prevent damage in thetwo fIat~ tests. Damage in the othertwo tests was lower than for virtually anyother car (only the Cavalier performedbetter in the pole test).

The Accord's reinfon:ement beams aredesigned to manage crash energy Ii e a

spring so that the car "bounces air thebarrier. The rear bumper has addedpadding at the center.

Overall, the Honda's bumpers are verygood and among the lightest of all 22 cars.Total repair costs were lower than for anyother car, and most of these costs werefor repair of inconspkuous damage only.

An interesting note is that more expen­sive Accord models than the DX probablywould cost even less to repait This Is be­cause damage in the Institute's tests In­duded a tom bumper cover that couldn'tbe repaired and bad to be replaced. oreexpensive Accords have sJightly differentbumper covers that, given the same dam­age, could have been repaired.

26, 2, Febnary I 1111

This pedal issue of 'alus Report focuseson Iow-speed crash test results. Other re­cent special issues have focused on thefollowing subjects:

Fuel Economy, Safetyntllock Brakes for Trucks

Speeds onRural InterstatesDeath Rates by Car SerIesDesigning Safer VehiclesTruck Crash CongestionMaking Traffic La rk

Belt and Helmet LaSafety Rules

\lebide Size and Death RatesU .Safety Acts

t Belt Use Lawshool Bus Safety

Seat Belt Use LawsTeenagers'Drivlng17Ie Injury Foo Book

omatic Restraints

25:8,199025:5,199025:2,1990

24:11,198924: ,1989

23:12. 123:6.1

22:13. 1 722:9.1 722:2, 1 7

21:11, 198620:12.198520:5,1985

19:14.198419:10,198419:7.1

I'j 1983

1005 NorthCIebe Road

ArlIngton, " 22201703) 247-1500

IDslnIft Instttutr for SI/ety is III Iodepm­IDpIOIIt. scienIiIIc iIlll edllatlooal mpIIiDIIDD. Ills

dedkaed to rtdudna the losses - deaths, Injuries. IJldproperty damage - resulting from crashes 00 tbr nation'hlghWl)/S, The Institute is supported by the AmerIcan In­&Uranu Highway Safety Alsoclatlon. the American II15UJersHighway Saltty Alliance, the N~t1onaJ Association of Inde­pendentlll5lUl!r$ Salei)' AuoclatIOl1, IJld several indIVIduallDsurance comJ)lllie5.

0018-988X