Nov. 28 — Planning to hit the malls for some shopping this weekend? Just make sure you don’t hit anything else. It may not look like a little fender-bender does a lot of damage, but just wait till you get the bill. The results are in from the latest bumper crash tests of SUVs. NBC’s Lea Thompson reports


SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES may be designed to drive up mountains, but in reality, you’ll more likely see them in traffic — and traffic is where fender-benders happen. So how do rough, tough SUVs fare in the urban jungle?
“When it comes to minor bumps, they’re anything but rough and rugged,” says Brian O’Neill, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. “They’re fragile.”
The Institute tests vehicle bumpers for the insurance industry, in an effort to keep repair costs and insurance claims low.
“We ought to be able to bump cars in low speed crashes without much damage,” says O’Neill.
The Institute selects vehicles to test, and judges them based on the total estimated repair cost from four bumper tests. Each test is just five miles per hour, a fast walking speed.
While the damage often doesn’t look like much on the outside, it’s what you can’t see, underneath, that can really ratchet up the costs.



How well do they bump?

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety does its fender-bender test at five miles an hour. Choose a vehicle below to see its damage repair costs, and how it rated against its peers.

“This kind of damage can drive up everybody’s insurance costs,” says O’Neill.
In this group, were nine new midsize SUVs, ranging in price from $24,000 to nearly $44,000.
First up, the 2003 Honda Pilot. In each of the five-mile-an-hour tests, the Pilot has about $400 of damage. Sounds pricey for such small bumps, but according to O’Neill, “This is actually pretty good, compared to its competitors. We would like to see better performance, but we settle for what we can get. And this is as good as it gets right now.”
The Honda Pilot gets the Institute’s second highest rating, acceptable.
And how about those competitors? Take the redesigned 2004 Lexus RX330. It may not look like much, but in the front angle test alone, it racks up over $1,600 of damage.
“The head lamp is driven backwards, inside,” says O’Neill. “You’ve got some separation here. This head lamp assembly’s driven back, damaged the fender.”
The bulk of the damage though is under that bumper cover
“This bumper bar doesn’t extend out here, to provide adequate protection in the corner,” says O’Neill. “Plus, instead of this bar being mounted with something that absorbs the energy without damage, it’s mounted on this frame member that’s crushed.”
The Lexus RX330 gets a marginal, the second lowest mark. So does the Nissan Murano, with over $1,200 damage, each in the angle and pole tests. And another marginal rating for the 2004 Mitsubishi Endeavor, with almost $1,000 of fixes in three of the four tests.
“Simple problems add up to expensive repair bills,” says O’Neill.
And five other SUVs tested got even lower grades, and higher repair bills.
The 2004 Kia Sorento had over $1,000 each in the flat tests, almost $2,000 in the angle test, and nearly $2,300 in the pole test.



“This bumper system is totally inadequate,” says O’Neill. “It doesn’t provide any protection.”
The Sorento gets a poor, the lowest rating. And so does the 2004 Cadillac SRX. There’s nearly $1,000 in the rear flat test, about $2,400 for the angle, and a huge $2,814 to fix pole damage. Remember the SUV is only going five miles an hour!
“It’s too many parts damaged, and too much to repair,” says O’Neill.
The 2003 Infiniti FX35, is also rated poor, with $800 to $2,000 in fixes for each test, as is the redesigned 2003 Toyota 4Runner, with about a $1,000 of damage in each of the four tests, and the Chrysler Pacifica, with over $2,800 in the pole test alone.

Read company responses

Manufacturers of the vehicles tested say their SUVs meet or exceed all federal safety regulations, and also say the cost of bumper repairs is just one of many considerations in designing a vehicle. And Nissan, which makes the Murano and the Infiniti FX35, questions whether the Institute’s tests accurately reflect real-world conditions.
Not every SUV did badly in every test, and O’Neill says most low speed crashes are unsightly rather than unsafe. But one bad bump could cost you a bundle.

 

I was always under the impression, that the car crumbles easier to make the occupants have less shock, meaning the damage to the car will be more excessive than usual but you will be less harmed as an occupant. I got into a fender bender with a 4runner i used to have, it was a 98 top of the line, i rear ended 1 car going no more than 20 but possibly less than that. I walked away without an ache, bruise or anything, and i was without a seatbelt (i always wear my seatbelt, this was just a one time thing). i guess i may be wrong in my theory....

Hamid

 

At least a few years ago (not sure if it's the same today) bumpers for SUVs didn't have to meet the same standards as for 'cars' because SUVs fell under truck regulations.

This might explain this story. Sounds like another Dateline piece.

 

I can only imagine how expensive it would be to replace a headlamp unit on a RX equipped with the HID/ Adaptive Front Lighting option

 

These tests are done at 5mph if I'm not mistaken. Drive your car at 5Mph and imagine hitting an imovable object. Now imagine what kind of bumper/structure it would take to not show any sign of damage (hint, lots of weight and cost). To me, 2.5 mph is a much better test and more real world. If I hit something at 5mph, I expect damange and to tell you the truth, I would deserve it!

 

Have you guys ever seen the test they do. They hit a 6" or bigger round steel pole cemented into the ground with 0 give. If you hit a completely solid object like that concentrating all of the force of impact into that small area of course you will do damage....to any vehicle bumper. The pole also rises well above the bumper line...it is a completely random event (it would never happen) and if it did you'd be hitting one of those parking lot poles on your own and you'd have no one to blame but yourself.

If you do have a 5mph (bump and tap) you will likely be hitting another car with some absorption factor that IMHO will minize the damage compared to this bogus test.

 

I think the media is just bored and have nothing else better to do.

For now, they'll report how SUV's can't take damage. So next year, the SUV makers might beef up the bumpers. And then the media will report how dangerous it is when SUVs hit pedestrians at low speeds and probably hight speeds too.

As for me, I am damn glad the SUVs take that much damage. The energy must go somewhere and I'd prefer the SUV to take it than the person it hits. Bumpers and lights are replaceable. Lives aren't.