http://money.cnn.com/2003/09/0...n=yes
Not a great report.
CNN Report: G35 bumpers fail crash test
-
Q45tech
- Moderator
- Posts: 14296
- Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 3:19 am
- Car: 1990 Q45 342,400 miles 22 years ownership with original engine
1995 G20t 5 speed 334,000 miles 16" 2002 wheels - 205/50/16 Sr20ve vvl
Only 1 in 8.5 wrecks per year and a good G35 driver with track experience, might only have a 1 in 20 chance of having a minor wreck where bumpers would matter.
[Most don't want to pay $2,000 more or accept an UGLY design [or accept the extra 200 pounds of weight] that might be less expensive to fix. Nice 3 foot bumper extension front and rear with shock absorbers, exploding air bags on the bumpers might be required to protect body.]
AND something the article failed to point out:
"The Institute tested the new Mercedes E class, which was the second worst performer in this round of tests. Average damage per test was $1,300, and damage in the simplest front-into-flat-barrier test alone totaled almost $700.
"The front bumper on the E class is designed more for style than substance," Lund says. "In fact, the front bumper reinforcement bar is actually positioned rearward of the leading edges of the headlamps. This is a terrible design considering that headlamps are safety equipment that should be undamaged in such low-speed crashes."
There was almost $3,000 damage to the E class in the rear-into-pole test because the bumper failed to protect the car's expensive-to-fix fenders and trunk lid. "
The E class cost $1,000 more to fix on the rear pole test than the G35!
Testing only 5 models seems poor science to me!
http://www.hwysafety.org/news_...3.htm
[Most don't want to pay $2,000 more or accept an UGLY design [or accept the extra 200 pounds of weight] that might be less expensive to fix. Nice 3 foot bumper extension front and rear with shock absorbers, exploding air bags on the bumpers might be required to protect body.]
AND something the article failed to point out:
"The Institute tested the new Mercedes E class, which was the second worst performer in this round of tests. Average damage per test was $1,300, and damage in the simplest front-into-flat-barrier test alone totaled almost $700.
"The front bumper on the E class is designed more for style than substance," Lund says. "In fact, the front bumper reinforcement bar is actually positioned rearward of the leading edges of the headlamps. This is a terrible design considering that headlamps are safety equipment that should be undamaged in such low-speed crashes."
There was almost $3,000 damage to the E class in the rear-into-pole test because the bumper failed to protect the car's expensive-to-fix fenders and trunk lid. "
The E class cost $1,000 more to fix on the rear pole test than the G35!
Testing only 5 models seems poor science to me!
http://www.hwysafety.org/news_...3.htm
Hard to belive out of either car. The car companies spend so much telling us about new stiffer frames and saftey features, it would seem to follow that the bumpers would be tougher. The qoute provided on the Merc with headlights that extend beyond the bumper's inner frame is unreal. It cannot be that difficult to incorporate tough bumpers with a pleasing design. But . . . that would not make them as much money on reoccuring repairs . . .
Speaking of trucks vs. G35's....
To avoid getting hit by a speeding car in our office parking garage*, I cut a corner a bit short with my truck. Heard a little "ting", like I ran over an aluminum can, so didn't worry too much. Parked, looked at the side of my truck. No damage, no scratch, no nothing. Figured I ran over something or it was just my imagination. Then I looked back and saw that I had absolutely CRUSHED the bumper of a brand spankin' new G35. Checked my truck again and saw a small scuff line on my rear tire. WoW! Amazing that a tire could do so much damage and not be shredded. Believe me, I felt terrible and left a note. Contacted the guy and my insurance took care of it. Don't know what it cost, but the whole bumper needed to be replaced. Poor guy had been hit 3 times before in the lot, and nobody had ever left a note. And the car was only 2 weeks old! TP
* this little chickie was flying down a ramp with a Starbucks in one hand and cell phone in the other. She just missed my rather large '03 Dodge Ram 4x4 diesel. If I was walking, I'd be dead.
To avoid getting hit by a speeding car in our office parking garage*, I cut a corner a bit short with my truck. Heard a little "ting", like I ran over an aluminum can, so didn't worry too much. Parked, looked at the side of my truck. No damage, no scratch, no nothing. Figured I ran over something or it was just my imagination. Then I looked back and saw that I had absolutely CRUSHED the bumper of a brand spankin' new G35. Checked my truck again and saw a small scuff line on my rear tire. WoW! Amazing that a tire could do so much damage and not be shredded. Believe me, I felt terrible and left a note. Contacted the guy and my insurance took care of it. Don't know what it cost, but the whole bumper needed to be replaced. Poor guy had been hit 3 times before in the lot, and nobody had ever left a note. And the car was only 2 weeks old! TP
* this little chickie was flying down a ramp with a Starbucks in one hand and cell phone in the other. She just missed my rather large '03 Dodge Ram 4x4 diesel. If I was walking, I'd be dead.
I strongly suggest not backing into any poles, thus, no problem. The history of this is we have come from an era where the government mandated 5mph no damage bumpers to one where the govenment now says weight and subsequent fuel economy is more important, plus, the lobbying of the auto manufacturers to relax the rule. The rule is now relaxed, really pretty cars are now available without horrible protruding bumpers. AND OF COURSE THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY IS MAD and doing everthing they can to fight it. The worst news is that sometime in the next 5 years there are already laws our worthy congress is enacting to make all bumper/hood heights higher and uniform for the safety of pedestrians. One of the car mags did an analysis of this, not pretty, just imagine a G35 coupe ,mandated to have a high hood like a FX. This is real stuff that has already been through committees in the house and senate and one floor bill already passed in the house, scary!
-
SOCAL91Q45a
- Posts: 403
- Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2003 2:28 pm
- Contact:
"just imagine a G35 coupe ,mandated to have a high hood like a FX. This is real stuff that has already been through committees in the house and senate and one floor bill already passed in the house, scary!"
Whats scary is we sheep let the p Rick's do this carp!!!
1st it was the mandatory Motorcycle helmet law, then the mandatory Local Police Doghnut revenue generation Seat Belt law, now they are working on the No Cell Phone Law, then they'll start the NO SUV law, and soon ...we'll all be required to take Mass Transit or elec mopeds!!!
Jeez peeps lets all wake up!
Whats scary is we sheep let the p Rick's do this carp!!!
1st it was the mandatory Motorcycle helmet law, then the mandatory Local Police Doghnut revenue generation Seat Belt law, now they are working on the No Cell Phone Law, then they'll start the NO SUV law, and soon ...we'll all be required to take Mass Transit or elec mopeds!!!
Jeez peeps lets all wake up!
other forums posted alot about this
Consumer reports did their own test and found the costs to be much lower than other cars ~400 f/r each
The crash worthiness of the car itself is excellent with a few members having bad wrecks and the enitre passenger compartment was intact. Great crash worthiness.
Personally I do not believe all the test because am I supposed to make sure i hit the pole exactly like they did. The manufacturers know the test specs and can design around them but when the car hits slightly off watch out.
The bumbers on this car are integrated and do not fare as well as full bumpers on cars like the J30 as an example. They do not ride into the body.
For me overall safety is important and this car has it. I just do my best to avoid bumper hits like I have done with all my previous cars
Consumer reports did their own test and found the costs to be much lower than other cars ~400 f/r each
The crash worthiness of the car itself is excellent with a few members having bad wrecks and the enitre passenger compartment was intact. Great crash worthiness.
Personally I do not believe all the test because am I supposed to make sure i hit the pole exactly like they did. The manufacturers know the test specs and can design around them but when the car hits slightly off watch out.
The bumbers on this car are integrated and do not fare as well as full bumpers on cars like the J30 as an example. They do not ride into the body.
For me overall safety is important and this car has it. I just do my best to avoid bumper hits like I have done with all my previous cars
-
spec-v5150
- Posts: 1043
- Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 1:24 pm
SOCAL91Q45a wrote:"just imagine a G35 coupe ,mandated to have a high hood like a FX. This is real stuff that has already been through committees in the house and senate and one floor bill already passed in the house, scary!"
Whats scary is we sheep let the p Rick's do this carp!!!
1st it was the mandatory Motorcycle helmet law, then the mandatory Local Police Doghnut revenue generation Seat Belt law, now they are working on the No Cell Phone Law, then they'll start the NO SUV law, and soon ...we'll all be required to take Mass Transit or elec mopeds!!!
Jeez peeps lets all wake up!
I agree with the helmet law. It saves lives. Obviously dumb asses get on bikes and like do wheelies in traffic or do 120 in a 55. OR on he flip side...someone in a car on their cellphone doesnt see a motorcycle rider. I think most of the laws that you mentioned were good ones. They save lives. IF you dont make peopel wear their seat belts...they wont ..same with helmets and then disaster happens.....
A $500K Ferrari is not a daily commuter or a vacation driver with four seats. Besides, very few objects (ie. other vehicles) meet up with those low slung bumpers -- remember the mover 7-ups! If you wrap an Italian Stallion that is just too damn bad -- probably a bad driver.
However, on a daily driver - mass produced and marketed car --the crap they pawn off as bumpers is rediculous. I realize that the weight is a factor, but the $500 1985 F-150 bumper sized down and reshaped with a nice plastic cover to "style-in" the steel may save some lives and certainly be a little tougher than the styrofoam and plastic they are using. In reality the net weight difference would probably not be more than 50 lbs. Big excuse and self-serving for the car companies to balme it on weight or even the insurance companies. Absorbing the shock and dissipating the energy is part of the function of the "crumple-zones" that allows the passenger compartments to remian in tact in wrecks. However, a 5 mph hit (or "bump") should not result in $1.5K+ of damage. These kind of issues are -- in part -- why your car insurance rates are so high.
All right . . . off of my soap box!
However, on a daily driver - mass produced and marketed car --the crap they pawn off as bumpers is rediculous. I realize that the weight is a factor, but the $500 1985 F-150 bumper sized down and reshaped with a nice plastic cover to "style-in" the steel may save some lives and certainly be a little tougher than the styrofoam and plastic they are using. In reality the net weight difference would probably not be more than 50 lbs. Big excuse and self-serving for the car companies to balme it on weight or even the insurance companies. Absorbing the shock and dissipating the energy is part of the function of the "crumple-zones" that allows the passenger compartments to remian in tact in wrecks. However, a 5 mph hit (or "bump") should not result in $1.5K+ of damage. These kind of issues are -- in part -- why your car insurance rates are so high.
All right . . . off of my soap box!
Jesda wrote:Im eagerly waiting for Missouri to ban cell phones in hand while driving. One of few things I miss about Washington.
Another law that sees nil enforcement. Seriously, if you hadn't mentioned this, I would not know it. Just came back from an hour or so on the crowded roads of the South Puget Sound area, and soo many people were yapping away on their phones(in hand).
An old boss of mine was a notoriously bad driver. The man lacks focus. He'd be drinking a Gatorade, answer the phone, write down a note while steering with his knee, and only glance at the road in between writing, spitting into his chew cup, and sipping on his Gatorade... all the while dropping one item to mementarily check his phone's lcd screen to see who's on call waiting...and occasionally change the radio station. Just a sad, very scary state of affairs. He also suffered from road rage, which added in some swerving, bobbing & weaving in traffic, and squeezing his lifted F350 quadcab long bed super duty onto the shoulder to pass people as he flips them the bird and honks while yelling.
-
Q451990
- Moderator
- Posts: 11030
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 8:21 am
- Car: 1990 Q45 - 118K, 2022 Toyota 4 Runner, 2004 Frontier M/T - 108K, 2012 Xterra (Mom's), 2023 Rogue (Inlaws)
- Location: Columbia, SC
- Contact:
spec-v5150 wrote:I agree with the helmet law. It saves lives. Obviously dumb asses get on bikes and like do wheelies in traffic or do 120 in a 55. OR on he flip side...someone in a car on their cellphone doesnt see a motorcycle rider. I think most of the laws that you mentioned were good ones. They save lives. IF you dont make peopel wear their seat belts...they wont ..same with helmets and then disaster happens.....
What about personal responsibility? If I don't wear my helmet or seatbelt, who else suffers? It should be my right to splatter myself all over the road or my car's cabin if that's what I want to do.
Heath
-
Q451990
- Moderator
- Posts: 11030
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 8:21 am
- Car: 1990 Q45 - 118K, 2022 Toyota 4 Runner, 2004 Frontier M/T - 108K, 2012 Xterra (Mom's), 2023 Rogue (Inlaws)
- Location: Columbia, SC
- Contact:
juiceman wrote:it is our elected governments job to protect us fromourselves.If you do not like laws, elect people who will support your views. With laws individuality is not lost, lives are gained
I'll refrain from going into this more to keep this thread from becoming a discussion on politics. We could debate the major differences we have in this country about personal responsibility, the correct role of government, and liberty ad nausium.
Heath
Ok, the article is talking about cost to fix, not safety. Just because it costs a **** load of money to fix, doesn't mean that the car is not safe. The article doesn't mention, if the passengers in the car would be harmed, I am guessing not because the speeds were fairly low, but I don't care much about the cost of repair as long as the car is safe. From what I have read in the past, Infiniti's are fairly safe cars. I have front and side airbags in my G and I feel safe in the car. And even if the car isn't safe, oh well, not much I can do about it, excpet buy a new car and that is not likely to happen. I hate these reports. If you get in an accident, it is going to cost money to fix your car. I'll let the insurance comapny take care of it.
-
greg_atlanta
- Posts: 1111
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 4:37 pm
- Car: 2008 G35 Journey Sedan, silver/black (no sunroof), 1992 Q45 (in a past life)
Q451990 wrote:If I don't wear my helmet or seatbelt, who else suffers? It should be my right to splatter myself all over the road or my car's cabin if that's what I want to do.
Everybody who pays for insurance suffers since no seatbelts or no helmets increases the average cost of injuries in accidents. Insurance rates go up if accident payouts are larger.
People are a lot more expensive than cars, esp. with long term debilitating injuries.
I say anyone who is horribly injured in an auto accident who was not wearing a seatbelt should be put out of their misery on the spot.
:uzi
-
Jeff Williams
- Posts: 3394
- Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2002 4:17 am
- Car: 1994 Infiniti Q45t
2000 Infiniti I30t
2004 Infiniti M45
71, 72, 73, 82 & 2000 Corvettes - Contact:
The only good these stupid reports do, is raise already rediculously high insurance rates.
Laws aren't made to protect individuals, but the masses from the individual. If you drive drunk on your motorcycle, while talking on the cell phone, and run a red light. The helmet will allow you to live long enought to pay your debt to society. It's that simple.
Laws aren't made to protect individuals, but the masses from the individual. If you drive drunk on your motorcycle, while talking on the cell phone, and run a red light. The helmet will allow you to live long enought to pay your debt to society. It's that simple.
-
maxnix
- Posts: 22627
- Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2002 8:11 pm
- Car: 1995 Infiniti Q45
1995 Infiniti Q45t
2000 Infiniti Q45
Here is modern Civics 101 in one paragraph.Jeff Williams wrote:Laws aren't made to protect individuals, but the masses from the individual. If you drive drunk on your motorcycle, while talking on the cell phone, and run a red light. The helmet will allow you to live long enought to pay your debt to society. It's that simple.