Poor Showing for Passenger Vans In First Set of 5MPH Crash Tests
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Janua 8, 199'4
Poor Showing for Passenger Vans
In First Set of 5 MPH Crash Tests
Mazda MPV Is Worst Among Vans Tested,
But None of Seven Models Warrants Praise
After crash tests conducted _at the low speed
of 5 mph, one 1994 -model passenger van
couldn't be driven. Another sustained serious
safety-related damage. In fact, six af the sev.en
vans tested sustained some degree of clamag:e
to safety-related parts including lights.
Then there are the repair CQsts, which are
budget busters. All seven models tested in the
Institute's series or four impacts at 5mph sus-
tained damage costing thousands of dollars to
repair (see table, p.3). Even the van with the
lowest tetal sustained nearly $.2,000 worth of
damage, while the wor,st van tested sustained
more than $7,500 in damage.
This is the first year the Institute has eon-
ducted low-speed crash tests involving passen-
ger vans, often called minivans. The four tests
.are front- and rear-into-f1at-barrier, front-into-
-anglr:barrier, and rear-into-pole.
"'These are sOIry results, to say the least,"
says fnstitute President Brian O'Neill. "They
show what manufacturers do with bumper de-
signs when th ey1 re left on their own. They pay
no attention to what should be the basic
bumper function, which is preventing damage in
minor impacts." THe federal bumper standard
that applie~ to cars doesn't
2-DHS tatus Report, VoL 29, o. 1, January • 1994
The Mazda couldn't be driven after Into-pole te t and couldn't be closed front-in to-angle-barrier test. all of the
the 5 mph front-into-angle-barrier test. Its again. Thi i a safety hazard because an Trans port' front lights on the side of
bumper was pushed back against the unlatched door can allow the intrusion of the impact were damaged.
plastic fender liner which, In tum, was carbon monoxide into the passenger com- Reasons for So Much Damage: The
pushed again t the tire. partment and, worse; it can allow occu- bumpers on many of the vans tested dif-
"This is th first time in memory we've pant ejection. The atlonal Highway Traf- fer from tho e on many cars in terms of
had a vehjcle that couldn't be driven after tic afety dministration has opened a their composition. ost passenger cars
a 5 mph crash test" 0 fill sa . The insti- preliminary e a1uation of this problem fol- have bumpers with molded plastic c.over
tute has tested hundreds of chicles dur- lowing a report of a side impact in which over reinforcement bars and energy-
ing the last 25 years of low- peed crash two chiJdren ere ejected through the absorbing materials like polypropylene
testing, and "the. azda 5 bumpers are def- tailgate that came unlatched. foam. The better car bumpers often have
initely among the worst performers." The tailgates on the Mazda MPVand hydraulic shock absorbers instead of or
No Van Worth Calling Best: Even the Toyota Previa Jammed in the rear-into- in addition to, the foam.
passenger van that performed best didn't pole test and couldn't be opened. Other New-ear bumpers don't do as good a
how particularly well. The Nissan Quest safety-related damage included lots of brC}- Job as they easily could of reducing dam-
ustained a oral of I, 62 damage. lead- ken lights. For example, the Pontiac Trans age in low-speed impacts, but they do
ing 0' eill to no e that being called 'the port sustained a broken headlight in the function generally better than the buml\o
b t doe n', mean much among thi front-inlo-flat-barrier impact and in the ers on the vans tested b (cont'd on pA)
group of vehicl . The bumpers on all
'en passenger ans allowed much more
damage than they should hav
For example, only one van sustained
no damage in one of the 5 mph tests -
the Quest In the rear-into-barrier impact.
"This is one of the simplest tests," 0 Neill
e. plain. All seven pas enger vans
hould haY performed without any dam-
age in both Oat-barrier tests, but only one
van did 0 in one of the test .~
to of e -Related Damage: The
worst damage to a safety-re1ated part in-
volved the 1994 Dodge Grand Caravan s
tailgate, which came unll\tched in the rear-
DRS Statu Report, Vol. 29, No. I, January 8. 1994-3
Nobody Has Been Looking, So Manufacturers Neglect Damage Resistance;
Wha 's Needed Is an Effective Bumper Standard for All Passenger Vehicles
When It comes to the bumper sys- pay some attention to the damage resis- (see "Poor ShOWing for Passenger Vans,"
tems on passenger vans, nobody has tance car bumpers provide. p.l). At least some manufacturers are
been looking over the shoulders of man- Not so for vans. Neither strong nor trying for damage resistance when it
ufacturers to make sure they pay atten- weak federal bumper requirements have comes to car bumpers but 0 Neill con-
tion to damage resistance in low-speed ever applied to passenger vans even tinue , ~not van bumpers. You can hit
impa ts. 0 minimum lederal tandard though they're used just like cars and omething at a mere 5 mph in a van and
c er the bumpers on these vehicles. have grown a lot in popularity among ustain much more expensive-to-repair
Au omobile bumper requirements - buyers. Passenger vans accounted for on- damage than in a typical car. Our lat t
eak as they are - don'L apply to vans. ly about 2 percent of total car sales in low-speed crash tests indicate thi i the
19 but, by 1992, more than lout of rule. not the exception.~
. federal tandard requires bumpers
to eep damage a ay from car bodi In every lO buyer chose to purchase a van. 01 the Institute s crash test re-
2.5 mph front- and rear-into-nat-barrier "Because nobody ha been looking," sults plu public pressure can influence
impact. Damage is allowed to the explains Institute Pr ident Brian manufacturers passenger vans will con-
bump r Itself. These requirements are 0' eill, "the manufacturers of most of tinue to be equipped with weaker
much weaker than the strong 5 mph no- the vans the Institute tested apparently bumper than the ODes on most cars.
damage bumper rule that was in effect haven't made any effort to ensure that "What's needed is a uniform and effec-
during the 1980-82 model years. till, the the bumpers on these vehicles do what tive federal bumper standard for cars as
current bumper standard is better than theylre supposed to do, which is bump well as other kinds of passenger vehi-
nothing. It means manuiacturers have to without damage in low-speed impacts" cles," O'Neill concludes.
.f-/)HSStat11S RepQrt Val. 29, No.}' Jlmuary 8, 1994
(cont'd from p.l) the Institute,. The dfffer- Rear·toto-Pole Test Results: In this testl every single
ence is that, while the vans have plastic van sustained more tban $.1,00'0 damage. The Mazda MPV
bnmper covers sfmilay. to fudse on cars. pedormed worst, sustaining mme than three times this
itls Qfteq a different story undeweath. amllon:t,of damage. C(mtrlbutingto the Mazda's 3,179 re-
For example~ the Mazda MPV has a pair total was its tailgate reguiring repla~t at a cost
front bumper withQut a reinforc~ment bar,
which shauld be one Ql the mlrlnstays In
keeping crash energy from damaging, fend-
ers and other body parts. Nor is there any
energy-abs:o.ibing material like feam un-
derneath th'e Mazda's front or rear
bumper C()vers. "No wonder this van was
the worst performer," O'Neill ebs-erves.
"No wonder there was SQ much structural
damage. Ther.e wasn't anythin-g in the
bumper system to k~p the ener~ of the
impact away frO)TI. the van's body.
Tn c.ontlast, the two vans that sus-
tqined the least damage in the Institute's
tests, the Nissan Quest and Oldsmobile
Silhouefte, are equipped with both rem-
f0rcement pars an.d Dydraulic energy ab-
sorbers. Tne laUer, which compress and
bQJlno te absorb 97a5h epergy are also
'found on many @f the passenger cars that
perform besUn low-speed crash tests.
Rat·8(uTier Test Results: The I~st de-
manding of the four Institute test'S at
S mph ar~ the front- and te,ar-into-flat-
bamer impa-cts. These snread the force:of
the impact evenly across the wh.oJe front
or rear of a vehicle lreing1ested instead Of
IQcalizing the for~e. Stin, none of the sev-
en vans tested withstood 'the front-into-
flat-batrier tes.t wfthQut damage and only
one, the Quest, sustainea. no damage in
tberear..iDto-flat·barrier test.
Five of the S'fven vans teSted - alll)ut
the Quest and Silhouette - sustamed
damage beyond ttIe bumper system jn tbe
froilt-into-flatcbarrie.r t~~t. The highest re"-
pair tlltal wa.s $l,:t36 lor the Pontiac
Trans Sport. Damage totaled well over
$1,000 in the rear-into-flat-barrieJ: test for
the Mazda MPV and nearly $1,000 fer the
Toyota Previa. The PJ:evia sustained not of 723 for the part alone. Tailgates on the Toy ta Previa
only- ~tructural damage - the entire t1l,il· and Dodge Caravan would also nav.e to be replaced Even
gat-e' was forced out of line - but also when tailgates could be salvaged. repair co ts would be
enough dam~e to the bumper syslw1 to high. For example repairing this part on the Chevrolet Lu-
r{}qulre i'ts replacement. mina and Pontia~ Trans Sport after the rear-into-pole test
.f-/)HSStat11S RepQrt Val. 29, No.}' Jlmuary 8, 1994
(cont'd from p.l) the Institute,. The dfffer- Rear·toto-Pole Test Results: In this testl every single
ence is that, while the vans have plastic van sustained more tban $.1,00'0 damage. The Mazda MPV
bnmper covers sfmilay. to fudse on cars. pedormed worst, sustaining mme than three times this
itls Qfteq a different story undeweath. amllon:t,of damage. C(mtrlbutingto the Mazda's 3,179 re-
For example~ the Mazda MPV has a pair total was its tailgate reguiring repla~t at a cost
front bumper withQut a reinforc~ment bar,
which shauld be one Ql the mlrlnstays In
keeping crash energy from damaging, fend-
ers and other body parts. Nor is there any
energy-abs:o.ibing material like feam un-
derneath th'e Mazda's front or rear
bumper C()vers. "No wonder this van was
the worst performer," O'Neill ebs-erves.
"No wonder there was SQ much structural
damage. Ther.e wasn't anythin-g in the
bumper system to k~p the ener~ of the
impact away frO)TI. the van's body.
Tn c.ontlast, the two vans that sus-
tqined the least damage in the Institute's
tests, the Nissan Quest and Oldsmobile
Silhouefte, are equipped with both rem-
f0rcement pars an.d Dydraulic energy ab-
sorbers. Tne laUer, which compress and
bQJlno te absorb 97a5h epergy are also
'found on many @f the passenger cars that
perform besUn low-speed crash tests.
Rat·8(uTier Test Results: The I~st de-
manding of the four Institute test'S at
S mph ar~ the front- and te,ar-into-flat-
bamer impa-cts. These snread the force:of
the impact evenly across the wh.oJe front
or rear of a vehicle lreing1ested instead Of
IQcalizing the for~e. Stin, none of the sev-
en vans tested withstood 'the front-into-
flat-batrier tes.t wfthQut damage and only
one, the Quest, sustainea. no damage in
tberear..iDto-flat·barrier test.
Five of the S'fven vans teSted - alll)ut
the Quest and Silhouette - sustamed
damage beyond ttIe bumper system jn tbe
froilt-into-flatcbarrie.r t~~t. The highest re"-
pair tlltal wa.s $l,:t36 lor the Pontiac
Trans Sport. Damage totaled well over
$1,000 in the rear-into-flat-barrieJ: test for
the Mazda MPV and nearly $1,000 fer the
Toyota Previa. The PJ:evia sustained not of 723 for the part alone. Tailgates on the Toy ta Previa
only- ~tructural damage - the entire t1l,il· and Dodge Caravan would also nav.e to be replaced Even
gat-e' was forced out of line - but also when tailgates could be salvaged. repair co ts would be
enough dam~e to the bumper syslw1 to high. For example repairing this part on the Chevrolet Lu-
r{}qulre i'ts replacement. mina and Pontia~ Trans Sport after the rear-into-pole test
6-/lHS Statm Report, Vol. 29. 0. I, January /994
tam victory f r safer highways: The ban to travel at c si e speeds - 10 mph
Finall Bans takes effect earl thi . ear. and faster. tudies conducted Ince the
ar De ector Use in The even organizations that joined 1990 petillon upport these findings.
th Institute In the 1990 petition were the
Commercial ehicles Advocates for Highway and Auto afety,
The ban announced by FHWA in De-
cember doesn't require states to estab-
Late last month! the Federal Highway American Automobile Association, Ameri- lish immediate penalties against drivers
Administration (FHWA) announced a ban can Tru,cklng Associations, International using illegal radar detectors. ijWe do ex-
on radar detector use in commercial vehi- Association of Chief of Police, ational pect states to set effective penalties and
cles involved In interstate commerce. The Association of Governors Highway afeLy join FHWA In enforcement" 0' eiJI says.
d Ision"is long overdue," says Institute Representativ . ational afety Council The agency gives federal per onnel the
Pc idem Brian 0' eill He points to aJul and Public Citizen, author! to penalize drivers up to 1000
I petition for a ban from eight groups upporting he petition was a tud {or violating the ban.
including the lnstitut ( atus Report. bowing that big truck rig • including Banning radar detector use I pedal-
V I. 5, 0.7. ug. I J, 1990. those hauling hazardous cargo. are the Iy important in big truck rigs" High speed
It t FHw. mor than three years to most likel vehicles on the road to have increases the chance of a Clash and. when
d thi ~ O' eiJI adds, but now radar de- radar detector in use. Further research crashes involve tractor-trailers, the results
tee or use finally will be banned in the indicated that trucks with radar detectors can be catastrophic for other motorists be-
bigge t vehicles on the road - an impor- are more likely than trucks without them cause of the truck rigs size and weight
URodney Slater deserves a lot of credit
for taking this step," O'Neill says of the new
FHWA administrator. "Manufacturers of
radar detectors have lobbied aggressively
against banning the use of their products,
which has kept a ban from happening soon-
er. But r. later bad the courag to do
what's In the best interest of high ay safe-
ty, despite the pressure, and we commend
him. Too bad there isn"t a ban on radar de-
tectors In all vebicles on U. . roads, as is
the case in many other countries."
Radar detector use. is already banned
in all vehicles traveling in the District of
Columbia and Virginia. Bans al 0 cover
big truck rigs in New York and IlJlnois.
When the new FHWA rule take effect,
radar detector use wiIJ be prohibited
across the country in commercial vehicles
involved In Interstate travel.
/1HS Status Report, Vol. 29, No.1, January 8, /994-7
Injury Control Expert to Fill Top NHTSA Post Highway and Auto Safety and as a mem-
ber of the advisory board of the Johns
Hart Plucked for Number Two Slot, While Reagle Moves to FHWA Hopkins Unive-rslty Injury Prevention
'Center. He has presented a
An emergency physician number of lectures and
With enensive background written numerous articles
in injury control and auto- fm scientific j-ournals on
motive medicine will be autQmQbiJe-r~lated sub-
nominated to run lh'e Na:- jects induding, for exam-
tional Highway Trallie Safety ple, the biomechanics of
Administration (NIffSA), motor vehicle injuries.
Ricardo Martinez is ex-
''We in the highwa;t safe-
pected to take the helm at
NHTSA at a time when re- ty community weJcome
some{)ne with Dr. Mar-
dUCing health care costs
which include the high costs tinez's extensive back-
of motor vehicle crash in- ground" s,ays Institute
juries, is a national priortty. President Brian O'Neill.
Dr. Martinez "understands "Too often, the person cho-
tnat one of the easiest and sen to lead NHJSA knows
most efficient ways t-o re- little about toe highway
duce health care Gosts is to safety field. 1t can take
promote safety Improv,e- months to get up to speed.
ments and responsible driv- But we're. fortunate this
ing" say'S U.S. Setretary of time around, because Dr.
Transportation Federico Martine.z has such solid
Pena in remarks on the Pres- grounding in our field and
ident's announced plan to will be able to move for-
nominate Dr. Martinez. ward very quickly on sev-
eral important fronts."
Public Health Expe:r-
lise: The new NHTSA nomi- Other Appointments:'
nee is presentIy the Associ· Another new face for the
ate Director af Em-ory Uni- top echelon at NHTSA is
versity's Center for Injury Christopher Hart. Already
Control in Atlanta. Dr. Mar- named the agency's Acting
tinez is also an Associate Deputy Administrator; Hart
Profe sor Qf Emergency is expected to fHl this posi-
Medicine focusing on motor tion permanently. Amem-
vehicle crash injuries and ber of the National Trans-
trauma care systems. He describes his he believes very strongly that "highway portation Safety Board (NTSB) from Au-
mission at Emory University as "educat- safety is an important public health issue." gust 1990 until 1993, Hart is a lawyer as
ing doctors about motor vebicle crashes Dr. Martinez's nomination had been ru- well as an airplane pilot with a masterls
- how they occur, what kind of injuries mored 1m months before President Clin- degree illaerospace engineering.
to expect ... and then also what they can ton 1s Decemb~r announcement of the in- Meantime, a key NTSB official has
do in the way Qf prevention." Prior to as.- tent to name him. (See Status Report, Vol. moved to the Federal Highway Adminis-
suming the Emory post, Dr. Martinez 28', No. 10, Aug. 21, 1993.) tration: (FHWA). George Reagle, Director
served as an emergenq physielan at During 1989-90, Or. Martin~ complet- .of NTSB's Offiee of Suriace Transporta-
Stanford University Hespftal ed a fellowsbip at the University 'of Birm- tion, took over as Associate Administra-
On prosp~ts oj his new position In ingham (England) Center for Automotiv~ tor for MotOI Caniers at FHWA on De-
Washington, Dr. Martinez says hefs "-excit- Engineering. He has alSG served on tbe cember 20. Before his TSB stint" Reagle
ed about the opportunities." He adds that Board of Directors of the Advocates for was a senior official at HTSA.
Vol. 29, No. I, January 8, 1994 On The Inside 1.ooHpeed mob ........... show sev· en 1994 passenger vans with bumpers that allow way too much damage p.l fedenI ......... _ for vans aod cars should be uniform. effective.......p.3 ~ SUItoeette', bumpers out· perform bumpers on two other General .Motors \'aJ1S _w._....._._._.._.._._.__.p.5 Radar ddedon are buHd in com- mertiaI ""hides more than three years after action was u'll
You can also read
