IIHS Tests G6 In 6MPH Fender Bender; $ 4,588 To Repair

[Perian]

Link: http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/01/auto...ce=yahoo_quote

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- A new series of low-speed crash test shows that fender benders can be wallet busters.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has released cost estimates for the kind of low-speed accident that can happen in a parking lot or commuter traffic, when cars are traveling 6 miles per hour.

It found only three midsize cars - the Mitsubishi Galant, Toyota Camry, and Mazda 6 - came away with damage of $1,500 or less from each of the four crash tests that checked for damage from front, rear, front corner and rear corner collisions. The Institute tested 17 midsize cars in the low-speed test.

Meanwhile, four vehicles saw damage of $4,000 or more from a low-speed front-end collision. The Volkswagen Passat had the most expensive repair bill at $4,594, followed by the Pontiac G6 from General Motors, which cost $4,588 to fix. Next was the Nissan Maxima with $4,535 in damage, and the Hyundai Sonata, which ended up with a $4,312 repair bill.

Styling influences performance: The performances of three cars show how front-end styling can influence the amount and cost of damage that occurs in low-speed crashes. The AURA, G6, and Malibu are all General Motors cars built on the same platform. So they're similar cars, but the cost of repairing them isn't the same. The G6's front end slopes more, and its front bumper bar is lower than those on the other two cars. The result was that the G6's bumper didn't stay engaged with the barrier during the full-width test. Instead it slid down and under the barrier. Damage including a crumpled hood, buckled fenders, broken headlights, and a bent air conditioning condenser cost four times as much to fix as damage to the Malibu or AURA. On top of this, the G6's front unibody had to be straightened out. The bill for all of this topped $4,500.

Lund explains that automakers "don't have to sacrifice car style for function. There's empty space under the covers of the bumpers on all three of these cars that could be used to put in energy-absorbing materials. Engineers also could make bumper bars taller and extend them farther out to the corners of the car without changing the front-end styling."


To demonstrate that, it included a 1981 Escort from Ford Motor in the test, and it had by far the lowest repair costs. The front corner and rear corner crashes produced no damage, and the cost to repair the front accident was only $86, while the rear collision repair bill came to $383.

Bumper performance in low-speed crash tests:

VEHICLE REPAIR COSTS
Front full /Front corner/Rear full/Rear corner/TOTAL DAMAGE

Mitsubishi Galant $929 $1,138 $1,048 $1,162 $4,277
Toyota Camry $936 $1,467 $1,480 $1,028 $4,911
Mazda 6 $978 $1,384 $1,202 $1,397 $4,961
Ford Fusion $1,620 $991 $1,298 $1,121 $5,030
Volvo S40 $2,252 $1,306 $802 $1,240 $5,600
Kia Optima $1,730 $1,534 $1,715 $756 $5,735
Saturn AURA $1,032 $1,152 $3,191 $999 $6,374
Nissan Altima $945 $969 $3,114 $1,431 $6,459
Chevrolet Malibu $1,268 $1,610 $2,542 $1,226 $6,646
Subaru Legacy $3,911 $1,287 $1,122 $1,128 $7,448
Chrysler Sebring $1,084 $2,061 $3,210 $1,099 $7,454
Hyundai Sonata $4,312 $1,349 $739 $1,165 $7,565
Honda Accord $3,469 $1,169 $2,767 $605 $8,010
Volkswagen Passat $4,594 $1,544 $982 $1,139 $8,259
Pontiac G6 $4,588 $1,183 $1,638 $1,510 $8,919
Volkswagen Jetta $2,598 $1,223 $3,375 $1,824 $9,020
Nissan Maxima $4,535 $1,732 $1,787 $997 $9,051
1981 Ford Escort $86 $0 $383 $0 $469

Note: Sonata repair costs reflect reduced parts pricing, effective Jan. 2007


More at link. More to follow.

[Perian]

These are shocking figures.

How is this performance possible in this day and age?

[69Firebird400]

Originally Posted by Perian

These are shocking figures.

How is this performance possible in this day and age?

Two things.

First, the requirement for bumper protection is 2.5 mph, not 6 mph. The IIHS is testing these cars at 2.4 times the mandated speed. Whether 2.5 mph is a sufficient standard, I don't know - but these cars could very well still be meeting the standard even if they fail at 6 mph.

Second, cars are designed today with much more focus on occupant protection than on hood or fender protection. Those parts are designed to crumple and bend so that they absorb crash energy before it reaches the passenger compartment. Personally, I'd feel exponentially safer in a new G6 (or any of the above cars, for that matter) than I would in a 1981 Escort. This is the price we pay for cars that are more likely to protect us.

Also, it's a little scary to think about what cars would look like if the IIHS had its say into their styling and engineering. My 1993 Achieva SCX had 5 mph bumpers, and they were ugly - not integrated at all and really stuck out far past the rest of the car.

[Old Dood]

First, the requirement for bumper protection is 2.5 mph, not 6 mph. The IIHS is testing these cars at 2.4 times the mandated speed. Whether 2.5 mph is a sufficient standard, I don't know - but these cars could very well still be meeting the standard even if they fail at 6 mph.

Exactly...What happened to 5mph bumpers? Those went away a couple of decades ago. We need to have those reinstated again.

2.5mph is a total joke...

It is not a funny joke either when it comes to paying insurance rates...

[ponchoman49]

Aside from the sloping front end styling, I smell more cost cutting going on here again. Quote: "There's empty space under the covers of the bumpers on all three of these cars that could be used to put in energy-absorbing materials. Engineers also could make bumper bars taller and extend them farther out to the corners of the car without changing the front-end styling." 5 MPH bumpers should be reinstated across the board, never mind madatory rear camaras!

[nascarnate326]

This is nuts. This is also a reason why insurance rates are so high.
Of course the Toyota one of the least expensive to fix.........
GM, take notes! New Malibu should less then 5 grand to fix!

[cmutt]

Mfrs are in a catch-22 on an issue like this:

In the event of a collision, cars are expected to: (a) keep repair costs low, and (b) absorb as much energy as possible. Those two items don't necessarily agree with each other. Can it be done? Absolutely: 3 cars on that list showed you it could be done.

As the owner of a G6, I can tell you that I'm not much worried about it: I pay insurance - and they cover the costs of the repair. If they think the G6 is significantly more expensive to cover, then I'll pay an increased rate for insurance.. but the G6 is right along with the bulk of the auto's tested: $4k to repair. Only 3 did well.. so it's more likely that an auto ins. company would give a discount to those three models as opposed to imposing a premium on the bulk of the sedans they cover.. except, I have a hard time believing that *any* insurance company would give you much of a discount for something like this.. which means that in the grand scheme of things, this probably wouldn't affect you, me, or anybody else.

[likearock00]

I agree that GM needs to do better with this. At the same time, I don't think out of all the vehicles tested, the GM threesome needed to be singled out and made an example of.

[PontiacBixler]

So why is the Aura so much less to repair than the G6??? Are you going to tell me that when the new Malibu comes out that it will be a different cost?

I would think that since they are pretty much the same car under the skin, their costs would be somewhere in the same ball park at least...

[espo19047]

Just single out GM? More piling on. The Nissan was $53.00 less and the Hyundai around $300. less. The VW was the most expensive yet they spend a whole paragraph on the Pontiac. It is more important to ask how does the driver come out of the crash?

[theVengineguy]

Well, lets see, 1981 crash standards vs. 2008 Standards? IIHS is just full of crap, they keep saying you need more crumple zones to absorb energy, and at the same time they pull this. What rating would a 1981 escort get on todays standards? IIHS=****************

[VibenPontiac]

Well sloping hoods will do that. I wrecked my Vibe a year and a half ago. I was going about 10 mph (the airbags didn't even go off) when I hit the guy - total bill - over $13,000 and a write off of a 21 month old car.

[1G6]

Cars look wussy and less substantial without massive chrome bumpers — because they are. Friggin' unibodies ...

[Old Dood]

Originally Posted by Mags

The point the article is making is that swoopy bodywork may lead to higher repair costs. It's as simple as that. The G6 is noted because it's the most styled of the Epsilons, and it has the worst costs after the testing of the three.

MF

That is exactly that right there. It goes under the crash test "thing". Where the Aura is higher up. It amazes me how expensive insurance is. My 2000 Buick is still pretty pricey for insurance. I still pay Full Broad Collision on it. This is with zero points and a excellent Credit Score (This just burns my shorts that is even included in our insurance premiums).

[ByTheLake]

Originally Posted by Old Dood

2.5mph is a total joke...

It is not a funny joke either when it comes to paying insurance rates...

My thoughts exactly. How many impacts occur at 2.5 MPH? I can only imagine that insurance rates will be outrageous for cars that cost $4500 to fix when hitting a barrier at 6 MPH. Would the damage be even higher at an astronomical 8 MPH?