News Flash: Luxury cars are expensive to fix

[Matt_S]

Link to article.

The IIHS is at it again. I'll reserve comment for now as I want to see if I'm the only one who thinks the way I do, but what do you all think about the methodology of this testing? The article includes a video of the actual tests.

 

[Lonnie]

A neighbor got into a bumper bender with a Mercedes sedan and the fix with over $15k. The bumper caved from hitting a vertical pipe on the right front corner in a parking lot at a very slow speed while parking, and even the head light on the opposite side broke. The car was drivabe and the damage looked minor. Now that the car is repaird it pulls to one side, has a shake at freeway speeds, overheats and has been back to the shop several times. These fancy crumple zones protect the driver but damage the pocket book even at very slow speeds.

 

[Quattro Pete]

FYI, the high costs to repair are already reflected in higher insurance rates for these cars. Although with insurance, it's like this: if you can afford an expensive car, then you surely can afford to pay good money for insurance, so we'll charge you accordingly. Same goes if you take such a car to a repair facility.

But for comparison purposes, how much are the average repair costs in such crash tests? How much are the repair costs for cars like Accord, Taurus, Camry, Malibu, etc.?

 

[CBDFrontier06]

Unfortunately, substance often takes a back seat to style so something has to be sacrificed with these 'european' style abbreviated bumpers that have become all the rage with automakers. Some cars don't even seem to have bumpers at all, as is the case with the Chrysler 300 and all Audis where the grille is the first point of contact when you hit something. It may look good (to some) but how much sense does that really make? I realize there's a bumper bar underneath, but where's the cosmetic protection?

I don't think the lab tests are a completely accurate depiction of what real world cars experience in parking lots or at intersections, but how real-world can controlled tests really be?

Automakers have made great strides in creating protective cocoons that protect occupants from horrible impacts, but the issue of high dollar damage that occurs on smaller fender benders seems to have been put on the back burner. I find myself hoping that if I'm ever hit or ---- forbid I hit something, the car is totalled...and this is because cosmetic repairs have become so expensive that insurance companies endorse the cheapest methods and materials possible to get you back to square one, and when you're as picky as I am, the car never looks quite the same to you again.

 

[eljefino]

Society pays too, because even if one has liability only insurance they look at the average price to fix an average wreck when they set their actuarial tables.

So because some yuppie buys a 4-wheeled Faberge egg and zips around on highways that are known to be hazardous to bodywork, the rest of us are expected to keep his car looking perfect.

Not that I'm against stepping up if I'm at fault in an accident, but these tinfoil fenders are like bringing china to a bull shop.

One thing, IMO, that consumer reports does right, is bumper tests. They observed in the early 80's when the 5 mph bumper requirement was repealed that volkswagen immediately weakened their rabbit's bumpers. I still remember this when I shop for cars, and leave VW low on the list.

 

[Papa Bear]

Cars should have adequate steel bumpers !!
The fact that we are putting up with the flimsy k_rap that we are is ...
.....never mind, I don't want to talk about it.

I'm sometimes sorry I'm old enough to remember "good common sense".

 

[mstrjon32]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ljuzDjf7q0 at 4:50.

How it should be. I want to be able to plow ignorantly into things and not damage the car. Pedestrian safety ratings be ****ed!

 

[CBDFrontier06]

Perfect setting for that commercial....one boat among several other boats.

 

[mstrjon32]

They didn't call them the boattail for nothing!

 

[eliminator]

Quote:

---

Cars should have adequate steel bumpers !!
The fact that we are putting up with the flimsy k_rap that we are is ...
.....never mind, I don't want to talk about it.

I'm sometimes sorry I'm old enough to remember "good common sense".

---

By "common sense", do you mean that we shouldn't randomly drive into things?

If we all had common sense, cars wouldn't need bumpers at all.

 

[Matt_S]

Maybe I am the only one.

Did anyone else notice that the way they set up their simulated bumper pretty much guaranteed that the car would dive underneath it and bear the brunt of the impact on the grill, headlights and sometimes the hood? I find their simulation to be distinctly lacking in fairness and in simulating real world conditions.

 

[CBDFrontier06]

If you notice, the case with a LOT of new cars is that the front bumper is lower to the ground than the rear. Since my sister had this exact thing happen to her (she rear-ended a Camry in her 89 Corolla SR-5 coupe) her car dove straight under, sparing her bumper but ruining everything above it. I don't think it's that far fetched.

 

[Carmudgeon]

Run the same tests on less-expensive cars, and there will likely be just as much damage. They just won't cost as much to fix because the parts will be cheaper, and things like HID headlights may not have to be replaced.

Sure, big steel bumpers protect better, but come at the expense of extra weight, and to the detriment of aerodynamics (and fuel efficiency). That weight has been reallocated to the luxuries that people who treat their cars as living spaces demand, and to the extra electronics to save their behinds when they overreach beyond their poor driving skills. Modern cars are heavy enough as it is.

And the IIHS isn't an entirely impartial organization, is it? At least CR can claim to be impartial.

If the IIHS, and the fear-mongering organizations headed by Ditlow, Claybrook and the like were truly concerned about public safety, they'd tackle the real problem -- the woeful driver education system in this country that turns out millions of drivers who have borderline competence and not real driving skill, either physically or mentally. Instead they attack the symptoms and the not the disease.

 

[moribundman]

Bring on those wussie cars with integrated bumpers. This is me with my next car:

 

[Tosh]

Quote:

---

Maybe I am the only one.

Did anyone else notice that the way they set up their simulated bumper pretty much guaranteed that the car would dive underneath it and bear the brunt of the impact on the grill, headlights and sometimes the hood? I find their simulation to be distinctly lacking in fairness and in simulating real world conditions.

---

It sounded like the point of the test was to bump into an SUV bumper, so the height appeared right. And the cars they tested were all doinked against it in the same way at the same speed, so that seemed fair enough.
I don't think you can have your cake and eat it: good occupant protection requires that every part is designed for energy absorption, starting at the bumper. If you wanted indestructible bumpers, cars would need to be even longer and heavier.
I think the point is that bumpers need to be at the right height for what you hit. So truck and SUV bumpers need to be lower. (and bring back the 5mph bumper requirement)

 

[Matt_S]

Quote:

---

And the IIHS isn't an entirely impartial organization, is it? At least CR can claim to be impartial.

---

The IIHS is funded by insurance companies. Their agenda is to reduce insurance costs, so it makes sense that they'd make the results of any test appear to cost as much as possible to fix in order to try to get the manufacturers to change the vehicles to reduce repair cost. I actually hadn't though about it that way before, but that does make total sense. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Quote:

---

The IIHS is funded by insurance companies. Their agenda is to reduce insurance costs, so it makes sense that they'd make the results of any test appear to cost as much as possible to fix in order to try to get the manufacturers to change the vehicles to reduce repair cost.

---

That may be a distant byproduct. The more important reason, IMO, would be to justify why they have to raise your insurance premiums.

 

[ARB1977]

Thats nothing new.

 

[mstrjon32]

Quote:

---

Sure, big steel bumpers protect better, but come at the expense of extra weight, and to the detriment of aerodynamics (and fuel efficiency).

---

I was never a fan of lightweight, aerodynamic cars anyway. Give me a big old barge with a velour interior and an 8 liter engine. Drop the cost of gas to $0.20 a gallon while you're at it.

 

[Kestas]

Oooooh, velour!... that's why I like my 91 Grand Marquis.