Who saw this? They weren't thrilled with the TL.


Even worse, the showed the TSX under bumper setup, and the IIHS claim that Acura stuffed padding right in the center, so it could pass the center pole test. The Institute, therefore, did the test off-center.

The TSX got a "poor" The letter from Acura said it the bumper wasn't purposefully stuffed.





Dateline:
But what about the Acura TL? Does the $33,000 car have a better bumper?

“It may not look too bad,” says Lund, “but the big problem is that the bumper system underneath this is badly damaged.”

It was so badly damaged, it will cost $1,381 to fix. So the expensive Acura TL only gets a “marginal.”

______________________________________________


Acura tried to outsmart it by inserting extra padding in the bumper right where the test pole normally hits.

The test produces $1,559 in damage, with $1,269 for the front angle test. The Acura TSX gets a “poor.”

All in all, there were no “good” ratings this time around, just one acceptable, three marginals and two poors.

Manufacturers of the cars tested say the institute's tests is not related to safety and their cars meet or exceed all federal standards for bumpers.

And what about what the Institute calls strategically placed padding in the ACURA TSX's bumper? Acura writes "there is absolutely no merit to the suggestion that padding was applied to the TSX bumpers simply to influence the IIHS test results."

“This isn't brain surgery,” says Lund. “Manufacturers know how to build better bumpers.”

In fact, the Institute says the least expensive car in this round -- the $19,000 Mitsubishi Galant -- has better bumpers than the more expensive cars.

“How much you pay for the car doesn't indicate how good your bumpers are going to be,” says Lund.

Manufacturers of the cars tested say the institute's tests is not related to safety and their cars meet or exceed all federal standards for bumpers.

And what about what the Institute calls strategically placed padding in the ACURA TSX's bumper? Acura writes "there is absolutely no merit to the suggestion that padding was applied to the TSX bumpers simply to influence the IIHS test results."

“This isn't brain surgery,” says Lund. “Manufacturers know how to build better bumpers.”

In fact, the Institute says the least expensive car in this round -- the $19,000 Mitsubishi Galant -- has better bumpers than the more expensive cars.

“How much you pay for the car doesn't indicate how good your bumpers are going to be,” says Lund.

 

Honestly, I am not sure that I put much weight into these tests. Yes it shows how much damage when you happen to hit a pole dead center going backwards at 5mph. I donno about you, but I usually don't back up dead center into a pole at 5mph.

The tests that interest me more are the off center frontal impacts as there are LOTS of morons on the road these days.

 

Bumper-bashing tests are stupid!

 

I agree. If bumpers are your thing then buy the Galant!!

These 'news magazines' that do these tests are a bunch of idiots. They conduct the test to determine the amount of damage, but they can't stop there. They use this 'bumper stuffing' theory to try to make you think the car has inadequate safety features. I've seen dozens of cars fail this test on these shows.

Expensive is a very subjective word. I'd take marginal any day on a test that isn't related to my safety. If I'm stupid enough to back into a d@mn poll then I will have to get the car fixed. It sounds pretty simple to me.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GO_TL
[B]I agree. If bumpers are your thing then buy the Galant!!

These 'news magazines' that do these tests are a bunch of idiots. They conduct the test to determine the amount of damage, but they can't stop there.





What are you talking about? The news magazines are just reporting the results from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Get your facts straight.

 

yeah TZVECL is right, and these test are used to calculate issurance cost. if its going to cost more to repair, there going to charge you more to insure it.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TZVECL
[B] That's the truth!!!

 

The precise reason I pay attention to the IIHS reports is because the results do affect my out-of-pocket cost for insurance.

 

I do know a strong car saved my life. I never used to look at these reports but now, I think the provide insight on how well a car is built.

 

Here is the article from Dateline, also you can see the whole video clip of the story by clicking on the photo of the TL (3 minutes long).

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4373198/

 

LOL, especially when your car does worse than a $19k car!

 

My wife managed to hit a telephone pole straight dead center at 40 mph in her 2001 Escape XLT. Considering how she hit it the car did quite well protecting her. It pushed the engine into the transmission causing the insurance company to total the car.

The positive is she got the new RSX.
Hopefully if she ever does this again the RSX does as good as her Escape did.

 

I replied in a similarly in another thread: "worse" in this case means it *costs* you more to repair the damage. It has nothing to do with overall safety. I'd be concerned if the TL received poor safety ratings but what's so mysterious about a more expensive car costing more to repair for low-speed impact? I wonder if a Porche 911 would cost less to repair than the 19K car in the same test.

Look, I don't think you should have to shell out big bucks for a minimal impact collision, but in the big picture it's about dollars and not safety. Kind of makes me wonder why the IIHS is even conducting tests that base success on the cost of the repairs...

 

Where are they getting the pricing? In a lot of these tests, price if affected by 3rd party or salvage part availablility. There simply ins't the demand for parts for a model that has only been out a year thus the price is going to be high as all parts must come new from the factory. Even paint can run up the price if the original paint used is "exotic". Get a price for a repair in "Mystic" and watch the price double just over the paint.

As for the bumper...I don't plan on running or backing into any poles. One has to ask, what percentage of accidents involve a pole? You are far more likely to run into another car. With that I'm more concerned with offset 40MPH head on or side impact than backing up into a parking pole.

The news magazines *****ed the same about SUV's when some cost more than others...mainly cause they would crack the rear window...costing more money.

I'm more attentive to SAFETY than repair costs. Whether it's $500 or $1500...if my TL is bent I will cry.

Just something else to consider.

 

These 5 mph bumper tests ARE NOT AN INDICATION of how safe the car will be in an accident. I suspect the intention of this test is to see how much it costs to repair the car say you bump into something in the grocery store parking lot. But this test is not representative of that IMO. As I mentioned in my post above, rarely does it happen where I back straight into a pole dead center at 5mph. Plus if youa re likely to do this, get the backup sensor.

Also, I got to thinking about this "cheating" business. How is it cheating? If you assume that a lot of people back straight up into a pole, what's wrong with putting additional padding there? that's like saying car makers are cheating because they put in side impact beams....

 

Not the same test, for that test you have to look at the regular crash test in which all honda vehicles have tested excellent. including your wife's Civic I mean RSX!

 

If you look at the accidents and damage people have complained about on this forum, not much of it has involved the kind of 5 mph hit damage that the IIHS tests for. Here, it all seems to be somebody in an SUV or whatever in a parking lot that scrapes the side of the bumper, or puts a small hole or gouge in it. Not cheap to fix, but it would also be about the same damage on ANY car with painted urethane bumpers.

Never in decades of driving has one of my cars been involved in bumper bashing type crash. In other words, if I had had no bumpers at all, I wouldn't be any worse off. (Except my cars would look funny).

Yes, repair expense effects insurance rates, but there are other much bigger factors. Such as who tends to buy the car and how often they crash. If teens drive your model of car, watch out for your insurance rates, even if you're 50. I suspect the "bumper" contribution of insurance rates amouts to maybe plus or minus $10 per year. Which of course represents a lot of profit to the insurance companies if it's money they don't have to pay out.

However, I'd prefer damage resistant bumpers to damage prone ones, so I'm not against the test. But the high speed crash tests are a lot more meaningful than bumper tests.

 

Accusing Acura about strategically placing the styrofoam to work around IIHS test would be pushing it. However, one wonders why there is styrofoam to begin with considering how much one may pay for either a TL or TSX. I used to drive a RSX and I had the same styrofoam under my front bumper. When I saw that, my first reaction was not one of safety but one of quality. Come on Acura, pay the extra few dollars and put in some solid rubber mounts or something.

The test results would however no way affect my decision in buying a TL or TSX (probably within a year). Of all the cars I have purchased, I have never had to worry about bumper damage. Had one or two scratches but that was due to age of the vehicle.