"The G35's bumpers are a disaster"
#1
"The G35's bumpers are a disaster"
New bumpers knocked
By Harry Stoffer
Automotive News / September 08, 2003
WASHINGTON -- Some automakers are putting worse bumpers on redesigned vehicles than they did on earlier versions of the models, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says.
According to results of the group's study, the 2004 Nissan Quest sustained more than $4,500 in damage in four 5-mph bumper tests and got the institute's "poor" rating. The 1999 Quest's damage was less than $1,500. Repair costs were all adjusted for inflation.
The institute says the 2003 Saab 9-3 ($3,013 in damage) was worse than the 1999 model ($2,362) and earned the "marginal" rating. The 2004 Toyota Sienna ($3,207) was worse than the 1998 ($2,441) and also was rated marginal.
The Infiniti G35 sustained the most damage, an average of $1,481 in each of four crash tests on the front and rear bumpers to simulate common mishaps in commuter traffic and parking lots.
"The G35's bumpers are a disaster," Adrian Lund, chief operating officer for the Institute, said in a release. In one test backing the luxury car into a pole, "there was extensive damage to body panels including a crushed trunk lid and floor pan," Lund said.
Only the Mazda6 sedan performed reasonably well, earning an "acceptable" rating with an average of $342 in each of the four crashes.
The bumpers on the Mazda6 was designed to absorb energy and keep it away from the body, the Institute said.
The institute conducts the tests and publicizes the results to pressure automakers into making stronger bumpers.
By Harry Stoffer
Automotive News / September 08, 2003
WASHINGTON -- Some automakers are putting worse bumpers on redesigned vehicles than they did on earlier versions of the models, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says.
According to results of the group's study, the 2004 Nissan Quest sustained more than $4,500 in damage in four 5-mph bumper tests and got the institute's "poor" rating. The 1999 Quest's damage was less than $1,500. Repair costs were all adjusted for inflation.
The institute says the 2003 Saab 9-3 ($3,013 in damage) was worse than the 1999 model ($2,362) and earned the "marginal" rating. The 2004 Toyota Sienna ($3,207) was worse than the 1998 ($2,441) and also was rated marginal.
The Infiniti G35 sustained the most damage, an average of $1,481 in each of four crash tests on the front and rear bumpers to simulate common mishaps in commuter traffic and parking lots.
"The G35's bumpers are a disaster," Adrian Lund, chief operating officer for the Institute, said in a release. In one test backing the luxury car into a pole, "there was extensive damage to body panels including a crushed trunk lid and floor pan," Lund said.
Only the Mazda6 sedan performed reasonably well, earning an "acceptable" rating with an average of $342 in each of the four crashes.
The bumpers on the Mazda6 was designed to absorb energy and keep it away from the body, the Institute said.
The institute conducts the tests and publicizes the results to pressure automakers into making stronger bumpers.
#3
Originally posted by sarlacc23
Who needs better bumpers anyway, less people have accidents now then they used too............................................... .............................
Who needs better bumpers anyway, less people have accidents now then they used too............................................... .............................
There is honestly something not solid looking about the Nissan cars, I guess this is it.
#4
i had an accident in my dad oldsmobile alero...was at a light and a chick slammed into my rear...shock was hard...but i had just a few scratchs...really fuking solid...just about the only good quality of that POS
#5
Re: "The G35's bumpers are a disaster"
Originally posted by gavriil
the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
The institute conducts the tests and publicizes the results to pressure automakers into making stronger bumpers.
the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
The institute conducts the tests and publicizes the results to pressure automakers into making stronger bumpers.
The guy that wrote that article should spend more than 30 seconds considering the source of those "facts" and what motive the IIHS has for doing it and publishing them.
Definitely not hating on you Gav ... This kind of blatantly biased crap posing as objective testing pisses me off.
Trending Topics
#9
the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
The institute conducts the tests and publicizes the results to pressure automakers into making stronger bumpers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uhm isn't the point of pressuring the automakers to make stronger bumpers so they will be able to withstand crashes and therefore not need such costly repairs?
Think he has his facts straight.
The institute conducts the tests and publicizes the results to pressure automakers into making stronger bumpers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uhm isn't the point of pressuring the automakers to make stronger bumpers so they will be able to withstand crashes and therefore not need such costly repairs?
Think he has his facts straight.
#10
Originally posted by 95gt
Uhm isn't the point of pressuring the automakers to make stronger bumpers so they will be able to withstand crashes and therefore not need such costly repairs?
Think he has his facts straight.
Uhm isn't the point of pressuring the automakers to make stronger bumpers so they will be able to withstand crashes and therefore not need such costly repairs?
Think he has his facts straight.
#12
Originally posted by soopa
here are a couple BIG problems I have with the G35 coupe... (besides the hideous interior)
These issues may sound like I'm just nitpicking but thats not what its about.
First... the G35 coupe has been touting back seat room... but whats the point if theres no fucking window?!? That window hardly qualifies as a port hole.
Second... and a much bigger problem. My CLS has been rear-ended several times... mantis23 was just rear-ended today. On our cars... only the bumper takes the impact and does what it should with it. Thats how it is supposed to be.
The G35, on any slight impact with the bumper... a car bumping you, you hitting something a little too hard cuz you cant see over the back of your car due to that wicked high rear window. Etcetera. Those quarters on the back are going to bend. That is going to be a wicked repair bill... and one you could see several times during the lifetime of your car. Not only that but who wants to repaint the entire side of a brand new car...
That to me, is a major flaw.
This car will get very poor marks from the insurance institute.
On the bright side, I do think it looks better then the CL... it also looks like they put some time into it. I like that the wheels change camber when turning like German cars. Decent turning radius likely.
Nice brakes too
here are a couple BIG problems I have with the G35 coupe... (besides the hideous interior)
These issues may sound like I'm just nitpicking but thats not what its about.
First... the G35 coupe has been touting back seat room... but whats the point if theres no fucking window?!? That window hardly qualifies as a port hole.
Second... and a much bigger problem. My CLS has been rear-ended several times... mantis23 was just rear-ended today. On our cars... only the bumper takes the impact and does what it should with it. Thats how it is supposed to be.
The G35, on any slight impact with the bumper... a car bumping you, you hitting something a little too hard cuz you cant see over the back of your car due to that wicked high rear window. Etcetera. Those quarters on the back are going to bend. That is going to be a wicked repair bill... and one you could see several times during the lifetime of your car. Not only that but who wants to repaint the entire side of a brand new car...
That to me, is a major flaw.
This car will get very poor marks from the insurance institute.
On the bright side, I do think it looks better then the CL... it also looks like they put some time into it. I like that the wheels change camber when turning like German cars. Decent turning radius likely.
Nice brakes too
I posted a pic highlighting what i meant to... i'll find it when i get home and repost.
#13
Originally posted by soopa
didnt i say this before the car even came out? its fucking stupid the way they designed the rear bumper on that car.
didnt i say this before the car even came out? its fucking stupid the way they designed the rear bumper on that car.
The design of that rear bumper is horrible and you can see just by looking at it what will happen in light bump.
A 5MPH bump in a parking lot with a PLASTIC bumper should NOT bend the side body panels, but it does on the G35.
Shawn S
#14
Originally posted by soopa
From http://www.acura-cl.com/forums/showt...335#post897335
From http://www.acura-cl.com/forums/showt...335#post897335
It looks like my opinion hasn't changed much in the last year.
Lose the ugly 1980’s interior and they might have a winner there. The CL/TL looks like a 50,000-dollar car inside compared to that abortion.
#15
interior is as.
that whole bending of the rear quarters thing makes me really wary of that car.... those are the single most expensive pieces of the car to fix.
the front quarters are one thing... but the rear is a whole other story... ESPECIALLY on a coupe.
that whole bending of the rear quarters thing makes me really wary of that car.... those are the single most expensive pieces of the car to fix.
the front quarters are one thing... but the rear is a whole other story... ESPECIALLY on a coupe.
#16
lol you guys are being stupid... "sucks for my insurance"
IT SUCKS FOR YOU...
First of all... the all to common place bump on the rear end (someone trying to parallel park behind you for instance) could easily destroy your rear body panels.
This means more than HALF of your cars body will have to be painted and fixed or bondod depending on what your insurance company will cover.
That sucks FOR YOU.
IT SUCKS FOR YOU...
First of all... the all to common place bump on the rear end (someone trying to parallel park behind you for instance) could easily destroy your rear body panels.
This means more than HALF of your cars body will have to be painted and fixed or bondod depending on what your insurance company will cover.
That sucks FOR YOU.
#17
HA...HA... I KILL ME....
If I want to see an interior like the new stuff from Infinity & Nissan, I’ll go take a look at the used car lot downtown.
I think I saw a few 80’s cars with 150K on them.
I think I saw a few 80’s cars with 150K on them.
#18
Originally posted by soopa
First of all... the all to common place bump on the rear end (someone trying to parallel park behind you for instance) could easily destroy your rear body panels.
This means more than HALF of your cars body will have to be painted and fixed or bondod depending on what your insurance company will cover.
That sucks FOR YOU.
First of all... the all to common place bump on the rear end (someone trying to parallel park behind you for instance) could easily destroy your rear body panels.
This means more than HALF of your cars body will have to be painted and fixed or bondod depending on what your insurance company will cover.
That sucks FOR YOU.
#19
this is what im takling bout...s ee this pic:
see how the rear bumper cuts up and runs a vertical parallel to the rear quarter?
the bumper has nowhere to go horizontally without BENDING METAL.
NOW... look at how much metal were talking about here
see how the rear bumper cuts up and runs a vertical parallel to the rear quarter?
the bumper has nowhere to go horizontally without BENDING METAL.
NOW... look at how much metal were talking about here
#20
ok here...
here is where the problem occurs. a TAP on the bumper will bend metal here:
if the bending in that area is bad enough (3mph+ collision id guess) you will PROBABLY need to have the panel replaced and you will definately have to have it painted even if it is fixable.
look at how much metal has to be changed here:
now... if your car is anything but black (and even if it is as i can attest) they will definately need to blend the paint into unchanged panels... this means EACH HALF SIDE OF YOUR CAR WILL BE SPRAYED WITH NEW PAINT.
if your car is say... silver... or white pearl... or blue... your gonna have a fuck of a time getting the paint to match or be anywhere close to factory.
the yellow area would be new paint and new panel... the green would be where paint is blended with old.
and this would be on BOTH SIDES of your car.
sounds like fun eh? I think its a much bigger problem for the owner than yall chalk it up to be
here is where the problem occurs. a TAP on the bumper will bend metal here:
if the bending in that area is bad enough (3mph+ collision id guess) you will PROBABLY need to have the panel replaced and you will definately have to have it painted even if it is fixable.
look at how much metal has to be changed here:
now... if your car is anything but black (and even if it is as i can attest) they will definately need to blend the paint into unchanged panels... this means EACH HALF SIDE OF YOUR CAR WILL BE SPRAYED WITH NEW PAINT.
if your car is say... silver... or white pearl... or blue... your gonna have a fuck of a time getting the paint to match or be anywhere close to factory.
the yellow area would be new paint and new panel... the green would be where paint is blended with old.
and this would be on BOTH SIDES of your car.
sounds like fun eh? I think its a much bigger problem for the owner than yall chalk it up to be
#21
oh and dont forget this rear end collision might just fuck your bumper too... and if it doesn they will sitll blend it a bti....
so essentially your talking about painting the ENTIRE back 3/4 of the car for what would have been nothing to cry over.
so essentially your talking about painting the ENTIRE back 3/4 of the car for what would have been nothing to cry over.
#23
and here we have exhibit no 2
the cl bumper
it is straight cut... a bump on the rear end simply slides the bumper forwards. leaving it free from impact with any other portion of the body.
the only way a rear end collision is going to hurt anything but the bumper is if the other car actually makes impact with your trunk... or if the other vehicle dives under your car pushing your bumper UP.
both of those scenarios could only occur at speed tho. not from a minor collision or even a small bump
the cl bumper
it is straight cut... a bump on the rear end simply slides the bumper forwards. leaving it free from impact with any other portion of the body.
the only way a rear end collision is going to hurt anything but the bumper is if the other car actually makes impact with your trunk... or if the other vehicle dives under your car pushing your bumper UP.
both of those scenarios could only occur at speed tho. not from a minor collision or even a small bump
#25
also since the a4 has that horizontal cut across the bumper where it actually changes to vertical with the rear quarter... its possible that a collision would just push the bottom portion of the bumper down and the upper portion in.
i cant say for sure with the a4.
i cant say for sure with the a4.
#28
The article just says G35... I am guessing they tested the Sedan as it went up against the Mazda 6. The G35 sedan and coupe have totally different rear ends.
BTW... Soopa. If the bumper is properly designed it will pop out of the sheet metal creases. Many cars have a design similar to the G35c in the back. My friends A6 has a similar design to the A4 and the plastic popped out when he was rear ended.
All of this hating on the G35c is getting tiring BTW
BTW... Soopa. If the bumper is properly designed it will pop out of the sheet metal creases. Many cars have a design similar to the G35c in the back. My friends A6 has a similar design to the A4 and the plastic popped out when he was rear ended.
All of this hating on the G35c is getting tiring BTW
#30
cus: maybe it should... but clearly it doesnt.
My parents have a 99 Maxima - They got rear ended by a 80's Camry on the highway about a year ago. The bumper totally crumpled the rear metal on the side like you pointed out. It only was a 10 mph collision too, and the entire back had to be replaced. The Camry had nothing but a scratch BTW
#31
ya know I had a 98 Eclipse GST and the rear bumper attached in a way that is very similar to the way the G35's does with the vertical contact area between bumper and bodypanel. I got rear ended in that car twice...hard..and it never bent the rear quarters. Not saying this would be the case with the G35, but having this design alone does not always lead to bent quarters on impact. Just a thought.
#32
Originally posted by soopa
and here we have exhibit no 2
the cl bumper
and here we have exhibit no 2
the cl bumper
#36
Originally posted by soopa
danny it only has a slight curve where it goes up to meet trunk lid... the angle is still close to horizontal and the bumper slides horizontally. i can testify to that several time sover.
danny it only has a slight curve where it goes up to meet trunk lid... the angle is still close to horizontal and the bumper slides horizontally. i can testify to that several time sover.
#38
Originally posted by soopa
defend it all you want. but here you have the evidence from the INS companies...
and there you have the details as to why it sucks.
defend it all you want. but here you have the evidence from the INS companies...
and there you have the details as to why it sucks.
I'm not defending, I'm just seeing conclusions being drawn without any factual foundation to back the conclusions up. If there is info from that report that I am missing here, please post it. I only read from the posts in this thread that the cost was high to fix the bumper, so therefore it must be because the quarter panels were damaged. This cannot be assumed...facts needed.
#39
For all we know there are guides underneath the vertical area where the bumper attaches that could push the bumper out and over the quarter panels on impact.
Honestly the reason I end up questioning stuff like this is because no one else here does. Everyone's so hell bent on trashing the G35 around here, they pounce on anything they can get their paws on that will make it look like a lesser alternative to the CL. Take DarrinB for example with his 'pisses on Nissan's' over his avatar....and ShawnS making outrageous and exaggerated statements regarding the car's interior. These guys have a chip on their shoulder about Nissan and when threads like this pop up they're on it like flies on shit...usually checking reason at the door... I find it entertaining to swat at them now and then.
Honestly the reason I end up questioning stuff like this is because no one else here does. Everyone's so hell bent on trashing the G35 around here, they pounce on anything they can get their paws on that will make it look like a lesser alternative to the CL. Take DarrinB for example with his 'pisses on Nissan's' over his avatar....and ShawnS making outrageous and exaggerated statements regarding the car's interior. These guys have a chip on their shoulder about Nissan and when threads like this pop up they're on it like flies on shit...usually checking reason at the door... I find it entertaining to swat at them now and then.
#40
Did Nissan even test this out while they were designing the car?? If this is true i can't believe they let it out like that
From my understanding Phase II of the plan is to improve quality and sell more expensive, profit making cars. They are hoping to keep Nissan people from jumping to Lexus and BMW and instead to Infintiti.