Janua 8, 199'4

Poor Showing for Passenger VansIn First Set of 5MPH Crash TestsMazda MPV Is Worst Among Vans Tested,But None of Seven Models Warrants Praise

After crash tests conducted _at the low speedof 5 mph, one 1994 -model passenger vancouldn't be driven. Another sustained serioussafety-related damage. In fact, six af the sev.envans tested sustained some degree of clamag:eto safety-related parts including lights.

Then there are the repair CQsts, which arebudget busters. All seven models tested in theInstitute's series or four impacts at 5mph sus­tained damage costing thousands of dollars torepair (see table, p.3). Even the van with thelowest tetal sustained nearly $.2,000 worth ofdamage, while the wor,st van tested sustainedmore than $7,500 in damage.

This is the first year the Institute has eon­ducted low-speed crash tests involving passen­ger 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. "Theyshow what manufacturers do with bumper de­signs when they1re left on their own. They payno attention to what should be the basicbumper function, which is preventing damage inminor impacts." THe federal bumper standardthat applie~ to cars doesn't <1over passengervans (see "Nobody Has Been Looking, So Manu­facturers Neglect Damage Resistance-," p.3).

Couldn't Be Driven: Mazda's 1994 MPV wasthe worst van tested. It sustained the most dam­age, a total of $/,643 - more than four times asmuch as the van that s.ustained the teast dam­age, the Nissan Quest, and about $3,000 moredamage tnan the v~ that performed next toworst, the Pontiac Trans Sport.

2-DHS tatus Report, VoL 29, o. 1, January •1994

The Mazda couldn't be driven afterthe 5 mph front-into-angle-barrier test. Itsbumper was pushed back against theplastic fender liner which, In tum, waspushed again t the tire.

"This is th first time in memory we'vehad a vehjcle that couldn't be driven aftera5mph crash test" 0 fill sa .The insti­tute has tested hundreds of chicles dur­ing the last 25 years of low- peed crashtesting, and "the. azda 5 bumpers are def­initely among the worst performers."

No Van Worth Calling Best: Even thepassenger van that performed best didn'thow particularly well. The Nissan Questustained a oral of I, 62 damage. lead­

ing 0' eill to no e that being called 'theb t doe n', mean much among thi

group of vehicl . The bumpers on all'en passenger ans allowed much more

damage than they should havFor 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 Neille. plain. All seven pas enger vanshould haY performed without any dam­

age in both Oat-barrier tests, but only onevan did 0 in one of the test .~

to of e -Related Damage: Theworst damage to a safety-re1ated part in­volved the 1994 Dodge Grand Caravan stailgate, which came unll\tched in the rear-

Into-pole te t and couldn't be closedagain. Thi i a safety hazard because anunlatched door can allow the intrusion ofcarbon monoxide into the passenger com­partment and, worse; it can allow occu­pant ejection. The atlonal Highway Traf­tic afety dministration has opened apreliminary e a1uation of this problem fol­lowing a report of a side impact in whichtwo chiJdren ere ejected through thetailgate that came unlatched.

The tailgates on the Mazda MPVandToyota Previa Jammed in the rear-into­pole test and couldn't be opened. Othersafety-related damage included lots of brC}­ken lights. For example, the Pontiac Transport sustained a broken headlight in the

front-inlo-flat-barrier impact and in the

front-in to-angle-barrier test. all of theTrans port' front lights on the side ofthe impact were damaged.

Reasons for So Much Damage: Thebumpers on many of the vans tested dif­fer from tho e on many cars in terms oftheir composition. ost passenger carshave bumpers with molded plastic c.overover reinforcement bars and energy­absorbing materials like polypropylenefoam. The better car bumpers often havehydraulic shock absorbers instead of orin addition to, the foam.

New-ear bumpers don't do as good aJob as they easily could of reducing dam­age in low-speed impacts, but they dofunction generally better than the buml\oers on the vans tested b (cont'd on pA)

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 sys­tems on passenger vans, nobody hasbeen looking over the shoulders of man­ufacturers to make sure they pay atten­tion to damage resistance in low-speedimpa ts. 0 minimum lederal tandardc er the bumpers on these vehicles.Au omobile bumper requirements -

eak as they are - don'L apply to vans.

. federal tandard requires bumpersto eep damage a ay from car bodi In2.5 mph front- and rear-into-nat-barrierimpact. Damage is allowed to thebump r Itself. These requirements aremuch weaker than the strong 5 mph no­damage bumper rule that was in effectduring the 1980-82 model years. till, thecurrent bumper standard is better thannothing. It means manuiacturers have to

pay some attention to the damage resis­tance car bumpers provide.

Not so for vans. Neither strong norweak federal bumper requirements haveever applied to passenger vans eventhough they're used just like cars andhave grown a lot in popularity amongbuyers. Passenger vans accounted for on­ly about 2 percent of total car sales in19 but, by 1992, more than lout ofevery lO buyer chose to purchasea van.

"Because nobody ha been looking,"explains Institute Pr ident Brian0' eill, "the manufacturers of most ofthe vans the Institute tested apparentlyhaven't made any effort to ensure thatthe bumpers on these vehicles do whattheylre supposed to do, which is bumpwithout damage in low-speed impacts"

(see "Poor ShOWing for Passenger Vans,"p.l). At least some manufacturers aretrying for damage resistance when itcomes to car bumpers but 0 Neill con­tinue , ~not van bumpers. You can hitomething at a mere 5mph in a van andustain much more expensive-to-repair

damage than in a typical car. Our lat tlow-speed crash tests indicate thi i therule. not the exception.~

01 the Institute s crash test re-sults plu public pressure can influencemanufacturers passenger vans will con­tinue to be equipped with weakerbumper than the ODes on most cars."What's needed is a uniform and effec­tive federal bumper standard for cars aswell as other kinds of passenger vehi­cles," O'Neill concludes.

.f-/)HSStat11S RepQrt Val. 29, No.}' Jlmuary 8, 1994 1JHS Status Report. Val. 29, No, I, Jan.uary 8, 1994-5

Three Similar GM Vans,But BumpeD On OneOutperform the Others

Three of the se en 1994 model passen­ger vans tested by the InstitUte were madeby General Motors. The Chevrolet Lwninaand Pontiac Trans Sport perforrne'd com­plll'ably ex:cept for their widely differentdamage totals in the tront-hito-f1at-barrtertes.t (see table, p.3). The Oldsmobile Sil­houette perform.ed better than the. othettwo In all four tests at Smph.

These three passengervans are essoo·tially identiGaI. $0 why did the Silhollettoutper:foml the other two General Motorsvans? The answer involves the makeJlP oftheir bumper systems.

The first difference is that the Silhou­ette alone has hydraulic shock absorbersfront and rear, which compress and re­bound to absvrb crash energy befare itCiln cause costlydamage to the van 1Sbody. In contrast the Lumina and TransSport have only polypropylene foam toabsorb energy.

Anlilther reason for the better perfor­mance of the Silhouette is that itsbumpers wend farther from the vehicle'sbody than tbos81On either the Lumina orTrans Sport. This extension affords moreroom for the Silhouette~s bumper to ab­sorb crash energy before it ean reach thevan s body parts that are so expeqsive torepair or replace.

"Consumers who've decidetl to pur­chase one of these very similar passen­ger vans from General Motots should optlor the Oldsmobile," says 1I'l.stitute Presi·dent Brian O'Neill.

The question is why General Motorschose bumper designs for the Lumin~ andTrans port that are so much worse thanfOT the other van from the same manufac­turer. "The lmow-how is obviousl): then~

within General Motors, to put .at least aSil­houette-type bumper on all vans, 0 NeUlnotes "but corporate knowledge j n't be­ing applied to every product alIke."

would take eight pours apiece, ata labor cost of $32 perhour plUS additronal charges for repainting.

The damage the vans sustained in each of the four low­speed crash tests was often easy to spot. The Mazda sbumper cover, for eumple, w~ tQI:fl or otherwise exten-

sively.damageil in every test, even the simplest front- andrear~o-f1at-barrier ones. On the other hand alot of thedamage sustained in the lnstltute s crash tests - includ­ing costly-to-fix structural damage - was hidden under­neath the vans' bumper covers.

Rear·toto-Pole Test Results: In this testl every singlevan sustained more tban $.1,00'0 damage. The Mazda MPVpedormed worst, sustaining mme than three times thisamllon:t,of damage. C(mtrlbutingto the Mazda's 3,179 re­pair total was its tailgate reguiring repla~t at a cost

of 723 for the part alone. Tailgates on the Toy ta Previaand Dodge Caravan would also nav.e to be replaced Evenwhen tailgates could be salvaged. repair co ts would behigh. For example repairing this part on the Chevrolet Lu­mina and Pontia~ Trans Sport after the rear-into-pole test

(cont'd from p.l) the Institute,. The dfffer­ence is that, while the vans have plasticbnmper covers sfmilay. to fudse on cars.itls Qfteq a different story undeweath.

For example~ the Mazda MPV has afront bumper withQut a reinforc~ment bar,which shauld be one Ql the mlrlnstays Inkeeping crash energy from damaging, fend­ers and other body parts. Nor is there anyenergy-abs:o.ibing material like feam un­derneath th'e Mazda's front or rearbumper C()vers. "No wonder this van wasthe worst performer," O'Neill ebs-erves."No wonder there was SQ much structuraldamage. Ther.e wasn't anythin-g in thebumper system to k~p the ener~ of theimpact away frO)TI. the van's body.

Tn c.ontlast, the two vans that sus­tqined the least damage in the Institute'stests, the Nissan Quest and OldsmobileSilhouefte, are equipped with both rem­f0rcement pars an.d Dydraulic energy ab­sorbers. Tne laUer, which compress and

bQJlno te absorb 97a5h epergy are also'found on many @f the passenger cars thatperform besUn low-speed crash tests.

Rat·8(uTier Test Results: The I~st de­manding of the four Institute test'S atSmph ar~ the front- and te,ar-into-flat­bamer impa-cts. These snread the force:ofthe impact evenly across the wh.oJe frontor rear of a vehicle lreing1ested instead OfIQcalizing the for~e. Stin, none of the sev­en vans tested withstood 'the front-into­flat-batrier tes.t wfthQut damage and onlyone, the Quest, sustainea. no damage intberear..iDto-flat·barrier test.

Five of the S'fven vans teSted - alll)utthe Quest and Silhouette - sustameddamage beyond ttIe bumper system jn tbefroilt-into-flatcbarrie.r t~~t. The highest re"­pair tlltal wa.s $l,:t36 lor the PontiacTrans Sport. Damage totaled well over$1,000 in the rear-into-flat-barrieJ: test forthe Mazda MPV and nearly $1,000 fer theToyota Previa. The PJ:evia sustained notonly- ~tructural damage - the entire t1l,il·gat-e' was forced out of line - but alsoenough dam~e to the bumper syslw1 tor{}qulre i'ts replacement.

.f-/)HSStat11S RepQrt Val. 29, No.}' Jlmuary 8, 1994 1JHS Status Report. Val. 29, No, I, Jan.uary 8, 1994-5

Three Similar GM Vans,But BumpeD On OneOutperform the Others

Three of the se en 1994 model passen­ger vans tested by the InstitUte were madeby General Motors. The Chevrolet Lwninaand Pontiac Trans Sport perforrne'd com­plll'ably ex:cept for their widely differentdamage totals in the tront-hito-f1at-barrtertes.t (see table, p.3). The Oldsmobile Sil­houette perform.ed better than the. othettwo In all four tests at Smph.

These three passengervans are essoo·tially identiGaI. $0 why did the Silhollettoutper:foml the other two General Motorsvans? The answer involves the makeJlP oftheir bumper systems.

The first difference is that the Silhou­ette alone has hydraulic shock absorbersfront and rear, which compress and re­bound to absvrb crash energy befare itCiln cause costlydamage to the van 1Sbody. In contrast the Lumina and TransSport have only polypropylene foam toabsorb energy.

Anlilther reason for the better perfor­mance of the Silhouette is that itsbumpers wend farther from the vehicle'sbody than tbos81On either the Lumina orTrans Sport. This extension affords moreroom for the Silhouette~s bumper to ab­sorb crash energy before it ean reach thevan s body parts that are so expeqsive torepair or replace.

"Consumers who've decidetl to pur­chase one of these very similar passen­ger vans from General Motots should optlor the Oldsmobile," says 1I'l.stitute Presi·dent Brian O'Neill.

The question is why General Motorschose bumper designs for the Lumin~ andTrans port that are so much worse thanfOT the other van from the same manufac­turer. "The lmow-how is obviousl): then~

within General Motors, to put .at least aSil­houette-type bumper on all vans, 0 NeUlnotes "but corporate knowledge j n't be­ing applied to every product alIke."

would take eight pours apiece, ata labor cost of $32 perhour plUS additronal charges for repainting.

The damage the vans sustained in each of the four low­speed crash tests was often easy to spot. The Mazda sbumper cover, for eumple, w~ tQI:fl or otherwise exten-

sively.damageil in every test, even the simplest front- andrear~o-f1at-barrier ones. On the other hand alot of thedamage sustained in the lnstltute s crash tests - includ­ing costly-to-fix structural damage - was hidden under­neath the vans' bumper covers.

Rear·toto-Pole Test Results: In this testl every singlevan sustained more tban $.1,00'0 damage. The Mazda MPVpedormed worst, sustaining mme than three times thisamllon:t,of damage. C(mtrlbutingto the Mazda's 3,179 re­pair total was its tailgate reguiring repla~t at a cost

of 723 for the part alone. Tailgates on the Toy ta Previaand Dodge Caravan would also nav.e to be replaced Evenwhen tailgates could be salvaged. repair co ts would behigh. For example repairing this part on the Chevrolet Lu­mina and Pontia~ Trans Sport after the rear-into-pole test

(cont'd from p.l) the Institute,. The dfffer­ence is that, while the vans have plasticbnmper covers sfmilay. to fudse on cars.itls Qfteq a different story undeweath.

For example~ the Mazda MPV has afront bumper withQut a reinforc~ment bar,which shauld be one Ql the mlrlnstays Inkeeping crash energy from damaging, fend­ers and other body parts. Nor is there anyenergy-abs:o.ibing material like feam un­derneath th'e Mazda's front or rearbumper C()vers. "No wonder this van wasthe worst performer," O'Neill ebs-erves."No wonder there was SQ much structuraldamage. Ther.e wasn't anythin-g in thebumper system to k~p the ener~ of theimpact away frO)TI. the van's body.

Tn c.ontlast, the two vans that sus­tqined the least damage in the Institute'stests, the Nissan Quest and OldsmobileSilhouefte, are equipped with both rem­f0rcement pars an.d Dydraulic energy ab­sorbers. Tne laUer, which compress and

bQJlno te absorb 97a5h epergy are also'found on many @f the passenger cars thatperform besUn low-speed crash tests.

Rat·8(uTier Test Results: The I~st de­manding of the four Institute test'S atSmph ar~ the front- and te,ar-into-flat­bamer impa-cts. These snread the force:ofthe impact evenly across the wh.oJe frontor rear of a vehicle lreing1ested instead OfIQcalizing the for~e. Stin, none of the sev­en vans tested withstood 'the front-into­flat-batrier tes.t wfthQut damage and onlyone, the Quest, sustainea. no damage intberear..iDto-flat·barrier test.

Five of the S'fven vans teSted - alll)utthe Quest and Silhouette - sustameddamage beyond ttIe bumper system jn tbefroilt-into-flatcbarrie.r t~~t. The highest re"­pair tlltal wa.s $l,:t36 lor the PontiacTrans Sport. Damage totaled well over$1,000 in the rear-into-flat-barrieJ: test forthe Mazda MPV and nearly $1,000 fer theToyota Previa. The PJ:evia sustained notonly- ~tructural damage - the entire t1l,il·gat-e' was forced out of line - but alsoenough dam~e to the bumper syslw1 tor{}qulre i'ts replacement.

6-/lHS Statm Report, Vol. 29. 0. I, January /994

Finall Bansar De ector Use in

Commercial ehiclesLate last month! the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA) announced a banon radar detector use in commercial vehi­cles involved In interstate commerce. Thed Ision"is long overdue," says InstitutePc idem Brian 0' eill He points to aJulI petition for a ban from eight groupsincluding the lnstitut ( atus Report.V I. 5, 0.7. ug. IJ, 1990.

It t FHw. mor than three years tod thi ~ O' eiJI adds, but now radar de­tee or use finally will be banned in thebigge t vehicles on the road - an impor-

tam victory f r safer highways: The bantakes effect earl thi . ear.

The even organizations that joinedth Institute In the 1990 petition were theAdvocates for Highway and Auto afety,American Automobile Association, Ameri­can Tru,cklng Associations, InternationalAssociation of Chief of Police, ationalAssociation of Governors Highway afeLyRepresentativ . ational afety Counciland Public Citizen,

upporting he petition was a tudbowing that big truck rig • including

those hauling hazardous cargo. are themost likel vehicles on the road to haveradar detector in use. Further researchindicated that trucks with radar detectorsare more likely than trucks without them

to travel at c si espeeds - 10 mphand faster. tudies conducted Ince the1990 petillon upport these findings.

The ban announced by FHWA in De­cember doesn't require states to estab­lish immediate penalties against driversusing illegal radar detectors. ijWe do ex­pect states to set effective penalties andjoin FHWA In enforcement" 0' eiJI says.The agency gives federal per onnel theauthor! to penalize drivers up to 1000{or violating the ban.

Banning radar detector use I pedal­Iy important in big truck rigs" High speedincreases the chance of a Clash and. whencrashes involve tractor-trailers, the resultscan be catastrophic for other motorists be­cause of the truck rigs size and weight

URodney Slater deserves a lot of creditfor taking this step," O'Neill says of the newFHWA administrator. "Manufacturers ofradar detectors have lobbied aggressivelyagainst banning the use of their products,which has kept aban from happening soon­er. But r. later bad the courag to dowhat's In the best interest of high aysafe-

ty, despite the pressure, and we commendhim. Too bad there isn"t a ban on radar de­tectors In all vebicles on U. . roads, as isthe case in many other countries."

Radar detector use. is already bannedin all vehicles traveling in the District ofColumbia and Virginia. Bans al 0 coverbig truck rigs in New York and IlJlnois.When the new FHWA rule take effect,radar detector use wiIJ be prohibitedacross the country in commercial vehiclesinvolved In Interstate travel.

/1HS Status Report, Vol. 29, No.1, January 8, /994-7

Injury Control Expert to Fill Top NHTSA PostHart Plucked for Number Two Slot, While Reagle Moves to FHWA

An emergency physicianWith enensive backgroundin injury control and auto­motive medicine will benominated to run lh'e Na:­tional Highway Trallie SafetyAdministration (NIffSA),

Ricardo Martinez is ex­pected to take the helm atNHTSA at a time when re­dUCing health care costswhich include the high costsof motor vehicle crash in­juries, is a national priortty.Dr. Martinez "understandstnat one of the easiest andmost efficient ways t-o re­duce health care Gosts is topromote safety Improv,e­ments and responsible driv­ing" say'S U.S. Setretary ofTransportation FedericoPena in remarks on the Pres­ident's announced plan tonominate Dr. Martinez.

Public Health Expe:r­lise: The new NHTSA nomi­nee is presentIy the Associ·ate Director af Em-ory Uni­versity's Center for InjuryControl in Atlanta. Dr. Mar­tinez is also an AssociateProfe sor Qf EmergencyMedicine focusing on motorvehicle crash injuries andtrauma care systems. He describes hismission at Emory University as "educat­ing doctors about motor vebicle crashes- how they occur, what kind of injuriesto expect ... and then also what they cando in the way Qf prevention." Prior to as.­suming the Emory post, Dr. Martinezserved as an emergenq physielan atStanford University Hespftal

On prosp~ts oj his new position InWashington, Dr. Martinez says hefs "-excit­ed about the opportunities." He adds that

he believes very strongly that "highwaysafety is an important public health issue."

Dr. Martinez's nomination had been ru­mored 1m months before President Clin­ton1s Decemb~r announcement of the in­tent to name him. (See Status Report, Vol.28', No. 10, Aug. 21, 1993.)

During 1989-90, Or. Martin~ complet­ed a fellowsbip at the University 'of Birm­ingham (England) Center for Automotiv~

Engineering. He has alSG served on tbeBoard of Directors of the Advocates for

Highway and Auto Safety and as a mem­ber of the advisory board of the JohnsHopkins Unive-rslty Injury Prevention

'Center. He has presented anumber of lectures andwritten numerous articlesfm scientific j-ournals onautQmQbiJe-r~lated sub­jects induding, for exam­ple, the biomechanics ofmotor vehicle injuries.

''We in the highwa;t safe­ty community weJcomesome{)ne with Dr. Mar­tinez's extensive back­ground" s,ays InstitutePresident Brian O'Neill."Too often, the person cho­sen to lead NHJSA knowslittle about toe highwaysafety field. 1t can takemonths to get up to speed.But we're. fortunate thistime around, because Dr.Martine.z has such solidgrounding in our field andwill be able to move for­ward very quickly on sev­eral important fronts."

Other Appointments:'Another new face for thetop echelon at NHTSA isChristopher Hart. Alreadynamed the agency's ActingDeputy Administrator; Hartis expected to fHl this posi­tion permanently. Amem­ber of the National Trans­

portation Safety Board (NTSB) from Au­gust 1990 until 1993, Hart is a lawyer aswell as an airplane pilot with a masterlsdegree illaerospace engineering.

Meantime, a key NTSB official hasmoved to the Federal Highway Adminis­tration: (FHWA). George Reagle, Director.of NTSB's Offiee of Suriace Transporta­tion, took over as Associate Administra­tor for MotOI Caniers at FHWA on De­cember 20. Before his TSB stint" Reaglewas a senior official at HTSA.

Vol. 29, No. I, January 8, 1994

On The Inside1.ooHpeed mob ........... show sev·en 1994 passenger vans with bumpersthat allow way too much damage p.l

fedenI ......... _ for vans aodcars 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 com­mertiaI ""hides more than three yearsafter action was u'll<d p.6

Rkardo Mu1lDez will be nominated tohead ~'HTSA, aod Christopher Hart willml the number two position p.7

STATUS~~~~ REPORT1005 North Glebe ROIdArIlnglon. VA 222111(703) 241·1500 ~'AX (7B3) 247·1678

OIr«\1)l' ulflublkllkw/EdJlor: Anne ~JngWrhen: Mitil Klufmann. Kim LlII(Ultr,

mdShiron J. R&$mlllltnEdltorill Aulslllll: CIntntH~An Olrertor: Shelll Jacbon-""'''''''-Tht InJunncf: IMtdUlt lor HIgtlWlY SIItty II III indtptn­dtIlt. _proIK.ldtnldlc Illd edllatloall~ ItIs dtdDled 10 m!lItq Itlta-- deIl.bs.lIfuri5, IIldIIfOPft1J~ -~ lJOIIl mshft; 0II1tlt IIlbOlIJ

"'"I)'J The ktstmft II "4JPOI'It'd br tilt~ ..Illl'IlU HiFoY 5*y AMoriM_, the AlItlUI~

...."" 5*)~ tilt \MluMi AuociIlloD III ....~ IIIIurtn 5l.Itty Awrite;.. ... I....,III'"---ee..:.-.ybtI1 'I t ;1 ...... II pIrl db.m.......,._.. _rtaMIIs..Jtpotr ...wot*I

...~thtc ' " ..~

ISSN 0018-988X