Disturbing trend: eliminating front bumpers

richardre

I am wondering how Edmunds readers feel about this issue: more and more new cars have no front bumper! Designers have replaced the front bumper with a large plastic grille, usually black, that extends low to the ground. Examples are Lexus, Audi, Genesis, Toyota Avalon and possible the Camry, too. There is no protection from the bumps and bruises that are so common when you parallel-park. Anybody who drives in an urban area is familiar with the bumper-car action that takes place while parallel-parking. With this type of front end, it seems likely that repairs will be frequent and costly. It also seems that more makes and models have this feature (or non-feature). I am interested in buying cars terrific such as Avalon or Lexus GS, but I am really turned off this impractical front-end design. Just venting my gripes! How do folks feel about it? Oh, and one more thing: I thought cars were required to have a "5-mph bumper?"

richardre

Sorry for typo above. Terrific cars, not cars terrific.

stever

"NHTSA amended the bumper standard in May 1982, halving the front and rear crash test speeds for 1983 and newer car bumpers from 5 miles per hour (8 km/h) to 2.5 miles per hour (4 km/h), and the corner crash test speeds from 3 miles per hour (5 km/h) to 1.5 miles per hour (2 km/h)." (Wikipedia)

There's a bumper under the plastic covers. I think they are better for pedestrians and mpg, even if the crash test standards need to be improved. The height difference between cars and SUVs needs to be addressed too.

kyfdx

European pedestrian crash standards are driving a lot of that design.

richardre

Good points, especially regarding the height differences. Thanks for your comments. With the front bumper being hidden behind a plastic grill, minor bumps and scrapes will damage the plastic grill. I am guessing that replacing the plastic grill will cost at least $500. But with a traditional bumper, there would be no damage, or very little. Perhaps the automakers believe that people who spend $35,000 to $60,000 for an Avalon or Lexus GS don't care about such trivia. But personally, if I buy a $60,000 car, I would still care about this stuff. My expensive luxury car should be durable, and able to absorb some bumps and scrapes.

stever

You just need one of those aftermarket bumper guard thingys, like this one. A lovely accessory for every Mercedes.

Raz57

Drove a '99 Suburban in downtown & uptown Minneapolis for years as my winter ride/work truck. I would parallel park it on the city streets all the time. No sensors or cameras, never once did I bump another car with it or it's trailer hitch. Trash cans, sure. But if someone needs a bumper to parallel park, so they can bump the other cars. They should sell their car and use public transit.

rgc

The chief problem to not having the front bumper is that when a driver gets hit head-on, the entire front end is pushed up to the windshield. The driver is usually killed as a result. These automakers need to realize that the safety of their customers are utmost. Design does nothing if that driver is killed in the process. I am kinda apt to look for a used car that does have the bumper for this very reason.

thecardoc3

The safety of today's cars exceeds anything you can imagine from the past. Cars do have front bumpers; they are underneath the decorative bumper cover. The fact that cars can crush in the front end means the car is absorbing the impact and taking longer to actually come to a stop reducing the G-Forces that the occupants encounter. Combine that with the correct use of the seat belts, and the supplemental restraints (airbags) and the occupant survivability in a number of different crash scenarios is getting better all the time.

This test was eleven years ago. There have been significant improvements since then. For the record, the Malibu driver is relatively uninjured, the Belair driver would be a fatality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_r5UJrxcck