I'-SURANG1NS1lTUTE

FORHIGH\\"y

March 2,1996

Utility Vehicles Betray Their flimsy Designs in 5MPH BumpsA main attraction of utility vehicles is

their supposed ruggedness. Yet based onthe Isuzu Rodeo's performance in crashtests at a very slow speed, this vehicle andits identical twin, the Honda Passport, areanything but rugged. They're more likelyto end up in repair shops because of dam.age sustained in parking-Iol bumps than toperform their advertised purpose of trans­porting people on off-road adventures.

~Jsuzu engineers completely ignoreddamage resistance in low-speed crasheswhen they designed the Rodeo, and it'scosting consumers," says Institute Presi­dent Brian O'Neill.

Honda has gone out of its way to im­prove the bumpers on ils cars, and it hassucceeded (see Status Report. Vol. 30, No.2, Feb. 25, 1995). "Engineers at Hondashould be embarrassed by the Rodeo's

performance," O'Neill explains, ~because

the Honda nameplate is on the Rodeo'stwin." These two vehicles are the same ex­cept for their nameplates and trim.

The rear window on the Rodeo shat­tered in two rear crash tests at 5 mph ­even in the relatively undemanding f1at­barrier test (see photo, above). The Rodeo'stailgate also had to be replaced after each01 the two rear tests. Damage in each test

tops 52,500. Total damage to the Rodeo infour crash tests at 5mph tops $8,000.

"This is worse than any passenger carthe Institute has tested al 5mph since theearly 1970s,~ O'Neill points out. "Isuzuought to work as quickly as it can to im­prove the Rodeo's design. ft

The Institute's crash tests at 5 mph in­volve six 1996 midsize four-door utility ve­hicles, all four-wheel-drive. Not even thebest of the six, the Chevrolet Blazer/GMCJimmy, is good at reducing low-speed crashdamage - repair costs afler lour tests at 5mph exceed S4,000. Yet Blazer damage to­tals about $1,500 less than damage sus-

tained by the next-best vehicle, the FordExplorer, and amounts to only aoout half ofthe Rodeo's damage (see table, facing page).

The four Institute tests at 5 mph arefront- and rear-into-flat barrier, front-into­angle-barrier, and rear-into-pole. The f1at­barrier tests should be easier than angleand pole tests because they spread theenergy of the impact over the whole face01 the bumper. Angle and pole tests local­ize energy at specific points.

"All passenger vehicles, including utilityones, should withstand at least flat-barriertests at 5mph without damage O'Neill says."Yet few cars do this, and not one utility vehi­cle tested. They didn't even come close,'

How Bad Are Tbey? Five of the six utilityvehicles ran up more than 51,000 in repaircosts in one or both of the simple flat-barriertests. The three imports, including the Ro­deo, sustained about S2,000 or more damagein the rear flat-barrier test alone.

Three of the six utility vehicles sustainedtotal damage costing more than $6,000, Thethree domestic models from Chevrolet/GMC,Ford, and Jeep performed better overall thanthe three imports - Rodeo/Passport. Toyota4Runner, and Land Rover Discovery. In therear-into-pole lest, both the Rodeo and 4Run­ner sustained more than twice as much dam­age as the best performing vehicle in thistest, Ford's Explorer.

None of the six utility vehicles escapedthe pole test with less than 51,000 damage. In

Damage Repair Costs5 MPH Crash Tests, Midsize Four-Door Utility Vehicles

Front Rear Front Rear1996 Into Into Into Angle Into TotalUtility Vehicles Barrier Barrier Barrier Pole Damage

Chevrolet Blazer!GMCJimmy $690 S 875 $1,555 $1,148 $4,168$26,331

Ford Explorer $1,112 $1,291 $2,195 $1,041 $5,639$27,335

Jeep Grand Cherokee $700 $1,515 $1,B09 $1,739 $5,763$27,225

land Rover Discovery $ 743 $2,045 $2,591 $1,176 $6,555$32,975

Toyota 4Runner $ 816 $1,985 $2,002 $2,344 $7,147$31,893

Isuzu Rodeo!Honda Passport $1,151 $2,532 $1,925 $2,565 $8,173$26,353

Notes: Repair cosls are Jan. 1996 costs of restoring vehicles to condition before 'ests,Vehicle prices are mfg. suggested retail, including options & Ifl~ight, for tested models.

the angle-barrier test, about $1,500 was theleast amount of damage.

Only the Jeep Grand Cherokee escapedthe fronl-into-angle-barrier test without in­terference with the right front tire. The otherfive vehicles couldn't be driven becausedamaged parts pushed against the tire. Theinterfering part on the Blazer could bepulled away or broken off by hand so the ve­hicle could be driven, bUlthe other lour util­ity vehicles reqUired lools to pry away thedamaged part enough to drive. Land Roverdamage prevented normal opening of theright front door.

A tested vehicle was immobilized thisway only acouple of other limes in the hUll­dreds of 5 mph crash tests the Institute hasconducted. The other two vehicles were the1992 Daihatsu Charade and 1994 Mazda MPY.In contrast, five out of six supposedly rugge{\1996 utility vehicles were immobilized by thedamage sustained in 5mph impacts.

Some of the low-speed crash damage tothe utility vehicles is safety-related. For exam­ple, every vehicle tesled except the Blazersustained headlight damage in the front-inta­angle-barrier test. Whole headlight assemblieshad to be replaced. Researchers found theLand Rover's headlights so poorly attachedthat they dislodged in the flat-barrier test.

The Rodeo exhibits another problem, andthis one's unusual. After the front-inta-f1at­barrier test, the key wouldn't readily turnto the lock position so it couldn't be re­moved from the ignition. Plus, it was diffi­cult to shift out of park. Researchers foundthe transmission had moved forward dur­ing the impact to cause the problems.

No Requirements to Reduce Damage:One reason the utility vehicles performedso poorly may be that they aren't subjectto federal requirements to reduce damagein low-speed impacts. This means high re­pair costs not only for the utility vehiclesthemselves but also for the automobileswith which they collide.

The problem for the cars is bumper mis­match. Car bumpers are about the sameheight because that's what (wnt'd on p.6)

Stotus Report, Vol, 3/, No, 2, March 2, /996 3

Anything But Rugged

Think utility vehicles are rugged?Think they're designed to drive off·road and in bad weather, so let's go?

Think again. Advertisements toutthese vehicles as ideal for useriousadventure ... no matter what Moth­er Nature dishes out.~ Isuzu tells pc7

tential Rodeo buyers they can udriveit to the Arctic or anywhere else theroad to adventure leads.n

The adventure may lead directlyto a repair shop because 01 designsthat exacerbate instead of reducedamage in low-speed impacts. Thespare tire on back of the RodeolPassport provides an excellent eIC­ample of a poor design - one thatmay enhance the rugged image andincrease cargo space but wreakshavoc on repair costs. Swing out thetire after a 5 mph impact and seethe eICtensive damage (cover photo).

Insurance data quantify Ihe issue.In rear-end collisions, damage is sus­tained almost twice as frequently 10parts other than the bumpers of Ro­deos, compared with Ford Explorerswithout the extemal tire.

The problem is, that tire on backhits first in a collision, concentratingcrash force in this one place. Thetire is then pushed inlo the tailgate.The Rodeo isn't the only utility vehi­cle tested with this design. The LandRover's spare tire is on back, too.

In a new rear underride protectionstandard issued last month by the Nation­al Highway Traffic Safety Administration(NHTSA), the agency says it has been con­sidering the problem of passenger vehi­cles sliding underneath trucks and trailers~from time to time.~

This is putting it mildly. Issuing a newunderride standard has been an on-again­off-again proposition - mostly off again- at NHTSA for decades (see ~43 Years Isa Long nme,~ facing page).

-The new rule is far from perfect. Afterall these years, NHTSA should have donebeller. But some progress is better thannone,-Inslitute President Brian O'Neillsays. ~And no progress at all is what we'vehad on this issue since it was identified asa problem decades ago."

The new rule takes effect in 1998. Arear underride crash occurs when a pas-

senger vehicle slides into and under therear of a large truck or a trailer, often caus­ing major occupant compartment intru­sion. The result can be deadly, includingeven decapitation.

To reduce the chance of this happening,large trucks involved in interstate com­merce have been reqUired since 1953 to befitted with rear guards to prevent under­ride. But the guards aren't effective unlessthey're strong and extend down from trail­ers far enough toward the ground to keep apassenger vehicle from sliding underneath.

The 1953 standard that's finally beingupgraded fails on both counts. NHTSA'snew standard makes progress. It repre­sents a big improvement compared with

inally: New Rule

fier th Last Action~ C!. Redu e Underride

the 43-year-old requirements, and it's bet­ter than the agency's most recent set 01proposals, issued in 1992 (see Status Re­port, Vol. 27, No.9, July II, 1992). But thenew standard still falls shorl of what tech­nology allows and what the Institute andothers requested the agency to do duringthe rulemaking process.

Guard-to-Ground Clearance: The firstthing an underride guard has to do is con­tact the solid structure 01 a passenger ve­hicle - at a minimum, the engine block­to stop the vehicle from going under therear of the truck. This means the guardhas to be set sufficiently low, or else there'snothing to prevent the passenger vehicle'sfront end from sliding underneath it.

Status Report, Vol. 31, No.2, March 2, 1996 5

43 Years Is a L.ong TimeIt has been decades since action last was taken to reduce underridedeaths and injuries. The National Highway Traffic Safety Adminis­tration says it has considered such action "from time to time" butnever followed through. In the meantime, mifestones have passed.

1953: Queen Elizabeth /I takes throne.First - and only - underride standard issued.

1967: New Mercedes 200 sedan sells for 54,084.Consideration given to upgrading underride standard.

1969: Apoflo 11 module lands on the moon.Proposal introduced to upgrade underride standard.

1970: Archie Bunker debuts on CBS.Proposed underride standard revised.

1971: Gasoline costs 18 cents per gallon.Underride rulemaking terminated.

1977: Elvis Presley dies in Memphis, Tennessee.Institute petition prompts reconsideration of underride rule.

1981: Iran releases hostages aher 444 days of captivity,Proposal introduced to upgrade underride standard - again.

1992: The Soviet Union disbanded, Gorbachev steps down.Third proposal introduced to upgrade underride standard.

1996: New underride standard issued - finafly.

The Institute and others told NHTSAthe maximum allowable guard·to-grounddistance should be 18 inches, but NHTSAchose 22 inches instead. Still, this repre­sents improvement compared with the 30inches allowed under the 1953 standard.

Strength Requirements: Underrideguards and their allachment hardwareshould be strong enough so they don't failwhen they're hit by a passenger vehicle,NHTSA specifies some strength require­ments for the guards themselves but notfor their attachments.

The Institute urged NHTSA to either re­quire minimum strength for guard attach­ment hardware or test guards togetherwith the types of trailers to which theywould be attached. Yet the agency says it"does not at this time believe that it is

necessary to define strengthrequirements, ..

because the ne<:essarystrength is dependent on the

design of the guard." Nor doesNHTSA require testing of attachment

hardware, at least not directly.NHTSA addresses the testing issue in­

directly. The standard requires manufac­turers of guards to provide detailed instal­lation instructions, and it holds trailermanufacturers accountable lor followingthe instructions.

~This probably means attachments willbe tested for strength, even though theagency doesn't explicitly require testing.Still, the new requirements don't guar­antee tests the way a standard would,"O'Neill notes.

How Many Deaths? One reason NHTSAdoesn't go as far as the Institute and oth­ers recommend to reduce underrides maybe that the agency doesn't recognize the

extent of the problem (see Status Report,Vol. 29, No. 12, Oct. 29, 1994). In fact, pas­senger vehicles may be fatally underridingtruck trailers about three times as often asNHTSA estimates.

The problem involves how the agencycounts underride crashes. One of its data·bases - the Fatal Accident Reporting Sys­tem (FARS), an annual census of motorvehicle crash deaths - fails to identifymany underrides. FARS analysts rely onpolice reports, which often don't includeenough information to determine whetherunderride occurred.

Another agency database, the NationalACCident Sampling System (NASS), isbased on detailed investigations of a sam­ple of serious crashes. These investigationsusually involve careful study of involvedmotor vehicles and provide much more in­formation than is in police accident re-

ports, so it's not surprising that NASS esti­mates more underrides than are identifiedby FARS.

Still, NHTSA relies on FARS, acknowl­edging it's ~not perfect~ but insisting thatNASS ~has the potential to build samplingerror into the conclusions."

The Institute strongly disagrees. "It'saxiomatic in research that findings from acensus based on limited informationwon't be as good as those from a repre­sentative sample that's studied in detail,"O'Neill explains.

He concludes that neither the wayNHTSA counts the fatalities from rear un·derride crashes nor what the agency isdoing to reduce deaths in these crashes isall it should be. On the other hand, thenew standard ~is something. Now let's notwaste additional decades waiting for somemore progress. n

6 Status Report. Vol, 31, No, 2, March 2,1996

Economic Indicators Help ResearchersTrack Trends in Motor Vehicle DeathsEmployment Statistics Provide Best PredictorOf Short-Term Changes in Annual Fatalities

Annual Motor Vehicle Deaths

19949'

through September 1995. They used lin­ear regressions to model monthly fatali·ties as a function of vehicle miles traveled,statistics on employment, and sales ofnew automobiles.

The best predictor of short·termchanges in deaths, researchers found, isthe number of unemployed people. Ade­crease of 100,000 in unemployment ­without any change in number of milestraveled - during one month comparedwith the same month the previous yearpredicts an increase in motor vehicledeaths of about 12 in the same monthcompared with a year earlier.

Researchers conclude that the recentincreases in motor vehicle fatalities are as­sociated with an improved economy andthat they are not related to short-termchanges in total miles traveled. Why therelationship between fatalities and the

economy exists isn'tfully understood. Itcould be, the reosearchers note, thatchanges in econom-ic conditions affecttype of driving ratherthan the amount pro­pie drive. For exam·pie, improved eco­nomic conditionsmay lead people toan increase in recre­ational driving.

For a copy of"Trends in MotorVehicle Fatalities"by C.M. Farmer,write: Publications,1005 North GlebeRoad, Suite 800, Ar·Iington, VA 22201.8783791975

The increase in motor vehicle deathsduring 1993 and 1994 has raised concernabout the start of a long·term upward fa·tality trend. But this doesn't appear to bethe case. The nation's long-term decline inmotor vehicle deaths doesn't appear tohave been reversed, despite the recent risein deaths.

Motor vehicle deaths hit about 51,000annually in 1979·80. Twelve years later,deaths dropped to just over 39,000 but in·creased again during 1993-94 to morethan 40,000 annually.

Many short·term changes in motor ve­hicle deaths have historically been relat­ed to the state of the economy. To see ifthis was the case for the increase indeaths that occurred during 1993-94, In·stitute researchers studied relationshipsbetween economic indicators and month·ly motor vehicle fatality counts from 1975

50,000

40,000

(cont'd from p.2) federal standards require.The idea is to ensure that bumpers - notsheet metal parts - contact each other incollisions. But utility vehicle bumpers typi­cally are higher than those on cars, so theydon't line up with car bumpers in crashes.

Consumers Pay, Pay Again: Consumerswho own these flimsy vehicles are paying theprice for all thiS damage. They pay not onlyin higher insurance premiums but also de·ductibles whenever claims are filed for dam­age in low-speed collisions, Insurance colli­sion coverage loss experience generally par·allels the Instltute's crash test results - thatis, the three domestic utility vehicles havemuch lower insurance collision coveragelosses than the three imports.

Consumers also pay in terms of the timeand aggravation involved in getting their ve­hicles repaired after low-speed bumps.O'Neill points out, "This isn't fair becausemost 01 the damage doesn't have to happen."

Most cars have bumpers that includefoam or other material to absorb crash ener·gy. But the bumpers on live of the six utilityvehicles the Institute tested - all but theJeep - lack energy-absorbing materials,These bumper systems consist 01 rigid barsattached directly to vehicle frames or bodies.

Manufacturers know how to make carsand other passenger vehicles that preventdamage in crashes at 5 mph. Under federalstandards in ellect in the early 1980s, all carswere required to withstand flat·barrier im·pacts at 5 mph without damage. The 1996Ford Taurus also sustained no damage in 5mph f1at·barrier tests. It sustained a total ofless than $1,300 damage in the more demand·ing angle·barrier and pole tests. lIs damagetotal after four crash tests is about 15 per·cent of the Rodeo's. The Taurus also costsabout 520,000 to purchase. compared withabout 526,000 for the Rodeo.

"The bottom line is that the sticker priceson utility vehicles are just the beginning,~

O'Neill concludes. "Consumers can expect topay thousands of dollars when they're un·lucky enough to bump these so·called ruggedvehicles into something at slow speeds."

Flimsy Utility Vehicles

More than one in four motor vehicle deaths on U.S. roadsdoesn't involve a collision with another vehicle or vehicles. It in­volves hilling a roadside hazard like a tree, utility pole, or bridgesupport. Such crashes are a problem especially on secondaryroads. Interstates have been improved, but secondary roads stillare c1unered with roadside hazards. In a new Institute videotape,experts explain which roadside hazards present the worst prob-

lems. They tell how to alleviate the hazards. These aren't problemsthat can be removed all at once because the solutions often arecostly, but there are common-sense approaches to the hazardsalong the roadside.

~Making Safer Roads~ is available for sale at 35. To order this12-minute videotape, call or write: Films, 1005 North Glebe Road,Suite 800, Arlington, Virginia 22201.

Yol, 31, No.2, March 2,1996

On the InsideUtility vehicles perform poorly in 5mph crash tests p.l

Damage repair costs lor six 1996 mid-size four-door utility vehicles p.3

Mounling spare Ure on back adds con·siderably to repair costs p.3

New undenide standard finally on thebooks at NHTSA pA

43 years since last underride ruJe p.5

Short·term changes in crash deaths arerelated to the economy p.6

ew Institute video shows common·sense approaches to reducing the haz·ards along our roadsides p.7

The 1996 Toyota 4Runner is one of three utility vehicles that sustained morethan $2,000 damage in the 5 mph front·into-angle-barrier test. None 01 the sixvehicles the Institute tested sustained Jess than $1,500 damage in this impact.

STATUS~REPORT1005 North Glebe RoadArlinBlon, VA 22201(103) 247·1500 FAX (703) 247·1678

OifKIOf 01 PublicatJons{Editor: Anne flemingWrllm: Mari~ Klufmann, Kim lml:uler.

iIIMl S~ron J. R.umUSSftlf.dilorlal Aulstillt UrIeDe HughesArt Director Joytt ThomP5OllGrlphk 0e5iper leslie Oakey

Tht Insurance Institutt lor ttiglwray SaItty Is III indtpm.dtnl. lIOOproliL sdmtiIIc IDd edurat1llRll orpniUtlon. ItIs dedicated to rtdlldng tilt lo5seI- dnths., 1njurits,1Ddproptrt). dlllllgt - ruultinl frOlll crubes on lilt !lI­

hOllS hlgbwJ~Tht Institute Is tuppOrted by lbe AmtJI.CIJI lnsUJance Hittnny Salety AuociatloIl, the Amtrlc:1JI_ureu HIgb...ay~dy AIliIJIct, the Saliooal AssociItloo01 !ndtptlldenllntureu s.Jery AssodalJon, IDd a Dumber01 lndl'lidu.al1ltsurana COIIIplIIies

CooltnlS may be published .."hole or in pirI ..ilh anribo­lion. ThIs publicatiOrl is printed on rtc)'Cled paper

ISSN 0018·988X