Rear-Ended; New Bumper?

That design was why I chose a Civic Si over a VW Golf in '86. (The
VW salesman cheerfully explained the Golf's lack of a 5MPH bumper:
"That's what the collision insurance is for!") And it survived at least
one significant impact unscathed.

 

Happy endings are always nice.

 

Happy endings are always nice.

 

Except that Elle's Civic has a 2.5mph bumper, whihc kind of undermines your
apparent point. Seems to have survived this incident just fine.

 

Except that Elle's Civic has a 2.5mph bumper, whihc kind of undermines your
apparent point. Seems to have survived this incident just fine.

 

as tegger says, the styrofoam is of no consequence in any real accident,
it's simply to hold cosmetic shape. the steel or gfrp bar underneath,
and its mounting brackets, are what matter. if they're bent, the bumper
always shows misalignment. afaik, honda build to 5mph rather than dick
about with this keep-detroit-employed 2.5mph rubbish - doesn't take much
of a nudge to open a full change tray. chances are, you're just fine.

 

as tegger says, the styrofoam is of no consequence in any real accident,
it's simply to hold cosmetic shape. the steel or gfrp bar underneath,
and its mounting brackets, are what matter. if they're bent, the bumper
always shows misalignment. afaik, honda build to 5mph rather than dick
about with this keep-detroit-employed 2.5mph rubbish - doesn't take much
of a nudge to open a full change tray. chances are, you're just fine.

 

The design is nearly the same. The Golf had, near as I can tell, a
"0.5MPh bumper."

 

The design is nearly the same. The Golf had, near as I can tell, a
"0.5MPh bumper."

 

I think you're right and I'm at least out-of-date in my information.

According to www.riv.ca, the government-licensed agency that administers
the importation of foreign vehicles into Canada, 1994-and-up Hondas are
admissible without bumper modifications. Since Elle's '93 is the same as
the '94, this means her bumpers are obviously 5mph ones.

Since cars that are 15 model-years old or older are importable into Canada
without any restrictions or modifications, they are no longer listed with
RIV, so I can't check to see if earlier models had 2.5mph bumpers.

However, it's still passing strange that Canada and the United States
remain, since 1973, the only countries in the entire world to have bumper
standards at all.

 

I think you're right and I'm at least out-of-date in my information.

According to www.riv.ca, the government-licensed agency that administers
the importation of foreign vehicles into Canada, 1994-and-up Hondas are
admissible without bumper modifications. Since Elle's '93 is the same as
the '94, this means her bumpers are obviously 5mph ones.

Since cars that are 15 model-years old or older are importable into Canada
without any restrictions or modifications, they are no longer listed with
RIV, so I can't check to see if earlier models had 2.5mph bumpers.

However, it's still passing strange that Canada and the United States
remain, since 1973, the only countries in the entire world to have bumper
standards at all.

 

Yours is good info, fellows.

I googled a bit on the purpose of the styrofoam "absorber" (as it is
called on parts sites). I thought this was interesting (from
http://www.car-stuff.com/toyotabumperabsorber.htm):
"... it is the Toyota bumper absorber that is usually made of
Styrofoam or plastic that is positioned in between the bumper cover
and the reinforcement to help strengthen the capacity of the bumper to
absorb the impact created during collisions. In most cases, bumpers
alone could not sustain the impact created during collisions, which is
why a bumper assembly should be completed for maximum protection. If
until now your bumper assembly is still lacking a Toyota bumper
absorber, better equip your auto with one now or you probably would
regret later on that you haven't. Bumpers are able to bounce the force
back to the object that has collided with your auto instead of that
force directly hitting your vehicle."

A lot of helmet designs use styrofoam, for one, so the above seems
reasonable.

Seems there is a fair amount of chatter and dispute about whether the
metal bumpers of say the 60s were better insofar as cutting down on
damage to the vehicle. Maybe so but ISTM manufacturers also sought to
lighten cars to achieve better gas mileage. Tradeoffs and all.

 

Yours is good info, fellows.

I googled a bit on the purpose of the styrofoam "absorber" (as it is
called on parts sites). I thought this was interesting (from
http://www.car-stuff.com/toyotabumperabsorber.htm):
"... it is the Toyota bumper absorber that is usually made of
Styrofoam or plastic that is positioned in between the bumper cover
and the reinforcement to help strengthen the capacity of the bumper to
absorb the impact created during collisions. In most cases, bumpers
alone could not sustain the impact created during collisions, which is
why a bumper assembly should be completed for maximum protection. If
until now your bumper assembly is still lacking a Toyota bumper
absorber, better equip your auto with one now or you probably would
regret later on that you haven't. Bumpers are able to bounce the force
back to the object that has collided with your auto instead of that
force directly hitting your vehicle."

A lot of helmet designs use styrofoam, for one, so the above seems
reasonable.

Seems there is a fair amount of chatter and dispute about whether the
metal bumpers of say the 60s were better insofar as cutting down on
damage to the vehicle. Maybe so but ISTM manufacturers also sought to
lighten cars to achieve better gas mileage. Tradeoffs and all.

 

:

Around the mid-'60s, automakers started turning their bumpers into what
might be more accurately termed "decorative chrome bars". Insurance claims
for minor body damage began escalating about that time. Tired of the
claims, and alarmed by the sleek, form-fitting "bumpers" installed on cars
by the late '60s, insurance companies lobbied the federal government for
impact standards in order to limit minor damage claims.

From what I understand, the nascent safety zealots jumped in at the same
time, claiming that safety was being undermined by lots of people driving
around with broken headlights on account of the poor bumpers.

The result of their combined efforts was the 5-mph bumper impact
regulations, first imposed on the front bumpers of 1973 MY cars (except for
hardtops and convertibles, for some odd reason, which got one more year to
comply).

The first energy-absorbing bumpers were essentially simple "logs" mounted
on cylindrical struts that were filled with fluid of some kind, and were
designed to collapse under impact. These assemblies were bulky and heavy
(and usually ugly).

As the CAFE regulations of 1975 got tighter and tighter over the years,
automakers sought to make the original steel/aluminum battering-ram bumpers
lighter and lighter. This is why we now have hybrid flexible/rigid bumpers:
Light foam simply replaced the old heavy cylindrical struts.
Your rebar -- the original "bumper" prior to 1973 -- is now rigidly mounted
to the body shell, just like a 1972 model, but is now buried under a $400
plastic skin ($800 including paint).

It's my understanding that insurance companies never really did get their
hoped-for claims reductions: Better bumpers meant even /less/ careful
drivers. Minor impact damage went down, but just about every other kind of
collision damage went way up. A mixed blessing, to say the least.

 

:

Around the mid-'60s, automakers started turning their bumpers into what
might be more accurately termed "decorative chrome bars". Insurance claims
for minor body damage began escalating about that time. Tired of the
claims, and alarmed by the sleek, form-fitting "bumpers" installed on cars
by the late '60s, insurance companies lobbied the federal government for
impact standards in order to limit minor damage claims.

From what I understand, the nascent safety zealots jumped in at the same
time, claiming that safety was being undermined by lots of people driving
around with broken headlights on account of the poor bumpers.

The result of their combined efforts was the 5-mph bumper impact
regulations, first imposed on the front bumpers of 1973 MY cars (except for
hardtops and convertibles, for some odd reason, which got one more year to
comply).

The first energy-absorbing bumpers were essentially simple "logs" mounted
on cylindrical struts that were filled with fluid of some kind, and were
designed to collapse under impact. These assemblies were bulky and heavy
(and usually ugly).

As the CAFE regulations of 1975 got tighter and tighter over the years,
automakers sought to make the original steel/aluminum battering-ram bumpers
lighter and lighter. This is why we now have hybrid flexible/rigid bumpers:
Light foam simply replaced the old heavy cylindrical struts.
Your rebar -- the original "bumper" prior to 1973 -- is now rigidly mounted
to the body shell, just like a 1972 model, but is now buried under a $400
plastic skin ($800 including paint).

It's my understanding that insurance companies never really did get their
hoped-for claims reductions: Better bumpers meant even /less/ careful
drivers. Minor impact damage went down, but just about every other kind of
collision damage went way up. A mixed blessing, to say the least.

 

Yeah, you really have to check them over after a rear-ender. My wife got it
in her 92 Seville. The bumper was shoved forward on one side and some other
damage. I went to the Caddy dealer to pick it up after it was supposededly
fixed. The bumper was replaced and looked fine. I got down on the ground and
looked underneath. There was a small shock absorber on each side that went
to the bumper. The one on the impact side had been damaged and compressed.
Did they replace it? Hell no, just shoved a bunch of shims behind it and
rebolted it. I was pissed, raised hell and got it fixed right. Talk about
shade tree mechanics, at a Caddy Dealership, no less. Really tightened
my Van Allen belt !

 

Yeah, you really have to check them over after a rear-ender. My wife got it
in her 92 Seville. The bumper was shoved forward on one side and some other
damage. I went to the Caddy dealer to pick it up after it was supposededly
fixed. The bumper was replaced and looked fine. I got down on the ground and
looked underneath. There was a small shock absorber on each side that went
to the bumper. The one on the impact side had been damaged and compressed.
Did they replace it? Hell no, just shoved a bunch of shims behind it and
rebolted it. I was pissed, raised hell and got it fixed right. Talk about
shade tree mechanics, at a Caddy Dealership, no less. Really tightened
my Van Allen belt !

 

good rule of thumb when stopped, always leave enough space in front of
your car that you can see at least the rear bumper of the car in front
of you, so that a rear impact won't totally squish your car. you might
even be able to duck sideways out of the way. practice in your
driveway at such things helps. stuff you need to know when you drive a
civic in a world of suvs.

 

good rule of thumb when stopped, always leave enough space in front of
your car that you can see at least the rear bumper of the car in front
of you, so that a rear impact won't totally squish your car. you might
even be able to duck sideways out of the way. practice in your
driveway at such things helps. stuff you need to know when you drive a
civic in a world of suvs.

 

years ago, took my civic in to a local body shop in a big bucks
neighborhood which advertised itself as specializing in mercedes, bmw,
honda, acura, figured they would do a decent job on the front end i
stupidly mangled. I impressed upon him i wanted it done right, even if
it cost, not just patched together to look good for quick sale like
some folks do. last winter, i skid into a dinky little yard sign just
stuck into the dirt, no concrete or anything. it keels right over, of
course, minimal impact, but the front bumper is split apart. Mr.
classy body shop had neglected to replace the styrofoam under the
bumper cover, and without the support the cover had stretched/ripped
under the relatively gentle stress. i'm convinced it would have
survived otherwise. bottom line, the guy's little cheat saved him
probably $15 and cost me $200.