Who's the idiot that deleted rear bumpers on new cars??

-
tom999w

tom999w

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2024
Messages
778
Reaction score
869
Location
New York
More and more new cars are popping up on the streets that are missing their rear bumpers. I'm not grasping what the purpose of this is. Is safety something that the manufacturers have phased out?

20250721_125342-scaled-1257783956.jpg


OIP-3712920605.jpg


rivian-rs1-2023-09-exterior-rear-angle-scaled-1397035044.jpg


2026_land-rover_range-rover-evoque_s_01-587888150.jpg

1763691077356.png
 
Last edited:
I can't find it, but there's a rear crash test video on a new American SUV that was totalled after a 5mph rear hit...
 
They just don't look like rear bumpers any more. I want to know who the idiot engineer thought it would be ok to put the brake lights and turn signals low in the back bumper.
1763650680411.png


Kia and Hyundai. Also a GM model or two. :BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead:
 
My nephew recently bought a new totalled Rivian with 8k miles on it from a junkyard for very few dollars. It had a minor fender bender in the back. I guess that's the direction that the car makers are going: minor rear fender bender = junk the car. The insurance company makes money, you buy a new Rivian, the dealer sells you a new Rivian.... Everyone's happy...
 
They don't want us to be able to work on them or fix em.. Just use then throw away like a paper towel ! Buy another roll.
 
tom999w said:
Is safety something that the manufacturers have phased out?
Click to expand...
I guarantee you all of the cars you posted pictures of without rear bumpers are FAR FAR safer than any car built with a bumper hanging off the back. I can’t help with the BS that a fender bender totals most new cars, but as for safety, they are leaps and bounds better than old Detroit iron.
 
Fixing a 5mph parking lot bump on my 2013 Challenger was something like $5500. (And the shop screwed it up, costing me another $1000+.)
 
tom999w said:
More and more new cars are popping up on the streets that are missing their rear bumpers. I'm not grasping what the purpose of this is. Is safety something that the manufacturers have phased out?

View attachment 1716480502

View attachment 1716480504

View attachment 1716480505

View attachment 1716480506
View attachment 1716480661
Click to expand...

Safety been phased out? You've got to be joking.

Just because those vehicles don't have what appears to be your definition of a "bumper" doesn't mean that they haven't passed all of the safety standards (including crash tests!!!) that are required for modern cars.

As far as cost to fix them, well, that's another matter entirely. It doesn't help that some of the vehicles you posted are in the $100k range to purchase. That Grand Wagoneer STARTS in the high $80k range. So yeah, it's gonna be expensive to fix.

tom999w said:
I can't find it, but there's a rear crash test video on a new American SUV that was totalled after a 5mph rear hit...
Click to expand...

Again, being "totaled" has NOTHING to do with safety. That's strictly a cost/value analysis by an insurance company.

Many cars are "totaled" after relatively minor accidents because of the cost of repair, not because their occupants were anything other than perfectly safe. I see accidents all the time where the car is totaled and the occupants are 100% unhurt. Modern cars have crumple zones, air bags, parts intended to absorb impacts and energy. They do their job extremely well, and the result is that part has to be replaced, and the occupant is just fine.

tom999w said:
This minor fender bender below resulted in a $42,000 repair bill.


[/URL][/URL][/URL]

View attachment 1716480509
Click to expand...

And that Rivian has a rear bumper, which disproves your original point. And again, "cost to fix" doesn't mean "not safe". In fact, the cost to repair those vehicles probably follows, at least in part, the safety requirements they have to meet. With of course the rising costs of production, materials, etc.

Here's the other thing- If you replaced that Rivian in that accident with a 1968 Charger, what do you think the cost of that repair would be? Because a late '60's to '70's mopar in that same collision would have folded up its rear frame rails. So, now price out straightening the frame on a rack, replacing the rear frame rails, quarter panel, trunk, tail panel, tail lights, bumper, floor pans etc, and then a full repaint. If you do that for a '68 Charger and pay someone to do the work I bet you're gonna be in the same ballpark as that $42k Rivian repair.
 
Last edited:

Well you go ahead and stick your family in one of those cars with no back bumper. My family is going nowhere near one of those. And justifying a $42,000 repair bill that could have been a simple bolt on/bolt off $500 repair if correctly designed, is just absurd.
 
And think about this...the worst thing that ever happened to automobile styling IMO was the so called 5 MPH bumper that was required for 1973 and up cars.
Why can't we go back to stylish bumpers that provide a reasonable degree of safety? :realcrazy:
 
Killer6 said:
Holy F¿<k, and the ignorance bombs keep dropping........
Click to expand...

Right?

Anyone that thinks they’re safer in an old car with a metal bumper than any of the vehicles mentioned earlier in this thread clearly lacks even the most basic understanding of physics, and is therefore not worth debating.

I love the styling of a nice chrome bumper, I really do. But I’m not so ignorant to think that it’s worth a single flying F at a rolling donut in an accident.
 
All I know is, If I was in the passenger seat of my Duster instead of my mom's 2009 Chrysler 300C when a car rammed the passenger side at 30 mph I don't think I'd be here typing this right now. Modern cars are ugly but so much safer than our classics it's crazy.

Btw the bumpers on modern cars are still there, they're just "built in" to the exterior and sit behind large panels that cover the front and rear.

This is the bumper on a newer car...

maxresdefault-1768862548.jpg
 
A-Body III said:
And think about this...the worst thing that ever happened to automobile styling IMO was the so called 5 MPH bumper that was required for 1973 and up cars.
Why can't we go back to stylish bumpers that provide a reasonable degree of safety? :realcrazy:
Click to expand...
Worst thing? For car looks, maybe, but not for safety.
 
While the 5mph bumpers do absorb low-speed impacts better, & offer better initial impact protection in a hard hit, they were really designed to save the Insurance Companies $$$$$. From both light impact injury AND, more importantly, body damage to the vehicle.
Ever see the hinged, spring-loaded grilles in the '70's-'80's A & G-body GM's? It's not 'cause it's cool & You can pop a crumpled up ball of paper in behind the bumper like a garbage can, & it won't save your pretty little face for one second, it's so the bottom could move back like 4" w/o breaking & costing $$$.
It was something that the Insurance Institute (understandably) lobbied for, and got. I'm sure somebody into those particulars knows how much it increased profit margins &/or reduced premiums, but it certainly made cars less appealing...
Over 25yrs ago, I bumped a Mercury Villager in the LR, it was a $1,200 claim for the brackets, cover, and paint back then.......the subject vehicle of post#2 in this thread is a disgrace, throwaway **** is supposed to be cheap, it's truly a criminal fraud to burden the Ins. Co's. & the rest of the premium paying Public to subsidize this ill-concieved POS.
 
Last edited:
Heck, you're the one looking for a 71 ONLY slant 6 and 6.45/14 tires and you got room to call someone else an idiot? lol
 
MopaR&D said:
ALL I know is, If I was in the passenger seat of my Duster instead of my mom's 2009 Chrysler 300C when a car rammed the passenger side at 30 mph I don't think I'd be here typing this right now. Modern cars are ugly but so much safer than our classics it's crazy.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. YOU know a LOT more than just that.

01 A8.gif
 
TT5.9mag said:
I guarantee you all of the cars you posted pictures of without rear bumpers are FAR FAR safer than any car built with a bumper hanging off the back. I can’t help with the BS that a fender bender totals most new cars, but as for safety, they are leaps and bounds better than old Detroit iron.
Click to expand...

1764056788476.png

1764056829959.png

1764057185643.png
 
Last edited:
I mean come on is this a legit question...... it simply looks better and news flash a rear bumper isn't adding safety. Simply helping protect the panel from people that cant park. You ever think behind the panel is the "bumper". Simply a style thing, people been removing bumpers and smoothing on 70s cars for years.
Imagine how shite all those cars would look with a bumper
 
Ozyduster said:
and the issue is?
Click to expand...
You can only see them on the open road. You can't see them if you are right behind the car unless you are 15' or more behind them. Compare the high mounted lights in Post #1 to the ones in post #4.
RustyRatRod said:
They're low. Let's just ignore the possibility of the lights getting HIT along with the bumper for a second. We still have the lights down LOW, much more susceptible to road debris and water.
Click to expand...
And that too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-
Back
Top Bottom