Now CST 950om review of SUVs
The bumper did not fair well in the 'basher' test, but the pole test REALLY showed the flaw of the tailgate mounted spare. I expect JAOS or WAAG to devise a rear mounted 'guard' of some type post haste to address this.wmquan said:There's a turbo-4 Forester for the Japanese market, and the rumors still pine for the turbo to come to the U.S. Don't know what that would do to the price.
Here is the IIHS press release on the bumper bash test of some small SUV's, including the Honda CR-V and the Subaru Forester:
Here are the bumper bash results for all small SUV's:
What is surprising is that while the bulk of the CR-V's high repair cost is for the rear bumpers, it did even worse than the previous generation.
Finally, a reminder that the MDX had the best bumper bash results of any mid-sized SUV tested by IIHS:
While I've not backed into a pole, I can definitely see how it can happen. There are definitely parking spots around here that are littered with little signs on poles. Or signs in the middle of a lot, ready to catch unwary drivers.donsev said:This has been discussed before (the last time the IIHS released SUV bumper test results), so at the risk of repeating myself. Why in the world does the IIHS use a *pole* barrier to test the rear bumper damage? When was the last time ANYONE backed into a 4 foot tall vertical pole? Don't the vast majority of rear end collisions involve a horizontal object of some sort (oh, I don't know, maybe like another BUMPER!)?
Consumer Reports uses a "bumper basher" device that they feel much more accurately reflects the type of damage likely to be sustained by the rear bumper.
Again, I am no fan of externally mounted spares, but I feel this test unfairly singles out those that do simply for the sake of selling news footage.
P.S. to those that HAVE backed into a 4 foot tall vertical pole, I have great sympathy for your lack of depth perception.