- #16475 of 19346
-
Re: great! [boomchek]
by stevedebi
-
Jan 15, 2009 (1:10 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: boomchek (Jan 15, 2009 11:21 am)
"Ouch. I was thinking you can just buy and attach the black piece onto the bumper cover but it seems like the bumper cover itself sustained damage.
This bumper cover sounds and looks fairly complicated. I'm guessing about $2k to replace/fix. "
I'm not sure, it looks like the cover may be in three pieces, and only the one side piece seems broken. Maybe it can be replaced separately, but even that with paint would be several hundred.
|
- #16476 of 19346
-
Re: great! [boomchek]
by qbrozen
-
Jan 15, 2009 (6:07 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: boomchek (Jan 15, 2009 11:21 am)
actually, the paint is all still good, as is the bumper cover. It just won't go back into place because she crushed the bumper support. And, yes, 3 parts is correct. They are the bumper cover, metal bumper support, and plastic bumper support. I've been doing research and it seems I'm looking at about $500-$600 in parts. I've tracked down most of it at saveswedish.com. My shopping cart is up to $380, but I'm still missing the foglight surround and foglight housing.
Here's the diagram:
I believe I'm looking at parts 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, and 16 for starters. But part 7 in this diagram is sans foglight.
|
- #16477 of 19346
-
Re: [stevedebi]
by srs_49
-
Jan 16, 2009 (4:35 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: stevedebi (Jan 14, 2009 12:55 pm)
I'm pretty sure they upgraded the electronics of the shuttle fleet in the early 1990's. I believe Columbia was the last one upgraded.
Yes, you're right.
|
- #16478 of 19346
-
Re: [Mr_Shiftright]
by srs_49
-
Jan 16, 2009 (4:39 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jan 14, 2009 1:17 pm)
But I imagine all military hardware must remain more obsolete than if it were on the commercial marketplace. Can you imagine the lines of code you'd have to write for a space shuttle?
Believe me, you don't know the half of it. It takes a new military program 15-20 years to go from concept to being deployed and used by troops in the field (F-22 Raptor, for example). Many of parts designed in at the beginning are obsoleted before the product is fielded. That's one of the reasons why there's so much money to be made providing field support and upgrades for existing systems.
|
- #16479 of 19346
-
Re: [srs_49]
by texases
-
Jan 16, 2009 (7:15 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: srs_49 (Jan 16, 2009 4:39 am)
Think about keeping up the B-52s. 50 year old technology!
|
- #16480 of 19346
-
Re: great! [qbrozen]
by boomchek
-
Jan 16, 2009 (10:16 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: qbrozen (Jan 15, 2009 6:07 pm)
Whatever happened to bumpers being bumpers. 
|
- #16481 of 19346
-
Re: great! [boomchek]
by qbrozen
-
Jan 16, 2009 (11:55 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: boomchek (Jan 16, 2009 10:16 am)
Oh, exactly what I've been saying (quite loudly) since this incident. It is ridiculous. They want to talk about insurance reform? Well, this would be something to look at. I don't mean to have a resurgence of the rubber bumper era. Manufacturers can still have these body-colored bumpers that blend in. But I'm just asking for some engineering thought be put into it where it can absorb some impact and not take out a thousand bucks of parts in collateral damage.
|
- #16482 of 19346
-
Re: great! [qbrozen]
by xwesx
-
Jan 16, 2009 (1:01 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: qbrozen (Jan 16, 2009 11:55 am)
But then, the impact was fully absorbed within the bumper structure, right? On the old style, that shock would have primarily gone right to the frame (and therefore to the passengers). My brother did something similar to what it sounds like your wife did, but he was in a '79 F150, and it ended up bending the frame, the bumper folded back and dinged the quarter-panel (and grille, due to the way those two were connected). It was not too big of a deal to fix most of it, but the frame problem was expensive....
There are trade-offs. Better occupant protection means more malleable parts surrounding them.
|
- #16483 of 19346
-
Re: great! [qbrozen]
by Mr_Shiftright HOST
-
Jan 16, 2009 (3:07 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: qbrozen (Jan 16, 2009 11:55 am)
Cant' you just find blanks for the foglights and remove them from the mix. OEM foglights are a joke anyway.
|
- #16484 of 19346
-
Re: great! [xwesx]
by qbrozen
-
Jan 16, 2009 (5:49 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: xwesx (Jan 16, 2009 1:01 pm)
The bumper structure absorbed the impact, yes. And I don't have a problem with that. The problem is that they saw fit to use that metal brace to support other pieces as well. Namely, the headlight support and hood latch release mechanism (among other things, but that is what I know to be affected at the moment). I mean, come on! The bumper support should be JUST that. For the bumper! But they decided to save space/money and mount other things to it besides the bumper.
Shifty- I could get the non-fog replacements, but I know my wife won't go for that.
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Classic Cars 
