- #16480 of 19249
-
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 19249
-
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 19249
-
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 19249
-
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 19249
-
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.
|
- #16485 of 19249
-
wow
by qbrozen
-
Jan 16, 2009 (5:50 pm)
-
|
Bidder just paid $92k for a '64 Austin-Healy 3000.
The most beautiful one I've ever seen, but still...
|
- #16486 of 19249
-
Re: wow [qbrozen]
by Mr_Shiftright HOST
-
Jan 16, 2009 (5:59 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: qbrozen (Jan 16, 2009 5:50 pm)
64 Healey -- well if it's a BJ8 and if it was restored by one of the "big names" in Healey restoration, with the ensuing great reputation for quality and accuracy, then yeah, around $85,000 is the going rate. Of course, it probably took $150K to get there, but still....
|
- #16487 of 19249
-
Re: great! [qbrozen]
by xwesx
-
Jan 16, 2009 (6:10 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: qbrozen (Jan 16, 2009 5:49 pm)
Yeah, I see what you mean. Seems like somewhat of lazy engineering.
|
- #16488 of 19249
-
It's BARGAIN DAY!
by Mr_Shiftright HOST
-
Jan 17, 2009 (10:31 pm)
-
|
Can You Do a Little Better On the Price?
I guess a Volvo 940 isn't a classic?
It's a rare one, it runs!
Tempting
Shoot, the WHEEL is worth that!
|
- #16489 of 19249
-
Re: It's BARGAIN DAY! [Mr_Shiftright]
by qbrozen
-
Jan 18, 2009 (6:02 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jan 17, 2009 10:31 pm)
hell, not only is the jag rare for running, its magic because it runs without a fuel pump!
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Classic Cars 
