1973 cars to have shock‐absorbing front bumper
Automakers will install front bumpers on their 1973 models.
The move does not match the government\'s proposal to reduce damage to the front and rear bumper of the new car, but the Detroit ob server believes that from the decorative bumper on today\'s car, this is a huge leap forward.
The 1974 models are excluded with matching hips at each height.
Today\'s car is not designed to meet the bumper.
So, for example, even in a minor accident, the Chevrolet bumper could go beyond the Ford bumper and damage the sheet metal.
Executives at Ford Motor\'s auto dealership conference in San Francisco say the 1973 system could add about $50 to the price of each car.
This proposed improvement was made after insurance companies and consumer advocates criticized the high maintenance costs of bumper and minor accidents at public occasions and professional hearings.
The government\'s proposal has been made that the front and rear 1973 bumpers can travel for five hours without damage.
Today\'s car absorbed only about two hours of collision without damage.
Automakers will soon be offering the government a 5-hour front bumper and a 2-hour front bumper.
5 miles an hour rear bumper.
To achieve this, Ford\'s executive vice president, William Innes, said his company would stall on a front bumper 8 or 9 inch deep, which is located 4 inch in front of sheet metal, it is supported by a shock absorption device.
GM is known to have similar plans in 1973.
Car manufacturers will also improve the rear bumper, but there will be no shock absorbers.
Car companies say the problem of damage to the back end of the car is not as serious as the problem of damage to the front.
But when deciding to concentrate on the front bumper, cost and manpower considerations may be just as important.
The companies are investing heavily in pollution control and safety systems.
The government\'s proposed bumper standard could have the effect of driving some small imported cars from the US market.
In this market, manufacturers who sell less than 50 000 cars a year may not want to spend money on bumper that absorb shocks because sales are so low.
For the beetle, even the best-selling imported car Volkswagen Beetle will have problems with the pro changes, which will place a deep bumper about 14 inch from the ground. J.
Stuart Perkins, president of Volkswagen, said the bumper was not suitable for the front end of the beetle\'s tilt.
The German car is the world\'s most famous car after the Ford T-Car. Its biggest market is the United States, not Germany.
If the beetle cannot be sold here, the German manufacturer may turn to another design for its basic car.
While American automakers are willing to meet, at least to a certain extent, the government\'s demands on me to prove to be bumpers, Ford president Lee ikoka made it clear at a press conference here today that, he believes that priorities and cost-effectiveness must become more important when the automotive mobile industry gives instructions.
He alleges that a safety system, the headrest on American cars, which leads to higher mountain seats, may actually be useless, but it costs $20 per constraint, nearly $ a year.
He said that although he refused to mention any name, government officials now agree that there may be little safety value to the headrest.
Their purpose is to stop the whiplash from getting hurt,
Ford did not find any of these restrictions to avoid \"even a sprained neck,\" Iacocca said \".
President Ford also said the government did not seem particularly interested in Ford\'s proposal for a restraint system other than airbags, which exploded in an accident and when the driver was pitching forward
The government has proposed installing these systems on cars in the next few years. Ford, Mr.
An alternative and cheaper solution was proposed, Iacocca said
For example, a car that does not drive unless a seat belt is attached.
He said the government\'s position on safety is that anything involving the participation of drivers and passengers will not work. However, Mr.
The Iacocca maintains that this system may be effective 95 for a quarter of airbag costs.
In terms of weapons, cost-effectiveness is important to the government, \"When you try to kill people,\" he said, but it is not well reflected in the art of saving lives.