Front bumper on Chrysler 300?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

George Orwell - 06 Nov 2007 23:03 GMT

Am I wrong to assume the front bumper on a late model Chrysler 300 is the
grillwork?

It reminds me of the old days when kids removed the front bumper to clean
up the front end. They forget the principle that the front bumper keeps
the other guy from going all the way in and smashing the fenders, hood,
grill and all the rest of the front-end structure.

The last good bumpers were from the late '20s and early '30s. I think you
could crash into almost anything at 10 or 15 miles an hour with little or
no damage to the car or bumper itself. By the '50s Harley Earl had made
bumpers a heavy, chromed, non-functional ornament. Today's cars seem to
have done away completely with them.

Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it

Reply to this Message

kmath50@gmail.com - 07 Nov 2007 11:47 GMT

> Am I wrong to assume the front bumper on a late model Chrysler 300 is the
> grillwork?
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
> https://www.mixmaster.it

Everything changed for the 1973 model year, when bumpers where
supposed to absorb minor impacts. Bumpers these days are made from
plastic, and merely cover the less-attractive bumper and impact
absorbers it is mounted to. I worked at an AMC dealership in the
mid-1970's, and all but the most minor collisons resulted in the
impact absorbers having to be replaced. I remember customers
complaining about the cost to replace them.

There was also a guy in my neighbor hood that had the bumpers that
could replace the originals, and be filled with water. Does any one
remember those? It had little plugs on the top, and the escaping water
was supposed to absorb the impact.

-KM

Reply to this Message

Art - 07 Nov 2007 17:48 GMT

I remember an article in Consumer Reports regarding the water filled
bumpers. I don't remember their opinion though. I also remember Saab
having a honeycomb bumper that fixed itself after small impacts.

>> Am I wrong to assume the front bumper on a late model Chrysler 300 is the
>> grillwork?
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>
> -KM

Reply to this Message

who - 07 Nov 2007 18:37 GMT

> The last good bumpers were from the late '20s and early '30s.

I disagree, although the spring like bumper on my Fathers 36 Chev was
quite good at absorbing light bumps.

The chromed large over styled bumpers of the 40s to 70s were the worse.
I hated the chrome bumpers that attracted rust overnight from road salt.

I feel the bumpers on my '81 Horizon were the best I've had. The cover
didn't have chrome to rust and the two shocks on each bumper twice
absorbed a rear hit at at least 10 mph, with no damage other than a
slight scuff on the cover. The other cars had dented front bumpers.

> I think you
> could crash into almost anything at 10 or 15 miles an hour with little or
> no damage to the car or bumper itself. By the '50s Harley Earl had made
> bumpers a heavy, chromed, non-functional ornament. Today's cars seem to
> have done away completely with them.

Thank goodness the chrome has gone, the bumper is under the cover.
What I don't like is the bumper covers are now painted to match the car
and are very high gloss.
Back in the 80s the bumper covers were painted matt, so scuffs didn't
show so much.

Reply to this Message

Art - 11 Nov 2007 05:07 GMT

>> The last good bumpers were from the late '20s and early '30s.
> I disagree, although the spring like bumper on my Fathers 36 Chev was
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> Back in the 80s the bumper covers were painted matt, so scuffs didn't
> show so much.

I think the painted bumpers help make cars more visible and prevent
accidents.

Reply to this Message