(first posted 6/4/2018) Lately here at CC, there has been talk of of how effective certain aftermarket accessories designed to enhance the visual appeal of cars have been, such as canvas tops and wheels. Today, I present a feature designed not so much to add an air of luxury or sportiness, but rather to protect the car: the bumper guard. The 1969 Chevrolet Chevelle is one of my all-time favorite combinations of year, make and model, so it took me less than maybe fifteen seconds to ask my cousin and his wife to stop their Subaru so I could hop out and get some pictures of this one parked in front of their local, upscale, outdoor mall.
I’ll just get this out of the way: do / did these bumper guards actually work? I ask, because it would seem an absolute shame if they didn’t, as they almost completely wreck the looks of what I consider to be one of the finest posteriors in all of American auto-dom. I was born in the mid-’70s, so my very first experience of cars and their bumpers were from the perspective that larger, 5-mph “safety” bumpers were the norm. When I was very young, it was cars from the late-’60s through the early-’70s, with their thin, blade-like or looped bumpers, that looked bare and somewhat unfinished.
How the “factory” bumper guards are supposed to look. Picture as sourced from the internet.
It was only later into my burgeoning car obsession that I learned from those “in the know” that the thin-bumper versions of familiar cars were considered superior in the looks department to those that followed. I eventually adopted this mindset so as not to go against the grain, but I’ll just come right out and say it: I love the ’74 Camaro restyle. There. Its larger, chrome bumpers were well-sculpted and integrated, and their basic shapes – both front and rear – complemented both the new nose and flag-shaped, wraparound taillamps perfectly. Of course, there were major bumper-offenders in the ’70s (ahem, Dearborn, ahem), but today, the size of a car’s bumpers – new or old – no longer correlates directly with its desirability in my heart and mind.
Having no firsthand experience, I can’t imagine these sabretooth-looking appendages would do any good outside of perhaps in a scenario where this car is regularly backed (very slowly) into a tight-fitting garage or carport. Visually, these things are scaled so big that my feelings are actually just a little bit hurt simply by looking at them. They’re maybe one footstep shy of those Yosemite Sam mudflaps telling you to “BACK OFF” in all-caps. They’re like two, chrome, rubber-capped exclamation points, with the car coolly stating, “I don’t give a damn how I look. You come any closer, and I will cut you.”
As illustrated by the burgundy example above, the “factory” bumper guards are much smaller and subtle, tastefully flanking the license plate holder spot. Since I really don’t know, would those of you with experience weigh in and tell me if these rear fangs are worth their price in the looks department? At least the “Bumper Bully” still attached to the back of the Lexus on the left can be easily removed and tossed into the trunk (which, um, probably could have been done at the house in this case, but whatever). Here’s hoping that if the owner of this beautiful, brown Chevelle chooses to reverse this questionable cosmetic procedure, it will be able to be done with minimal adverse consequences to the car.
(Dayton suburb) Beavercreek, Ohio.
Saturday, April 7, 2012.
This is a tell of a city car or former city car that regularly parallel parks in the street
Growing up in Brooklyn by in the ’60s and ’70s this was common
Cars of the ’50s also had them without the rubber fronts
City cars now have a rubber skirt the full with of the bumper ,an odd thing to see here in southern New Jersey
Agreed the bumper guards did spoil the looks of the car , but the modern version is much worse
Careful city car owners have long tried various devices to protect their cherished ride. My father had “curb feelers” installed on his ’53 Pontiac in an attempt to prevent scuffs on the wide whitewalls. IIRC that Pontiac also had the factory front bumper guard, a useless extra piece of chrome that protected nothing, and the “exhaust deflector”, a gizmo on the end of the tailpipe to prevent marring the back bumper.
The worst aftermarket auto protection feature has to be non-factory bodyside moldings, often stuck where it shouldn’t be and often wavy and droopy.
I remember seeing those curb feelers when I was a kid – up until the early ’60s I guess, and usually on ‘big’ American cars. I do remember an Austin A95 Westminster with them – probably make Bryce snort his coffee at that!
Yes – those “Bumper Bully” things (like on the Lexus on the left in the above shot) are none-too-attractive, but what I like about them is that they’re not permanently installed on the car. This trend for giant bumper covers that, while attractive, are easily scratched / punctured / etc. in city traffic, is not altogether great. I miss the days when bumpers (and bumper covers) weren’t quite so delicate.
That’s true. They’re ugly but can be taken off easily.
I am with you on the bumper guards. They were functional in that era of thin bumpers that could easily ride over or under another car’s bumper, thus negating the purpose of bumpers altogether. But that doesn’t mean that they looked good.
I will, however, be the contrarian about the overall style of the rear of the 69 Chevelle. From the time these were new these lights stuck me as stylists bending and twisting lights into shapes and into places that lights shouldn’t be. There were too many planes, angles and shapes going on here. I thought the 68 and 70+ did a better job on the taillights.
You have a point about the ’69 Chevelle taillights. However, to my eyes, the ’68 taillights were just a little too small.
They remind me of the ’61 Dodge Dart, which caused so many complaints about the tiny taillights that Chrysler tacked on an extra set of round lights at mid-year.
Interestingly that’s about where they mounted the amber indicators on the ones they sold in Australia – probably the same part with a different lens. They were awfully tiny lights though – what was Chrysler thinking?
I agree that Chevy stylists kind of boxed themselves in with the shape and dimensions of pieces that made up the tail end of the car. The 68s lights could be bigger, but that would have required either a taller panel over the bumper or a lower bumper. The 69 Cutlass also went with much larger lights over the 68, but I thought that those lights had a more natural shape and placement.
In the interests of full disclosure, the 68-69 Chevelle as a whole was never really my thing, as I preferred the more , um, traditional shape of the cars coming from Mopar and Ford at that time. As time has gone on I have lost interest in the Fords and gone gaga for the Mopars, but on these Chevys I prefer the 70-72 to this generation.
I think that the ’68 Beaumont had the best tail light treatment on this body.
I have never seen one of these, and it is quite interesting. Personally I would have moved that bright metal strip up a bit to the level of the split between the upper and lower lenses, then extended it around the corners to the lens edges. Or else a second bright strip to connect the upper lenses with chrome letters between the two?
The 69 Beaumont handled the issue as well as any, though I am still not quite satisfied with the fill panel between the taillights.
My, that is handsome. I love the look of these Beaumonts.
Of all the rear ends used on the 68-72 A bodies the 68-69 Chevelle was the only one I liked. I have always felt this generation had some of the best front ends GM ever came up with, but the worst rear ends, and it’s because most put their taillights in the bumper.
@XR7Matt – kind of like our current era where so many vehicles look like very little effort was put into the rear compared to the front, or that the front and rear were styled by different committees that were given sets of specs but never actually met.
And left it to the production engineers to bridge the gap between the front and rear ends?
I will agree that often the rear of modern cars is the least visually interesting part. I can think of a few cars – Maserati Ghibli, Alfa Stelvio – that have attractive but anonymous rear ends.
It’s frustrating because with LED lights, you can be adventurous. Look at the rear of the Dodge Durango and Charger. Or you can sculpt the rear in a pleasing way, e.g. the 2011+ Chrysler 300 with the almost cathedral-style taillights.
Matt, I 95% agree with you. I hate taillights in the bumper but I love the ’70-72 Cutlass rear end, which to me is just beautiful. The Pontiac, Buick and ’70+ Chevelle rear ends? Pass. Worst part of the car.
I actually like the complex polygon shape of the ’69 taillights. Also, to Tonyola’s point below, the taillights on the ’68 really did look too small.
The 57 and 64 Chevy with the 62 “B” Pontiac are second, third, and fourth, on my personal favourite vehicles of all time list.
The 69 Chevelle 2 door hardtop, or 2 door sedan, and of course the rag top, is absolutely my number one. Agreed.. the bumper guards in the top photo destroyed the whole look of that 69 Malibu.
I can live with non matching numbers. I can accept a well done clone. Providing the correct wheels are available, I don’t mind “some” custom wheels. I detest, and abhor irreversible modifications. IMHO
After viewing the damage done to my Father’s various cars during his 40 year working career in the congested, “car un-friendly” French Quarter of New Orleans, having to park “on the street”, I can understand the need for those tall, thick bumper guards.
As to the effectiveness of bumper guards, one need look no further than the 1973-74 Mopars. Chrysler got an exemption to the new 5mph bumper requirement for their cars scheduled to terminate or have major revisions by 1975. So, they all got big-ass bumper guards which would work in a low-speed, completely flat frontal collision, but have pretty much zero protection in any other type impact.
Interestingly, as one might expect in the interest of aesthetics, the vast majority of the restored/well-preserved cars seen at car shows appear to have had their bumper guards removed.
And it wasn’t just Mopars that passed the 73 standards with the addition of a set of guards and maybe a little stronger mounts. Look at the 73 Pinto, same as the 71-2 except the bumper guards were no longer an option, they were standard.
The 73-74 AMC Javelin got the same exemption.
Two door cars got a 1 year “reprieve” from the 5 mph bumper regulations as did cars that were about to be extensively restyled. BTW, the front bumper of a 73 Pinto extends a few inches from the car compared to a 71-72, irrespective of the bumper guards some models had. This is the same arrangement used by Ford on the Capri.
Yes those stronger mounts pushed the bumper out a bit further on the 73 Pinto.
Also it was not a reprieve for 2 door cars. There were a few cars that got an exemption. But the reality is that the standards for 73 were different than the standards for 74 and 75. Things like the rubber blocks on Mopars and bumper guards lined up with the new mounting brackets on the Pintos were able to pass the run into a wall test of 1973, while 1974 cars also had pendulum tests that included the corners of the bumpers and multiple spots across the front. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjkqPKLurrbAhXxKX0KHewTDzIQFgiIATAJ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcrashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov%2FApi%2FPublic%2FViewPublication%2F805866&usg=AOvVaw0IYOX5lkbM9O5BrtWfZQPG see pages 38-40.
Thanks for clarifying. There is more to those ’72 carryover bumpers than meets the eye. In addition to the rubber blocks reinforcements were bolted in behind the bumpers to stiffen them. Then they were spaced away from sheet metal an additional 3/4″ or so. Flexible filler panels were typically used to cover the additional gap. That is how those blade style bumpers were still able to meet the ’73 standards. The standards were in short:
1973 – 5 mph front, 2 1/2 mph rear tested against a flat barrier.
must protect safety equipment i.e. cooling system, lamps.
1974 – 5 mph front, 5mph rear tested against a pendulum barrier.
protection intended as above but should also
protect against override/underride, suspension and steering.
1975.’76 – Same as above but added sheet metal protection.
Interestingly ’72 GM B and C bodies also had bumpers in the front which were impact absorbing. It was achieved by stiffener reinforcements, spacing away from sheet metal and mounting on leaf style springs.
Nice find Joseph. The owner has taken care to ensure these ‘custom’ bumper guards don’t damage the bumper. If you blow up your photo to 200%, you can see there is a black moulding that follows the contour between the bumper guards and the bumper. Protecting the bumper. I’ve also brightened the photo, and show the moulding outline in red. There also might appear to be a clamp(?) where I have the orange arrow. Not sure. They may come off relatively easily?
Given how good the car looks otherwise, perhaps the owner oversized these guards intentionally to make them obvious for daily use.
On another note, I didn’t realize how much the tail light design on the ’69 Chevelle looked like those used on the 1976 Plymouth Volare/Dodge Aspen station wagons.
Very similar design with the overall shape, the backup light location, and matte black surround within the chrome housing. Tisk tisk to 70s Chrysler for another design element that appears inspired by GM.
The rubber c-channel where the bumper guard meets the bumper came with the guards, at least the better ones and yes the aftermarket ones usually clamped on the bumper. One bolt or nut per side and they will slip off.
They were big business back in the day so you had your choice of a number of different styles. Reproductions, or at least similar to the factory ones, medium sized ones with the rubber and the really big ones like these. I’m guessing these are a set of NOS units found on E-bay or at a swap meet.
Thanks, Daniel. I wouldn’t have noticed those black moldings / grommets on these bumper guards if you hadn’t pointed them out.
Same with the similarity to the A-body wagon taillamps! That has never occurred to me, and while they’re not exactly the same, I can totally see it now.
Yes, I agree those Chevelle bumper guards are over the top (and below the bottom 🙂 )
What sprung to mind is the giant rubber bumpers that British cars like the Triumph Spitfire grew in the 1970’s. Yuck.
On the other hand I find the bumper guards and overriders on my 1963 Beetle to be quite handsome, the European ones without the towel bars look naked to me.
The VW bumper overriders were in response to VW owners in the US complaining about the vulnerability of their Beetles and buses to the big bumpers on American cars.
The 1954 bus below is sporting a set of impressive aftermarket overriders, and I think they were made by George Hurst, as I read here somewhere that overriders were one of his early products.
The factory started adding them for US export cars and buses shortly afterwards.
In the 60s Citroen 2CVs had big loop overriders. I had seen them referred to as “paper clips”. I am not sure if they were standard in some markets, or just a popular accessory. The photo is of a 1964 that was for sale on the internet.
Another thing that this style of bumper guard was supposed to do was prevent the bumpers of two different cars from locking in a crash. In the days of metal bumpers often times the front bumper of one car would ride under the back bumper of the car that he hit and the bumpers would lock together. Sometimes they could be bounced apart, sometimes Jacks would be needed.
Bumper guards, bah!
Hahaha!! I keep scrolling through the comments just to see this image!
Stupid me, I always thought those sorts of guards were in case you needed to gently push the car with another car. Like a clutch popping push start or out of a small snow drift.
I was thinking the same thing about push starts.
It takes more than bumper guards to ruin the looks of a ’69 Malibu.
+1!
My 2nd grade teacher had a yellow ’69 Malibu 2-door with a black vinyl top that she purchased new. I think she was still driving it when I was in 8th grade, but the Ohio tin worms had not been kind to it.
Those large aftermarket bumper guards were a popular dealer add on around Chicago, before the big 5 MPH ones. Parent’s ’72 DeVille had them in rear and more modest ones in front. This Chevelle looks like a flashback to those days.
Also nice to see one as a non-SS, not resto-modded, etc. Most Chevelles started out as daily drivers, commuters, grocery getters, young parents’ cars. The 70’s/80’s used car market then led to buyers making them into modded Hot Rods and Street Machines*. Leads some younger fans think all Chevelles were “factory Muscle Cars”, as the GTO.
*70’s/80’s term for modified cars.
I got back from Viet Nam in 1970. Before I bought a car; i was offered a job with a 1970 Chevelle 2 door hardtop with whitewalls, full wheel covers and AC. Many company cars at the time were the cheapest full size Chevies or Fords with 2 options; an AM radio and automatic. I was tempted, but the salary offer was so low that I declined, even with no other job in the wings.
The one addtion that indicated a car was parked in a rough area was the trunk lock reinforcement; a chrome plate that surrounding the trunk lock and bolted through the lid. There was a similar plate inside the lid which made punching the lock out more difficult.
I see an older Camry locally that has front and rear repalcement plastic bumpers left unpainted. They are shined up with some kind of coating. They don’t look bad. They would work well for cars parked on the street vs scraped up painted bumpers.
The current Ram vans a some others have black plastic front bumpers for lower maintenance.
The Ram Promaster bumpers, at least in front, are also in three sections, so if hit at a 45-degree angle you’ll only need to replace one of the outer bumper sections.
“Did these bumper guards actually work?” Come to think of it, I remember wondering that question when I was a kid, since bumper guards like this really bothered me back in the 70s & 80s when they seemed to be an ever-increasing plague. Logic told me they’d only be effective if a driver were to lightly tap a wall with his front bumper — otherwise, not so much.
Bumpers have been on my brain lately because last week my wife was rear-ended while pulling into our driveway. She was driving our ’95 Thunderbird and was hit by a 2012 Civic. The Civic dove upon braking so had a damaged hood, etc… the T-bird’s plastic bumper was scratched but not broken. Upon further inspection, the exhaust was bent, and the body shop said the actual bumper frame (impact bar, in body shop lingo) was damaged and will be replaced. But overall, this was much less damage than a car would have sustained in a similar accident back in this Chevelle’s day.
Speaking of bumper guards, here’s me on the hood of my first car, a sabre-toothed ’75 Ford Pinto.
Too bad it wasn’t a Mercury Bobcat!
Your bumper guards would have made a good substitute push bar on this guy…
Outstanding!
Sticks in my mind that there was a piece in Consumer Reports about oversized bumper guards around that time. The guards were typically so weak, and their attachment to the bumper was likewise weak, so any stout bunt on the guards would bend them over and drive them into the bodywork they were supposed to be protecting, resulting in more damage than if there had been no bumper guards at all.
Headed over to the Gilmore for the annual CCCA show yesterday. Part of the fun of the Gilmore is what you see in the parking lot, before you even get into the museum.
Those look like clamp on guards. The problem is that so many SUVs and such have higher bumpers that can override that Chevelle’s bumper. Many early Datsun Z cars had damaged noses from car hitting them while parallel parking. I was glad to have a ’77 Z with very effective though heavy bumpers. I bought a set of clamp on guards like those, from J.C. Whitey for the front end of my ’70 Caddy, as it had a pretty deep grille besides they were part of the “massive look” that was fashionable at the time.
If you have to parallel park your car than I don’t see a problem with them, or those side rubbing strips. So many thoughtless parents just let their kids throw open the doors on their SUVs. Anything that can help is worth it in my opinion.
I am classic cars lover and collector. Regarding the GM A bodies from 68 to 72 I recently bought 72 Buick Skylark sport coupe emerald green exterior color with black vinyl interior. ALL original 55K miles with all documentation and manuals. I paid $16,000 for it. And No it’s not for sale! Here is link to original AD by seller https://www.connorsmotorcar.com/vehicles/445/1972-buick-skylark
Interesting how some factory accessories seem de rigeur while others are derided.
I agree these bumper guards, while practical, look awful – their very verticality is at odds with the horizontality of the car as a whole. They’re a visual barb the stops the flow of the eye from appreciating the whole.
As an aside, when AMT modelled the 1968 El Camino, the car they based the kit on had bumper guards – and the howls of outrage from the modelling community who’d rather have had the plain bumper!
Nice catch at The Greene. Usually don’t see too many classics there, but can usually count on some Audi R8/911/Maserati eye candy there any given day. Occasional Lambo too.
I have to agree with you on the ’74 Camaro. I like the looks! Maybe it’s because I’ve seen more 74+ models than the early ones, but the ’70-73 models look almost unfinished to me. At least those without the Rally Sport bulging grille.
Same goes for the ’74+ Vega vis-a-vis the ’70-73.
Thank you, Will – I’m glad I’m not the only one. :). I also like the ’74 Vega restyle, but it’s really the 1976 – ’77 (hatchback) that really pulls it together with the even smoother nose and tri-color taillights (with faux amber turn signals). I’ll maintain that the Vega was always a good-looking car, but I consider the first and last ones equally “peak” Vega.
These were ubiquitous in NYC / NJ in the 80s and up til the plastic bumper era started, along with the key plate covers and slimline door lock pulls to avoid punch outs and wire hanger theft…
My F-I-L had an almost identical one, Malibu coupe, same color even, black interior. Being a cheap Scotsman it had the 250 six and PowerGlide, PS, AM radio & heater that’s it. Bought new off the lot when he had a stroke in late ’68 and could no longer drive his stripper ’65 Falcon w/ 3 on the tree. He drove it for 12 years and still had it when he died. Minimally maintained, but when I came into the family in ’71 I made sure it had regular oil & filter service, as I did it. When he died my M-I-L asked me to sell it, so I cleaned out the cigar ashes and gave it a wash. It had badly faded maroon paint, some cosmetic rust around the edges, but the interior was in good shape (vinyl seats) and still drove well at 98k miles. I drove is a lot when we were first dating and afterward.
So we put an ad in the local paper and every teen driver in the area called to see it, but we finally sold it to an old (in her 70s? hey that’s not old!) black lady in a nearby small town who just needed a safe and dependable car. It had passed MD inspection and was a good car still. IIRC we got $700 for it. Hope it gave her good service.
PS his car did have factory bumper guards, they must have been on the car as it came from the factory and as-is on the dealer’s lot, because there’s no way he would have paid for them, even though the car was mostly driven around the Baltimore city area. He only bought a Malibu because there were no cheaper Chevelle models on the lot at Miller Chevrolet in Ellicott City the time. I’m sure he would have preferred a 300 like this had they had one:
PPS: just for SAG I looked at all 110 of the 1969s on classiccars.com. Not ONE was a 4 dr Chevelle, only one was a wagon, and not one was a 6 cyl. The rest were almost all 2 dr V8 coupes like Joe’s pic, and a few converts. Average price was $50k to 60!! and on up to $110k. Should have kept the car, dropped in a crate SBC, and waited!
These bumper guards look like they came from a much larger, heavier vehicle, at least a full size wagon rated car.
Great writeup.
The Volvo 122S station wagon, like my parents had, was fitted with shorter and wider bumper guards than the sedans, with a convenient rubber step on top. After a few years, pretty much every wagon I saw had a horizontal crease in one or both guards where it had been pushed in. The narrower guard on the sedans must have been stiffer due to its cross section.
I recall my FIL telling me a story about these. His dad bought a new Desoto and they lived in Brooklyn so these were a must (in his eyes anyway)
Paul tells that his dad had to break out some of the cinder block so that the car would fit all the way in the garage. However, he didn’t test fit. So his mom, dad, sister and himself drove home one evening after eating out. The story goes that the car fit nicely, but that when everyone got out, the bumper guards hooked into the blocks! They had to load back in and back the car out! Paul made the holes in the block larger.
Great article. And no, I’m not a fan of these at all.
I well remember these oversized bumper guards and liked them when I had a ’68 Malibu four door ex cop car .
I never did find a good set in the junkyards, these were okay but not really very sturdy, pushing them with the weight of the car would bend them .
As far as you liking the ’74 bumpers, well and good, you’re here to like what You_ like, not what we think you should like .
That dangling ‘Bumper Bully’ is a license tag holder used my dealers, they used to be much smaller but the rubber and two straps are the same thing .
-Nate
I well remember these oversized bumper guards and liked them when I had a ’68 Malibu four door ex cop car .
I never did find a good set in the junkyards, these were okay but not really very sturdy, pushing them with the weight of the car would bend them .
As far as you liking the ’74 bumpers, well and good, you’re here to like what You_ like, not what we think you should like .
That dangling ‘Bumper Bully’ is a license tag holder used by dealers, they used to be much smaller but the rubber and two straps are the same thing .
-Nate