We may have asked something similar some years ago, but since we have bumpers on the brain today, how about your nominations for the ugliest 5 mile bumpers? Here’s mine, but don’t let that stop you; I’m sure there’s some good competition out there.
Well, having shown you the back, I just have to show you the front.
Obviously, Commuta-car was a bit handicapped with the funds available as well as the existing structural challenges. But that doesn’t apply to some of the other abominations that appeared in 1973 and 1974.
There are hundreds of candidates. It might be easier to ask who came up with the LEAST offensive 5MPH protrusions. The ones that come first to my mind are the stupid-looking things they stuck on the Jaguar E-type. Here you have one the most beautiful cars ever designed…and you are forced to deface it. Ugh.
Least offensive…
Least offensive? AMC Matador Coupe. Not because the bumper is good looking (though not quite as bad as some others), but …
… because the design doesn’t blend it into the body and is basically inviting you to simply remove it.
+1 Dang, you beat me to it.
You are correct, but for some reason, the Matador coupe doesn’t look “right” without the bumpers. I guess if it had a very narrow chrome bumper like one on a 69 Camaro, it might work, but the lack of a bumper just looks like something is missing to my eyes..
I guess a lot of designs got tossed in the name of regulations. Something that would be as seemingly unremarkable to the design like a bumper would have been left out of the budget, so one can imagine that there were a lot of 11th hour reworks. I cannot think of any that worked cohesively with the rest of the design.
I agree, it looks better, but it looks like a car missing it’s bumpers. I think the most ideal would actually be the 67-68 or 70-73 Camaro style thin round bumpers that wrap around the sides
I think you already won! I’m old enough to remember how these stupid 5 mph bumpers were going to make insurance rates go way down. They didn’t. God, that was right at the start of the Malaise Era. Remember the Ralph Nader ignition interlock system in MY 1974, where the car wouldn’t start unless your seatbelt was fastened? People would cut the seatbelt, and stick the fastener in the female seatbelt lock. Nobody wore seatbelts back then! That lasted one MY.
Worst?
Checker…no attempt at integrating the 5-mph bumper into the existing design, followed by
Ford…clumsy, shelf-like add-ons with almost as little subtlety as Checker’s.
Best?
Most anything executed by GM, unless you have to deal with the “fillers” in the rear that tended to disintegrate over time.
I actually liked the 5-mph bumpers on my ’73 LTD. You could pull up to a picnic or other outdoor event and have a convenient bench on which to sit. ;o)
And in ’74, you could sit on either end of the car!
When I was a kid in the late 1970s, I used to go on walks with my grandfather, who had heart problems. He needed to sit down pretty often to catch his breath, but since we always walked around his neighborhood in Philadelphia, the only place to sit was often on a car bumper.
I still remember his sigh of relief when he’d see a car with a huge bumper like this Ford — Aaaah! — where he could sit and relax. Fortunately in those days people didn’t mind an older man using their bumper as a bench. Nowadays that wouldn’t be so good of a strategy from a number of perspectives.
The world was so, so civilized back then.
Sittable bumper shelves were common in the ’30s and ’40s. The shelf on my dad’s ’48 Dodge was good for watching drive-in movies. Those bumpers could probably take 5mph without much damage, since they were mounted to the frame on little leaf springs.
I liked the bumpers on these ’73-’78 Fords as well. Take a close look at all the contours in this that match the front profile of the car – that must have been a pretty complex bit of steel stamping to match things up like that.
The 73 Monte Carlo !!! Always a car close to my heart. I started at GM in late 72 building “B” Chev, American, and Canadian “B” Pontiac. The “A” Chev Monte Carlo,Pontiac, and Chevelle were built in the other plant.
The sales were so strong on the Monte that GM mixed it in with the “B’s” on our line . Both plants running the same car. There by keeping me in a job.
The Monte was just drop dead gorgeous, right up to bumper install. The 5 MPH bumper looked like an after thought. It probably was ?? IMHO it just destroyed the over all look. Ugly though it was, it did get me past the dreaded 90 day probation period.
Look at it. Just look at it. They took an elegantly styled car and simply ruined it. The AMC Matador may have been objectively worse, but it was not an attractive car before the bumper either.
Agreed. The 72 was just right.
I have to agree. Every time I think about the Mark IV I often wonder, “how come I don’t like it as much as some of the other Lincolns.” Then I look at the 73 onwards models and go, “answered my own question.” Shame too, since I think the 72 model was really good looking.
I like the way it looks. Like the ’73 big Ford above, the contours of the bumper match the profile of the car’s front clip, and must have been a pretty complex piece of steel stamping.
Honestly I could point my finger at any member of the Datsun lineup from the early bumper years as being hideously maformed by its five mile an hour bumper. The 75 200SX is the worst to me. The bumpers look poorly tacked on front and rear with filler panels showing where the original Japanese bumper went. And the tapered undercuts of the overhangs make no sense whatsoever.
Designed for lift?
Once they got their 5MPH bumpers. The now divorced bottom of the SAAB 99’s body looks like a boat.
I would still drive one of these goofy/ugly cars. No questions asked .
I’ve always liked them
The MGB usually gets a mention in such debates, but IMHO the black bumper cars, in the right bright colour (red, blue, yellow, green) can look great. The increased ride hide is not an advantage, though!
I give MG an A for effort, trying to integrate more with the body and grill shape. You can’t say it looked tacked on like the chrome channel boxes on other small cars.
Fiat X1/9is the first I think off.
Yes, ‘75 thru ‘78 “ladder bumpers” were fugly.
100% correct! X1/9 was the very worst bumper conversion.
Saw an X 19 stuffed under the rear of a Dodge Maxi van, don’t think the 5 mile per hour bumper did any good as the vans bumper was buried in the Fiat’s
windshield, driver was OK though
Easy. MGB. Rubber baby buggy bumpers fore and aft. I’d include pics but I can’t figure out how.
Was the Midget even worse? And how about the Triumph Spitfire? Small, low, lightweight – it must have been sheer hell to adapt them to comply with the law.
My thoughts exactly; I’d second the Spitfire.
I think that the Spitfire comes in first, frankly. MG at least tried….
It has to be the multitudes of elegant European cars whose manufacturers couldn’t/wouldn’t come up with an elegant solution to US regs.
Jag and BMW spring to mind. I tended to prefer Triumph’s “glue on some yoga blocks” approach vs MG’s nosecones. You could just pretend they weren’t there.
Mercedes was bad, especially the W116 and R107
Agreed. The most embarrassing thing is that they kept those bumpers all the way through 1989 on the R107!
Every time I see a commuta-car I can’t help but feel how embarrising it would have been if they caught on long enough to the point power wheels came out, and your child’s toy battery Jeep or Vette would have been a vastly cooler car than your actual car. I also don’t feel 5mph bumpers hurt the design, in fact they cap off the awfulness of the whole concept just about perfectly.
As many worthy American examples there are, I feel European and Japanese cars had the most consistently poor integration. My pick would be the Datsun 200sx, which has always been ugly in the US, but the original JDM design is actually really nice looking. The Mitsubishi Lancer Celeste/Plymouth Arrow would be a close runner up
Oops, looks like flipper beat me to it!
I remember (and drove) the Sebring Vanguard CitiCar, which was the first version of that car, identical but with bumpers that were only one fourth of its size. I believe the Commuta had its batteries in the bumper shelves instead of under the seat.
The CitiCar had six (if my memory is holding up) lead acid batteries under the seat giving it a top speed of about 35mph and a range of 40 miles. Although you really sweated out the last ten miles. And it handled like a golf cart. And used a propane heater for passenger comfort.
Such was the state of the art in 1974. And it took the Tesla S to finally outsell it.
The 73 Pontiac grand Prix had well executed bumpers, as did the Grand Am, Overall GM handled the 5mph impact bumper design better than did Ford. and Chrysler, it was 77 before better integrated bumpers were offered. The 73 Mercury Cougars front bumper was done well enough. The blacvk front bumpers on Mgs could be painted to match and they looked passable. but the rears, carved to accommodate the taillight lenses without change. looked sad. The Mercedes SL, Looked fine in its firdt year of 72, with standard Euro Bumpers, But form 73 on Those hideous malformed rubber ended extruded shelves wrecked the styling. Japanese cars suffered greatly. The Celica seemed embarrassed. Like a junior high kid having to wear a retainer. Some of Forde efforts, Like the Endura coated bumpers on the Capri and the Mustang II, in 74. were close, but still, they seemed not integrated at all. This was due to scorner impact standards using a pendulum, in 74. The 72 GM midsizers were designed before bumper standards were required and had they been on the market in 72, as originally planned you would have seen some very nice designs…Frankly what passes for bumpers today is a tragedy. the thin rubber covers cant take any sort of hit and the “impact bars” the actual real bumpers, underneath, don’t even span the width of the car. Bring back real chromed bumpers, Just overlay them on the outside of the rubber covers, maybe with a small spacing. and mount them on shock absorbing cylinders. So they will “give”. This met regulation before and prevented damage in low impact hits. Today. A shopping cart will cave in the corner of your “Bumper” at 2 MPH …Tsk.
I saw the title of this piece on my igHome page and instantly thought of the CommutaCar. You beat me to it!
I’ve seen one of these in person and the bumpers are staggeringly eye-damaging ugly. I have some photos at home but never posted them. They are the image most people had of an EV in the 20th century, a plastic overgrown golf cart. Best forgotten.
Part of its ugliness is what a bad idea it is to put the batteries into the bumpers. The most expensive and heaviest parts of an electric car hanging out at the far ends begging for damage. Not to mention the lead and acid that would get splashed around. Ugh.
I’m surprised it met the bumper regs at all with the batteries in them.
’73 Chevelle! Looks like they chromed a 6×6 and nailed it on.
…
I’m speechless.
I’d be asking myself whether living in the US was worth it.
It’s never been
As bad as this was, the body colored versions that came later were even worse.
I may be in the minority, but I thought the “front wing” bumper on the early 80s federalized versions was the greatest example of making lemonade from lemons, it looks ridiculous but fitting with the rest of the design
Is that the Cannonball Run 2 movie car? The wing definitely worked with the design. I recall that most owners seems to retrofit their cars with the standard bumper, not too many of those huge things out there anymore.
Should make it easier to park as well, the wing is probably visible when you lean forward a bit.
Special mention to Volvo. Giant and ugly like most others but they put them on the cars sold in other markets. Saw them when visiting in Ireland, 1976 (as a kid). The first few, from a distance, I thought someone brought an American version over.
From a ford family but they had the worst by far of the big three.
The beautiful Maserati Khamsin was completely ruined, as if on purpose.
the real thing
Even then the taillights were the wrong shape for the space. Whether in or under the window I’d have gone with Chevy Monza units turned upside down.
On second thought, why didn’t the US version use Datsun 620 pickup taillights? They’d have fit in half the vertical space used up by those Fiat sedan (?) ones, and looked like they were born there.
Ford’s bumpers are often mentioned as being ungainly, and rightfully so. But in their defense, these “park bench” bumpers were excellent at resisting damage, both to the car and to the bumpers themselves.
Roger Carr beat me to it with the MGB’s dual sins of big, ugly rubber bumpers AND the effect of having the car jacked up to meet minimum bumper height requirements. Compared to earlier models, it looks like it’s on stilts, and loses a great deal of its sleekness.
The ’74 Mazda RX-4 was a pretty bad example of a conversion of a pre-1973-74 design – complete with filler pieces where the previous semi loop bumper fit. This outdoes even some of Ford’s benches.
Stumack, I should have read your comment before posting mine. Whoops! I’m in complete agreement with you on the RX4.
Not that it was a beauty before the guard rails, but at least before it was elegant
The thing about 5 mph bumpers is….. they actually work as intended. Try running any new vehicle into a barrier at 5 mph and get back to us on which is the better bumper.
True enough. It makes you wonder what manufacturers would’ve done to improve the styling if the 5-mph regulations had stuck around. After a $950+ repair bill the last time someone hit my back bumper in a parking lot, I wouldn’t mind seeing the old benches make a comeback.
Here is a 1981 cost/benefit analysis done by the NHTS regarding experience with the 5 MPH bumper standards.
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/805866
No fool I, I will leave it to others to parse the meanings and value of their findings.
I bet 80% of the time a Pantara gets restored, the bumper hits the trash bin
I actually like that better than the small bumpers
Though I’d love to own one of these, this shot really shows the “benches” added to both ends of the Pinto (with the usual filler panels).
Perhaps there’s a related stat: which 5mph bumper(s) added the most length (percentage-wise) to the car? (I’ll bet MGB/Triumph or Pinto)
Something has changed at CC or my computer. Commenter’s photos come up pixelated on a black page for a second and then clear up, or in the case of some of them like the Pinto above the whole page stays black and nothing ever happens.
When Ford switched to aluminum bumpers for the Pinto and Bobcat in MY ’79 they actually pulled them in closer to the body and they looked much better.
I’m going with the graceless, 5-mph bumpers added to the ’74 Mazda RX4 sedans and wagons (not the coupes).
I don’t actually mind these. They don’t protrude needlessly and kinda give the car a more brawny appearance, not lastly thanks to the huge indicators that also serve as running lights which is a distinctly American thing.
Compared with the advertising photo that I posted, the blue one looks like the bumper has been tucked in somewhat. This pic shows how far it protruded in stock configuration.
The late ’70s Spitfire was pretty awful.
All the British sports cars were the worst. The Spitefire was indeed horrendous.
AMC Matador.
+1. My first thought. The car HAD to have been in the works before the mandates
AMC didn’t really know what to do with these 5mph bumpers so they just left the filler panels out. They did the same thing with Pacer. I think it worked just fine as some of those filler panels were very large!
Most of those 5 mph bumpers with their filler strips made for great book shelves. You could fit your whole set of World Book Encyclopedias on one.
(With a Matador, though, the books would just fall through the gap onto the ground.)
I nominated it before, when Paul asked this question first time around. And I’ll nominate it again. The Bricklin.
The only one that pops into my head as a definite “ugh” on bumpers was the AMC Matador coupes.
Beautiful cars with a chrome plated hunk of wood stuck on each end.
My personal opinion I like the 70s oversized bumpers!
The only good part was a great place to sit when the car was parked
I like big cars what big bumperskike the late 70s- early 80s Ford’s and look ncolns had. Very strong and you could sit on it or push stuff with it . Over the years all mine proved their worth. The new ones are useless. I grew up with them and remember the Reagan bumpers getting weaker and smaller and more useless every year.
Worst in my memory was the Cadillac eldorados which would have the front in addition to the back missing the fillers hanging off the car by about a foot. Other poorly done were full sized pre downsized olds, Cadillac and Buick, the 80s full sized Cadillac.
My votes go for the X1/9, where the bumper design just seemed to clash so much with the style of the car, and the Volvo 240. The latter, not because of overall proportion and design aesthetics, but because of the myriad little trim pieces and fillers which deteriorated quickly and gave an impression of afterthought. Problems which extended to other parts of those cars’ body trim.
Damn this 503 bullcrap!!!!!!!
I’d like to nominate the 1974 BMW 3.0 coupe, but I cannot post the stupid picture. Happens too often these days. I gave up trying to even comment on certain posts because of it. When is this 503 error going to go away? Hopefully before I do.
Don’t leave us Tatra87 – we enjoy your perspective too much.
Since I’m not having the 503 problem on my iPad, here’s a picture of a 1973 BMW 3.0 showing the bumpers.
I’m gonna with the MGB on account of the dog muzzle not only being a lazy afterthought that’s slapped on in the US to please those pesky Americans and their regulations, but indeed affecting the global appearance of the car and quite simply ruining it even at home in the Kingdom.
Volvo does not get a pass. The whole frond end looks like those government-funded Experimental Safety Vehicles that were the rage in the early 1970s.
See?
Saab Sonett bumpers weren’t exactly things of beauty either.
The Sonnet is particularly sad, since I am pretty sure that adding the bumpers added about 50% to the weight of the car. They were pretty much just an engine, a steering wheel, a couple seats, and a waterproof plastic wrapper.
I recall some Ferraris, or maybe it was some other exotic, with 5mph bumpers that looked so clunky and obviously added on that I’m fairly sure the intent was for the owner to quickly remove them. By and large, European imports seemed to fair the worst, partcularly Jaguar, Mercedes-Benz, Saab, some BMWs, and various roadsters and sports cars.
Best 5mph bumper was on ’74-78 Chrysler Imperial and New Yorker Brougham. Very elegant.
Best looking……The Corvette! worst………..The Matador,the bumpers mare the look of an otherwise great looking car.
I think most of the hold-over models from 1972, especially full-size Fords, had the ugliest 5 mph bumpers.
Once the designers were able to “soften” the look a bit, they got much better.
Yes, the 72 to 73 transition of the Gran Torino was particularly jarring.
The 73 Gran Torino is definitely the worst American execution. It amazes me Ford went the extra step to restyle the whole front end, yet still managed to make the bumper look tacked on.
Thats true i had a 73 Torino coupe not fastback and in profile looked really front heavy and the back looked so light.
Around 1981, I was involved in an accident where a late-model Subaru ran a red light and I couldn’t stop in time. The Subaru was totaled, and I spent $12.63 for a new rubber bump strip for the bumper on my ’74 Malibu.
I miss real bumpers.
1975 Checker
Well, that’s the wrong picture, but the rear bumper on a Pinto Wagon is pretty bad.
Overall GM managed the transition the best. With the exception of the ’73 Nova.
That ‘effort’ killed the front end looks on them.
I think I would suggest that Chrysler’s bumpers were better integrated than GM’s. at least for the first two or three years.
Nothing IMHO is more poorly integrated the the battering rams Ford put on the ’74-’77 Maverick and Comet:
I’m surprised nobody has mentioned the Volkswagon Beetles.
Rear view.