Proponents of Tesla are generally angered when our articles point to problems on company cars. In addition to the usual attacks, some arguments are worth considering, such as one related to the Ford Mustang Mach-E. One of these guys said he had the same design flaw we pointed out for the Model Y. And he was right, as the images in this article clearly show.
Only a few members of our team had the opportunity to verify the Mach-E in person, as it is not yet for sale, making confirmation difficult. Despite that, what we can see is a car that has the rear end of its tailgate at the same distance from the end of the rear bumper, hopefully. The worst case scenario is if the tailgate extends rearward beyond the bumper, as the Fiat Palio did.
If things are not so bad, as it seems they are not, and the car was reversed on a wall (or pole), both surfaces would touch it at the same time. The plastic bumper would buckle. The metal tailgate would warp, creating a dent that would require an expensive repair.
When checking FMVSS 581, it indicates the following:
Ҥ 581.3 Application.
This standard applies to passenger motor vehicles other than multipurpose passenger vehicles and low-speed vehicles as defined in 49 CFR part 571.3 (b). “
We follow the legal definition of “multipurpose passenger vehicle” and find one of the Institute of legal information of Cornell Law School. He says these cars are those that carry 10 or fewer passengers and are built with a body frame structure “or special features for occasional off-road operation.”
In other words, FMVSS 581 would only apply to passenger vehicles that do not perform off-road activities. But that is not an explanation beyond doubt. Even a classic Stock Beetle can participate in off-road activities, as shown in the following video.
What would be the “special features” required for off-road that would exempt a vehicle from FMVSS 581? All drive wheels? Ground clearance above a certain level? A cross look? None of that appears to be included in the regulations, creating a legal limbo that only benefits automakers, not the consumer.
The IIHS (Insurance Institute for Road Safety) wrote a fantastic article in 2007 for their newsletter, Status report. It was probably one of the last rear bumper tests performed by IIHS. Sadly, it showed how the 1981 Ford Escort, which had to meet strict 1976 standards (reversed in 1982 by the Ronald Reagan administration), performed better than any of the more modern cars in that test.
We talked about this when we brought up the issue that NHTSA failed to ensure that cars comply with its regulations. Ford had not given us any explanation of the Fusion until now. Here is what he had to say about whether the sedan was FMVSS 581 compliant:
“Ford conducts vehicle testing and validation to ensure Ford Fusion meets all requirements of the US FMSVV. In the US, NHTSA requires that we analyze compliance and provide information if requested.”
If NHTSA does not, we did. Ford declined to provide evidence of what it claims:
“We generally don’t share competitive confidential information.”
That said, you basically have to trust Ford’s word that its vehicles comply with all federal regulations – there is no official confirmation of that. At least that’s better than GM, which hasn’t answered our questions about the Trailblazer since April.
When we spoke to Ford specifically about the Mach-E, the company reinforced that it believes that the FMVSS 581 does not apply to its EV:
“The Part 581 compliance requirement only applies to passenger sedans in the US. The Mustang Mach-E is an SUV and meets all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.”
If it doesn’t apply to Mach-E, what does it do? Joseph Young, director of Media Relations at IIHS, says this is something the institute has tried to solve for years.
“The federal bumper standard has never been applied to SUVs or trucks, although IIHS has occasionally unsuccessfully requested that it be changed to include these very popular vehicle types.”
Does that mean there is no bumper standard for SUVs?
“That’s correct. The attached document provides background information on our efforts to close this regulatory gap. The government’s long-standing concern has been that applying the same bumper standard as automobiles would affect the ability of SUVs and trucks to drive outside. off the road or easily access loading ramps. However, voluntary efforts have been made to reduce the energy absorption structures of SUVs (which has probably resulted in lower bumpers in many cases), which is why we have seen improvements the crash compatibility between cars and SUVs in recent years. Read a little more about that here. “
The document Young mentions is a 2010 letter to NHTSA that mentions a request made in July 2008 to include SUVs and trucks in FMVSS 581. Twelve years later, nothing changed about it.
In short, SUVs could come without rear bumpers and would follow the law because there are none. How do SUV owners know that there will be no damage to the tailgate because the rear bumper does not protect that component as it should? Well they won’t. Not as long as car buyers don’t demand that their situation change. Meanwhile, all that remains is to pay attention to the car’s design and choose one that doesn’t make you pay extra in case of error.
We have asked Ford about this lack of standards, but IIHS has already responded. We have also asked the automaker if and to what extent the bumper extends beyond the rear end of the tailgate. We will update this article when we receive this response.
