Originally Posted by rics1997
Well, I would say the crush can can play some effect but doubt it is that big. AEV is in the business of selling their bumpers and may stretch the truth a little to say theirs is the best. Not really a independent answer.
Seriously, not trying to sound like I'm trying to bust balls
, but is that conjecture or do you have some facts to back that up? It sounds like you're guessing, at best. How could going from an airbag system designed with crush cans in mind to then removing those crush cans hardly affect the system? - that doesn't make sense to me, but I'm no engineer.
What facts do we know? Well, we know that Mopar doesn't want airbags going off at less than 6mph on their factory-built
vehicles (I have no idea if that's a federal law or not). We also know that AEV's Milspec bumper failed Chrysler's test, but that their crush can-equipped bumper passed, was the first winch bumper that ever passed Chrysler's airbag testing, and it is now on the production MW3 Rubicon. Granted, we know this from AEV ... but, they're a company that produced crush-can equipped and non-crush can equipped bumpers up until August. So, what difference does it make to them and what motive would they have to lie? (And, they've never been anything but straight up in my dealings with them.) If the crush cans didn't make that big of a difference, why didn't they just put the Milspec on the production MW3? It's certainly cheaper to produce.
The explanation given to me by Dave at AEV made logical sense ... if there is a direct impact on the end of the frame rail, the deceleration is faster (harder, whatever the right technical term would be) than if there was a crush can. I was told it's probably
not a big deal unless there is an impact directly on end of the frame rail.
And, so, I went with no crush cans ...