Hood
 

I like the way the E70 looks. There is one thing that really does bother me though...does anyone else feel the hood is really bland because they eliminated those vents that used to be toward the windshield? The lines that lead towards that area are still there like the E53, but now they culminate in nothing. The front fascia looks less aggressive because of that, imo.

Probably because they used such thin aluminium they were afraid that it would tear if they perforated it with the vents. There is a picture on another board of how a hood gets "torn" in a collision.

This subject is up again. Which in my mind means that there's a problem. A problem that IMHO is gonna gain speed and BMW is gonna hear about it. Weather they address it is another subject.

http://www.xoutpost.com/x5-e70-forum/...aluminium+hood

May as well add the hood latch.

http://www.bmwtis.com/tsb/bulletins/...p/B510307g.htm

The outer skin of a car supplies no structural strength or accident protection so it's a natural place to save weight and yes money. Sports car makers have been doing this for years to reduce weight. I like the feel and sound of a heavy door or hood too but the X5 would be even heavier than it is if the panels were thicker. Maybe they went too far but I think that's the direction most manufacturers will be going.

I'm all for the weight savings. I too agree that the skin doesn't provide any crash protection. It'd be absurd to not use a more efficient material when it provides such a performance, while creating no disadvantage other than a higher cost repair.

Fwiw, I had no idea about the issue of the hood tearing when I created this thread. It was meant solely to discuss the styling.

So with that reasoning it could just as well be made of cardboard. But i beg to differ knowing the protection steel can provide.

A steel hood might stand-up better in a low speed instance, but in a crash anything above moderate, the hood (skin) is pretty irrelevant in terms of protection. How the crumple zones are designed, is what really matters. In this age of vehicles that are entirely aluminum, yet providing fine crash protection, you shouldn't worry.

Oh I agree. But when someone says "The outer skin of a car supplies no structural strength or accident protection" then i tend to resist that argument as being short sighted. Especially after having owned Cadillacs in the past and knowing full well that if someone nowdays were to hit one of those things with the new cars of today i know what the results would be and believe me that Cadillac would cough and keep going. ;)

The Cadillacs kept going because they were heavy pigs (momentum)...probably somewhat due to their inefficient abundant use of steel. While they could bulldoze, they weren't atheletes. Hence, BMW's conundrum.

They have done a great job of intelligently integrating safety into their vehicles. Look at all these X5s that get rear-ended...a few scratches on the X's plastic bumper and a totalled vehicle behind it.

Another example of fine german engineering v. american automakers' philosophy of, bigger is better.

It wouldn't be the Cadi's skin that did the job it's the 3 ton frame that would kill you. The skin of a modern car might protect you from a bicycle but it's the crumple zones that do the job against anything heavier.