Hello, I’ve been thinking about bumpers for my new to me 2004 LX, Apologies if I sound like a newb because I am! but I am very interested in the dissent off-road aluminum bumper because 1. Better gas mileage 2. Lighter on suspension (I want to keep AHC for now) and 3. I like how it looks. I was wondering since it’s aluminum will it not have the damage multiplier effects of some bumpers? If not any suggestions for a solid bumper that also prevents damage multiplied crashes would be appreciated.
Will an aluminum Dissent bumper not be a damage multiplier? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter dantheman77
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
The point of a bumper is to get you home in the event of an impact. They are sacrificial.
My heavy steel Ironman bullbar has crumple zones.
My heavy steel Ironman bullbar has crumple zones.
JunkCrzr89
Competent Ignoramoose
With a metal bumper (aluminum or steel) the force will be transferred from the bumper to the frame horns rather than transferred to literally everything (body, engine bay, frame, etc) when the stock Tupperware is in even a minor impact.
If you're going from stock bumpers to aluminum I wouldn't plan on seeing an increase in gas mileage or lighter weight. The dissent rear bumper for example is bolted onto the existing metal of the rear bumper, you're replacing a plastic shell with big chunky aluminum and swing out arms.
Does look cool though and more functional in some way.
Last edited:
Also, in theory, aluminum will crumple with less energy than steal, thereby offering a slight protection to its foundation (frame). As others above have said...sacrificial.
Those of us that choose aluminum (well, that be me) are more concerned with the everyday affects of weight. Super easy to load up for a trip with way too much BS (that be me again). Every pound of stuff....er gear counts toward loading suspension/drive train to the excessive wear point.
That's not my story and I'm not sticking to it
Those of us that choose aluminum (well, that be me) are more concerned with the everyday affects of weight. Super easy to load up for a trip with way too much BS (that be me again). Every pound of stuff....er gear counts toward loading suspension/drive train to the excessive wear point.
That's not my story and I'm not sticking to it
Last edited:
Crumple zones built into some bullbars (ARB, Ironman etc.) have been tested with airbags and provides some level of cushioning before transferring the force to the frame. Does Dissent provide that protection too?
The stock bumpers will still provide more cushion to the occupants while sacrificing more of your truck!
Also, in theory, aluminum will crumple with less energy than steal, thereby offering a slight protection to its foundation (frame). As others above have said...sacrificial.
Those of us that choose aluminum (well, that be me) are more concerned with the everyday affects of weight. Super easy to load up for a trip with way too much BS (that be me again). Every pound of stuff....er gear counts toward loading suspension/drive train to the excessive wear point.
That's not my story and I'm not sticking to it
Yeah same here, my family loads up with 6-700 lbs of gear for camping trips, so I went aluminum to save whatever weight I could.
My thought on the "damage multiplier" brush bars are that they're a huge lever that's pinned at the very bottom. Any force applied along the entire length of it just pushes the whole thing into the car - even touching panels well away from it's anchor. Hence, damage multiplier.
The proper off-road bumpers, aluminum or not, are not "damage multipliers". The bull bars are steel (even on the aluminum bumpers) and the entire assembly is anchored very well and right at the frame horn height - well above any of the damage multiplier brush guards.
They're different things. The answer to this question is simply "no", IMO.
The concern here is all small impact stuff. For the hard impacts, I'm not sure the brush guard multiplies anything. A good off-road "armor" bumper might help even out the impact zone quite a bit and reduce cabin intrusion.
Example of a damage multiplier. Impact near green, damage spread out to the red. Without the brush guard, perhaps the hood may have survived. Hard to say. It's all a minor issue, imo. Don't crash your car and carry a thick wallet or good insurance.
The proper off-road bumpers, aluminum or not, are not "damage multipliers". The bull bars are steel (even on the aluminum bumpers) and the entire assembly is anchored very well and right at the frame horn height - well above any of the damage multiplier brush guards.
They're different things. The answer to this question is simply "no", IMO.
The concern here is all small impact stuff. For the hard impacts, I'm not sure the brush guard multiplies anything. A good off-road "armor" bumper might help even out the impact zone quite a bit and reduce cabin intrusion.
Example of a damage multiplier. Impact near green, damage spread out to the red. Without the brush guard, perhaps the hood may have survived. Hard to say. It's all a minor issue, imo. Don't crash your car and carry a thick wallet or good insurance.
I 'use' my bumpers for several things: 1) plowing through overgrown trails, 2) light contact with objects (trees, rocks, hillsides) while maneuvering, 3) mounting point for a winch, and 4) mounting point for lights. I also benefit from improved approach/departure angles. Escaping collision damage isn't part of the use consideration. While there may be some minimization of damage with some brands, others may worsen an impact by removing crumple zones, increasing the transfer of energy, tweaking the frame, and possibly altering airbag timing.
In my use scenario above, aluminum would be preferable to steel. So I wouldn't hesitate to run a Dissent front or rear. In fact I would prefer aluminum. My guess is a big reason ARB / Ironman / TJM don't have aluminum offerings is because of the high development cost. I have to believe the crash testing alone has many zeros in the cost. While a subset of the market may understand the benefit, this added offering would, to an extent, cannibalize from their steel sales making it hard to justify the added SKU.
I contrast this to sliders which I have roughed up. The steel gets abused. Although if you look at the direction XO is going with their Sequoia build, they are running aluminum sliders as their use history shows they benefit more from weight savings than durability. There's wisdom in this. A light, nimble rig is a joy to drive. If you look at their strategy, they build for long-duration comfortable touring. I suspect this aligns more closely for most real-world MUD users. But it's the crawler builds that get IG likes.
In my use scenario above, aluminum would be preferable to steel. So I wouldn't hesitate to run a Dissent front or rear. In fact I would prefer aluminum. My guess is a big reason ARB / Ironman / TJM don't have aluminum offerings is because of the high development cost. I have to believe the crash testing alone has many zeros in the cost. While a subset of the market may understand the benefit, this added offering would, to an extent, cannibalize from their steel sales making it hard to justify the added SKU.
I contrast this to sliders which I have roughed up. The steel gets abused. Although if you look at the direction XO is going with their Sequoia build, they are running aluminum sliders as their use history shows they benefit more from weight savings than durability. There's wisdom in this. A light, nimble rig is a joy to drive. If you look at their strategy, they build for long-duration comfortable touring. I suspect this aligns more closely for most real-world MUD users. But it's the crawler builds that get IG likes.
lol, better gas mileage
I suspect a part of it is also logistics. ARB makes a TON of steel parts that are welded. Bumpers, sliders, suspension parts. Some of their secondary parts are thin steel sheetmetal. I'm not sure I've seen much of anything aluminum welded from them. They're a huge operation so I'm sure they could if they wanted, but I'm guessing they avoid diving into thick aluminum because it's a slightly different manufacturing game. Different material that doesn't always bend the way you want, doesn't weld easily and gums up discs and wheels if you need to massage/grind to get it looking right.
This is a big part of why Dissent has been so successful, IMO. The welding is generally superb on either the steel stuff or the aluminum and it's all just left exposed because it's clean and tidy. That's something the huge manufacturers may struggle with unless they're big enough to setup robots to do the welding. I'm not sure ARB is even big enough to do that.
As with some many things, I think the reason aluminum isn't used more is because of simple $$$ and lack of manufacturing skill. If you can design and fabricate it well, aluminum is just a better material. It's far stronger per weight, has inherent corrosion resistance, readily DIY-drilled/tapped, etc...
Steel is cheap and easy, but the good things in life rarely are.
The Aussie brands all outsource manufacturing to Southeast Asia, so their fabrication methods are not limited by internal tooling or material flow issues. Plenty of offshore aluminum fabricators should they desire to serve that market.
Keep in mind that the origin of ARB, Ironman, and TJM is completely different than that of the South African brands (Eezi-Awn, Alu-Cab, and the like). Australia is a utility market with spill over into the overland world. Prime customers are commercial and industrial users where cost and durability are the sales drivers. A mine operator or Outback utility worker isn't going to value the benefits of the weight savings. Taking this even further, it seems that the Aussies can lose sight of the RoW market. Look at the ARB BP-51 offerings. In Oz the 105 would be the logical chassis for an offroad build and therefore the BP-51s are available for the 105 but not the 100. Similar with Ironman UCAs. There are no UCAs on a 105, ergo no UCAs for the 100 series.
I would also keep in mind that its an almost 20 year old Toyota. Basically any accident you get in the insurance company will probably try to total the thing out. If I got in an accident bad enough that front end damage occured I probably wouldnt want it back.
