They built them, and no one came...

[Pop_Rivit]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: sciphi
I know I'm safer in our Fit than the Buick since the objective data showing injury rates and location has the Fit winning hands-down. The Buick "feels" safer since it's a much larger car.

Then again, the yahoos who think that because it's a smaller car they can tailgate and we'll be the "rabbit" to get the speeding ticket scare the daylights out of me when I'm driving the Fit. Strangely they almost never do that kind of behavior when I'm driving the much larger Buick.

Maybe I really am safer in the Buick because folks don't act as moronically around it, thus lessening my chances of getting into an accident with them...

It's an arms race right now with ever-larger vehicles. That may be another reason why smaller cars aren't selling is because they're perceived as "inferior" in a crash, or "my neighbor drives an SUV, so I must drive an SUV to protect myself if I ever crash into him". Even though a modern small car is worlds safer and has safety technology never dreamed of when our larger car was built.


While small cars are definitely safer than they used to be, if you get hit by an Excursion, you are still probably going to end up dead.


And while you're in your Expedition if you get hit by a semi you'll probably end up just as dead. It's all relative and a fairly moot point-no matter how much you thump your chest at the perceived safety of your larger vehicle, there is always another larger one on the road.

I'll take a small car piloted by a wise, defensive driver over a large vehicle driven by an idiot any day.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit

I'll take a small car piloted by a wise, defensive driver over a large vehicle driven by an idiot any day.


Just a point of info and nothing more. Lots of idiots drive small cars too.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
It is an example of statistics not telling the whole or true story, and where maybe older drives make the larger car's statistics look worse. You could get rear ended on the freeway by another econobox even and be crushed in your small car whereas you probably wouldn't in something like an Impala. When you see how most of these smaller cars crush and fall apart much worse than the bigger car they collide with you don't believe the "statitics".


The very newest of small cars will "crush and fall apart" everywhere but in the passenger compartment area. They're designed that way.

Older large vehicles collapse wherever they want to. Little regard (or design) to keep the passenger compartment intact.

So are you safer in a Fit than in the current Taurus? Probably not. The newest Taurus has the same kind of passenger safety cage as the Fit and a lot more of it.
But the Fit is safer than a lot of older larger cars with more mass.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Arco, I rarely agree with you, but in this case I do, although I have a slightly different take.
If driving something big, fairly cheap and thirsty makes some people feel that they have arrived, so be it.
I would not tell you or them how to spend what they have.
OTOH, I do feel that CAFE requirements should be significantly increased, since conservation brings as much newly available fuel as any plan to drain America first (new drilling in new locations) and I also think that the sheep need to be hearded to more responsible choices.

You can't have both can you? I mean, I guess you can if you are willing to add a huge gas guzzler tax on lower mileage vehicles. But in reality, how can you say, "buy what you want"...and then raise CAFE "significantly" (what would you raise it to? And how do you propose the manuf. meet it?)....Isn't this just another way of legislating someones choice using economics as a tool?

Don't urinate on me and tell me it's raining.

Tell the sheep they have a choice, when in reality the choice has been made for them by the powers that be? BTW, what do you think those powers that be will be driving/driven around in? They'll still have their bullet proof Suburbans I'm sure...lol



Hi LS,

What I meant to convey, and was apparently not very clear in so doing, was that as long as absurdly large vehicles are available, there are those who will buy them and use them as one person commuters.
I see this as a conservation opportunity that can be exploited through a significant increase in CAFE requirements.
I would rather see a siginificant increase in CAFE requirements, along with an elimination of the SUV/luxury pickup loophole, which would in turn force people to choose more efficient vehicles, since that's what would be available for purchase.
There would be a significant overhang of outsized vehicles, but that would resolve itself over a period of less than ten years, as those vehicles are junked.
I see only two alternative:
1. Sharply higher gasoline prices, or rationing by price, to the joy of producers and sellers.
2. Sharply higher gasoline taxes, or rationing by price with some of the incidence of taxation falling upon fuel producers and sellers, bringing them less joy.

In one way or another, increasing scarcity of cheaply recoverable oil will force conservation.
Increasing CAFE requirements might be the least costly way in which to achieve conservation.

 

[mechanicx]

I should've known you or someone would restart that debate with the cherry picked crash test. For starters and very important those are barrier tests and frontal. In the real world car crash the smaller car will have less mass and most likely less ability to withstand the higher energy of a larger vehicle. When someone says "a larger, heavier vehicle is generally safer", it should go without saying they mean all things equal. In other words they had in mind a 5-star crash Malibu vs insert your similar subcompact model. Not the worst large vehicle barrier test vs the best small car barrier test. All else equal a larger car can absorb more energy and has more room to crumple than a smaller car in the real world. Apples and oranges.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
All else equal a larger car can absorb more energy and has more room to crumple than a smaller car in the real world.

Exactly.

And when comparing a new car to an older one, all else is not equal.

 

[sciphi]

Spazdog, that's a great picture of a Fit in a head-on crash!

Probably you're equally as safe in either the new Taurus or a Fit. The Fit has a safety cage and lots of airbags, and can brake/turn faster than a Taurus. The Taurus has more mass to absorb the collision the Fit might have avoided.

With the new crop of small cars giving up very little to nothing feature-wise to larger cars, including usable interior space in some cases, it's a logical thing to buy as small/fuel efficient a car as one can get away with using when replacing an older/less fuel efficient car.

Human beings are rarely logical, myself included. And with the reflexive conditioning the average American has that "bigger is better", it's not surprising that smaller cars don't appeal yet to a sizable chunk of the population.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: sciphi
I know I'm safer in our Fit than the Buick since the objective data showing injury rates and location has the Fit winning hands-down. The Buick "feels" safer since it's a much larger car.

Then again, the yahoos who think that because it's a smaller car they can tailgate and we'll be the "rabbit" to get the speeding ticket scare the daylights out of me when I'm driving the Fit. Strangely they almost never do that kind of behavior when I'm driving the much larger Buick.

Maybe I really am safer in the Buick because folks don't act as moronically around it, thus lessening my chances of getting into an accident with them...

It's an arms race right now with ever-larger vehicles. That may be another reason why smaller cars aren't selling is because they're perceived as "inferior" in a crash, or "my neighbor drives an SUV, so I must drive an SUV to protect myself if I ever crash into him". Even though a modern small car is worlds safer and has safety technology never dreamed of when our larger car was built.


While small cars are definitely safer than they used to be, if you get hit by an Excursion, you are still probably going to end up dead.


And while you're in your Expedition if you get hit by a semi you'll probably end up just as dead. It's all relative and a fairly moot point-no matter how much you thump your chest at the perceived safety of your larger vehicle, there is always another larger one on the road.

I'll take a small car piloted by a wise, defensive driver over a large vehicle driven by an idiot any day.


You are right, it is perfectly relative. Am I more likely to run into a small car or a transport truck? I would say the odds that anything smaller than another transport surviving against one are pretty slim, wouldn't you? What do you drive?

My other car is a tin can (Fox body). Far less safe than anything else we are discussing here. It still doesn't change the fact that if I'm in a collision in the Expy with a Yaris, the Yaris is likely going to be on the losing end. I would probably be on the losing end driving the Mustang. Relative indeed.

 

[BGK]

Even the best of the small cars at this time seem to have one annoying problem; they are noisier than most larger cars. I don't know if it is due to poor tire choice, the vehicle's structure or lack of insulation. If small cars that prove themselves safe (like the Honda Fit) were as quiet as a Lexus LS460, sales would skyrocket. Of course, this is discounting sales changes due to higher fuel prices, Japanese vehicle shortages, etc.

 

[Spazdog]

Okay, since you mentioned it, I'll go with the smaller Malibu vs the larger built on frame car that can "absorb more energy and has more room to crumple":


I admitted that the newest Taurus would fare better than the Fit. There's just far more car there to absorb the energy of a crash and the same passenger compartment safety cage (on a larger scale). I was just debunking the whole "mass = safety" myth

oh, and crashing the 59 Chevrolet did make me a little sad.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

My other car is a tin can (Fox body). Far less safe than anything else we are discussing here. It still doesn't change the fact that if I'm in a collision in the Expy with a Yaris, the Yaris is likely going to be on the losing end. I would probably be on the losing end driving the Mustang. Relative indeed.


I t-boned an old man in a Dodge Diplomat in my '85 LX 5.0 at about 35 mph. He entered the intersection against the red right as I did.
Suprisingly, The passenger compartment stayed intact. The floor didn't buckle and once you got the fenders off the tires, it drove in a straight line.

Admittedly, at a higher speed I might have ended up wearing the engine in my lap.

 

[sciphi]

Originally Posted By: BGK
Even the best of the small cars at this time seem to have one annoying problem; they are noisier than most larger cars. I don't know if it is due to poor tire choice, the vehicle's structure or lack of insulation. If small cars that prove themselves safe (like the Honda Fit) were as quiet as a Lexus LS460, sales would skyrocket. Of course, this is discounting sales changes due to higher fuel prices, Japanese vehicle shortages, etc.


The Chevy Cruze I test-drove was far quieter around town and on the interstate than my Buick or the Fit. That car felt far larger than its exterior size would indicate, also.

They're working on these things, and the Cruze is apparently selling like hotcakes.

 

[mechanicx]

Another cherry pick and apples and oranges comparison. I wondered when that'd come up. A 50 year old car with a known deficiency in offset and side impact namely x-frame and before safety and crumple zones were offered. Notice they didn't even use a '65 or '69 model...cherry picked. The new Malibu is one of the best, and is probably almost as big and heavy as that '59, not exactly an econobox. Anyway, no one said unitbody with crumple zones and newer designs aren't safer, but that applies to newer large cars too.

Show me a crash test between say an '09 Malibu and an '09 Corolla, then maybe we'd have something. Also side impact and rear impact since I was talking real world.

 

[oldmaninsc]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
It irks me that cars have been built in driven for almost a 100 years and they think cars MUST now have silly added feature like TPMS, ejection prevention and it seems to never end. It just makes cars more complicated, expensive and less reliable. That's just what we need.

I absolutely agree. You can't legislate away the stupidity of some people. Some of us old people have driven decades and never had a serious accident - many of those decades were without the aid of ABS, air bags, traction control, and yes for many years, seat belts and even car seats for our kids. (Now don't get me wrong - I think car seats for kids are a great idea for a lot of various reasons!)

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
It is an example of statistics not telling the whole or true story, and where maybe older drives make the larger car's statistics look worse. You could get rear ended on the freeway by another econobox even and be crushed in your small car whereas you probably wouldn't in something like an Impala. When you see how most of these smaller cars crush and fall apart much worse than the bigger car they collide with you don't believe the "statitics".


Very true. I've said it many times - statistics do NOT always tell the whole story and can often be easily manipulated to the benefit of the person using them.

I personally am not in favor of C.A.F.E. to start with. I believe many of the things that have improved MPG on the vehicles would have been there regardless of C.A.F.E.
For example - the best thing they ever did was do away with points. I can't tell you how many points and condensers I have replaced in my lifetime, and how many times I've had to adjust those things. I used to always carry a dwell meter with me and often used it when I came across people who were broke down.
Also spark plugs didn't last near as long as they do now and after recently helping a friend replace spark plug wires on an early model town car, I don't miss spark plug wires either. I also don't miss trying to adjust the fast idle on a carburetor so that the engine didn't roar but still stayed running or the choke sticking on a cold St. Paul morning and chugging black smoke out the exhaust!

My point is since automakers always want their cars to need as little maintenance as possible - many of the improvements I mentioned would have found their way into use even if C.A.F.E. wasn't around.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: sciphi
Originally Posted By: BGK
Even the best of the small cars at this time seem to have one annoying problem; they are noisier than most larger cars. I don't know if it is due to poor tire choice, the vehicle's structure or lack of insulation. If small cars that prove themselves safe (like the Honda Fit) were as quiet as a Lexus LS460, sales would skyrocket. Of course, this is discounting sales changes due to higher fuel prices, Japanese vehicle shortages, etc.


The Chevy Cruze I test-drove was far quieter around town and on the interstate than my Buick or the Fit. That car felt far larger than its exterior size would indicate, also.

They're working on these things, and the Cruze is apparently selling like hotcakes.


I was thinking about that earlier. The Cruze deserves a lot more credit than many cars for combining bigger car like ride and noise levels while still maintaining great gas milage. It still has to compromise some on weight and has a high price. I'd still rather have a Malibu but it's close.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: oldmaninsc
My point is since automakers always want their cars to need as little maintenance as possible - many of the improvements I mentioned would have found their way into use even if C.A.F.E. wasn't around.


I agree with everything you posted but this part I thought was interesting. I've seen some say that the EPA is the reason that breaker points were eliminated, or that CAFE was the reason for cars being downsized and I agree with you that it is not really true. The mandated catylist probably hasted the introduction of electronic ignition, but it was coming anyway. Technology marches on and is implemented as it becomes affordable. The EPA might have caused lower polluting cars, but I think it was coming anyway with the polluted congested cities. They just go too far, too fast. And CAFE, Domestic automakers had smaller cars delivered to market by 1960 because people seemed to want more fuel efficiency even at the time.

 

[wander2039]

They built the wrong ones. My personal preference is small 4 cyl hatchbacks and you wouldn't catch me buying a Volt, Leaf etc. Now a Yaris, Accent, Fiesta etc yes. Wish they would bring some of the hatchbacks from overseas here. Ford Ka is one.. same size as the Festiva. If I had to do alot of driving I'd get a Golf diesel. Wouldn't mind seeing more diesels.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: Eric Smith
They built the wrong ones. My personal preference is small 4 cyl hatchbacks and you wouldn't catch me buying a Volt, Leaf etc. Now a Yaris, Accent, Fiesta etc yes. Wish they would bring some of the hatchbacks from overseas here. Ford Ka is one.. same size as the Festiva. If I had to do alot of driving I'd get a Golf diesel. Wouldn't mind seeing more diesels.

I'm with you. But the automakers either think that buyers in the US will not buy them or we actually will not buy them.

In the UK, you can buy a 170 hp 120i 5-door or 320 wagon. We don't get those.

 

[mechanicx]

I agree there. I don't think hatchbacks will sell well, at least they haven't in the past. That's why we don't get them or I guess as many 2-doors either.

 

[antonmnster]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Over-weight people don't like to be in subcompacts and compacts.


Sorry for going back so far in the thread, but I REALLY have to disagree! My 400 lb boss LOVES his Aveo. I think he thinks it's slimming.

I always see huge people in tiny cars (as if to seem smaller) and Napoleons in huge trucks (as if they're compensating for something).