Slant Six Forum
https://slantsix.org/forum/

Condescending Sticker Guy
https://slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=48217		 Page 3 of 5
Author:  SlantSixDan [ Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
SUVs aren't inherently safer just because they are big. SUVs have rollover issues, blind spot issues, and aren't always the safer vehicle to be in in a crash.
Replace "aren't always" by "often aren't" and you've got a statement well supported by data.
Quote:
The Smart car isn't safe because it is like driving around in a soda can.
Oops, that's not actually true.
Author:  Reed [ Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:59 am ]
Post subject: 
I don't know. As that semi vs. smart car picture shows, I think the Smart Car would likely go under a truck, van, SUV, or semi in any sort of front or rear end collision. Running into a flat wall or being broadsided by another mid to small size car might be OK, but the Smart Car is so low to the ground that I think any large vehicle would pretty much drive up and over it in a serious crash. Even the Chevy Suburban/Tahoe looks like it would almost run up and over the Smart Car in a crash. I would like to see the test results of Smart Cars going up against other vehicles in front and rear end direct collisions. I strongly suspect the front bumper of the Smart Car would simply slide under the bumper of the other car leading to serious injuries to the Smart Car driver and passenger.

Of course, the same can be said for many many cars on the road, including our beloved A bodies. Even if the smart car could withstand a crash, the handling at highway speeds would be terrifying enough that I wouldn't want to drive one.
Author:  GTS225 [ Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:00 am ]
Post subject: 
As per my previous post, I said it was the reason so many SUV's were sold. I didn't say there was data to support the buyer's perception that an SUV was a safer vehicle.
I live in Iowa........lately it seems that most of the vehicles in ditches during the winter are SUV's. I suspect it's due to the belief that "I've got a 4X4......it can go anywhere, even at speed" So many of those stupid bipeds don't consider that ice doesn't give a rat's patootie how many tires you have on the road, there's still not enough friction to offer much, if any contrrol at 60mph.

But I'm just another opinionated S.O.B..........Roger
Author:  ceej [ Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:50 am ]
Post subject: 
The Metro three banger we have get's 50+ mpg. It will easily exceed 80 mph, And up until the latest emission tweaks, was the greenest car on the planet. Interestingly, the grams per mile increased a few years ago on some auto web sites. Helps to make it look dirty compared to the new stuff coming out. I'm sure they bumped the numbers up based on running the AC more and driving faster. I don't have AC, and drive slower. Hmmm.
We've had four of them over the years, starting out with a Chevy Sprint. I just rebuilt Linda's '99 at 150K for another trip around the clock. Wouldn't have needed to except for a really lousy mechanic that didn't correctly tighten the balancer bolt.

We need cars like that. Problem is, not enough people bought them. People still think of a car as a projection of who they are. Until we overcome that nonsense, there will be vehicles that don't make any sense what-so-ever.

CJ
Author:  Reed [ Tue Mar 20, 2012 8:01 am ]
Post subject: 
Not many Smart crash tests on You tube. I stand corrected- the Smarts car does look like it would survive a crash OK, so long as it was against a wall or another passenger sedan or coupe. However, I still want to see some tests done against SUVs, trucks, and vans. I don't know how well the frame would hold up to a bumper hitting the A pillar or a tire rolling over the top.

Smart vs. Mercedes C head on

Smart car test crash

Smart Car SUV

I didn't find one of a Smart car vs. a truck or SUV like vehicle.

Why new cars are safer (but older cars still have more style)-
09 Malibu vs. 59 Bel Air

If I would fit in one, I wouldn't mind a little three banger for a daily driver, but you can't fit 5 gallons of water in a 3 gallon container.
Author:  wjajr [ Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:57 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
If I would fit in one, I wouldn't mind a little three banger for a daily driver, but you can't fit 5 gallons of water in a 3 gallon container.
Not only that Reed, where would put the bucket of Novocain to soak your rear end in to improve the ride?
Author:  SlantSixDan [ Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:01 am ]
Post subject: 
Keep in mind the crash avoidance factor makes it very, very difficult to have nice, linear, simple yes/no or better/worse comparisons. F=MA is a two-edged sword: the big vehicle has much greater mass, but the small vehicle has much greater maneuverability. The two don't cancel each other out and one doesn't "beat" the other; it just makes it very difficult or impossible to guess correctly at how safe you are in one vehicle versus another. There are just too many variables! The only way to start getting a clear picture of how likely you are to be hurt or killed in any given vehicle is to look at crash data from actual, real crashes. If Smarts (or whatever) are unsafe because big vehicles drive over them, then that'll show up -- and if they don't tend to get driven over because they're agile enough to avoid the crash, that'll show up, too. Pintos were unsafe because of a negligent gas tank design, and that showed up; if they were no more dangerous than their contemporary cars of similar size, that would've shown up, too. If SUVs are extra safe because they're big padded cells on wheels, that'll show up, and if they're unsafe because they're clumsy and tippy and can't avoid crashes, that'll show up, too.

Even with good data like this, and a good analysis of the crash-avoidance and crashworthiness performance of any given vehicle, it's still a crapshoot/guessing game because of the element of random chance ("luck").
Author:  Reed [ Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:39 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Not only that Reed, where would put the bucket of Novocain to soak your rear end in to improve the ride?
In the trunk of my Lincoln! ;)

Dan is right though- defensive driving techniques and proper vehicle safety equipment (lights, brakes, tires, etc...) maintenance are highly important as well.

And hey, Ford "fixed" the Pinto gas tank issue by putting a plastic shield over the tank to protect it from the rear bumper mounts puncturing it in a rear end crash! :lol: My old 71 Pinto had been retrofitted with one. :roll:
Author:  Rick Covalt [ Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Pinto
Quote:
Ford "fixed" the Pinto gas tank issue by putting a plastic shield over the tank
Low man on the poll at dealerships got to retrofit all the Pinto gas tanks with shields. Ask me how I know. I installed hundreds of them myself when they were recalled!

Oh the good ole days!! :lol: :lol:

Rick
Author:  kesteb [ Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
Crash survivability is subjective. My '07 Titan vs the nice Algerian ladies late model Ford Taurus. I suffered a couple of scraps on the paint job, some new camber bolts and a front end alignment, her car was basically totaled.

I will take my Titan over a smaller car and I am pretty sure that is the same thinking with those SUV's owners.
Author:  SlantSixDan [ Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Crash survivability is subjective. My '07 Titan vs the nice Algerian ladies late model Ford Taurus. I suffered a couple of scraps on the paint job, some new camber bolts and a front end alignment, her car was basically totaled.
The object of the game isn't to preserve the car.
Author:  Sam Powell [ Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:24 am ]
Post subject: 
This conversation has gotten too stimulating to resist.

Read a road test on four high mileage vehicles in R&T or some such rag 3 years ago. 1. Hybrid Honda, 2. Prius, 3. Golf TDI with the then unavailable in the US hi tech deisel, and one other I have forgotten. I think it was a Smart car just for fun. Hands down winner was the TDI. The only problem was they had to take along their own fuel. At this time the low sulfur fuel was not approved for sale in the US. HMMM.!

Two years ago I witnessed a mind changing accident on 695 going around Baltimore. I was northbound on the west side, and a BMW 3 series vert was south bound in the oncoming lanes, one lane over from the median. The lady driver, through some maneuver I did not witness swerved on front of an 18 wheeler which then caught the beemer broadside on the driver's door. The car did not flip, and did not crush. The truck did not swerve, but just hit the brakes. The truck pushed the car down the road like a snow plow. By the time it got to me, they were both on the shoulder moving at about 15 mph. The driver was looking up at the truck nose in absolute horror as things were winding down. Apparently no one was hurt. The car was a mess, but all I could say was WOW! I have always simultaneously derided and envied the BMW in the past.:wonderful cars, seemingly over engineered, and over priced.

When considering safety, I cannot help but think back to that incident.

Regarding the Smart car truck collision, I doubt if most cars or SUV's for that matter, would stand a snowball's chance in that encounter if any speed was involved. I think the Smart is "smart" only if you are looking for a parking place. There are plenty of 4 seaters that ride much better, and get much better mileage.

When considering the planetary damage created by mining rare earth elements needed in high tech batteries, the Prius is probably not earth friendly. What it does do is cut down on city air pollution, and oil imports. Those who were not alive in 1969 when my Dart was new cannot appreciate the fact that you could not see buildings one block away in the summer time in suburban DC due to the foul air. Strong young men were dropping in their tracks (fainting) from heat exhaustion and lack of good oxygen.

Sam
Author:  Slanted Opinion [ Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:06 am ]
Post subject: 
Of course, the accident survivability quotient is probably many orders higher in a Smart Car (or virtually any other car made in the last few years) than in one of our beloved Darts or Valiants. Especially in a side impact collision. I'd hate to think of what my '68 4-door sedan would look like after tangling with that 18 wheeler.

Even my little 2006 Elantra weighs at least 1000 lbs more than the Dart... Most of that is in safety equipment, I believe.

- Mac
Author:  kesteb [ Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Quote:
Crash survivability is subjective. My '07 Titan vs the nice Algerian ladies late model Ford Taurus. I suffered a couple of scraps on the paint job, some new camber bolts and a front end alignment, her car was basically totaled.
The object of the game isn't to preserve the car.
Your right, the object is to save insurance companies money. Well my truck was repaired by her insurance company, I am fairly sure she didn't get a dime to fix/replace her car.
Author:  Dart270 [ Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:49 am ]
Post subject: 
I prefer to avoid accidents. In this respect, my A-bodies are excellent because visibility is better than any car made in at least the last 20 yrs. Mine are modified for handling/braking so make avoidance easier too.

Lou
Page 3 of 5 All times are UTC-08:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/