Demon-Xanth
Lifer
- Feb 15, 2000
- 20,551
- 2
- 81
Hoop: ever see the SR-71's cornering ability? Not that great. If anything the SR-71 is an extreme example of american power 
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,407
- 8,595
- 126
actually, asian refers to people from asia, while oriental refers to GOODS from the east (asia). so that oriental is a proper term for a japanese car. please, if you're gonna be political correctness police, get the definitions right!
Hoop Dog your comparing it totally wrong, You are coming from the side who wants to get a big HP car right from the box. I have nothing against that at all, But Gear heads like me who like to upgrade and be able to work on his own car and make my own modifications are all about American Muscle... EIGHT 55lb Injectors for a Mustang $550 ONE Fuel Injector (this from Experience), for a car like the 300Z $200 for ONE STOCK REPLACEMENT.
If I didn't know much about cars and wanted high power out of the box with no mods, I would buy Europe. But being as I like to mod cars as a hobby, There is only one choice for me.... AMERICAN MUSCLE
The car you are referring to already has a forced induction on it (Turbo's) What happens when you add a Intercooled Supercharger to that Viper?? Ati boasts a 50% increase in power as does most superchargers including the Whipple I have on my truck. 650 X 50% more hp = 975hp...
"There is no Replacement for Displacement"
If I didn't know much about cars and wanted high power out of the box with no mods, I would buy Europe. But being as I like to mod cars as a hobby, There is only one choice for me.... AMERICAN MUSCLE
The car you are referring to already has a forced induction on it (Turbo's) What happens when you add a Intercooled Supercharger to that Viper?? Ati boasts a 50% increase in power as does most superchargers including the Whipple I have on my truck. 650 X 50% more hp = 975hp...
"There is no Replacement for Displacement"
geno
Lifer
- Dec 26, 1999
- 25,074
- 4
- 0
Hoopdogg, does that 3.6 have any sort of forced induction?
Displacement doesn't always mean more power. How much torque is that little 3.6 getting (if it has forced induction then this point isn't as well made). Torque is a big factor in an engine, something that the V10 has gobs of. Who said it was a bad thing if you use more disp. to make HP? I don't see what the big deal is with that. Smaller engines need to run in higher revs to make power (or to match the power of a large disp engine). It has nothing to do with engineering, the Viper was made to be a strong-engined car, plain and simple. You're comparing a Viper to a Lemans car! Do you see something wrong here? Completely different driving conditions! Why even bother? F1 engines have tiny displacement figures for their size, because they're in a position where they don't need the extra disp, and can work with what they have. I don't see why you're flipping out over displacement - it's really subjective...
Displacement doesn't always mean more power. How much torque is that little 3.6 getting (if it has forced induction then this point isn't as well made). Torque is a big factor in an engine, something that the V10 has gobs of. Who said it was a bad thing if you use more disp. to make HP? I don't see what the big deal is with that. Smaller engines need to run in higher revs to make power (or to match the power of a large disp engine). It has nothing to do with engineering, the Viper was made to be a strong-engined car, plain and simple. You're comparing a Viper to a Lemans car! Do you see something wrong here? Completely different driving conditions! Why even bother? F1 engines have tiny displacement figures for their size, because they're in a position where they don't need the extra disp, and can work with what they have. I don't see why you're flipping out over displacement - it's really subjective...
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,407
- 8,595
- 126
actually, the f1 cars probably have smaller displacements in order to make them not go as fast and be "safer." which of course wasn't true during the turbo era, and isn't really true now with 16,000+ rpm and ram air induction.
as for me, if i were modding and had some money and were going strictly for performance, it would be a mustang or f-body. a friend of mine's dad modded a '94 or '95 firebird with better intakes, exhaust, steering, suspension, everything, then threw a supercharger in there too. ain't nothing like 600+ horsepower sending you down the line. he hasn't timetrapped it for fear of being required to put a rolecage in it. and the sound! puts all those bumblebee rice-burners to shame. the guttural roar of the engine combined with the supercharger's high pitched whine makes the audible signature almost unmistakable.
of course, since i'm not, i'll probably get an accord coupe, with the 6, and try to figure out how to fit my legs under the steering wheel. now why can't that thing go up as far as the one in my taurus?
as for me, if i were modding and had some money and were going strictly for performance, it would be a mustang or f-body. a friend of mine's dad modded a '94 or '95 firebird with better intakes, exhaust, steering, suspension, everything, then threw a supercharger in there too. ain't nothing like 600+ horsepower sending you down the line. he hasn't timetrapped it for fear of being required to put a rolecage in it. and the sound! puts all those bumblebee rice-burners to shame. the guttural roar of the engine combined with the supercharger's high pitched whine makes the audible signature almost unmistakable.
of course, since i'm not, i'll probably get an accord coupe, with the 6, and try to figure out how to fit my legs under the steering wheel. now why can't that thing go up as far as the one in my taurus?
Unlike "some people" spewing BS, I've included a few FACTS:
The laws of physics dictate that, all else being equal, larger and heavier vehicles are safer than smaller and lighter ones.
Large and heavy equals fewer deaths!
Bigger and heavier vehicles are better: Two important characteristics influencing crash outcome are vehicle size and weight, which are strongly related. The smaller, lighter vehicles in each class generally have higher death rates. (See Table 1.)
I don't know WTF is more important to you than safety, but facts are facts. There are too many dipsh!ts out there drinking, talking on cell phones and racing. If one of these morons goes left of center on me, or anyone in my family, they better be the one taken away in the body bag. I'm not going to lower my chances for the sake of a few MPG or "cool" appearance... DUH!
If you're knowingly taking your chances in your "pocket rocket" that's one thing. But quit spewing this other BS before somebody starts to believe it and gets killed as a result! :|
The laws of physics dictate that, all else being equal, larger and heavier vehicles are safer than smaller and lighter ones.
Large and heavy equals fewer deaths!
Bigger and heavier vehicles are better: Two important characteristics influencing crash outcome are vehicle size and weight, which are strongly related. The smaller, lighter vehicles in each class generally have higher death rates. (See Table 1.)
I don't know WTF is more important to you than safety, but facts are facts. There are too many dipsh!ts out there drinking, talking on cell phones and racing. If one of these morons goes left of center on me, or anyone in my family, they better be the one taken away in the body bag. I'm not going to lower my chances for the sake of a few MPG or "cool" appearance... DUH!
If you're knowingly taking your chances in your "pocket rocket" that's one thing. But quit spewing this other BS before somebody starts to believe it and gets killed as a result! :|
Well actually turbos usually help gas mileage figures, since they increase the efficiency of the engine.
Also rahvin think of it this way, when you're in a wreck with a semi or train in your geo metro, who WILL come out ahead? He has so much more momentum than you that your "crumple zones" dont mean a thing. You've been punched hard and the hit barley dinged his paint. The same thing happens to a lesser degree when a big SUV runs into your metro. In head-ons you're still gonna be creamed, no matter if he engine rocks back an inch or two or not..you will fare worse except in the most freakish of times.
Also rahvin think of it this way, when you're in a wreck with a semi or train in your geo metro, who WILL come out ahead? He has so much more momentum than you that your "crumple zones" dont mean a thing. You've been punched hard and the hit barley dinged his paint. The same thing happens to a lesser degree when a big SUV runs into your metro. In head-ons you're still gonna be creamed, no matter if he engine rocks back an inch or two or not..you will fare worse except in the most freakish of times.
Soybomb
Exactly, I got 2 more miles to the Gallon while Towing and while Cruising because my engine is more efficiant. Now when I floor it.. WAY Different story, but that part of the game, it allows me to put more Fuel in the chamber along with the more dense air. But I only floor it when racing, I actually have to use allot less gas pedal now to drive in the city due to the efficiancy.
Exactly, I got 2 more miles to the Gallon while Towing and while Cruising because my engine is more efficiant. Now when I floor it.. WAY Different story, but that part of the game, it allows me to put more Fuel in the chamber along with the more dense air. But I only floor it when racing, I actually have to use allot less gas pedal now to drive in the city due to the efficiancy.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,407
- 8,595
- 126
actually, its not momemtum to be concerned about, its kinetic energy. suburban weighting about 3 tons has twice as much kinetic energy as an integra when traveling at the same speed. that means that assuming a perfectly inelastic (i think thats it, or elastic, been a while) the combined wreck will be traveling in the same direction the suburban was at half the velocity the suburban was. the acceleration on the people in the integra is 3x as much as acceleration as the people in the suburban. that is why the people in the integra are screwed. of course, those perfect collisions don't happen because of crumple zones, parts flying out, stuff like that.
I hate American & Japanese cars, love German cars, but you said no Germans so I have to goto my 2nd best, british cars! Aston Martin DB7 is awesome and so are some Jags
Ornery,
Did you bother to notice the "in general". Do you also consider that they are talking about NEW cars and you are refering to older cars?
Here are a few statistics for you:
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/facts_data/facts_data.htm
"Collisions with fixed objects, and noncollisions accounted for only 17 percent of all crashes, but they accounted for 40 percent of fatal crashes"
"Fifty-six percent of fatal crashes involved only one vehicle, compared to 28 percent of both injury crashes and property-damage-only crashes."
"The majority of persons killed or injured in traffic crashes were drivers (64 percent), followed by passengers (32 percent), pedestrians (2 percent), and bicycle riders (2 percent)."
As I have said before, collisions with fixed roadside objects highly favor smaller vehicles. Current attentuation standards that are brand new require the absorbtion system to account for a light pickup. All systems that have been in place for more than a couple years will not safely stop a larger vehicle. (they will stop all passenger cars, not trucks and I don't believe SUV's can be safely attentuated).
Safer != Bigger. In GENERAL bigger is safer in NEW model cars. <---- Notice I said CARS. You have continually said that you buy you family 1970 version large cars and vans for them to be safer and in FACT you are buying them MORE dangerous vehicles compared to NEW cars. Older models (in particular anything before the 80's) is a deathtrap on wheels in an accident. That is what I have a problem with you saying...
Did you bother to notice the "in general". Do you also consider that they are talking about NEW cars and you are refering to older cars?
Here are a few statistics for you:
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/facts_data/facts_data.htm
"Collisions with fixed objects, and noncollisions accounted for only 17 percent of all crashes, but they accounted for 40 percent of fatal crashes"
"Fifty-six percent of fatal crashes involved only one vehicle, compared to 28 percent of both injury crashes and property-damage-only crashes."
"The majority of persons killed or injured in traffic crashes were drivers (64 percent), followed by passengers (32 percent), pedestrians (2 percent), and bicycle riders (2 percent)."
As I have said before, collisions with fixed roadside objects highly favor smaller vehicles. Current attentuation standards that are brand new require the absorbtion system to account for a light pickup. All systems that have been in place for more than a couple years will not safely stop a larger vehicle. (they will stop all passenger cars, not trucks and I don't believe SUV's can be safely attentuated).
Safer != Bigger. In GENERAL bigger is safer in NEW model cars. <---- Notice I said CARS. You have continually said that you buy you family 1970 version large cars and vans for them to be safer and in FACT you are buying them MORE dangerous vehicles compared to NEW cars. Older models (in particular anything before the 80's) is a deathtrap on wheels in an accident. That is what I have a problem with you saying...
Going back to Oriental. Oriental doesn't mean Japanese. Oriental means Eastern. Just like Occidental means Western. Oriental is now considered derogatory that is why it is not PC to call someone an Oriental. In modern times, wouldn't someone living in Asia consider an American an Oriental since they are living east of them?
Whenever refering to Japanese cars, my freind always calls them Riceburners...lol...and I saw a dude on a BMW forum named IEATR|CE and theres all these other people talkin bout rice...lol
Actually you can get a naturally aspirated car to output the same HP & Torque as a turbo or supercharged car. The differance is that to get a naturally aspirated car to output that sort of power involves having the Compression ratio up at 10:1+.Which means expensive high octane fuels.
Through the use of Superchargers/Turbochargers cars can run at less that an 8:1 compresion ratio which means they can use low grade fuel (this also includes the cheaper lead free fuels) & get the same outputs & efficiencies as a normally aspirated car that's running a greater than 10:1 compression ratio.
Through the use of Superchargers/Turbochargers cars can run at less that an 8:1 compresion ratio which means they can use low grade fuel (this also includes the cheaper lead free fuels) & get the same outputs & efficiencies as a normally aspirated car that's running a greater than 10:1 compression ratio.
"In GENERAL bigger is safer in NEW model cars. <----" What a crock of utter bull sh!t. You've got no facts to back up this crap!
"Notice I said CARS. You have continually said that you buy you family 1970 version large cars and vans for them to be safer and in FACT you are buying them MORE dangerous vehicles compared to NEW cars." More BS! Are you pulling this out of your ass or what? Again, PROVE IT! You can't, cause it's FALSE!
"Older models (in particular anything before the 80's) is a deathtrap on wheels in an accident." You are so fvcking full of sh!t it's beyond belief! Prove that last statement too while you're at it!From your own source, only 17% of accidents are with fixed objects. More likely, you'll be getting hit by another car. Here's a scenario: Your high tech. Japanese car slides left of center and head ends my 77 Lincoln. Who fares better? Your same car runs a red light and hits the side of my car compared to the roles reversed. I'd walk away from both, while you'd be carried away from the latter... no doubt!
You name a scenario where the Japanese car comes out on top VS the "Death Trap" Lincoln. Remember, 83% of the accidents that the Lincoln might see will be VS another car. If I were to have a tangle with a fixed object, I deserve what I get!
BTW, my wife is in a full size '88 van, so she has the advantage of all those wondrous "standards" that make oh so much difference. And I'd prefer to be in my car to her damn van any day. But I'd still rather be in her van than your Japanese go-cart in a head on between the two!
"If you graph the crashworthiness of models built from 1964 to 1992, you can see that manufacturers have reduced the risk of serious injury for drivers involved in tow-away crashes by nearly 50 per cent," he said.
"The greatest improvements came in the 1970s when Australian Design Rules came into effect, but this progress slowed dramatically during the 80s and early 90s when no new legislation was introduced.
Despite airbags, improved engineering, energy-absorbing crush zones and the like, tens of thousands more people have died on America's highways than would have otherwise been the case if economy standards had not reduced the average weight of cars people drive by some 1,000 pounds. (The average wheel base of large cars today is roughly the same as that of compact cars in 1976.)
The size and type of vehicle influences crash results. These features also influence driving behavior (and insurance costs). For example, the person using a convertible will probably drive differently from someone operating a four-door sedan. The death rate in single-vehicle crashes is higher than for larger cars.
Forcing ever-smaller automobiles on the American public will exact a terrible price.
"Sharon Kauk was driving her Honda Civic along a winding stretch of California Highway 152. Her husband, Tim, was beside her, and their two-month-old son, Matthew, was belted in his car seat. As Sharon steered around a curve, a Lincoln Town Car coming from the opposite direction crossed the double line and slammed head-on into the Honda. Although Sharon was wearing a seat belt, she was killed instantly. Tim and Matthew were seriously injured. The passengers in the Lincoln suffered only minor injuries, even though they were not wearing seat belts."
"Notice I said CARS. You have continually said that you buy you family 1970 version large cars and vans for them to be safer and in FACT you are buying them MORE dangerous vehicles compared to NEW cars." More BS! Are you pulling this out of your ass or what? Again, PROVE IT! You can't, cause it's FALSE!
"Older models (in particular anything before the 80's) is a deathtrap on wheels in an accident." You are so fvcking full of sh!t it's beyond belief! Prove that last statement too while you're at it!From your own source, only 17% of accidents are with fixed objects. More likely, you'll be getting hit by another car. Here's a scenario: Your high tech. Japanese car slides left of center and head ends my 77 Lincoln. Who fares better? Your same car runs a red light and hits the side of my car compared to the roles reversed. I'd walk away from both, while you'd be carried away from the latter... no doubt!
You name a scenario where the Japanese car comes out on top VS the "Death Trap" Lincoln. Remember, 83% of the accidents that the Lincoln might see will be VS another car. If I were to have a tangle with a fixed object, I deserve what I get!
BTW, my wife is in a full size '88 van, so she has the advantage of all those wondrous "standards" that make oh so much difference.
And I'd prefer to be in my car to her damn van any day. But I'd still rather be in her van than your Japanese go-cart in a head on between the two! "If you graph the crashworthiness of models built from 1964 to 1992, you can see that manufacturers have reduced the risk of serious injury for drivers involved in tow-away crashes by nearly 50 per cent," he said.
"The greatest improvements came in the 1970s when Australian Design Rules came into effect, but this progress slowed dramatically during the 80s and early 90s when no new legislation was introduced.
Despite airbags, improved engineering, energy-absorbing crush zones and the like, tens of thousands more people have died on America's highways than would have otherwise been the case if economy standards had not reduced the average weight of cars people drive by some 1,000 pounds. (The average wheel base of large cars today is roughly the same as that of compact cars in 1976.)
The size and type of vehicle influences crash results. These features also influence driving behavior (and insurance costs). For example, the person using a convertible will probably drive differently from someone operating a four-door sedan. The death rate in single-vehicle crashes is higher than for larger cars.
Forcing ever-smaller automobiles on the American public will exact a terrible price.
"Sharon Kauk was driving her Honda Civic along a winding stretch of California Highway 152. Her husband, Tim, was beside her, and their two-month-old son, Matthew, was belted in his car seat. As Sharon steered around a curve, a Lincoln Town Car coming from the opposite direction crossed the double line and slammed head-on into the Honda. Although Sharon was wearing a seat belt, she was killed instantly. Tim and Matthew were seriously injured. The passengers in the Lincoln suffered only minor injuries, even though they were not wearing seat belts."
I love that picture!
One thing you guys must agree on is that a lot of accidents are avoided by having a car with good brakes and handling.
I mean there is almost nothing you can do when a car comes swerving into your lane from the opposite side (its likely both guys will get serious hurt if not killed) but when you have a nimble car with good brakes, you can avoid the guy who cuts in front of you or the guy that brakes real hard for no reason. Don't tell me it doesn't matter to you if some guy swerves in front of your big ole truck or car that he will likely get a bigger hurtin. The point is, these smaller accidents are the most common and you don't want your vehicle damaged and sent to the shop for the next 2 weeks.
I'd much rather be a fleet cornerback than big ole nasty nose tackle any day.
One thing you guys must agree on is that a lot of accidents are avoided by having a car with good brakes and handling.
I mean there is almost nothing you can do when a car comes swerving into your lane from the opposite side (its likely both guys will get serious hurt if not killed) but when you have a nimble car with good brakes, you can avoid the guy who cuts in front of you or the guy that brakes real hard for no reason. Don't tell me it doesn't matter to you if some guy swerves in front of your big ole truck or car that he will likely get a bigger hurtin. The point is, these smaller accidents are the most common and you don't want your vehicle damaged and sent to the shop for the next 2 weeks.
I'd much rather be a fleet cornerback than big ole nasty nose tackle any day.
Avoid quoting austrailian sources, they have the best information on the web but a lot of the cars sold in austrialia are built there and austrialia has their own standards so timeframes will not correlate with those in the US.
<<"Notice I said CARS. You have continually said that you buy you family 1970 version large cars and vans for them to be safer and in FACT you are buying them MORE dangerous vehicles compared to NEW cars." More BS! Are you pulling this out of your ass or what? Again, PROVE IT! You can't, cause it's FALSE!>>
All the data from the site you quoted emphasized cars 1-3 years old. Did you bother to look at any of it?
Based on their numbers on the road and the amount they travel, large trucks (tractor-trailers, single-unit trucks, and some cargo vans weighing more than 10,000 pounds) account for more than their share of highway deaths.
Avoid older vehicles. Today's cars have better crash protection than cars six to 10 years old. A newer mid-size car with airbags is a better choice than an older large car without them.
Most of today's cars are better designed for crash protection than cars of 6 to 10 years ago. So avoid older vehicles. For example, a newer mid-size car with airbags would be a better choice than an older, larger car without airbags.
<<"Older models (in particular anything before the 80's) is a deathtrap on wheels in an accident." You are so fvcking full of sh!t it's beyond belief! Prove that last statement too while you're at it!>>
nullSince 1979, deaths per registered vehicle have declined in all kinds of passenger vehicles.
Thumb through this:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/ncsa/pdf/TSF97.pdf
If you look you will notice fatalities per 100million VMT have decreased from 3.3 in the late 70's to 1.6 in 1998. If you look at person's killed per vehicle type you will notice fatalities in passanger vehicles peaked in 1978 and have been declining ever since.
<<From your own source, only 17% of accidents are with fixed objects. More likely, you'll be getting hit by another car.>>
You seem to be intermixing two different things. Are we discussing life saftey, ie vehicle fatalities or just accidents? 56% of fatalities only involved a single vehicle. The majority of fatalities!
Facts:
"Collisions with fixed objects, and noncollisions accounted for...40 percent of fatal crashes"
"Fifty-six percent of fatal crashes involved only one vehicle"
<<BTW, my wife is in a full size '88 van, so she has the advantage of all those wondrous "standards" that make oh so much difference. And I'd prefer to be in my car to her damn van any day.>>
Well I don't wanna grab the link but we are both wrong on this one, I believe the insurance institute of america said Full-size cargo type Vans were generally the safest vehicle. (probably because the passengers are elevated higher than in most vehicles).
I can back up my information even better if I choose to. It would require effort on my part and a little time and work that I'm not willing to commit for something that my company is not being paid for. I am very familiar with safety data for particular roadway system that I have worked on and could get more general information with phone calls but I don't have the time to waste.
Again, when comparing cars built to the same standards bigger is better but this is not true with cars built to different standards. The US implimented uniform safety standards in vehicles in 1979 and fatality rates in vehicles have declines steadily since then. Newer cars are a magnitude safer than older cars. The best visual non-technical example I could point you to would be to take a defensive driving course and watch the blood films, half the cars they show in the older films (1960-1970 era cars) show vehicles with minor damage and dead drivers. If your car and my car were in an accident I guarantee you car would suffer less damage than mine, depending on the speed and type of collision would tell how much damage the occupents would suffer, statistically (probably up to about 60mph) though I would be more likely to survive in general than you would. (disclaimer: there are way to many ways to get in accidents, and the higher the speeds the more danger it would pose to my lighter vehicle in a direct collision with a heavier vehicle like a 1970's towncar) But as the Insurance people said:
"A newer mid-size car with airbags is a better choice than an older large car without them."
<<"Notice I said CARS. You have continually said that you buy you family 1970 version large cars and vans for them to be safer and in FACT you are buying them MORE dangerous vehicles compared to NEW cars." More BS! Are you pulling this out of your ass or what? Again, PROVE IT! You can't, cause it's FALSE!>>
All the data from the site you quoted emphasized cars 1-3 years old. Did you bother to look at any of it?
Based on their numbers on the road and the amount they travel, large trucks (tractor-trailers, single-unit trucks, and some cargo vans weighing more than 10,000 pounds) account for more than their share of highway deaths.
Avoid older vehicles. Today's cars have better crash protection than cars six to 10 years old. A newer mid-size car with airbags is a better choice than an older large car without them.
Most of today's cars are better designed for crash protection than cars of 6 to 10 years ago. So avoid older vehicles. For example, a newer mid-size car with airbags would be a better choice than an older, larger car without airbags.
<<"Older models (in particular anything before the 80's) is a deathtrap on wheels in an accident." You are so fvcking full of sh!t it's beyond belief! Prove that last statement too while you're at it!>>
nullSince 1979, deaths per registered vehicle have declined in all kinds of passenger vehicles.
Thumb through this:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/ncsa/pdf/TSF97.pdf
If you look you will notice fatalities per 100million VMT have decreased from 3.3 in the late 70's to 1.6 in 1998. If you look at person's killed per vehicle type you will notice fatalities in passanger vehicles peaked in 1978 and have been declining ever since.
<<From your own source, only 17% of accidents are with fixed objects. More likely, you'll be getting hit by another car.>>
You seem to be intermixing two different things. Are we discussing life saftey, ie vehicle fatalities or just accidents? 56% of fatalities only involved a single vehicle. The majority of fatalities!
Facts:
"Collisions with fixed objects, and noncollisions accounted for...40 percent of fatal crashes"
"Fifty-six percent of fatal crashes involved only one vehicle"
<<BTW, my wife is in a full size '88 van, so she has the advantage of all those wondrous "standards" that make oh so much difference. And I'd prefer to be in my car to her damn van any day.>>
Well I don't wanna grab the link but we are both wrong on this one, I believe the insurance institute of america said Full-size cargo type Vans were generally the safest vehicle. (probably because the passengers are elevated higher than in most vehicles).
I can back up my information even better if I choose to. It would require effort on my part and a little time and work that I'm not willing to commit for something that my company is not being paid for. I am very familiar with safety data for particular roadway system that I have worked on and could get more general information with phone calls but I don't have the time to waste.
Again, when comparing cars built to the same standards bigger is better but this is not true with cars built to different standards. The US implimented uniform safety standards in vehicles in 1979 and fatality rates in vehicles have declines steadily since then. Newer cars are a magnitude safer than older cars. The best visual non-technical example I could point you to would be to take a defensive driving course and watch the blood films, half the cars they show in the older films (1960-1970 era cars) show vehicles with minor damage and dead drivers. If your car and my car were in an accident I guarantee you car would suffer less damage than mine, depending on the speed and type of collision would tell how much damage the occupents would suffer, statistically (probably up to about 60mph) though I would be more likely to survive in general than you would. (disclaimer: there are way to many ways to get in accidents, and the higher the speeds the more danger it would pose to my lighter vehicle in a direct collision with a heavier vehicle like a 1970's towncar) But as the Insurance people said:
"A newer mid-size car with airbags is a better choice than an older large car without them."
- Avoid quoting austrailian sources, they have the best information on the web but a lot of the cars sold in austrialia are built there and austrialia has their own standards so timeframes will not correlate with those in the US.
- <<"Notice I said CARS. You have continually said that you buy you family 1970 version large cars and vans for them to be safer and in FACT you are buying them MORE dangerous vehicles compared to NEW cars." More BS! Are you pulling this out of your ass or what? Again, PROVE IT! You can't, cause it's FALSE!>>
All the data from the site you quoted emphasized cars 1-3 years old. Did you bother to look at any of it?
[*]The Small Car Safety Problem by Peter Spencer, October 14, 1999
[*]Why Wear a Safety Belt? Where it was mentioned that "...the death rate has declined from 56,000 in 1972 to 40,000 presently. Greater use of safety belts, touch drunk driving laws and better designed cars are responsible for saving these lives." and "The death rate in single-vehicle crashes is higher than for larger cars."
[*]Forcing ever-smaller automobiles on the American public will exact a terrible price. by Daniel R. Levine
No comment on that one, eh?
- Based on their numbers on the road and the amount they travel, large trucks (tractor-trailers, single-unit trucks, and some cargo vans weighing more than 10,000 pounds) account for more than their share of highway deaths.
- Avoid older vehicles. Today's cars have better crash protection than cars six to 10 years old. A newer mid-size car with airbags is a better choice than an older large car without them.
- <<"Older models (in particular anything before the 80's) is a deathtrap on wheels in an accident." You are so fvcking full of sh!t it's beyond belief! Prove that last statement too while you're at it!>>
null Since 1979, deaths per registered vehicle have declined in all kinds of passenger vehicles.
- Thumb through this:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/ncsa/pdf/TSF97.pdf
- If you look you will notice fatalities per 100million VMT have decreased from 3.3 in the late 70's to 1.6 in 1998. If you look at person's killed per vehicle type you will notice fatalities in passanger vehicles peaked in 1978 and have been declining ever since.
- <<From your own source, only 17% of accidents are with fixed objects. More likely, you'll be getting hit by another car.>>
You seem to be intermixing two different things. Are we discussing life saftey, ie vehicle fatalities or just accidents? 56% of fatalities only involved a single vehicle. The majority of fatalities!
Facts:
"Collisions with fixed objects, and noncollisions accounted for...40 percent of fatal crashes"
"Fifty-six percent of fatal crashes involved only one vehicle"
- "A newer mid-size car with airbags is a better choice than an older large car without them."
- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
Ok, airbags, traction control, seatbelts, and Front wheel drive aside, a bigger heavier car is going to be safer than a smaller, lighter car.
The older stats on old cars are not too accurate because they fail to take into consideration that many all the way up to the early 90's did not wear seatbelts very often. Seatbelt laws introduced in the late 80's and early 90's probably played an incredibly significant role in reducing the fatality rate. It probably had very, very little to do with making cars smaller.
Also, the move over to FWD as a standard for 75% of passenger vehicles(excluding vans, trucks and SUVs) has probably helped reduce the "single car" accidents in the winter and during inclement conditions due to better traction.
All safety options being equal(seatbelts, airbags, ect), I would much rather be involved in a crash with my 3800 pound Monte Carlo than a 2500 pound honda civic.
The older stats on old cars are not too accurate because they fail to take into consideration that many all the way up to the early 90's did not wear seatbelts very often. Seatbelt laws introduced in the late 80's and early 90's probably played an incredibly significant role in reducing the fatality rate. It probably had very, very little to do with making cars smaller.
Also, the move over to FWD as a standard for 75% of passenger vehicles(excluding vans, trucks and SUVs) has probably helped reduce the "single car" accidents in the winter and during inclement conditions due to better traction.
All safety options being equal(seatbelts, airbags, ect), I would much rather be involved in a crash with my 3800 pound Monte Carlo than a 2500 pound honda civic.
I'll take a '64 Ford Cobra over any Japanese roller skate any day. I like the Japanese culture, but I really don't like their cars.
I'd rather drive on the highway with a gocart than that Lincoln, cause that thing is just too friggin ugly, hurts my eyes to look at it
Go left of center on me at about 40MPH and this is THE LAST THING you'll ever see!, because it's gonna hurt a lot more than your eyes!
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
lol ornery, but if anything bigger than a moped goes left at 40 you're both gonna end up dead
BTW the article about "terrible toll" is interesting - unfortunately if we ALL went to smaller vehicles it would be a pretty moot point right? Of course we aren't and people are still getting very large vehicles. Its unfortunate because I'd like to get a small civic pushing almost 40 mpg when I buy a new car next year but quite frankly I may be buying a maxima with low 20's - party because its large/roomy/fast, but also because I do know that I can trust myself more on the road than other people and if some damn idiot pops out in traffic in his intrepdid at least we'll be on a more even footing.
BTW the article about "terrible toll" is interesting - unfortunately if we ALL went to smaller vehicles it would be a pretty moot point right? Of course we aren't and people are still getting very large vehicles. Its unfortunate because I'd like to get a small civic pushing almost 40 mpg when I buy a new car next year but quite frankly I may be buying a maxima with low 20's - party because its large/roomy/fast, but also because I do know that I can trust myself more on the road than other people and if some damn idiot pops out in traffic in his intrepdid at least we'll be on a more even footing.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter