Would you rather have lighter cars with less safety features?

[MovingTarget]

I'd rather have a car that saves on price by eliminating the 'niceties'. I appreciate well-engineered cars, but I'm no dash-stroker. Give me a reliable, fun, cheap vehicle that you can clean the interior out with a hose.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Originally posted by: woodie1
As already stated, we really have little choice in the matter. Laws are being passed every year requiring more and more safety equipment as well as better mileage for cars to be used on public roads.

Catch 22. Demand more MPG but also demand more equipment causing more weight. Plus then moving heavy americans around you've got a little problem here 😛

No problem for Congress. All they need to do is snap their fingers and it's done.

 

[DivideBYZero]

It can already be done if you buy a Caterham Superlight R500 for the weekends, but drive something with all the safety for day to day.

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: senseamp
I think I'd give up some safety features for a big weight reduction. Meaning cheaper, more fun, better handling, economical car, all things being equal. I mean people give up safety for fun when they ride motorcycles, bicycles, do a lot of other fun activities, but for some reason manufacturers build up all cars for safety minded consumer, which means your average RWD sports car is well over 3000lbs now.

Not all of them are. Just build them smaller.

And, then you run into that pesky issue of a smaller car always losing in a crash with a bigger vehicle and by making it smaller you have also mandated a smaller crumple zone.

Smaller=less safe


I'll take my chances though.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Originally posted by: woodie1
As already stated, we really have little choice in the matter. Laws are being passed every year requiring more and more safety equipment as well as better mileage for cars to be used on public roads.

Catch 22. Demand more MPG but also demand more equipment causing more weight. Plus then moving heavy americans around you've got a little problem here 😛

Not really. Take a look at quarter-mile times for your average economy car from the 70s until now. Obviously the technology is more than able to keep up with the demands of the government...for the time being, at least.

I imagine that if they wanted to, the auto manufacturers could easily make a car with better mileage than the CRX and still comply with all the safety regulations. However, it would be just as slow as the CRX. So, they don't bother.

 

[StageLeft]

No. If I did I'd already own a Smart car.

 

[KentState]

Originally posted by: Cheesehead

Originally posted by: KentState
They are within 50lbs of each other. That's something like $100/lb you have to pay to get weight savings. I think the price difference goes somewhere else.

The Edmunds example said a bit more than that....but, then again, the G37 in question was full of doodads and the BMW wasn't.

I got that straight off of www.bmwusa.com and www.infinitiusa.com when comparing both the G37 coupe to the 335i coupe and the G37 sedan to the 335i sedan. The sedans are actually within a few pounds and the coupes are within 50. The AWD G37s are about 150lbs more than the RWD models.

 

[lurk3r]

Though the question is horrible, I answer yes. My car does not need a fucking bong when I put my laptop on the passenger seat, 9 airbags in an altima is way overkill. I do much prefer the old sprung steel bumpers over the new crushable, costs $2500 for a minor parkinglot ding crap everyone uses today.