WTF happened to general motors?

[TheLonelyPhoenix]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
The camaro in the last link is the only one I'd be seen dead in. The others are hideous/boring/pathetic. Of course nostalgia compels others to lament the downfall of GM, but objectively those old cars are fvcking ugly. Believe it.

I was wondering if I was the only one who thought that.

Are you much safer in a behemoth vs. behemoth crash than in a compact vs. compact crash? You're more likely to die in a small car because the guy who hits you is likely to be driving a much bigger car. So you could turn it around and say that people who drive a larger carn than necessary are selfishly putting other people's lives at risk. But I'm not going to whine about what other people CHOOSE to buy.

you could, and to a great degree you'd be right, as evidenced by the fact that in single vehicle accidents (eg. you ram a tree) small cars are similar in safety to large ones).

I'm sure large cars generally do a little better in single vehicle accidents too, but yes, I agree that the size of the car/truck/SUV is generally what allows it to do better in multi-vehicle accidents. Not to mention the fvcktards who lift their trucks so they can pretend they take it off-roading. Some of those things are lifted so high their front bumper is level with where my head is while sitting in my Mazda3. That's the kind of bullshit that needs to change first.

 

[StageLeft]

Some of those things are lifted so high their front bumper is level with where my head is while sitting in my Mazda3.

Yes, those have been shown to have devestating effects on the other car in accidents.

 

[MasterAndCommander]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: Ornery
The American consumer, who gave up this, this, and this, for this, this, and that! :|

That's a sweet 442 :thumbsup:

And two thumbsup for anyone who knows what the 442 stands for

4 - 400 cubic inch engine
4 - 4-barrel carb
2- 2 (dual) exhausts

 

[wischeez]

4- 4 barrel carb
4- 4 speed stick
2- dual exhaust


Old enough to remember

 

[Ornery]

Are you much safer in a behemoth vs. behemoth crash than in a compact vs. compact crash?

Fatal crashes between two cars caused 4,013 deaths, while LTV-LTV crashes resulted in far fewer fatalities: 1,225. - Text


Report says vehicle safety ratings confusing to consumers
From the Journal Sentinel

• "Many consumers likely believe a 4-star compact car protects them in a crash to a similar degree as a 4-star van or (sports) utility (vehicle), when in fact they are significantly more likely to be injured in a crash when occupying the smaller vehicle," wrote author Patrick Anderson of Anderson Economic Group."

Status of Injury and Crashworthiness Consumer Information
TranSafety, Inc

• "Large, heavy cars generally offer more protection to their occupants, with fatalities in lighter vehicles averaging two to three times the fatalities in heavier vehicles. Because of their additional size, larger vehicles allow more "crush space" to absorb impact."

The Issue: Do real-life safety statistics warrant an insurance discount for larger vehicles?

• "State Farm Insurance, the nation's largest underwriter, will begin offering discounts to drivers of safer automobiles. Critics charge that the plan will "legitimize" larger vehicles that pose a danger to smaller cars. But the new policy actually reflects sound risk management."

When Heavy Meets Light

• "...So the statistics show. In 1996, 41,207 people died in traffic accidents, 35,579 of them within their vehicles. Crashes between LTVs and cars resulted in 5,259 fatalities. Of these, 81 percent, or 4,260 fatalities, occurred in the cars. Clearly, the passengers in the larger vehicles came out ahead. But that doesn?t make the LTVs the villains of the piece. Because it?s not just the mismatch in size that makes cars less safe. Fatal crashes between two cars caused 4,013 deaths, while LTV-LTV crashes resulted i n far fewer fatalities: 1,225. Even if we correct for the difference in the numbers of each type of vehicle on the road, it seems obvious that if everyone drove an LTV, far fewer bodies would be hauled off the nation?s highways every year..."

SHOPPING FOR A SAFER CAR

• Vehicle size and weight are important characteristics that influence crashworthiness. The laws of physics dictate that, all else being equal, larger and heavier vehicles are safer than smaller and lighter ones. In relation to their numbers on the road, small cars have more than twice as many occupant deaths each year as large cars.
  
  Size and weight are closely related. Large vehicles typically are heavy, and small ones are light. But these two characteristics don't influence crashworthiness the same way. Vehicle size can protect you in both single- and two-vehicle collisions because larger vehicles usually have longer crush zones, which help prevent damage to the safety cage and lower the crash forces inside it.
  
  Vehicle weight protects you principally in two-vehicle crashes. In a head-on crash, for example, the heavier vehicle drives the lighter one backwards, which decreases forces inside the heavy vehicle and increases forces in the lighter one. All heavy vehicles, even poorly designed ones, offer this advantage in two-vehicle collisions but may not offer good protection in single-vehicle crashes.

Consider Weight

• When vehicles are equipped with the same safety features, a heavier vehicle will generally better protect you in a crash. This is particularly the case in two-vehicle crashes.

Lighter vehicles have higher occupant death rates in two-vehicle crashes, and within each weight class, cars and pickups have similar occupant death rates.

 

[Analog]

They've gone downhill ever since they nuked the Fiero!

 

[FlashG]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: Ornery
The American consumer, who gave up this, this, and this, for this, this, and that! :|

That's a sweet 442 :thumbsup:

And two thumbsup for anyone who knows what the 442 stands for

4 speed tranny
4 barrel carb
2 dual exhaust (or bucket seats) arrg as i get thrown into the pit of despair

That 442 looks like the one that my dad made me take back to the dealer. sigh

 

[suse920]

dammjkt

 

[IGBT]

..I always wanted a Corvair.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Its not the consumers fault the company cant deliver on what the consumer wants.

Our consumers are fvcktards! What they gave up to save a few bucks per month on fuel is ludicrous! Hell, they waste more money on fast food, than they save in gasoline expense. Great priorities, eh? :roll:

Whatever.

My wife's car, Volkswagen Passat, has the lowest multi-vehicle death rates of ANY vehicle tested by the IIHS. It's the only vehicle tested that had zero deaths reported in MV crashes.

The Crown Vic had 29 MV deaths, the Grand Marquis had 52. A Camry had 52, and an Accord had 36.

Overall death rates for the Passat were 16.
Crown Vic was 53, Grand Marquis was 83.
Camry was 56.
Accord was 58.

Big size car what?

:roll:

http://www.iihs.org/srpdfs/sr4003.pdf

Does it take into account the different numbers of each vehicle on the road?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo

Does it take into account the different numbers of each vehicle on the road?

Yes, the numbers he quoted are per million registered vehicle years.

And would you look at that, my Honda Civic has a lower death rate than Ornery's Grand Marquis! :Q

 

[vi edit]

All I have to say is that 3500 pounds of prevention is worth 3 tons of cure.

Having a mature and responsible driver in a very well designed vehicle with excellent saftey features and good handling under emergency situations and superior stopping distances is a far greater benefit to keeping yourself alive than simply shrouding yourself in 3 tons of steel and plowing your way through things.

All that having a 6000 pound pound land barge does is increase the fatality rates of lighter vehicles on the road. If we all had 6000 pound vehicles no one would have an advantage.

Simply surrounding yourself in an iron shell does not make you any better of a driver. What it does do is make you less able to stop in an emergency and give you a higher chance of hurting yourself in a single vehicle accident or roll over.

Don't propogate the problem. Drive responsibly and drive aware. Everyone will benefit from it.

Having a 3 ton chunk of steel around you will just give you a false sense of security. There's a reason why a majority of vehicles I see in the ditch in the winter are SUV's.

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo

Does it take into account the different numbers of each vehicle on the road?

What REALLY needs to be taken into account is who are the drivers of these cars. Matter of fact, they are finally starting to do just that:

• ?Small SUVs have had high rollover death rates in previous years, but as the RAV4 indicates this may be changing. One reason may be that the drivers are changing,? Lund points out. ?It used to be that younger people, especially young men, drove small SUVs, but now many women drive them, including older women.
  
  Because driver demographics can be a major influence, the death rate for each vehicle was adjusted according to the proportion of deaths of women 25-64 years old. These drivers are involved in fewer fatal crashes per licensed driver. For most vehicles the rates were adjusted by less than 20 percent. ?This is the first year we?ve adjusted the rates to account for some driver characteristics,? Lund says. ?The adjustment takes away some of the differences among vehicles caused by differences in driver gender. Other demographic factors still influence the death rates, but more of the differences in the rates reflect the vehicles.? - Text

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Ornery

http://www.iihs.org/srpdfs/sr4003.pdfVehicle weight and the risk of death:

• Because vehicle size and weight are so closely related, it shouldn?t be surprising that their effects on driver death rates are similar. In each group (cars, SUVs, pickups) the heavier vehicles, like bigger ones, generally had lower death rates (see table, p. 7). The rate in the lightest SUVs, for example, was more than twice as high as in the heaviest SUVs. ?Pound for pound across the vehicle types, cars almost always have lower death rates than either pickups or SUVs. This generally is because the SUVs and pickups have much higher rates of death in single-vehicle rollover crashes,? Lund explains. In some weight groups, the death rates in cars were dramatically lower. For example, the rate in cars weighing 3,501 to 4,000 pounds was about half of the rates in pickups or SUVs of similar weight. The exception was light pick ups, which had relatively low rates compared with cars or SUVs weighing about the same. ?There?s no ready explanation for this exception,? Lund says. ?It probably has some thing to do with how light pickups are driven and their use patterns compared with larger and heavier pickups.

On topic: In 1974, our fvcktard consumers traded in their nice safe, heavy, V8, RWD, living rooms on wheels, for the econoboxes offered by Europe and Japan. All in the name of saving a few dollars per month in fuel. They weren't NEARLY as crashworthy as the behemoths that were traded in.

GM and Detroit in general, spent the next few decades trying to build econoboxes, and were always lagging behind. If consumers would have kept buying the land barges that was GMs bread & butter, they could have kept concentrating on improving those, and it would have been impossible for Japan to compete. It was another 15 years before Japan released a V8, RWD sedan and the cost was insane! V8, RWDs were a dime a dozen until our consumers pulled the rug out. Great job! :|

Are you much safer in a behemoth vs. behemoth crash than in a compact vs. compact crash? You're more likely to die in a small car because the guy who hits you is likely to be driving a much bigger car. So you could turn it around and say that people who drive a larger carn than necessary are selfishly putting other people's lives at risk. But I'm not going to whine about what other people CHOOSE to buy.

Maybe it's not about saving a few bucks on gas, maybe it's because oil is a FINITE RESOURCE and we'd like it to last as long as possible?

In a crash, impact and acceleration on the human body are important. For comparison, look at a collision with a solid cinderblock wall. For a small car, upon impact with the front bumper, the body comes to a stop over a smaller distance than it would in a big car.

I'm not downplaying the role of size differences in collisions - of course it's better to be hit by a small car if you're in a small car. However, in a large vehicle vs. large vehicle, in a head-on collision, the occupants are probably safer than in a small vehicle vs. small vehicle. (or, to take it to extremes, imagine eliminating the vehicle entirely and smash two people into each other at 50 mph. - dead and dead.)

 

[vi edit]

What REALLY needs to be taken into account is who are the drivers of these cars. Matter of fact, they are finally starting to do just that:

That's one thing we CAN agree on.

In fact my post just above your's agreed exactly to that point. Better drivers combined with better safety features (note I don't say heavier vehicles) make for safter overall results.

I honestly believe that a well constructed vehicle in conjunction with a competent driver is infinitely more likely to live than a poor driver in a Excursion.

I think the cavaliers and sunfires and mirages they list are just disgustly poor designs and were unsafe from the get go. Combine that with the fact that majority of the drivers behind the wheels of those already unsafe vehicles are typically young or unexperienced drivers and you are just asking for disaster.

You don't see a lot of deaths from high dollar luxury vehicles. Why? Responsibilty. Look at the single vehicle and roll over deaths of any of the heavy vehicles. Significantly higher in the truck and suv categories. Are those vehicles really safe? Or just faring better against smaller vehicles?

 

[Colt45]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
The camaro in the last link is the only one I'd be seen dead in. The others are hideous/boring/pathetic. Of course nostalgia compels others to lament the downfall of GM, but objectively those old cars are fvcking ugly.

you're serious? I don't think I've ever met a person that didn't like a '57 two door.

Can't really be nostalgia either, as I was born after these were produced..

 

[Colt45]

////

 

[Pliablemoose]

The oil shortage in the 70 started GM's decline, consumers wanted cheaper, more fuel efficient vehicles, and Japan Inc built them fairly well, forcing the big 3 (or is it really the big 2 since Daimler gobbled up Chrysler?) to focus on their truck/SUV lines, the current round of gas price jumps caught them with their pants down, and their cash cows aren't selling.

As far as I'm concerned, Holden in Australia is the only company in the GM line with anything close to interesting...