10 lightest new cars available in 2010 (North America), 2009 (Europe)

[Patrick]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

While you guys are busy crashing into stuff, I'll see and avoid.

Of course you will. That's what everyone thinks.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by Patrick

Of course you will. That's what everyone thinks.

Sadly, it isn't.

Many actually expect to have x number of major fender-benders in x amount of time.

Others actually expect the gee-whiz techno safety and/or bulk features of the latest vehicles to do ALL the safety work for them.

So that they can continue to mindlessly blab away on cell phones and whatnot while "driving".

[TheEnemy]

I used to think like you Frank, painfully experience has taught me otherwise. I have had 4 wrecks, only one was my fault, (I was playing on a snow coverd back road and lost control), and only one of the 3 could I have done things better to avoid wrecking. (It didn't help that the ABS released the brakes for me)

The other 2 there was literally no place for me to go, and no time to do much about it.

[AJI]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

But 10 years more technology that yields a car with half the mpg?

The Insight Mk1 and CR-Z have quite different motives. The Insight was designed to be pretty much as efficient as it could possibly be within the realms of it being still just a car. It used expensive materials, and a technology in it's infancy. As a result, it was expensive, and certainly didn't have the widest appeal styling wise either. I think it's great, but a lot of people find it very ugly.

The CR-Z is a bit more of a compromise. They wanted more performance this time, which is important for sales. Half a litre more capacity, less efficiency. It also has a steel monocoque and body. Partly to save cost you presume, but it's unfortunately at the expense of weight. Cost wise though, in the UK at least, you're getting much more for your money. An Insight set you back £18k at release, you can get a CR-Z from £17k. And it gives you all the extra performance, comfort and safety that a decade of technology has brought us.

Of course, as someone else said - EPA's testing methods have changed, so it's difficult to draw up any parity between the ratings.

Will be interesting to see what someone from this site could get from a CR-Z in terms of economy.

Originally Posted by TheEnemy

I doubt you would be able to fit full grown adults into the back seats. If you consider 2 60lb children in the back that leaves more than enough for 2 adults and some luggage.

The iQ is really only a useable 3-seater. A driver of virtually any size will render the seat behind unusable for anyone but a small child. However, the front passenger seat can be pushed further forward comfortably and you can get a normal-sized person behind them. Luggage space wouldn't be great four-up though.

Originally Posted by ShadeTreeMech

Cars like this one horrify me. There is no crush zone in case of a rear end collision, except the heads and bodies of whoever may be in the back, which would have to be children. Put an adult in the back and the back glass acts as a headrest.

If I had a car like this, the back seats would come out and be disposed of. My minvan has a sturdier frame and more room in the back than these things, and even it scares me a bit.

Given that it's a city car for the most part though, it's not really that big an issue. The most you're likely to be rear-ended at is 30mph, and the car will stand up to that absolutely fine. In general, the most it'll have to contend with is a 5mph bump.

Maybe if more cars were a little less safe people would drive a bit more considerately anyway. It's always interesting to see that whilst car safety has improved greatly over the last two decades, road deaths have remained at the same level (in the UK at least). Why? In safer cars, people take bigger risks and pay less attention.

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by Patrick

OK. Hooray!

That'll buff right out!

I'm not getting into the safety debate. At one time I chose to ride a motorcycle, and in the last couple of years I've probably spent more time in traffic on a bicycle than in a car, so you can guess my position.

[MadisonMPG]

Originally Posted by TheEnemy

I used to think like you Frank, painfully experience has taught me otherwise. I have had 4 wrecks, only one was my fault, (I was playing on a snow coverd back road and lost control), and only one of the 3 could I have done things better to avoid wrecking. (It didn't help that the ABS released the brakes for me)

The other 2 there was literally no place for me to go, and no time to do much about it.

Care to elaborate on the two you had no place to go?

[gone-ot]

...MASS wins the impact game, unfortunately.

[TheEnemy]

Originally Posted by MadisonMPG

Care to elaborate on the two you had no place to go?

The first one 2 cars ahead of me someone hit their brakes hard so they could get make a U turn, the car ahead of me hit their brakes hard to avoid hitting them, the lane to the right was full and a median with a significant curb to the left as I hadn't gotten to the turn lane that the car making the U turn wasn't using. The driver behind me had droped a cigarette in his lap and didn't notice me until it was way too late. All I heard was a squeek before he hit me.

The second one was going through a construction zone during rush hour, I was in the right lane because the left would get backed up due to people making illegal left turns. A large van was in front of me wit about 2 car lengths between us. A lady in a full sized truck decided that was enough room to get in. She was wrong, and with construction equipment on my right the only thing I could do was try to stop. She clipped my front fender.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by TheEnemy

A lady in a full sized truck decided that was enough room to get in. She was wrong, and with construction equipment on my right the only thing I could do was try to stop. She clipped my front fender.

Which actually supports the "small cars can avoid accidents" theory. If the woman had been driving a small car, or if your car had been smaller, there WOULD have been enough room, and so no accident.

I've had a number of such close enounters, where if I'd been driving a bigger, less maneuverable vehicle I'd have been hit. Then of course there's the whole SUV/pickup rollover thing...

[JacobAziza]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

...MASS wins the impact game, unfortunately.

Only in head-on collisions.
Rear-end Large Truck Crashes - Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Plus, mass tends to cause the impact: 1/2 the weight = 1/2 the braking distance = no impact. No impact > "winning" impact