Ever stopped at a dealer to confim how great your current car is?

[MadisonMPG]

You only live once.

Choose to interpret that as you may.

[SentraSE-R]

Shovel, in my my first post in this thread, I said if I had an old car, I'd keep it. You're creating a straw man by suggesting I support scrapping 5 year old cars. Doh. Your delusional suggestion ignores the first car in my signature. My first post also says why I brought up safety - because no one else had. I injected a little balance to the people who think the good old days were the good old days.

I never said driving an old car was going to kill anyone. I said it's more dangerous than driving a newer one, on the whole.

Frank, the motorcycle stats are (or were) that motorcycle fatalities are about 4X car fatalities/mile driven. 3/4 of motorcycle fatalities occur to people who've owned their bike less than a year. So once you get your street smarts, you're no more likely to die than any cager out there.

3/4 of car-motorcycle accidents are the fault of the car driver. So you ride defensively, dress brightly, keep your lights on, and wire in a horn that sounds like a White Freightliner on steroids.

[Oval_Overload]

figured THAT was coming... yeah believe it or not I don't have noodz of my sister working on her (1991 model year OH NOOOOES!! SHE GONNA DIE!!) benz with her girl parts hanging out.

This probably doesn't pertain to the rest of you guys, but my earlier comment was based purely on me thinking Shovel's sister sounds like a slick chick... I date d00dz :P

[jamesqf]

For another bit of irony, consider Mr & Mrs Middle America in their nice safe new SUV that they really NEED to haul around their SUV-sized bodies. And every day they pull into the drive through for a bag of Big Macs. And at 50 Mr A has his first coronary, but Mrs A still needs the SUV to haul around the electric mobility cart she needs 'cause she stopped getting on a scale when her weight passed 350 pounds...

[wagonman76]

Originally Posted by Ford Man

Newer cars may be safer, but they will not withstand what the older cars will in a collision. I've hit 2 deer in my '88 Escort Pony within the last 3 months and both times was running 35-50 MPH. The only damage it has sustained is raising the right side of the STEEL bumper about an inch. Didn't even dent the bumper just bent the supports. My dad hit a deer in his '99 Grand Marquis when it was still nearly new and did between $2-$3K dollars damage and didn't even hit it hard enough to deploy the air bags.

Whereas my friend's folks had an 88 Caprice with a steel bumper and hit a deer at 55. Only thing it did was break a headlight and put a small dent in the fender.

[Ford Man]

[QUOTE=SentraSE-R;155917]Does driving an old car automatically put you old car people in a state of denial? Anecdotes prove nothing, especially when they involve something as variable as hitting deer.[QUOTE]

I've never denied that newer cars are not safer, but there are also many variables in traffic accidents involving 1 vehicle vs. 2 vehicles, a 76 Lincoln vs 2010 Smart, (in which case I think I'd elect to be in the Lincoln even though it doesn't have crumple protection and air bags) car vs. tractor trailer, two cars hitting head on, rear end collision, side impact, low speed, high speed. The end results are always going to be different whether it's a car hitting a deer or two vehicles colliding or even just a car running off the road. I personally have nothing against someone who goes out and buys a new car every year if that's the way they want to spend their money and they feel that's what they need to be happy/safe, but myself I'm comfortable with what I drive. Lots of people on this forum probably wouldn't drive my '88 Escort simply because it's not pretty and shiney and as nice as their 2010 Cadillac, but I keep the maintenance up on it and it is probably MECHANICALLY as safe as 75% or more of the cars on the road and probably as MECHANICALLY safe as 90%+ of cars on the road over 5 years old.

[Clev]

Originally Posted by Ford Man

I've never denied that newer cars are not safer, but there are also many variables in traffic accidents involving 1 vehicle vs. 2 vehicles, a 76 Lincoln vs 2010 Smart, (in which case I think I'd elect to be in the Lincoln even though it doesn't have crumple protection and air bags)

Funny. People accuse new-car buyers of being "fat gas-hog driving SUV lovers," yet here's the perfect example of wanting an inferior vehicle simply because it's big and heavy. The Lincolns of 1976 handled worse than today's biggest SUVs, stopped slower, sucked more gas and were far less safe. A Smart is safer in a side-impact collision than a '76 Continental against pretty much any other vehicle, and is probably as safe in a head-on as the Continental. (Certainly for the passenger, who will have an airbag instead of the dashboard to hit.) More likely the Smart would have been able to avoid the collision in the first place.

I personally have nothing against someone who goes out and buys a new car every year if that's the way they want to spend their money and they feel that's what they need to be happy/safe, but myself I'm comfortable with what I drive. Lots of people on this forum probably wouldn't drive my '88 Escort simply because it's not pretty and shiney and as nice as their 2010 Cadillac, but I keep the maintenance up on it and it is probably MECHANICALLY as safe as 75% or more of the cars on the road and probably as MECHANICALLY safe as 90%+ of cars on the road over 5 years old.

Ah, more of the "stupid people buying $50,000 cars" argument. First off, I'm not even arguing against used cars. I'm arguing against "let's pile the family in this '88 Metro I got for a steal and don't worry, I'm a safe driver." And you're in North Carolina, so you haven't experienced the wonder of salt corrosion and "don't worry, I'll just weld in some sheet metal I have laying around." A good head-on, and those things will collapse into a metal pancake and a cloud of rust.

Airbags became standard in the early '90s. New side impact standards went into effect in 1997 (and were anticipated by some manufacturers such as GM, who met those standards with the Metro in 1994.) I would recommend that as a bare minimum if you drive long distances, or in particularly unsafe climates or on unsafe roads. The '94 Metro still gets great mileage, still can be worked on by anybody, and still can be had for a bargain. If you don't drive a lot, don't worry. (Hell, if I had a 10-mile in-town commute, I'd be driving a '68 Beetle on those days I couldn't bike.)

As for new cars, even a $9,000 Kia, Yaris or Versa will beat any car made in the '80s for safety.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by Dave's Civic Duty

Hey Frank,

What kind of MPG's do you get in your 59?

Dave

Sometimes it takes me more than a year to run a tank of gas through it. It's a vented system so some of the gas just goes into thin air.

When I first got it and drove it more often it seemed to be good for about 20- low 20's. I didn't keep a fuel log.

I need to figure an odometer correction factor as it has very oversized tires.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Clev

As for new cars, even a $9,000 Kia, Yaris or Versa will beat any car made in the '80s for safety.

But for fun? I don't think so :-(

Still, I think you miss the point that I and a few others are trying to get across, which is that safety is safety, right? So you have the irony of people rushing to buy marginally safer but not much fun new cars, while at the same time choosing to engage more in behaviors - cell phones, texting, overeating, etc - that produce a far greater decrease in their overall safety.

To steal a phrase, "God's an iron".

[Clev]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

But for fun? I don't think so :-(

Still, I think you miss the point that I and a few others are trying to get across, which is that safety is safety, right? So you have the irony of people rushing to buy marginally safer but not much fun new cars, while at the same time choosing to engage more in behaviors - cell phones, texting, overeating, etc - that produce a far greater decrease in their overall safety.

So you can't argue the safety aspect or the fuel savings aspect (even after that "we're giving terrorists nuclear bombs!" speech), so now we're down to "fun." Setting aside for a moment your desire for a Miata that only gets 27 mpg while bashing my suggestion of three new cars that all get above 34 mpg after making that terrorism speech, are you saying that somehow a '93 Miata is more fun than a '98? Or that a Focus is less fun than an Escort? (And before you answer, I owned an Escort, so I already know the answer.)