EcoModder.com

EcoModder.com (https://ecomodder.com/forum/)
-   The Lounge (https://ecomodder.com/forum/lounge.html)
-   -   My Death Trap (https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/my-death-trap-15167.html)

Frank Lee 11-15-2010 06:36 AM

My Death Trap
 
Quote:

Detailed safety information for this generation Mercury Topaz include detailed crash test scores from the NHTSA.
NHTSA Crash-Test Results
Test 1994 Topaz
Front Impact, Driver 4
Front Impact, Passenger 4

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) tests a vehicle's worthiness in front- and side-impact collisions and rates its resistance to rollovers. Front-impact crash-test numbers indicate the chance of serious injury: 5 = 10% or less; 4 = 10-20%; 3 = 20-35%; 2 = 35-45%; 1 = More than 45%.
Automated safety belts and air bags available two years before mandated:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...0034-0113.pdf\

Quote:

U.S. statistics show that in 2005, head-on crashes were only 2.0% of all crashes, yet accounted for 10.1% of US fatal crashes.
In the U.S. in 2009 there were 1.13 fatalities per 100,000,000 vehicle miles travelled, or 1 fatality per 88,500,000 miles. I usually put on far less than 10,000 miles/year, but let's use 14,000 miles/year as what the average U.S. motorist racks up- he/she will have to drive 6,300 years before they get fatally whacked. What about the bad old days? Let's just pick a time when there were TWICE as many fatalities/100M miles. That would be 3,150 years of driving before the axe falls.

OOoooooooo, scary. :rolleyes:

MetroMPG 11-15-2010 09:18 AM

I can see Frank referring people to this thread often in the future.

For some reason the relative safety of vehicles (particularly small and/or light ones) is guaranteed flame-bait on this forum.

(Hmmm... just now briefly entertained the thought of prohibiting the use of the phrase "death trap" as a vehicle description... except for ironic use, of course.)

gone-ot 11-15-2010 09:55 AM

...ironically used, of course!

MetroMPG 11-15-2010 10:00 AM

Maybe I should have said "sarcastically" used. Irony, sarcasm... where's my dictionary?

gone-ot 11-15-2010 12:07 PM

...sardonically used?

rbrowning 11-15-2010 12:15 PM

I thought that Frank was referring to the UNlikelyness of an average driver getting into a fatal accident. Based on the numbers he used an average driver will never be in a fatal accident in 100 life times of driving. But, by government mandate, we are forced to pay for air bags and automated seat belts that will never deploy. How many cars will the average driver wear out in those 6000 years? How about us drivers that actually watch what is going on ahead of the car in front of us?

A lot of money spent in those 6000 years, just a possibility that there might be better uses for that money. But maybe not.

user removed 11-15-2010 01:57 PM

Two points to consider.

Significant reductions in traffic fatalities, and possibly serious injuries.

The problem with making cars idiot proof and the consequence of making more idiots as you make cars more idiot proof.

Obviously a careful driver with good situational awareness will be safer in a modern crash worthy car with airbags and other required safety equipment.

The Tempo Frank is referring to also has much better bumpers, as far as surviving minor collisions without major damage. The older cars that were designed for 5 MPH impacts have much stronger bumpers. In fact in the earlier designs the bumpers were so strong that you could actually have frame damage without significant bumper damage. I have seen that first hand with some of the early 70s Chrysler products with their massive bumpers.

The problem was when you made the bumpers that strong it tended to make the structural damage between the bumper and passenger compartment worse as well as the deformation of the passenger compartment.

On the other hand when the bumper collapses easily then you are faced with high repair costs for minor collisions. We experienced that with the wife's Rogue with a collision that Franks Tempo would probably have survived with minimal to no damage while the Rogue had $3000 worth of damage.

Like Frank I tend to agree that it may have gone to far in the direction of design without the consideration of cost effectiveness of the repairs necessary. I am NOT saying to sacrifice occupant safety for cost consideration.

How much do you spend per vehicle for the lowest probability protection. Consider the cost of individual health care, and how much the total cost would be if you were to spend $250,000 per person on 312 million citizens.

We can't afford that kind of total expense.

regards
Mech

rkcarguy 11-15-2010 03:08 PM

Interesting...
We are forced to pay not only for all this safety equipmnent that likely won't be used, but also pay the penalty for the poor fuel consumption and performance the added 400-600#'s of safety stuff added to a small car.

euromodder 11-15-2010 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Lee (Post 204189)
In the U.S. in 2009 there were 1.13 fatalities per 100,000,000 vehicle miles travelled, or 1 fatality per 88,500,000 miles.

That would be 3,150 years of driving before the axe falls.

The problems with statistics is you always need people to become statistics.

A community of 3150 Frank Lees would see a fatal accident every year.
That sounds a lot less remote, doesn't it ?


Those safety improvements don't just reduce the number of fatal accidents, they also reduce the severity of all accidents, preventing accidents from becoming fatal ones.
And that's why Frank can nowadays claim his 3150 or 6300 years before the axe falls for him.

Clev 11-15-2010 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkcarguy (Post 204271)
Interesting...
We are forced to pay not only for all this safety equipmnent that likely won't be used, but also pay the penalty for the poor fuel consumption and performance the added 400-600#'s of safety stuff added to a small car.

Yeah, I pretty much debunked that "400-600 pounds" thing:

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...tml#post156453

roflwaffle 11-15-2010 04:35 PM

A newer small car is as "safe" as a newer large pickup.

Are Small Cars Safe?

Course, "safe" in this context really isn't a good word to use. In order to determine how safe the vehicles actually are in the real world someone needs to remove socio-economic influences from the mix. If more young dumb people buy small cars because that's all they can afford then that will impact the outcome versus a bunch of older individuals who tend to drive in a safer manner buying luxo-yachts.

SentraSE-R 11-15-2010 04:48 PM

The real price for our addiction to driving isn't just deaths and the increased cost of auto repairs. There are three million injuries in addition to those 40,000 deaths annually, so you're 75 times more likely to be injured in an automobile accident than you are to be killed.

There's no guarantee you're going to drive 6300 years before you die in an auto accident. That's obviously faulty reasoning. If we could all drive 6300 years before dying in a crash, there wouldn't be any need for seat belts, airbags, highway patrolmen, EMTs, insurance agents, and lawyers, and none of us would know anyone who was killed or maimed in an auto accident. The very fact that you will pick up tomorrow's newspaper, or listen to this afternoon's newscast, and learn about a traffic fatality within a few miles of your home, should tell you that Frank's "facts" aren't telling you the real story.

I drove a late '80s Chevy Astro van for 23 years. It had NHTSA ratings of 1, 1 for driver and passenger safety (>45% chance of serious injury in a 35 mph frontal collision). The Astro's non-collapsible steering column would impale the driver in an accident. I didn't get rid of it for a long time. I also know I'm infinitely safer in any modern car than I was driving that deathtrap.

Frank Lee 11-15-2010 04:53 PM

^OK What's the proper way to present the odds from the data I found?

Clev 11-15-2010 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Lee (Post 204293)
^OK What's the proper way to present the odds from the data I found?

As an American citizen, you have a 1 in 142 chance of being injured in a traffic accident each year (2.217 million injuries in a population of 315 million in 2009.) Your chance of dying is significantly lower (1 in 7,875), but speaking as someone with several friends and acquaintances suffering lifelong pain from traffic accident-related injuries, I'll trade the extra 50 pounds for side door beams and 25 pounds for airbags.

(BTW, I have a family member who was killed in a side collision that very likely would have been a minor- to moderate-injury accident in a car with side beams and curtain airbags. It can, as they say, happen to you.)

Frank Lee 11-15-2010 05:27 PM

What makes that more proper?

More fun with numbers: If a lifetime of driving is over a 60 year span, one would have to drive 1,475,000 miles per year, every year, to hit the odds for a fatality.

One of the things I'm saying is, this oft-stated "mission" from Highway Patrols, MADD, NHTSA, etc., is for "ZERO deaths". Well, it is patently ridiculous to expect zero deaths no matter what... well, if vehicles and drivers are banned I suppose it could happen. :rolleyes: No, the real purpose of having and promoting such a ridiculous mission statement is 1)it sounds good- it's a good sell 2)it'll never happen= job security= never ending rationale for ever increasing staffing, wages, and draconian legislation which = 3)CONTROL OVER THE PLEBES. :mad:

@ Clev: I know it can happen to me. I frequently throw a leg over bicycles and motorcycles, and had a pretty good motorcycle crash a few years ago that left a mark. Yup, were I in even my most unsafe car, the cause of that motorcycle crash would have been almost a complete non-event!

Curious, how many tough guys (and girls) that think they need a 2 Ton cage for "safety" also ride bikes? That would pretty much be the height of hypocrisy.

Clev 11-15-2010 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Lee (Post 204299)
What makes that more proper?

More fun with numbers: If a lifetime of driving is over a 60 year span, one would have to drive 1,475,000 miles per year, every year, to hit the odds for a fatality.

Which goes to show that numbers can be manipulated to mean anything, or nothing. 1,475,000 miles per year is 168 MPH, continuously without stopping. Yet 40,000 people manage to die each year without hittting 168 MPH even once.

Quote:

One of the things I'm saying is, this oft-stated "mission" from Highway Patrols, MADD, NHTSA, etc., is for "ZERO deaths". Well, it is patently ridiculous to expect zero deaths no matter what... well, if vehicles and drivers are banned I suppose it could happen. :rolleyes: No, the real purpose of having and promoting such a ridiculous mission statement is 1)it sounds good- it's a good sell 2)it'll never happen= job security= never ending rationale for ever increasing staffing, wages, and draconian legislation which = 3)CONTROL OVER THE PLEBES. :mad:
The program is actually called "Toward Zero Deaths." While I'm sure there's a bit of the "keep making yourself relevant" groupthink going on here, it's still a laudable goal to try to reduce the 40,000 deaths and 2.2 million injuries that happen every year.

I'm fine with small incremental changes that improve the inherent safety of the vehicle without a lot of cost or inconvenience. You can pack seat belts, tire pressure monitoring, front and side airbags, door beams, traction control and ABS into a Yaris. That Yaris is safer, cleaner, cheaper and longer lasting than econoboxes of yore, while generally getting better mileage.

Quote:

Curious, how many tough guys (and girls) that think they need a 2 Ton cage for "safety" also ride bikes? That would pretty much be the height of hypocrisy.
Dunno, I don't think I need a 2 ton cage. I drive a 1.15 ton cage (which, incidentally, doesn't have airbags, door beams, etc.) because that's what I can afford to drive right now, but I did give up my motorcycle for my current commute specifically because it's unsuitable and unsafe for the hazards of that commute.

And yes, MADD needs to go away.

autoteach 11-15-2010 06:47 PM

Just so you know, NHTSA's ratings of a vehicle are only good for the year in which they were tested, as it is a standardized test that is rated against the group norms. This means that if you were to test a merc. topaz today, it would probably be much lower in score due to that fact. This is the same reason why the number one car one year can be the 4th the next year.

As for statistics, it is foolish to think that if you odds are one in a million for a lightening strike that you can just run around in a thunderstorm for 999,999 days and then just stay inside from that point forward. Obviously I offended you by picking on your topaz in another thread, and for that I am not sorry. You obviously took what I said the wrong way. A complaint was made about the weight of the cruze and how "stupid" safety standards had engorged the vehicles of today. The cars of today are much safer for that exact reasoning. I think you should be asking some different questions if you are worried about vehicle weight. Sound deadening/insulation, electronics, heated seats, etc do weigh down a vehicle, and I would guess if you looked at those items that would be valuable weight lost for someone like yourself. I just wouldnt be in a hurry to tear out the airbags, door beams, and bumper supports to meet some weight goal.

Frank Lee 11-15-2010 09:08 PM

That ain't how odds work and you know it. Do I need to preface a simple "odds" statement with 3 paragraphs of lawyer-speak in order for it to be relevant? :rolleyes:

No I didn't take it the wrong way. My Tempo is not me and Tempos get dissed all the time, which I really don't care about because I know how worthless many people's opinions are. The point I made then and the point I make now is that a vehicle needn't weigh 3500 lbs in order to be safe, and the reason we have engineers doing B.S. like reducing a 2mm spot weld down to 1 mm, saving 4 ounces, then bragging about it and making a 3500 lb small car sound like a breakthrough, is that stupid govt regulations mandate that every vehicle be burdened with all this crap. Suzuki/GM COULD NOT put the Metro dies back in the presses today and crank out more Metros if they wanted to because of all the re-engineering and additional **** that is required now. As I've been attempting to illustrate, there is a point at which a level of safety features becomes more of an onerous burden than a benefit i.e. taken to the extreme, for ultimate safety perhaps the only legal vehicle on U.S. roads should be a Sherman tank?

I'm not anti-safety but I think a line has been crossed as far as the law of diminishing returns is concerned. And as someone alluded to, when the motorists get the mindset that they no longer need to have/develop any decent defensive driving skills because they think the vehicle will do it all for them, what have we achieved???

user removed 11-15-2010 09:10 PM

My cousin was on the carrier Hornet (Dolittle Raid) when it was commissioned and he was there when it was sunk about a year later.

He retired from the Navy in 1955 and opened a Yamaha motorcycle dealership in Key West Florida.

He rode bikes over 300,000 miles and the only time he ever lost control was on a patch of black ice in the Rocky Mountains.

I see stupid driving every day, and the last 3 times I have been in real danger was when an oncoming car came into my lane head on at over 45 MPH. You are dead scenarios.

I remember a recent news clip about a UPS driver than had never been in an accident in 40 years working for the company. They asked him how he had managed to avoid an accident for 40 years, and he told them he just considered every other driver a distracted idiot that was about to do something stupid enough to get him involved in a collision.

On 10 different occasions I have pulled off the road to keep some moron from hitting me in the rear end when I was sitting still.

As I said earlier you can never make a car idiot proof, but you can produce more idiots by making a car that requires less attention to drive safely.

Drove my bike 40 miles today, never got close to any dangerous situation. I keep my eyes peeled for danger and constantly reassess to potential danger points around me. While a better designed for safety car is very important, a driver who anticipates and allows for the inevitable careless actions of others will always be in less danger, than someone who operates a car with absolutely no understanding of the physics of impact and the capabilities of their vehicle.

Ride a bike for a few thousand miles and you will learn to stay alive and show consideration for others, If you don't, like Frank said, you will solve the problem of your own inattention and carelessness.

That being said, most people who have learned to drive for best economy have also applied situational awareness to the same extent as those who drive for self preservation.

regards
Mech

Clev 11-15-2010 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Lee (Post 204329)
I'm not anti-safety but I think a line has been crossed as far as the law of diminishing returns is concerned. And as someone alluded to, when the motorists get the mindset that they no longer need to have/develop any decent defensive driving skills because they think the vehicle will do it all for them, what have we achieved???

In the past 40 years, cars have gotten smaller, lighter and more fuel efficient, roads have gotten worse, more cars are on the road, drivers' training is all but worthless, more semis are on the road and speed limits have increased. During that same period, fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles have gone from over 6 to 1.13. How do you think this was accomplished? It sure as hell isn't because we're better drivers.

Hell, the fatalities per miles traveled has been cut almost in half just since 1990, which was the year of the introduction of the Ford Explorer and the beginning of the massive adoption of SUVs. The fact that we've made enough progress to cut the death rate in half since then despite the increasing widening of the gap between the heaviest and lightest cars on the road should speak to how effective these measures have been.

By the way, who has been saying that cars need to be 3,500 pounds to be safe? You keep trotting that out over and over again, but in a collision, I'll take a 2,311 pound Yaris over your 2,723 pound Tempo any day.

user removed 11-15-2010 09:48 PM

I posted a photo on an earlier thread of my Civic VX sitting next to a 1967 Chrysler 300 convertible. You would be surprised at how little difference there was in their size.

I guarantee you if you hit that 300 head on in a VX the Honda would disintegrate. I have worked on wrecked cars since 1969, and what has not been mentioned is the transition to uni bodies in passenger cars.

I have seen late 60s and early seventies Chrysler cars that cut telephone poles in half, and they were repaired.

I have seen a 71 Jeep that rolled over and the damage was $750. All 3 occupants died.

Are cars safer today? Yes, but roads are safer, most traffic today is on multi-lane roads with divided medians. Trees are cleared to allow people to make a mistake and not die. Interiors no longer have the cast pot metal knobs that would punch a hole in your head and kill you. Fuel injection has eliminated hesitation and stalling when you cross a road. There are many factors involved in the reduction in road fatalities that are not related to the increasing number of safety components.

I knew an old body man who passed out drunk at a traffic light. The cops pulled his car into a gas station, parked it and took the keys with them. Came back 4 hours later and gave him the keys to drive home. I doubt you will see that today.

When the Viet Nam war was at its height and 250 body bags were being shipped home every week, there was an attitude among young people than they were going to die anyway so why not live for today like it was the last day of your life. Now the difference between women drivers and men from that era has actually changed completely.

Sure your Yaris should be a better car than Franks old Tempo. My 08 Altima is a better car than your Yaris, and in a wreck you would loose. Whats the point? Frank probably spent less than 5% of what you spent on his Tempo, and it is all he needs to do the job for him.

People here drive Metros and Hondas to get good mileage. They risk greater injury that if they were driving a newer large car, but they also may have some advantages that the larger cars does not have.

I once drove a 63 Valiant convertible over some railroad tracks. The 2 foot rise before the tracks was followed by an 8 foot drop on the other side. I hit the rise at 55 MPH. The car flew for 50 feet in the air and hit hard, with sparks flying out from under the car you could see from the drivers position.

Didn't even knock the front end out of alignment. Your Yaris would be a pile of junk.

There are pluses and minuses to every scenario. Ever drive a car that lost all brakes when a single wheel cylinder failed on a 4 wheel drum brake system. One made before 1967 when dual chamber master cylinders were required by law.

I drove one home using the emergency brakes alone. The pull and twist handle under the dash with 9 inch rear drums only and an automatic transmission.

regards
Mech

autoteach 11-15-2010 10:09 PM

So, lets get back in these beastly machines. damn sissy savers. I am going to work on bringing underground board track racing back (as it is still outlawed due to fear mongering).

Anyway, not quite sure where we are going, darwinism? Are we hoping to reverse Idiocracy? I hope so, I teach and I think that they should survive or die trying (and I mean this, they are just getting dumber). I for one, if driving an older beater, would probably cage it out (thinking spec miata-ish). It will be social bumper cars ;)

SentraSE-R 11-15-2010 10:43 PM

Nothing against those of you driving the econocars of old. Different strokes for different folks. We're not going to change your minds, and v.v. We could shift the discussion to the horrible emissions those dinosaurs spew out, in addition to their being deathtraps. You can rale on about newer cars' costs and weight. Bottom line: I ain't going back, and you ain't going forward. So be it. Enjoy your ride. I'm enjoying mine.

Frank Lee 11-15-2010 11:03 PM

I showed in post 1 that they aren't necessarily deathtraps right?

"Blue" has an airbag, shoulder and lap belts, 5 mph bumpers, and a "4" crash rating with "5" being best. Some death trap. :rolleyes:

dennyt 11-15-2010 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic (Post 204337)
I guarantee you if you hit that 300 head on in a VX the Honda would disintegrate.

I respectfully disagree, and I have video to back it up:
Crash Test 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air VS. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu (Frontal Offset)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic (Post 204337)
I have seen a 71 Jeep that rolled over and the damage was $750. All 3 occupants died.

You're not really selling me on the safety of old cars. Durability, perhaps, but not occupant safety.

Frank Lee 11-15-2010 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by autoteach (Post 204346)
So, lets get back in these beastly machines. damn sissy savers. I am going to work on bringing underground board track racing back (as it is still outlawed due to fear mongering).

Anyway, not quite sure where we are going, darwinism? Are we hoping to reverse Idiocracy? I hope so, I teach and I think that they should survive or die trying (and I mean this, they are just getting dumber). I for one, if driving an older beater, would probably cage it out (thinking spec miata-ish). It will be social bumper cars ;)

You'd seriously put a cage in a street car? Darwinism? More like Dramaism.

autoteach 11-15-2010 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Lee (Post 204357)
You'd seriously put a cage in a street car? Darwinism? More like Dramaism.

Are you asking if I do or dont want to die at the hands of one of my students piss poor and dangerous driving?

Frank Lee 11-15-2010 11:21 PM

On the board track or on the street?

04_Sentra 11-15-2010 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic (Post 204337)
I have seen a 71 Jeep that rolled over and the damage was $750. All 3 occupants died.

Were they wearing seat belts?

Frank Lee 11-15-2010 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clev (Post 204332)
In the past 40 years, cars have gotten smaller, lighter and more fuel efficient, roads have gotten worse, more cars are on the road, drivers' training is all but worthless, more semis are on the road and speed limits have increased. During that same period, fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles have gone from over 6 to 1.13. How do you think this was accomplished? It sure as hell isn't because we're better drivers.

Hell, the fatalities per miles traveled has been cut almost in half just since 1990, which was the year of the introduction of the Ford Explorer and the beginning of the massive adoption of SUVs. The fact that we've made enough progress to cut the death rate in half since then despite the increasing widening of the gap between the heaviest and lightest cars on the road should speak to how effective these measures have been.

By the way, who has been saying that cars need to be 3,500 pounds to be safe? You keep trotting that out over and over again, but in a collision, I'll take a 2,311 pound Yaris over your 2,723 pound Tempo any day.

Cars have NOT gotten smaller. Almost without exception, models grow with every successive redesign.

Cars have NOT gotten lighter. IIRC, in that '59 vs '09 Impala crash, the '09 is the HEAVIER car.

BTW, I've had my Tempo on the scale- it's 2470 lbs.

Edit: '59 vs '09 Impala: 3625 lbs "shipping weight" (whatever that is) vs. 3555 curb weight.


Roads have NOT gotten worse. There are more of them and more safety hazards have been mitigated.

Your batting average in that first paragraph ain't too good. :o

This thing was started by GM bragging about some piddling "weight reduction" on the Cruze- a small car that weighs half a Ton more than mine. Then I said my old 5 passenger car does have good safety features, including air bag- more than adequate in my book- so it is odd to think that if we want better performance including fe performance, we are saddled with an extra 1,000 It was 3500 lbs or so right? Oh- it was 32xx then the engineering miracles took about 200 out. The point wasn't primarily about Tempos, it's primarily about new cars being excessively heavy. Regardless, just about everything sub-compact and up weighs 3000 or more these days.

autoteach 11-16-2010 12:54 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cu95g...eature=related

Wait for the conclusion. It is the sad truth. Now if we just get everyone to drive a micro, and we are on to something.

Frank Lee 11-16-2010 01:06 AM

I'll worry about it, oh, in the year 8000- sooner if I'm in the Microbus tho'! :eek: Good thing in the last 33 years of Microbussing I've not so much as touched the front bumper against anything.

Clev 11-16-2010 02:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Lee (Post 204365)
Cars have NOT gotten smaller. Almost without exception, models grow with every successive redesign.

Among the same model, perhaps. See my '90 Accord vs. '10 Civic for the debunking on that one.

Quote:

Cars have NOT gotten lighter. IIRC, in that '59 vs '09 Impala crash, the '09 is the HEAVIER car. Edit: '59 vs '09 Impala: 3625 lbs "shipping weight" (whatever that is) vs. 3555 curb weight.
So they're about the same size, weigh almost exactly the same, yet the wimpy Impala crushed (pun intended) the Bel Air, while protecting its occupants at the same time. How can that be anything but case closed?

Quote:

Roads have NOT gotten worse. There are more of them and more safety hazards have been mitigated.
That's news to me. Around here, the busiest freeways are under construction, have confusing or no lines, and are ridden with potholes, expansion joints and grooves.

Quote:

This thing was started by GM bragging about some piddling "weight reduction" on the Cruze- a small car that weighs half a Ton more than mine.
This just in: cars larger than yours are larger than yours. And that's 1/4 ton more, not 1/2 ton. The Cruze beats the '90 Crown Vic in every dimension except rear legroom and cargo volume, and weighs 700 pounds less than the Vic.

Quote:

Then I said my old 5 passenger car does have good safety features, including air bag- more than adequate in my book- so it is odd to think that if we want better performance including fe performance, we are saddled with an extra 1,000 It was 3500 lbs or so right? Oh- it was 32xx then the engineering miracles took about 200 out.
3,100 according to the Chevy website, but hey, let's call it 4,000, right?

Quote:

The point wasn't primarily about Tempos, it's primarily about new cars being excessively heavy. Regardless, just about everything sub-compact and up weighs 3000 or more these days.
I just looked up every subcompact offered in the 2010 model year, and guess how many were over 3,000 pounds? None. Not a single one.

Look, I get that you like to drive your older car. I drive a Honda Accord of the same vintage, despite the fact that I would in fact be a lot safer in a better car on my particular commute. But don't pretend that it's in any way better than any modern vehicle, or that people who might want to trade in that 1990 vintage vehicle for an equivalent 2006 vintage vehicle are somehow throwing something away or getting more than they need.

SentraSE-R 11-16-2010 02:50 AM

Come on, Frank You've got your agenda, but you're flying too loose with the facts. The Cruze weighs about 3009 lbs. Edmunds listed the '94 Tempo at 2511 to 2569 lbs, half of your "half ton" weight difference claim. My 1G xB weighs about 2200 lbs, a couple of hundred lighter than yours. A 2009 Yaris, 2293 lbs. A 2010 Fit, the same as your Tempo. So much for your weight argument.

As far as roads go, CA roads are far worse than they were 20 or 30 years ago. The state puts off maintenance, and every highway and street seems to have potholes and cracks.

Frank Lee 11-16-2010 03:04 AM

Guess I shoulda looked up more numbers for yall. Doesn't change the fact that new cars are burdened by junk that makes 'em heavy. Doesn't change the fact that new cars aren't smaller. Doesn't change the fact that new cars aren't lighter either.

Clev 11-16-2010 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Lee (Post 204386)
Guess I shoulda looked up more numbers for yall. Doesn't change the fact that new cars are burdened by junk that makes 'em heavy. Doesn't change the fact that new cars aren't smaller. Doesn't change the fact that new cars aren't lighter either.

I guess you'll need to look up some more numbers, since you haven't given any that substantiate your claims. Find me a car that's the same SIZE as yours, and we'll see what the weight difference is.

Look! The current Chevy Cruze is 1,000 pounds lighter than a 1991 Country Squire! That means that ALL current cars are lighter than ALL past cars!

Frank Lee 11-16-2010 04:14 AM

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/420r08015.pdf

Quote:

Average vehicle weight and performance had increased steadily from the mid-1980s through 2004.
Quote:

Each of these marketing groups has lower average fuel economy today than in 1988, with the exception of BMW.
Quote:

...Figures 8 and 9 are similar to Figures 6 and 7, but show the trends in weight and laboratory fuel economy and show that the era of weight reductions that took place for both cars and trucks between 1975 and the early 1980s has been followed by an era of weight increases until 2005.
Quote:

Table 1 showed that for the past several years trucks have accounted for about 50 percent of the lightduty vehicles produced each year. MY2004 was the peak year for trucks with 52 percent market share, and trucks have been between 47 and 50 percent since. Considering the five classes: cars, wagons, sports utility vehicles (SUVs), vans, and pickups, since 1975 the biggest overall increase in market share has been for SUVs, up from less than two percent in 1975 to just under 30 percent this year (see Figure 10 and Table 3). The biggest overall decrease has been for cars, down from over 70 percent of the fleet in 1975 to 52 percent. By comparison the sales fraction for pickup trucks has remained constant at 13-15 percent of the market. Figures 11 to 15 compare sales fractions by vehicle type and size with the fleet again stratified into five vehicle types: cars (i.e., coupes, sedans, and hatchbacks), station wagons, vans, SUVs, and pickup trucks; and three vehicle sizes: small, midsize, and large. As shown in Figure 11, large cars accounted for about 20 percent of all car sales in the late 1970s, but their share of the car market dropped in the early 1980s to about 12 percent of the market where it remained for about two decades, but has since increased back to about 20 percent. Within the car segment, the market share for small cars peaked in the late 1980s at about 65 percent and is now lower than at anytime since 1975.
Quote:

Figures 16 through 20 show trends in performance, weight, and adjusted fuel economy for cars, wagons, vans, SUVs, and pickups. For all five vehicle types, there has been a clear long term trend towards increased weight, moderating since 2005 for wagons, vans, and SUVs.
Quote:

Since 1988, average fuel economy has decreased for small cars, all wagons, small SUVs, and midsize pickups and the largest improvements in average mpg has been over 20 percent for midsize and large SUVs, respectively.
Quote:

Cars and light trucks with conventional drivetrains have a fuel consumption and weight relationship which is well known and is shown on Figures 21 and 22. Fuel consumption increases linearly with weight.
Quote:

Obtaining increased power to weight in a time when weight is trending upwards implies that horsepower is increasing.
Yes, obviously these are cherry-picked quotes (the paper has 96 pages). No, I am not going to research and compile another list of models and weights. Anyhow, the paper is an interesting source for gobs of data folks like us love.

SentraSE-R 11-16-2010 10:56 AM

Frank, it's not that we can't go back, or you can't go forward if we want to. Your rosy-tinted glasses have you convinced that hand-cranked windows and evil handling and no side impact air bags/stiffener bars are the cat's meow. I happen to prefer the safety features that Big Brother forced onto the auto mfrs to save 10,000 lives/year since the glory years of the Tempo/Topaz. Your initial thrust was that your car isn't a deathtrap. The Impala/Impala crash results say you're way off base.

Frank Lee 11-16-2010 11:42 AM

A '59 Impala is not a Tempo. Geesh, and ya razzed me for inaccuracy. :rolleyes:

BTW I wintered last year in the Bay Area and thought the condition of the roads to be more than adequate.

dennyt 11-16-2010 12:22 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Speaking of statistics, this appears to be a gold mine!

Good News! The value of your life has gone up, from $5.6M in 1980 to $11.95M in 2008 (2010 dollars).

http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...1&d=1289928391


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com