You can lead a horse to water ...( Friend buying a Jeep )
 

So my good friend in Toronto wrecked her 2005 Toyota Echo.
A guy was speeding around the corner and went into her lane.
To avoid hitting him, she swerved into his lane. he corrected, and they collided.
She was coming to a stop light and slowing, and he was doing maybe ( 50 mph / 80 kph )

She is fine, except for a broken first rib from the seat belt.
The major damage on the Echo was a totally destroyed fender, and the front wheel on that side was knocked sideways. Both airbags went off, and the door was almost able to be opened, but jammed.
She freaked.
Some guy told her that she need to get something besides that " rolling coffin ".

Soooo she emails me this : " I am also researching cars that would be acceptable to me and dad. We are thinking of buying a new jeep patriot in eco green pearl with vinyl seats. its on sale now for just over $18000. What are your thoughts on that? We want something that has safety features and size so we won't get injured or killed next time. Toronto is very bad for driving. Agressive drivers, narrow roads. Too many people for the space we share.Also, small cars do not get respect here, unless it's a civic, but they are costly to insure, we can't afford it. "

So my Canadian friends, what is this aboat* the cost of insurance being higher on a Civic vs. a Jeep ?

I find it amusing that she is choosing " Eco green " as a color, since she likes to think of herself as " eco-conscious "

I looked up the MPG numbers on this thing : 21 / 28 for the auto. versus 33 /39 for the automatic Echo.

Did I mention it's ECO GREEN though ? :rolleyes:
Looks more like ARMY GREEN to me.

* Canadian pronunciation

http://www.modernmopars.com/img/rescuegreenpatriot.jpg

You might want to get your friend a physics lesson or two. The seat belt broke her rib, that could happen in any car in which the seat belt goes across her body in a similar way. Her Echo was destroyed because that's how energy gets dissipated. If the car was indestructible, she'd have been goo all over the dash.

The Patriot doesn't even have great crash test ratings. 2015 Jeep Patriot Crash-Test Ratings It isn't really that big either. I'm sure there are many small to mid-size cars that are about the same size, have better crash test ratings, and handle better to help avoid the accident in the first place. Mileage isn't too bad, but if she drives enough, a Civic might pay for the increased insurance costs with the gas savings.

Also an economics lesson. She can apparently afford $18K for a Jeep, but not the insurance on the good used Civic that could be bought for under $5K. (Hereabouts, anyway: there are currently 50+ listings on Craigslist, in a much smaller market than Toronto.)

So is insurance cheaper on a NEW Jeep, versus a used Civic ?

Sounds like an excuse to buy something new , versus used.

A small car, say a Dodge Caliber, is not acceptable. Slap a Jeep grille on it and lift it a smidgen, and suddenly it's an SUV and therefore safer and more satus-ey.

Because that's all the Compass and Patriot are.

Actually there are physical reasons why heavier vehicles fare better in crashes, regardless of vehicle design. See conservation of momentum.

And 20-28 for a Jeep is actually pretty decent. I would've expected like 18-26.

Although I'm still in favor of a smaller car, of course.

I would opt for the equinox if she wants suv. Or any other small crossover? Instead of chrysler. They're are some chrysler/fiat that are good, but not for less than 25000.

Thanks everyone.
I'm going to let her do the deciding. I think she wants something that looks less 'feminine'.
That means bulging fenders and mean grilles.

Buy used ??

Common sense doesn't work in this situation. She is currently staying with her parents as a caregiver, and they are the ones that will buy this thing.

I'm just an observer.

We have discussed this topic over .
and over.
and over.
and over.

Maybe I should convince her to put bags of sand in the vehicle when she drives.
...you know, for more mass.

No offense intended. You are right - big things win.

https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qim...t_to_webp=true

Been down this road. PUN!

Logic has very little to do with vehicle selection.

First and foremost, it is about stroking the ego.

They bolster their choice with made-up supporting "facts".

You will get nowhere with actual facts.

If you wish to influence her away from a stupid, illogical choice, you'll need psychological tricks.

But I don't have any.

Also you will find that yours is a very lonely voice, as I fear the vast majority of her "consultants" happily recommend the biggest, thirstiest, stupidest thing they can think of. After all, they aren't paying for it.

I'm resigned to leading by example. The logical arguments were a waste.

Sometimes they need to figure it out themselves (if they ever do). An ex-friend of mine, a flaming liberal, very vocal about anti-oil (like drilling, pipelines, etc) replaces her economical sedan with an SUV. I pointed out that in order to fuel that thing she's gonna need a lot more of that drilling and pipeline stuff. Only after enough time had elapsed for the increased costs to sink in did she go back to an economical sedan. :rolleyes:

There are likewise physical reasons why smaller cars are less likely to be involved in crashes, and actual data showing that (at least as of 10-15 years ago, when the study was done) SUVs and large pickups had worse safety records than smaller cars.

Has she driven one yet, or just like the look of them? We had a relative visit in a rented one, and none of us were impressed. It might be one of the cheapest, hence the appeal, but it definitely feels like one of the cheapest(harsh words from a guy driving a 99 Saturn w 250k on it) Suggest she drive more vehicles, I'd take a certified Equinox over a brand new patriot given the same money.

Let her buy the Jeep. It will be the last one she ever owns after it spends most of it's time in the shop.

I too am amazed that it is rated to get decent fuel economy. The best I ever got out of the 2002 Liberty was 19 MPG.

Basically she wants an ego-enhancer. Anyway, wouldn't a Honda CR-V or a Toyota Rav4 provide a higher fuel-efficiency than this Jeep?

You can lead a horse to water ...( Friend buying a Jeep )
 

Let her get the Jeep then, or maybe she should consider a Hummer, or give one.

They all suck one way or another...




>

The Liberty was a Jeep. It gets Jeep mpg. The Compass/Patriot are a rebadged Caliber, and get Caliber mpg. The current Cherokee is the same idea, based off the Dart. It gets impressive mpg for a Jeep, too, because it isn't one.

I remember a salvage auction where there were 3 of those older giant Toyota Land Cruisers, out of 350 wrecked vehicles, which, considering they are much less than 1% of the vehicle population would be very unusual.

Every one was rolled.

Anyone who thinks tall, top heavy vehicle is safer, should consider this evidence to the contrary.

regards
mech

As I have mentioned before, my over protective mama bear sister purchased a super-save "SUV" for her baby bears, only to roll over in someone else's SUV, and suffer a TBI.

Curiously, that was in Flagstaff, where I have HWMMV rollover training every year.

That Jeep is not eco in any way. That is an ugly color.

People want larger and heavier vehicles because they see themselves as safe drivers, while everyone else is bad. I put away my cell phone and focus on preventing anyone else from hitting me, but if you would rather teach the other driver a lesson...

/palmface

I am kind of surprised the other driver did not say "I dunno, Officer, she just swerved into my lane, and I could not avoid her!"

I imagine that a new Jeep would have higher maintenance costs than an older Toyota. Aren't there always things not covered by warranties?

On one of my many trips to the Subaru dealership to pick up parts (mostly small ones, like bolts and pieces of trim), I asked them about also selling Jeeps and Jeep parts.

He indicated that Subarus were far more reliable because they sold many more Jeep parts. Well, there were 700k Jeeps sold last year in the U.S. and 500,000 Subarus, and ten Jeep dealerships in the valley, but only three for Subaru.

I was not impressed with Subaru reliability, but I can believe that Jeep is worse.

I'm addicted to watching Russian dash cam vids of crashes and it's astonishing that just about every collision shown shows that the "drivers" steer INTO the collision path rather than away from it. Had they read the "tea leaves" correctly about where the other vehicle was headed a great many of these collisions would have been avoided. The description of this incident sounds exactly like so many of those eminently avoidable crashes. :confused: :mad: :rolleyes:

Another thing I pondered about this woman's mindset is hey, she SURVIVED the collision in pretty good condition and the little car and all it's safety equipment DID THE JOB. So I'm not getting the motivation to trade up to a battering ram? Oh- silly me, being logical again. :rolleyes:

SUV safety, once a key concern for the segment when it was booming in the 1990s, has made real strides in recent years. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reported in June 2011 that SUVs (including crossovers) are now safer than cars, even when comparing vehicles of similar weight. Real-world fatality data for 2005-2008 models reveal 28 driver deaths per million registered SUVs. There were 56 car driver deaths and 52 pickup driver deaths per million for the same period. Minivans were the safest with 25 driver deaths per million registered vehicles.


I found this bit of an article interesting, but I hove* to wonder if minivans are 'safer' because they are driven safer ( by families with children ! )
Most likely, the data includes all sorts of cars and trucks, without regard to the type of driver, their ages, and driving style.
With this sort of data, you might could surmise that 1998 Oldsmobiles are the safest cars out there, only to find out that the data was taken from little old ladies that never drive over 50 mph.

* That was a purely coincidental typo I swear, but hey, that's the way it's pronounced in Canada, so I left it !

I'm glad your friend was not injured any more seriously. When a car is folded badly enough that the door won't open there is good reason for concern.

My neighbors were hit head-on by a Ford pickup; they were in a Hyundai something or other, a little ute. They were both seriously injured and spent months in recovery (he is still recovering and in fact will never be the same - mashed hip, knee, elbow), while the pickup driver walked away. Their car was crushed to the point of intrusion into the passenger cabin. Airbags can only do so much. (Personal aside: after seeing pictures of their car I will never, ever, buy a Korean vehicle.)

For folks like your friend who are genuinely concerned about being protected in front end collision: Volvos are good, so are Subarus. Smaller Subies get okay gas mileage although if you do a lot of stop/go urban driving the mileage can be pretty horrible. I don't really know much about Volvos other than that they cost a fortune to fix.

So, she is telling me that the reason that Civics have high insurance rates is due to theft.
They went to look at a couple of used Civics, and both were missing airbags due to theft.

I didn't realise there was such a demand for Civic airbags.

" Psst .... wanna buy some full auto machine guns ? And ova here, Vinnie " The Rat "is got us some nice contraband Civic airbags. Yeah we some real bad azzes. "

OK, time for Economics 102: If you buy an inexpensive used car, you don't need theft or collision insurance, which saves quite a bit of money. Ever wonder why insurance company stock is considered a good investment?

I served some time ...on jury duty. What I learned is that car thieves gather in dark back parking lots to trade stolen vehicles, Honda Civics can be started with a single 'shaved' ignition key, and to gain egress to a Honda Civic you grab the top of the passenger door window and pull outward.

Also, motel rooms are full of people sitting on the bed washing checks.

I honestly think that the best advice for the friend would be the virtues of a five-point harness. I imagine that would distribute the force of impact better than two belts.

ill just leave this here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sVmoOZRypk
my friend purchased a jeep and after 6 month of owning it his repair bills came to more than what he bought the car for (around 10 000 $). i would not recommend

I'd take a more proactive approach and recommend not buying from that used car lot again, and otherwise being a lot more careful buying used cars.

I'm going to reiterate Vskid3's excellent point that you want to see a car mashed up because it means it dissipated the energy instead of transferring it to the occupants. Andy's point about the conservation of momentum tells us why a heavier vehicle is almost always the safer option when involved in multi-vehicle collisions.

Really though, I refuse to listen to anyone that places lots of emphasis on driving a larger vehicle for safety reasons while simultaneously failing to have reasonable diet and exercise habits. My coworker's Ford Exploder broke down and became less valuable than the tow bill, and I tried to discuss better vehicles options for his lengthy commute and cargo needs. Being easily 100 lbs overweight and a smoker, he said he had to drive a larger vehicle for safety reasons. He also said it allowed him to see over traffic.

In a car, I have no problem seeing down the road, through the vehicle ahead of me, as long as it's a car. The only vehicles I cannot see beyond are the larger SUVs and trucks. My point is that buying an SUV or truck for safety reasons is an extremely selfish decision that puts everyone else at greater risk of collision and injury.

The data might be interesting, but as you point out, it still leaves everyone to wonder if the vehicle type is the cause for the safety, or the type of driver that chooses the vehicle type. I know young men would be much more likely to drive a car than a minivan or SUV. Young men make foolish decisions.

Still, what some people seem to forget is that it's far safer not to become involved in collisions - whether with other vehicles, or with stationary objects - in the first place. Which is a heck of a lot easier to do in a small, nimble car.

I don't know whether it's learned helplessness, a belief in predestination, or what. Just like your co-worker, who probably blames fate or genetics for his extra 100 lbs.

If an accident is in the cards, the truly enlighten simply don't go out on the highway. Sucks to be a commuter.

An example is last December when I chose to drive on black ice, instead of waiting until morning.

I agree with the argument that avoiding accidents is easier in smaller vehicles. Im not too concerned with not being able to avoid an accident i see coming. My problem, fear, is being broadsided at an intersection or some other scenario where you don't have time to react. Safe driving is whats going to prevent accidents, not a small car.

Oddly enough, this situation happened to me a couple of months ago, when an idiot ran a red light as I was heading into the intersection. By being aware of cross traffic, and having a small, agile car (the Insight), I was able to brake and swerve enough into the next lane so that he missed me. With a bigger vehicle (or if I hadn't been paying attention), I easily could have become a statistic.

Armor makes you stupid.

Mom and Pop were almost head oned by a drunk in marathon in the florida keys. I was almost head oned within 100 yards of the exact same location a few years later.

They were driving a 1977 Honda Accord I rebuilt, right at 2000 pounds versus a Cadillac. My 1973 Alfa GTV weighed almost exactly the same. They swerved right and lived. I was not quite as lucky. It was raining torrents and they had dug a new ditch for the water supply pipe to the lower keys, which was about 15 feet deep with vertical walls. I had to go across the path of the oncoming car and into a parking lot at night, praying I did not nail one of the two telephone poles.

No doubt had either my parents or myself been in a heavy car we would be dead in the head on 100 mph combined impact, BEFORE AIRBAGS.

regards
mech

The debate on when armor makes you more vulnerable fires up periodically with my coworkers. Many years ago, I worked with a kid who said that his bike helmet made him feel unsafe.

Doesn't American football have more injuries than rugby?

Except in the case of my friends/neighbors the vehicle not only failed to dissipate the energy, it also failed to prevent transferring it to the occupants.

A Forester is the same size as the car my friends/neighbors were in, and provides greatly superior protection to its occupants. Did you even read my post?

I was watching wheeler dealer for a short time today. They bought a Porsche 928 for 1600 pounds, after bargaining for 100 pound discount, THE COST OF A SINGLE TANK OF FUEL!

So the car basically cost them 16 tanks of gas :eek:.

That kind of puts fuel cost in perspective. In my Mirage that same amount of fuel would get me around 2500 miles.

Pushing 11k miles now for about $360 in fuel.

regards
mech

There are two truisms that apply here: The first is the old saying that to a six year old with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The second is that people apply their beliefs as if they were facts.

If you're in a situation that can be seen as having risk and you have a tool that is labelled "protection," you're going to walk into it ready to wield that tool. If you bought your fat-assed SUV for safety, it is therefore safe no matter what situation you're in or what physics has to say.

Most people think tanks are magical, invincible things. I was a TOW gunner when I was a kid, maybe that's why I see tanks (and safety) differently.

No, it didn't fail at anything. There was more crash energy than the car could dissipate by deforming because the other person was driving a big, heavy truck with lots of inertia and hit them head on. There's a difference.

Also, why was the collision head-on? What other factors could have prevented or mitigated the damage of this collision? Why is the go-to response always, "When I get in an accident JUST LIKE THIS again, I need to be driving a bigger car because SAFETY"? And not, "Gee, maybe I should drive slower" or "Why don't I take an autocross course and practice handling my car in emergency-like situations" or "Maybe I should practice checking my mirrors more often" or "How about I take a defensive driving course", which would help prevent collisions no matter what vehicle a person is driving? We act like the mass of the car is the only factor in these collisions, when the reality is there are myriad little details that affect the severity of a crash as well as whether or not it happens in the first place. No vehicle is a magic bullet for safety in a collision.