Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
C. E. White wrote:
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>>In article <3F97D3B0.3404AC32@mindspring.com>,
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yeah, we got Pintos, Vegas, and Gremlins.
>>>
>>>I can't speak to Vegas and Gremlins, but I did own a shiny new 1972 Pinto.
>>
>>The
>>
>>>only import car in the same price range that was better in my opinion was the
>>>Datsun 510 (and it was more expensive). The low cost Toyotas available in the
>>>Eastern US in 1972 were low grade junk and too small inside besides.
>>
>>I had a 1972 Corolla that was an excellent entry-level car. Opel was also
>>selling Kadetts and 1900s that were good cars.
>
>
> Well it is all opinion, but I though the 70's Corollas were cramped, noisy, slow,
> and ugly. Plus even in North Carolina they rusted out in just a few years. The
> Opels were more expensive than a Pinto and, at least where I lived, poorly
> supported by Buick (same story with the Ford Cortinas). If I'd had more money, I
> probably would have bought a Capri, but the Pinto was much cheaper. For as long as
> I owned my Pinto I autocrossed it. It was not the best car in its class (and I was
> far from the best driver), but I don't recall either the Opels or the Toyotas
> being much of a treat. One of my HS chums had a 1900. My sister was still driving
> my Pinto when his 1900 was sent to the junk yard becasue it was too expensive to
> fix.
>
> The problem with captive imports is the lack of support the parent company seems
> to devote to them. GM, Ford, and even Chrysler (remember the Cricket?) have all at
> times imported vehicles from their overseas subsiduaries. I have yet to see any of
> the captive imports be properly supported. I don't know if this is becasue of low
> volumes sold, differences in culture (European and Japanese car typically have a
> much shorter life than US cars), or corporate bias (NIH).
>
> Ed
>
I'd disagree with the last statement - IME European cars have a *longer*
life than American cars. Now Japanese cars, due to their weird laws, do
seem to start falling apart around the 10 year mark.
If we're talking about *old* American cars - like 60's vintage - then
that's different. The late 60's were a good decade for cars... they had
the basics down pat but hadn't started loading vehicles up with too many
shiny baubles yet. You could probably drive one indefinately, so long
as you pick a popular model for which replacement parts are still
available (and "popular" includes a lot - I have no problems finding
Studebaker parts, at least non-body parts, for instance) and are willing
to keep up with the more frequent maintenance schedules and periodic
rebuilds of suspensions, etc.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>>In article <3F97D3B0.3404AC32@mindspring.com>,
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yeah, we got Pintos, Vegas, and Gremlins.
>>>
>>>I can't speak to Vegas and Gremlins, but I did own a shiny new 1972 Pinto.
>>
>>The
>>
>>>only import car in the same price range that was better in my opinion was the
>>>Datsun 510 (and it was more expensive). The low cost Toyotas available in the
>>>Eastern US in 1972 were low grade junk and too small inside besides.
>>
>>I had a 1972 Corolla that was an excellent entry-level car. Opel was also
>>selling Kadetts and 1900s that were good cars.
>
>
> Well it is all opinion, but I though the 70's Corollas were cramped, noisy, slow,
> and ugly. Plus even in North Carolina they rusted out in just a few years. The
> Opels were more expensive than a Pinto and, at least where I lived, poorly
> supported by Buick (same story with the Ford Cortinas). If I'd had more money, I
> probably would have bought a Capri, but the Pinto was much cheaper. For as long as
> I owned my Pinto I autocrossed it. It was not the best car in its class (and I was
> far from the best driver), but I don't recall either the Opels or the Toyotas
> being much of a treat. One of my HS chums had a 1900. My sister was still driving
> my Pinto when his 1900 was sent to the junk yard becasue it was too expensive to
> fix.
>
> The problem with captive imports is the lack of support the parent company seems
> to devote to them. GM, Ford, and even Chrysler (remember the Cricket?) have all at
> times imported vehicles from their overseas subsiduaries. I have yet to see any of
> the captive imports be properly supported. I don't know if this is becasue of low
> volumes sold, differences in culture (European and Japanese car typically have a
> much shorter life than US cars), or corporate bias (NIH).
>
> Ed
>
I'd disagree with the last statement - IME European cars have a *longer*
life than American cars. Now Japanese cars, due to their weird laws, do
seem to start falling apart around the 10 year mark.
If we're talking about *old* American cars - like 60's vintage - then
that's different. The late 60's were a good decade for cars... they had
the basics down pat but hadn't started loading vehicles up with too many
shiny baubles yet. You could probably drive one indefinately, so long
as you pick a popular model for which replacement parts are still
available (and "popular" includes a lot - I have no problems finding
Studebaker parts, at least non-body parts, for instance) and are willing
to keep up with the more frequent maintenance schedules and periodic
rebuilds of suspensions, etc.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
C. E. White wrote:
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>>In article <3F97D3B0.3404AC32@mindspring.com>,
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yeah, we got Pintos, Vegas, and Gremlins.
>>>
>>>I can't speak to Vegas and Gremlins, but I did own a shiny new 1972 Pinto.
>>
>>The
>>
>>>only import car in the same price range that was better in my opinion was the
>>>Datsun 510 (and it was more expensive). The low cost Toyotas available in the
>>>Eastern US in 1972 were low grade junk and too small inside besides.
>>
>>I had a 1972 Corolla that was an excellent entry-level car. Opel was also
>>selling Kadetts and 1900s that were good cars.
>
>
> Well it is all opinion, but I though the 70's Corollas were cramped, noisy, slow,
> and ugly. Plus even in North Carolina they rusted out in just a few years. The
> Opels were more expensive than a Pinto and, at least where I lived, poorly
> supported by Buick (same story with the Ford Cortinas). If I'd had more money, I
> probably would have bought a Capri, but the Pinto was much cheaper. For as long as
> I owned my Pinto I autocrossed it. It was not the best car in its class (and I was
> far from the best driver), but I don't recall either the Opels or the Toyotas
> being much of a treat. One of my HS chums had a 1900. My sister was still driving
> my Pinto when his 1900 was sent to the junk yard becasue it was too expensive to
> fix.
>
> The problem with captive imports is the lack of support the parent company seems
> to devote to them. GM, Ford, and even Chrysler (remember the Cricket?) have all at
> times imported vehicles from their overseas subsiduaries. I have yet to see any of
> the captive imports be properly supported. I don't know if this is becasue of low
> volumes sold, differences in culture (European and Japanese car typically have a
> much shorter life than US cars), or corporate bias (NIH).
>
> Ed
>
I'd disagree with the last statement - IME European cars have a *longer*
life than American cars. Now Japanese cars, due to their weird laws, do
seem to start falling apart around the 10 year mark.
If we're talking about *old* American cars - like 60's vintage - then
that's different. The late 60's were a good decade for cars... they had
the basics down pat but hadn't started loading vehicles up with too many
shiny baubles yet. You could probably drive one indefinately, so long
as you pick a popular model for which replacement parts are still
available (and "popular" includes a lot - I have no problems finding
Studebaker parts, at least non-body parts, for instance) and are willing
to keep up with the more frequent maintenance schedules and periodic
rebuilds of suspensions, etc.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>>In article <3F97D3B0.3404AC32@mindspring.com>,
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yeah, we got Pintos, Vegas, and Gremlins.
>>>
>>>I can't speak to Vegas and Gremlins, but I did own a shiny new 1972 Pinto.
>>
>>The
>>
>>>only import car in the same price range that was better in my opinion was the
>>>Datsun 510 (and it was more expensive). The low cost Toyotas available in the
>>>Eastern US in 1972 were low grade junk and too small inside besides.
>>
>>I had a 1972 Corolla that was an excellent entry-level car. Opel was also
>>selling Kadetts and 1900s that were good cars.
>
>
> Well it is all opinion, but I though the 70's Corollas were cramped, noisy, slow,
> and ugly. Plus even in North Carolina they rusted out in just a few years. The
> Opels were more expensive than a Pinto and, at least where I lived, poorly
> supported by Buick (same story with the Ford Cortinas). If I'd had more money, I
> probably would have bought a Capri, but the Pinto was much cheaper. For as long as
> I owned my Pinto I autocrossed it. It was not the best car in its class (and I was
> far from the best driver), but I don't recall either the Opels or the Toyotas
> being much of a treat. One of my HS chums had a 1900. My sister was still driving
> my Pinto when his 1900 was sent to the junk yard becasue it was too expensive to
> fix.
>
> The problem with captive imports is the lack of support the parent company seems
> to devote to them. GM, Ford, and even Chrysler (remember the Cricket?) have all at
> times imported vehicles from their overseas subsiduaries. I have yet to see any of
> the captive imports be properly supported. I don't know if this is becasue of low
> volumes sold, differences in culture (European and Japanese car typically have a
> much shorter life than US cars), or corporate bias (NIH).
>
> Ed
>
I'd disagree with the last statement - IME European cars have a *longer*
life than American cars. Now Japanese cars, due to their weird laws, do
seem to start falling apart around the 10 year mark.
If we're talking about *old* American cars - like 60's vintage - then
that's different. The late 60's were a good decade for cars... they had
the basics down pat but hadn't started loading vehicles up with too many
shiny baubles yet. You could probably drive one indefinately, so long
as you pick a popular model for which replacement parts are still
available (and "popular" includes a lot - I have no problems finding
Studebaker parts, at least non-body parts, for instance) and are willing
to keep up with the more frequent maintenance schedules and periodic
rebuilds of suspensions, etc.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
C. E. White wrote:
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>>In article <3F97D3B0.3404AC32@mindspring.com>,
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yeah, we got Pintos, Vegas, and Gremlins.
>>>
>>>I can't speak to Vegas and Gremlins, but I did own a shiny new 1972 Pinto.
>>
>>The
>>
>>>only import car in the same price range that was better in my opinion was the
>>>Datsun 510 (and it was more expensive). The low cost Toyotas available in the
>>>Eastern US in 1972 were low grade junk and too small inside besides.
>>
>>I had a 1972 Corolla that was an excellent entry-level car. Opel was also
>>selling Kadetts and 1900s that were good cars.
>
>
> Well it is all opinion, but I though the 70's Corollas were cramped, noisy, slow,
> and ugly. Plus even in North Carolina they rusted out in just a few years. The
> Opels were more expensive than a Pinto and, at least where I lived, poorly
> supported by Buick (same story with the Ford Cortinas). If I'd had more money, I
> probably would have bought a Capri, but the Pinto was much cheaper. For as long as
> I owned my Pinto I autocrossed it. It was not the best car in its class (and I was
> far from the best driver), but I don't recall either the Opels or the Toyotas
> being much of a treat. One of my HS chums had a 1900. My sister was still driving
> my Pinto when his 1900 was sent to the junk yard becasue it was too expensive to
> fix.
>
> The problem with captive imports is the lack of support the parent company seems
> to devote to them. GM, Ford, and even Chrysler (remember the Cricket?) have all at
> times imported vehicles from their overseas subsiduaries. I have yet to see any of
> the captive imports be properly supported. I don't know if this is becasue of low
> volumes sold, differences in culture (European and Japanese car typically have a
> much shorter life than US cars), or corporate bias (NIH).
>
> Ed
>
I'd disagree with the last statement - IME European cars have a *longer*
life than American cars. Now Japanese cars, due to their weird laws, do
seem to start falling apart around the 10 year mark.
If we're talking about *old* American cars - like 60's vintage - then
that's different. The late 60's were a good decade for cars... they had
the basics down pat but hadn't started loading vehicles up with too many
shiny baubles yet. You could probably drive one indefinately, so long
as you pick a popular model for which replacement parts are still
available (and "popular" includes a lot - I have no problems finding
Studebaker parts, at least non-body parts, for instance) and are willing
to keep up with the more frequent maintenance schedules and periodic
rebuilds of suspensions, etc.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>>In article <3F97D3B0.3404AC32@mindspring.com>,
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yeah, we got Pintos, Vegas, and Gremlins.
>>>
>>>I can't speak to Vegas and Gremlins, but I did own a shiny new 1972 Pinto.
>>
>>The
>>
>>>only import car in the same price range that was better in my opinion was the
>>>Datsun 510 (and it was more expensive). The low cost Toyotas available in the
>>>Eastern US in 1972 were low grade junk and too small inside besides.
>>
>>I had a 1972 Corolla that was an excellent entry-level car. Opel was also
>>selling Kadetts and 1900s that were good cars.
>
>
> Well it is all opinion, but I though the 70's Corollas were cramped, noisy, slow,
> and ugly. Plus even in North Carolina they rusted out in just a few years. The
> Opels were more expensive than a Pinto and, at least where I lived, poorly
> supported by Buick (same story with the Ford Cortinas). If I'd had more money, I
> probably would have bought a Capri, but the Pinto was much cheaper. For as long as
> I owned my Pinto I autocrossed it. It was not the best car in its class (and I was
> far from the best driver), but I don't recall either the Opels or the Toyotas
> being much of a treat. One of my HS chums had a 1900. My sister was still driving
> my Pinto when his 1900 was sent to the junk yard becasue it was too expensive to
> fix.
>
> The problem with captive imports is the lack of support the parent company seems
> to devote to them. GM, Ford, and even Chrysler (remember the Cricket?) have all at
> times imported vehicles from their overseas subsiduaries. I have yet to see any of
> the captive imports be properly supported. I don't know if this is becasue of low
> volumes sold, differences in culture (European and Japanese car typically have a
> much shorter life than US cars), or corporate bias (NIH).
>
> Ed
>
I'd disagree with the last statement - IME European cars have a *longer*
life than American cars. Now Japanese cars, due to their weird laws, do
seem to start falling apart around the 10 year mark.
If we're talking about *old* American cars - like 60's vintage - then
that's different. The late 60's were a good decade for cars... they had
the basics down pat but hadn't started loading vehicles up with too many
shiny baubles yet. You could probably drive one indefinately, so long
as you pick a popular model for which replacement parts are still
available (and "popular" includes a lot - I have no problems finding
Studebaker parts, at least non-body parts, for instance) and are willing
to keep up with the more frequent maintenance schedules and periodic
rebuilds of suspensions, etc.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Vic Klein wrote:
> Why the reputations are better is likely due to advertising strategy,
> but the facts tell a different story. Comparing actual death rates per
> million registered vehicle years shows the following data (IIHS.ORG):
>
> Mercedes C class = 52
> Volvo 850 - 39
> Ford Expedition 4WD = 39
>
> =Vic=
> Bear Gap, PA
A very flawed metric, as it doesn't account for vehicle miles traveled.
This was discussed here (RAD) earlier this year or perhaps last year
if you feel motivated to Google for it.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Vic Klein wrote:
> Why the reputations are better is likely due to advertising strategy,
> but the facts tell a different story. Comparing actual death rates per
> million registered vehicle years shows the following data (IIHS.ORG):
>
> Mercedes C class = 52
> Volvo 850 - 39
> Ford Expedition 4WD = 39
>
> =Vic=
> Bear Gap, PA
A very flawed metric, as it doesn't account for vehicle miles traveled.
This was discussed here (RAD) earlier this year or perhaps last year
if you feel motivated to Google for it.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Vic Klein wrote:
> Why the reputations are better is likely due to advertising strategy,
> but the facts tell a different story. Comparing actual death rates per
> million registered vehicle years shows the following data (IIHS.ORG):
>
> Mercedes C class = 52
> Volvo 850 - 39
> Ford Expedition 4WD = 39
>
> =Vic=
> Bear Gap, PA
A very flawed metric, as it doesn't account for vehicle miles traveled.
This was discussed here (RAD) earlier this year or perhaps last year
if you feel motivated to Google for it.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dave C. wrote:
>>>Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
>>>
>>
>>Which lots of cars and minivans offer.
>
>
> Name one that is a good value for the money. (I don't really expect a reply
> here) -Dave
>
>
Subaru.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel
>>>Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
>>>
>>
>>Which lots of cars and minivans offer.
>
>
> Name one that is a good value for the money. (I don't really expect a reply
> here) -Dave
>
>
Subaru.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dave C. wrote:
>>>Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
>>>
>>
>>Which lots of cars and minivans offer.
>
>
> Name one that is a good value for the money. (I don't really expect a reply
> here) -Dave
>
>
Subaru.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel
>>>Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
>>>
>>
>>Which lots of cars and minivans offer.
>
>
> Name one that is a good value for the money. (I don't really expect a reply
> here) -Dave
>
>
Subaru.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dave C. wrote:
>>>Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
>>>
>>
>>Which lots of cars and minivans offer.
>
>
> Name one that is a good value for the money. (I don't really expect a reply
> here) -Dave
>
>
Subaru.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel
>>>Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
>>>
>>
>>Which lots of cars and minivans offer.
>
>
> Name one that is a good value for the money. (I don't really expect a reply
> here) -Dave
>
>
Subaru.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Bill Funk wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:28:42 -0400, "rickety"
> <ricklugg@knickers.iname.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Kevin wrote:
>>
>>>RJ wrote:
>>>
>>>>Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>RJ wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul
>>>>>>>plywood and tow a trailer with it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
>>>>>>2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology,
>>>>>>everything I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front
>>>>>>wheel drive and is therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's not the fault of "passenger cars" per se, it's the fault of
>>>>>CAFE which has killed the full sized car as we once knew it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The only true full size car left is the Crown Vic. Still rear wheel
>>>
>>> dirve with steel frame. Big fan, and heavy enough to keep you alive.
>>
>>istr that the story is when they are hit from the rear the fuel tank is
>>prone to rupture and ignite the spillage. Kind of like a big Pinto.
>
>
> They need to be hit pretty hard.
> Like at a closing speed of more that 40 mph, IIRC.
>
Nothing a fire bottle system cant cure.
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:28:42 -0400, "rickety"
> <ricklugg@knickers.iname.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Kevin wrote:
>>
>>>RJ wrote:
>>>
>>>>Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>RJ wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul
>>>>>>>plywood and tow a trailer with it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
>>>>>>2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology,
>>>>>>everything I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front
>>>>>>wheel drive and is therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's not the fault of "passenger cars" per se, it's the fault of
>>>>>CAFE which has killed the full sized car as we once knew it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The only true full size car left is the Crown Vic. Still rear wheel
>>>
>>> dirve with steel frame. Big fan, and heavy enough to keep you alive.
>>
>>istr that the story is when they are hit from the rear the fuel tank is
>>prone to rupture and ignite the spillage. Kind of like a big Pinto.
>
>
> They need to be hit pretty hard.
> Like at a closing speed of more that 40 mph, IIRC.
>
Nothing a fire bottle system cant cure.