NationStates Jolt Archive

Watch this and then think about all the small, efficient, and dangerous cars we will have on the roads in our quest to improve fuel economy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mxij8gTpm7o

For myself, I'd pick the 2-1/2 ton diesel.

I love my 1971 Cadillac Fleetwood. It keeps me safe.

Ouch.

to be fair that looks like a bit of a shit old car they tested.

even small cars these days have proper crumpel-zones (sp?) and airbags, rollcages, etc. hell the civic i want to get has SIPS and more like my dad's volvo.

That's why improving fuel economy should focus on replacing the need for gasoline or diesel rather than simply making cars smaller; better engineering, new engine technology and metallurgical improvements will help, but in the end the only way fuel economy is going to improve significantly without increasing the risk for severe damage in accidents is if we replace at least part of the gasoline/diesel engines with something else.

That's why hybrids, electric cars, and biofuels are a better bet for reducing fuel costs than simply buying a smaller car. Plus, as technology improves these vehicles will get cheaper and more efficient, enabling us to increase size, durability, and safety while simultaneously reducing fuel costs.

There's only so much you can strip down and cut out before the vehicle's safety is totally compromised. In fact, I'd rather walk or ride a bike than ride in one of those things.

The Fiat Punto (small car) gets 5 stars in Euro NCap, with a3 star pedestrian rating.

The Merc. E Class (big car) gets 5 stars in Euro NCap, with a 1 star pedestrian rating.

The Punto is, overall, safer than the E Class.

Punto:
http://www.km77.com/marcas/fiat/2006/punto/gama/med/13.jpg

E Class:
http://www.carseek.com/car_images/06-e500-hero.jpg


The Peugeot 207 (small car) gets 5 stars in Euro NCap, with a 3 star pedestrian rating.

The Audi A6 (big car) gets 3 stars in Euro NCap, with a 2 star pedestrian rating.

The 207 is, clearly, safer than the A6.

207:
http://carsmedia.ign.com/cars/image/article/718/718030/207-mania-20060711032852204.jpg

A6:
http://www.edmunds.com/media/seo/500/2006.audi.a6.jpg


To say that big cars are inherently safer than small cars is completely untrue.

To say that big cars are inherently safer than small cars is completely untrue.

It's still a good generalization.

]


The Peugeot 207 (small car) gets 5 stars in Euro NCap, with a 3 star pedestrian rating.

The Audi A6 (big car) gets 3 stars in Euro NCap, with a 2 star pedestrian rating.

The 207 is, clearly, safer than the A6.


And if the 207 is the GTI version is is also much much fun:D

Bye bye old crappy car. I've seen that before in drivers ed. But that doesn't stop me from driving like a maniac!! :p

It's still a good generalization.

Not in Europe.

pedestrian rating
What's a pedestrian rating?

And big old cars are safer than little new cars. Modern crash tests don't take into account the relative mass of the cars involved in a collision.

What's a pedestrian rating?

How well off a pedestrian does when they're hit.

And big old cars are safer than little new cars. Modern crash tests don't take into account the relative mass of the cars involved in a collision.

Big old cars crumple. Little new cars use their safety shell and stay in shape. I know what I'd rather be in if a car drove into me when I was, say, turning at a junction.

How do you mean about relative masses?

How well off a pedestrian does when they're hit.
If I'm in the car, I'm not terribly concerned about that.
Big old cars crumple. Little new cars use their safety shell and stay in shape.
You're not thinking old enough. New cars have crumple zones to absorb the energy of impact, and the cockpit doesn't deform, thus preventing the driver from being crushed or trapped. Big old cars didn't crumple at all - they just drove through stuff and stopped.
How do you mean about relative masses?
If my car weighs three times as much as your car, when we collide my car isn't actually going to slow down that much. I will be subject to far less concussive impact than you.

But most crash tests are done with stationary objects or large blocks designed not to deform

Not in Europe.

You have undoubtedly picked the best of the small cars to demonstrate that there are exceptions to my generalization. What do the averages tell us about the relative safety? I'm sure they support my generalization.

To say that big cars are inherently safer than small cars is completely untrue.


Id like to see the results of the small car with even the safest ratings and best crumple zones versus a CXT. Well, I actually wouldnt want to see the carnage but I think that the CXT driver would be far less likely to be killed or injured.

http://www.autobytel.com/images/carcom/05_Chicago_AutoShow_Day2_021005/Edited_Day_2/International_truck/400/A1C2B9739.JPG

You have undoubtedly picked the best of the small cars to demonstrate that there are exceptions to my generalization. What do the averages tell us about the relative safety?

Taking the average of cars still available in the UK.....

Small cars - 4.1

Big cars - 4.7

I'm sure they support my generalization.

Not particulary adequately, they do not show strongly that big cars are inherently safer than small cars, especially when taking into account the larger number of small cars available with lower scores which have a negligible market presence.

The only reasonable conclusion to draw is that they are evenly matched.

If my car weighs three times as much as your car, when we collide my car isn't actually going to slow down that much. I will be subject to far less concussive impact than you.

But most crash tests are done with stationary objects or large blocks designed not to deform

Euro NCAP tests are done with moving objects, as far as I know. The frontal includes a stationary object at 40mph, which is enough speed to compensate for the movement of the other vehicle, seeing as most head on collisions occur at less than 20mph (I would find the source, but I really can't be bothered digging through my pile of about 300 Autocars to get it...)

If I'm in the car, I'm not terribly concerned about that.

You will when they sue your ass and/or criminal charges are brought against you for reckless driving.

I like my 1977 280z more. God, how people drive an automatic with power steering is waaaaaaay beyond me. *shudders*

Euro NCAP tests are done with moving objects, as far as I know. The frontal includes a stationary object at 40mph, which is enough speed to compensate for the movement of the other vehicle, seeing as most head on collisions occur at less than 20mph (I would find the source, but I really can't be bothered digging through my pile of about 300 Autocars to get it...)
No, it's about momentum. That stationary object in the test does not give, but if I collide with a vastly smaller car it most certainly will.

If I have a massive, rigid car then crumpling at all is significantly less likely - but the test presupposes crumpling.

Watch this and then think about all the small, efficient, and dangerous cars we will have on the roads in our quest to improve fuel economy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mxij8gTpm7o

For myself, I'd pick the 2-1/2 ton diesel.
Another elitist simply sticking his finger up at the environmentalists. Very mature Myrmidonisia. :rolleyes:

bmw 7 series or 5 series
we had 280k on seven before trading, got 400k on 84 5 series that i can still drive at 130+ safely:)

Least you don't have a chance of rolling over like you do in an SUV. Besides, that car looked old so old that many of the new safety rules wouldn't be in effect with it.

Another elitist simply sticking his finger up at the environmentalists. Very mature Myrmidonisia. :rolleyes:
Feel like a martyr?

You're right. I feel exceptionally elite in my 1995 E-300. Or maybe in the truck. Either one of those just reeks of aristocracy.

Nah, I just hate the thought of one of my kids buying the latest cheap, high mpg car to save some money and getting rolled over by the guy in the Hummer.

Fantastic. I love the "drive a big car or I'll kill you with my big car" mentality. Just lovely.
I like my 1977 280z more. God, how people drive an automatic with power steering is waaaaaaay beyond me. *shudders*

It's like driving on novicane.

Hybrid mini car vs. my 1/2ton Ford Diesel 4x4 @ 65mph on the highway (lets say someone blows a tire or something and we somehow collide, don't blame one or the other). I think I'm safer in my truck that's 2' off the ground rather than dragging my ass on the pavement in a plastic bottle of economic death.

Not to mention I bought the truck used for $2k.

I was more interested in the Beer Cannon video that popped up alongside that video... watch it! Particularly the Beer Cannon Montage.

Euro NCAP tests are done with moving objects, as far as I know. The frontal includes a stationary object at 40mph, which is enough speed to compensate for the movement of the other vehicle, seeing as most head on collisions occur at less than 20mph (I would find the source, but I really can't be bothered digging through my pile of about 300 Autocars to get it...)


Here ya go Nadkor. EuroNCap Testing (http://www.euroncap.com/content/test_procedures/introduction.php)

Looks like they only use stationary testing. Either the test car is moving, or the test object is.

I don't feel like researching it, but I wonder if the NTSB or like do any testing of impcats based on differing car sizes? Like seeing what happens when a Focus or a Civic do a head-on into a Chevy Caprice or a Crown Vic.

Here ya go Nadkor. EuroNCap Testing (http://www.euroncap.com/content/test_procedures/introduction.php)

Where do you think I got my star ratings and averages from? :P

Looks like they only use stationary testing. Either the test car is moving, or the test object is.
But they run at speeds that compensate for it.

I don't feel like researching it, but I wonder if the NTSB or like do any testing of impcats based on differing car sizes? Like seeing what happens when a Focus or a Civic do a head-on into a Chevy Caprice or a Crown Vic.

I would bet on the new (European) Focus nearly every time.

Hybrid mini car vs. my 1/2ton Ford Diesel 4x4 @ 65mph on the highway (lets say someone blows a tire or something and we somehow collide, don't blame one or the other). I think I'm safer in my truck that's 2' off the ground rather than dragging my ass on the pavement in a plastic bottle of economic death.

Not to mention I bought the truck used for $2k.
That's exactly how I feel in my 3/4 ton Dodge diesel. Not exactly invincible, but I'd rather ride out a wreck in it, than in the little ball of crumple zones they call a sub-compact.

Where do you think I got my star ratings and averages from? :P


But they run at speeds that compensate for it.





How is varying the speed at which a car hits a brick wall used to accurately determine what happens when one car hits another movable car?

Where do you think I got my star ratings and averages from? :P

Oh, never mind then. :p

But they run at speeds that compensate for it.

40 mph doesn't really emulate your normal head-on collision. They should try running at normal street speeds. 50-100 mph, most of the cars I see around my area do anywhere from 30 to 50 on the streets. 70 to 80 on the freeways

I would bet on the new (European) Focus nearly every time.

Nearly?:D Not me, I prefer compacts, but I will never expect to survive a head-on collision, no matter what safety rating my compact has, with another vehicle roughly twice the size and weight of my own. Especially at the speeds I normally drive.:cool:

I have two V-Dub Beetles (1973 and 1961 with Fiberglass Baja Kit), a 1964 1/2 Mustang and a '99 Buick Century...I can honestly say I feel safer in the '73 than I do in the '61 Beetle, however, in the Mustang I feel safer than either of my V-Dubs...but I feel safest of all in my Century...

but I don't give a shit what anybody says, when I can put on my RAF Aviator Goggles and look like someone off of Road Warrior in my camo '61 Beetle, and STILL get an average of 50 mpg...I feel macho.

Just don't sit on my fiberglass fender.

Or run me over, for that matter, which I've came damn near it plenty of times, all of'em were SUVs, too.

Grrr.

But they run at speeds that compensate for it.
It's not the relative speed that matters. It's the relative momentum, and transfer thereof.

I have two V-Dub Beetles (1973 and 1961 with Fiberglass Baja Kit), a 1964 1/2 Mustang and a '99 Buick Century...I can honestly say I feel safer in the '73 than I do in the '61 Beetle, however, in the Mustang I feel safer than either of my V-Dubs...but I feel safest of all in my Century...

but I don't give a shit what anybody says, when I can put on my RAF Aviator Goggles and look like someone off of Road Warrior in my camo '61 Beetle, and STILL get an average of 50 mpg...I feel macho.

Just don't sit on my fiberglass fender.

Or run me over, for that matter, which I've came damn near it plenty of times, all of'em were SUVs, too.

Grrr.
Air cooled power! ('67 Spit Window Camper Bus owner.)

Why do I expect Mercedes-Benz is either a direct sponsor or a major advertiser for that channel?

Small vehicles can be inherently safe for their occupants. Once I saw a Toyoto Yaris get hit by a 18-wheeler, the driver on the Yaris survived.

Why do I expect Mercedes-Benz is either a direct sponsor or a major advertiser for that channel?

Small vehicles can be inherently safe for their occupants. Once I saw a Toyoto Yaris get hit by a 18-wheeler, the driver on the Yaris survived.

Now, how did the driver of the semi fare? One wonders if he even noticed hitting the Yaris?

That's for sure. Large cars, if they are really significantly larger, are much safer. If you want as much safety as possible, get a used wheeled APC. You may be hit, but it's not like it will be a big deal.

Or, for starters, a heavy military off-road truck.

Nearly?:D Not me, I prefer compacts, but I will never expect to survive a head-on collision, no matter what safety rating my compact has, with another vehicle roughly twice the size and weight of my own. Especially at the speeds I normally drive.:cool:

i was involved in a bad side-on (well, 45 degrees) collision a few years back when a white transit van, loaded with tins of paint (heavy!), smashed into us at about 70mph. we were going about the same (he went right through a red light... he was over the limit for alcohol), and we were in a ford sierra. i'm not sure whether it counts as a 'compact' or not in the states (we don't really have that distinction here, at least not in general use) and we survived pretty well. my dad had to be cut out, which took about an hour, but that was because he bore the actual collision. he also almost lost his leg. my mum, however, in the passenger seat walked away fine. i shattered my arm and had damage to my neck that still causes pain today.

i'm not sure why i'm saying this. maybe its because that car certainly wasn't particularly big; certainly not as big as these "3/4 ton trucks" that are being banded about this thread. but without that car being as safe as it was, we'd all have been dead. all this arbitary talk and 'my car's bigger than your car' dickwaving is really rather pointless.


incidentally my dad now drives big volvos... hehe :P

When out and about in town I drive nothing but the Best of British (http://www.armedforces.50megs.com/images/chieftain_tank.jpg). I find traffic just parts like the Red Sea.

Tea For All!!

Huzzah!

Small vehicle? Enormous vehicle? Dont make me choose! (http://www.ezprezzo.com/crazypics/mercedes_in_bus.html)

all this arbitary talk and 'my car's bigger than your car' dickwaving is really rather pointless.



Can I get an Amen?

snip incidentally my dad now drives big volvos... hehe :P

Wouldn't that suggest that the accident was telling your dad something about smaller cars? :p

The Sierra was the Merkur here in the States. I think it is considered a mid-sized car, not sure.

So he hit you from the front side, or from back? Front corner hits are supposed to be the worst I believe.

getting into a crash at 70 will almost always be fatal, regardless of what you drive. Large cars (SUV's and the like) are far more likely to suffer a roll-over than a regular car.

the myth of the larger cars being safer isn't true.

getting into a crash at 70 will almost always be fatal, regardless of what you drive. Large cars (SUV's and the like) are far more likely to suffer a roll-over than a regular car.

the myth of the larger cars being safer isn't true.

The insurance industry doesn't agree. This a long boring study, but it does show that smaller cars have generally higher losses for collision, than do bigger cars.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/studies/InsCost/2005CostofIns/index.htm

I love my 1971 Cadillac Fleetwood. It keeps me safe.

Teh Cadillac is pwnsor. (Especially the mob-looking ones :cool: )

Also, get a 1990s Jeep Wrangler. Then you will always be safe,

Well personally I feel safer in a well made small car. I was in a car that was trying to make a left hand turn accross two lanes of traffic. The women in the lane waved us pass indicating it was clear, by time she saw the women speeding down the hiway it was too late.

I was in a C-class Mercedes. The speeding driver was in a Ford Explorer. She his between the front wheel and passanger side door (where I was sitting). The C-Class was able to drive away after the accident.

The lady in the Ford? Her engine was reduced to 1/3 the original size. Her engine was also leaking every type of fluid possible, and despite her car being only a few years old, none of her airbags went off.

Bigger does not always equal better.

The insurance industry doesn't agree. This a long boring study, but it does show that smaller cars have generally higher losses for collision, than do bigger cars.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/studies/InsCost/2005CostofIns/index.htm
in a collision, yes, the larger car is (mildly) safer. Fact still remains that hitting something moving 70 mph will not be pretty.
large cars are also far more prone to roll-over

I want a nissan!

Not in Europe.
The problem with the test results is, though, that some companies tend to model their cars to perform really well on those standardized tests. What happens on the road is another story, to be honest...

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/GreenCar.gif_________________________________http://www.smiliepower.de/auto_smilies_car_smiley/auto11.gif

Watch this and then think about all the small, efficient, and dangerous cars we will have on the roads in our quest to improve fuel economy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mxij8gTpm7o

For myself, I'd pick the 2-1/2 ton diesel.

These are VERY old cars. The big mercedes and the small Renault are both from 90's, I think. And it's Renault for god's sake. What do you expect from a french car?

in a collision, yes, the larger car is (mildly) safer. Fact still remains that hitting something moving 70 mph will not be pretty.
large cars are also far more prone to roll-over

Actually, the results looked pretty dramatic to me(lots of >120 in smaller, lots of <80 in the larger), but my mind is made up. And I think you should distinguish between larger SUVs and larger sedans. I don't think the sedans have had nearly the controllability problems that the SUVs have demonstrated.

Last, didn't the Benz carrying Princess Di and her entourage sustain a lot of damage, but also protect the seat-belt wearing occupants?

These are VERY old cars. The big mercedes and the small Renault are both from 90's, I think. And it's Renault for god's sake. What do you expect from a french car?

My Benz is a relic of the '90s, as well. Safety and economy are why I own and drive it.