Today's cars as tall as those in '48

Page 2 of 2  
Raising the center of gravity of a vehicle by and inch or two will not make it 'prone' to rollover. In fact NO vehicle is 'prone' to rollover, but
rather is prone to fall back upon it wheels if tipped. Watch what happens in motion pictures when vehicles, cars or SUVs, turn too quickly. They spin our but do not rollover. To make a vehicle roll over the stunt people must run then up a ramp that is at least four feet high. If indeed a higher center of gravity was what cause a vehicle to rollover more easily, one should expect to see six wheelers being rolled along then highways daily. ;)
mike hunt

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Well, it is an undeniable fact that a higher center of gravity, combined with a relatively narrow track width and stickier tires will combine to make a vehicle more prone to a rollover incident. If it really took a four foot high ramp to cause a rollover we would never hear of one on a public road, and yet they happen all the time.
nate
Mike Hunter wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You are free to believe whatever you wish buy as a retired automotive design engineer I can sure you, on level ground, vehicles will spinout but not roll. Inertia can cause any vehicles to roll when its strikes, or are stuck by, something. The small difference in center of gravity among the various types has little to do with it.
mike

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 13:22:32 -0500, "Mike Hunter"

It's called "tripping syndrome." Same thing happens when you hold your leg out in front of some moron running in a straight line...down they go!

Has a LITTLE to do with it, but suspension has more to do with it than CG. In the Explorer fiasco, spring rate plus a slightly higher CG conspired to cause the rollover problem. You see that on GM's hulking Suburbans, as well. In a "trip" situation, the Suburban is very prone to rollover, while cars aren't. For some reason, Escalades don't seem to be as prone to doing so....could be the spring rate or electronic ride control? I do not know. What I do know is, in a multi-vehicle collision involving either an older Explorer or a Suburban, the SUV rolls every time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Like I said you are free to believe whatever you wish no matter how convoluted your reasoning my be. Do a bit of research you will discover the Explorers were rolling because of defective Firestone tires. Those with General and BFG tires did not have a problem.
mike
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Certainly the tread stripping off the Firestone tires was a big problem, but not the main problem in our cooler country. Here they, and many narrow track high SUVs, roll when they slide then hit higher friction area such a curb or rough road shoulder. Of course then they are usually on their roof, whereas a car just slides to a stop. The Explorer has a very hight incidence of this problem, as do some other makes such as the older Ford Broncos and Pathfinders of 5+ yrs back. That old Trooper is ugly to handle in wind and on slippery roads, confirmed by a few owners. Following them is interesting as many don't follow a steady track even on on dry corners, the Mazda van of several yrs back being one of these, as well as SUVs with owner modified excessively wide tires. Interestingly the Jeep Cherokee I never seen rolled over. Looking at it's wide track for it's height tells the story.
I see this carnage every winter traveling our very difficult roads to the ski hills. I know people who have returned to mid sized cars for safety on these slippery curvy roads. It isn't just speeding SUVs that get into trouble!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You forgot to say in my opinion. The fact concerning Firestone tires and rollovers do not support you opinion however. You would have discover that fact if you had done a search. The fact is the NHTSA investigation showed Explorers, with other tires, did not have the same problem. ;)
mike
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Consumer Reports confirmed what you say several years ago.
Then there is that released Ford engineering document that instructed their test engineers not to test roll over on some Ford SUV and truck models for their own safety! >:)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Did you ever think that the actors are short people?

Comparing todays SUV's to cars of the 40's, is like comparing intelligence to you. No comparision

Then ride a bicycle, don't forget your helmet.

The makers do build safe cars, even for fuckwits like yourself
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Those old cars had some charm, but they were pigs to drive for the most part, didnt last long, and rolled and swayed in the corners. Accidents were much more likely to cause fatalities than just about anything we are likely to drive today.
I am not a fan of SUVs because many tend to be gas guzzlers, and they are in general more prone to rollovers. At least, so the statistics say.....
I drive a full size Dodge conversion van, and I give it a due amount of respect, because I know it doesnt handle like a sports car. It was pretty bad when I first got it, but a set of Bilsteins, good tires, and a rear sway bar helped tame the ride. It gets decent mileage for such a large vehicle (about 18 mpg), but I no longer need a vehicle with the features that the Dodge provided so amply. When gasoline once again surges to over US$3 per gallon, the van with its 30 gallon tank becomes a burden.
My next car will be much more fuel miserly, lower roll center, and able to gobble up highway miles with creature comforts and little or no 'jitter' at turnpike speed. I havent made the choice yet, but am still leaning toward an Avalon or something similar.
I just heard this morning that the Chinese are pulling away from the American market for a few years. Their vehicles are not quite right for this market, either in safety or quality, and they will observe the Korean and Japanese products for a while. They are active in Russia and to some extent in Europe, where small cars are the rule, largely due to gasoline prices.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Plymouth, 49 Windsor, and currently a 40 Royal, all great cars, dependable, easy to work on, and gets relatively good mileage from their flathead 6. They ride better than our new PT Cruiser Convertible!

--
"What do you mean there's no movie?"

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

When I was a kid we drove 41 Fords until 1953, when my dad bought another Ford. I cant remember any of them being light in steering nor responsive, nor very stable in corners, but sometimes memory lies.
I always wanted a 48 or 49 Ford business couple, but of course I wanted to hop it up.
Those older cars are getting scarce now.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Good for arm exercise though.
IMO those oldie cars are only good to look at; well some of them. For real driving I'll take a current car any day.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Some O wrote:

An old (60s) car with modern radials and disk brakes is a whole lot of fun, and that's exactly what I drive every day. I'm sure the same is true for some 50s cars, but I've never owned a 50s car. I do own a 49, and it would take quite a lot more than radials and brakes to get it to handle well enough to share the road with mdoern cars on a daily basis- so much so that it would be more of a resto-rod than a restoration. Most automotive progress this century happened between 1945 and 1970. Since then, electronics have come a long way, efficiency and driveability have gotten better, there are lots more safety features (we can debate how truly effective some of them are), but fundamental mechanical systems have changed relatively little.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My '53 Coronet was a joy to drive, but would have been nicer with some power assist. I had upgraded the brakes on the rear from center-line to Bendix self energizing from a '63 which helped considerebly. It was a lot nicer to drive than my '49 VW.(cable brakes). My '57 Fargo was a bit of a handfull (solid axle bump-steer with a big flathead lump and no power steering or brakes) My '63 valiant handled extremely well (upgraded shocks and lowered springs and torsion bars) but untill we got the Mystique my wife drives now, I had never driven a car that combined handling and ride (at a somewhat affordable price) quite like the '72 Rover 2000 TC. The Mistique has all-speed traction control, 4 wheel disks (with anti-lock, which I can take or leave) and a very potent 2.5 liter six.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Prior to 1949, all Fords were rather archaic in the suspension department. By 1953 they had improved dramatically. Also, prior to 1949 they were tall and narrow.

fancy? I'll bet it was the '48 - (basically the same as the pre-war '39-42)

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

radials. Also, the steering is pretty light, not really needing power assist. My 49 Windsor was heavy in the steering, being a much heavier car.

--
"What do you mean there's no movie?"

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A fellow at work has a Lexus. He just bought his wife and Avalon and he's thinking of trading the Lexus for his own Avalon. Nice ride and lots of goodies.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

An 83 year old friend of mine just bought his wife an Avalon, to replace her Caddy. He drives a Lexus 300, which replaced his 500 series Bimmer LWB. He loves them both. (and for his age, he still DRIVES - quite a bit, and very well.)

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.