New Accord Rear Window Visibility ? And, Legacy vs. Accords Opinions ?

Page 1 of 2  
Hi,
Saw the new 2013 Accords today.
Just wondering if it's only me, or others have noticed also that there is zip for visibility out the rear window.
Really bad, IMHO.
I would categorize it as bordering on dangerous.
I'm 5'11 inches.
Is it only me, or... ?
BTW: might anyone offer any opinions on the new Subaru Legacy vs. the new Accords, please ?
Thanks, Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I dunno, pretty much unchanged from models in the last ten years. Seems OK to me. What have you seen that's better?
Nearly all cars have higher beltlines now for safety, which tends to cut visibility a little. Honda is better than many, Accord is better than Civic!
... and now we have cameras for backing up or turning right!
J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/26/2012 11:38 AM, JRStern wrote:

that's the key - last 10 years. stuff from prior years was excellent for visibility and modern stuff is significantly vision impaired because of the much thicker columns and higher door lines.

cuts it a LOT. if it is for "safety", and i've yet to read anything official that states any such requirement, i'd question the logic of doing so because it presumes the occupants are un-belted. sorry, but if you're not wearing a belt, all safety responsibility of the manufacturer should be OFF. it's retarded to compromise the visual safety of millions for the few that deserve to drop out of the gene pool anyway.

--
fact check required

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

Thought this was more of them thar federal mandates.

Well, I thought it's also because the manufacturers - ALL of them as near as I can tell - no longer want to go to the expense of wrap-around rear windows that were the state of the art in the 1960s. Unless even the pillar placement is dictated by some dick in DC.
I'm mystified by rear and side windows that have an inch or two of glass around the edges blacked out, I guess it's a cheap way to do part of the fastening down or something or it helps make the windows look larger than they actually are, if it's glass on one side I want to see through it, y'know.
J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/05/2013 08:04 AM, JRStern wrote:

that's what tegger keeps saying, but all the nhtsa stuff i've read avoids the subject but does specifically say that they don't dictate design features. what goes on in the back room [maybe orchestrated by the insurers?] of course is another matter, but that's the public face of it.

no, that particular feature is the result of unibody construction and glass costs. unibody is very good in that it allows a stiffer frame for the same or less weight. but if something is allowed to flex too much, it's also susceptible to failure, so that comes back around to the stiffness mandate again. thus, if you "bring in" the glass, you effectively "brace" the frame and make it stiffer. the cost of glass rises significantly for stuff that's curved too. not only does it need to be shaped in a way that keeps the optical qualities acceptable, it needs to be heat treated without distortion. all this can be done of course, but it costs. much easier to use flatter smaller glass.

i'm with you on that for visibility and the width, but the blacking out is to screen the owner from the ugliness that is the glue used to stick the glass to the frame. if you go to a junkyard and look where someone has wire-sawed out intact glass, you'll see that's it's a real mess under there. that won't sell!

--
fact check required

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

Well, of course they don't. But some engineer figured out how to execute a design that achieves the desired results, and so everyone else just went there because it's easy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/05/2013 10:14 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

i fail to see why "desired results" should include saving idiots that aren't belted. if you actually believe that's the objective. but i believe this is merely the charade that's called "safety" because it compels me to lug hundreds of lbs of unnecessary metal about, pay for the extra gas in doing so, and coincidentally be more likely to have an accident through restricted visibility as a result.
bottom line, the oil industry is plugged deep into the ass of our so-called "representatives", and they in turn are plugging into our wallets just to feed their masters with /our/ money for all this unnecessary bullshit.
i've said many times before, if the nhtsa were actually serious about safety, we'd all be wearing helmets, have proper roll cages and use proper safety harnesses in cars. instead, we have cars that are ridiculously over-heavy, that can't brake as a result, can't maneuver as a result, that impair visibility as a result, all to be producing the same or worse gas mileage as cars of 20/30 years ago despite their much superior engines.
in europe, japan, they have, light, fuel efficient and safe cars that we simply can't get here. the contrast is dramatic and disgusting. our "safety" is simply an excuse for an outrageous fuel rort, pure and simple.

--
fact check required

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

Lighter, really?
Have any handy spec sheets?
The gross weight of the American vehicles is definitely one of my soap box issues, if anyone really cares about mileage.
J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"JRStern" wrote in message wrote:

Lighter, really?
Have any handy spec sheets?
The gross weight of the American vehicles is definitely one of my soap box issues, if anyone really cares about mileage.
J.
Things have certainly changed -- the 64 Jag XKE I owned back in the mid 60s weighed around 2500 lbs with fuel. And, one has to consider the heavy DOHC 3.8 inline six the car carried. I think a Civic today weighs around 2900.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/05/2013 05:41 PM, JRStern wrote:

i just compared the honda.co.uk and honda.com sites and actually, there's very little difference between u.s. and uk spec vehicle weights of the same model - which is not what i thought. however, the point i'm making is that overall, models there are lighter. e.g, the vw "up" and polo, the frod "ka", the mercedes a-class, the renaults, the peugeots, even the chevy spark and trak [which are not even available here].

throw in lack of the modern super-diesels and we're in full agreement on that.

--
fact check required

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

But are they? Here in the states, even the mini-cars go over 2500 pounds. It's obscene. Fiat 500 is 2400 pounds. http://www.fiatusa.com/hostc/vsmc/vehicleSpecModels.do?modelYearCode=CUX201301
OK I lied, this says Smart car only 1600, I thought I'd checked it before and it was much heavier, guess not so much: http://www.smartcar101.com/specs.htm
Of course I have serious doubts about the safety of these in collisions when so many other cars weigh so much more, and these give up crunch room ahead and behind the wheels so even if you're in a safe cocoon, you're going to have heavy g-forces, ought to be wearing that helmet and Nascar helmet brace.
J.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/05/2013 07:40 PM, JRStern wrote:

true, but the non-crunching passenger cell is the #1 safety item if the occupants are wearing belts. that outweighs everything else by a huge margin.

indeed.
--
fact check required

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

yeah, but that 33% surcharge for diesel fuel here crosses against the increased mileage, to make the fuel cost per mile argument a lot narrower--if at all--than you'd think just by crying out "but diesels get 50mpg!!!"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/06/2013 07:26 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

i hear you, but despite the price narrowing as you say, the overall economy edge is still with a diesel. add the benefits of the massive near flat-line torque across a very wide rpm range, and the 3700lb towing capacity in that accord, and you have a very attractive package any way you slice it. especially if you're not one of these people that needs a new car every other year.
--
fact check required

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

I was going to say, the *true* advantage of the diesel is its longevity--that is, if it's not a 1980s GM engine and if it's in a car that doesn't disintegrate around the engine.
And the only way you get that advantage is by not leasing and trading every 2 or 3 years...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Where I am at, diesel is about a 5%-10% premium over regular 87. A co-worker just picked up a VW diesel...and does get about 50mpg, or about a +30% increase over the gas powered model of the same kind. The issue is (same as with "hybrids"), the premium cost of the vehicle....the 6 speed diesel carries about a $6k premium over the 16k base Jetta with a 5 speed manual.
Now my co-worker drives a decent amount (commute...about 25k miles/yr). Which means (90% of his driving is highway):
25k @ 35 mpg equates to about 714 gallons at $3.70, or about $2,650 25k @ 50 mpg equates to about 500 gallons at $4.10, or about $2,050
At today's prices, it would take him 10 years to recoup his investment. Since both types of fuel costs rise together, the net savings may change somewhat, but not a lot (in either direction depending on the delta between the two fuels).
10 years? I don't think I would take that plunge just yet. Get the ROI to about 5, and I may consider it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Last I looked, around here gas was 3.09 and diesel was 4.09.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Here its around 3.65 and 4.05...though you need to know where to go, some stations are at 4.35 for the diesel.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/07/2013 04:16 PM, Stewart wrote:

does anyone remember when diesel used to be cheaper than gasoline? what has changed between now and then?
given that fleet operators negotiate their own diesel prices and buy through fleet cards and so are protected from the headline retail price you see posted at the high street pump, why do you think headline diesel prices are so high? could it /possibly/ be to help discourage demand for the new breed of quiet, fast, torquey, powerful super-diesels and thus keep overall fuel volumes high by keeping us addicted to less efficient gasoline perchance?
--
fact check required

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

I remember one time in the late 70's.... I didn't pay attention since then, though.
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.