the US had a law sometime in the ealy 90s or late 80s, requiring a
form of passive restraint system that didn't require the driver to do
anything. Many went for the airbags (and thats what is used
exclusively now) but early on, many distrust them, and went for a
system using seatbelts. When the door was closed, the seatbelt was at
the shoulder position, when it was open, it was somewhere on the
a-pillar. This meant you only had to get in, and sit down, and when
you closed the door you had a seatbelt which went from shoulder to
hip, no effort etc. There was then a second inertia reel belt usually
on the door side, by the hip, you brought across as a lap belt. Was a
simpler and easier solution than airbags, but easily circumventable -
just use the clip to undo th seatbelt (required for large packages and
other situatiosn when such a belt would be a hinndrence.
not sure when, but i believe airbags are now required, and the
motorised belt system can not be installed in cars any more.
(note, i'm a brit who only started driving in the US in 98, and only
moved here in 03 so i don't know the 'history' that well)
You've been reading my posts again, eh?
Plagarism...you'll be hearing from my Lawyers...
Honest to God true story: saw a woman on a rural highway (2 laner) about
to enter the highway, talking on the phone, eating a sandwich and doing
something that looked like drying her nails, while driving an Expedition.
Not at all. It's personal experience in the oh-so-offroady SF Bay Area,
augmented by survival instinct (in my 88 Civic and on my bicycle in traffic,
both of which I know will leave me dead if an SUV decides to run over me).
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 20:37:36 -0400, some stupid top-posting,
nym-shifting troll, currently calling himself Mike Hunter wrote:
Bullshit. What you say about "size helping" is true, but what you
conveniently leave out is that the higher mass of the SUV inflicts
higher-than necessary damage on the other vehicle. With proper
engineering, people can be SAFER in a car than in an SUV, and NOT be
the danger to everyone else on the road that heavy trucks and SUV's
I can understand why you feel that way, considering all the freaking
BARGES on the roads these days...
I disagree - the facts show the higher center of gravity, the worse off you
are. I watched an Explorer barrel roll with 5 kids in it after changing
lanes at 50 MPH - probably because the air pressure in the tires was to
high. I also watched a Jeep Grand Cherokee make a panic stop at 55 MPH with
it's rear end hopping all over and eventually rolling on its side. The next
time you see a Jeep pass you on the highway at 80, just know that if it
makes a panic stop, the family inside is s__t out of luck.
I agree, SUVs may appear to be safer, and if they are involved with a
smaller vehicle in a crash they will be less affected, however, after the
initial crash, the spinning and barrel rolling will ultimately kill and
maim. In our state, the vehicles with the highest injury rate are SUVs and
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:45:12 -0400, Bob Palmer wrote:
LOL. I thought Chryslr was getting a leg up from M-B!
My college roommate had a 2002 Tii. Amazing car! Drove like on rails. Was
3 years old. Couldn't pass the local BMW dealer...
Same with my '73 Volvo 1800ES, 3 years old, 52,000 miles.
Amazing cars, nickle and dime you (well, a couple Franklins here and
there) out of your bank account!
Wife (er, EX, that is) has a '94 325i with 45,000 when she bought it, now
has 80,000, always calling me with issues. Is on it's THIRD tranny...
Oh they are.
Chryslers have come on in leaps and bounds, so much that Chrysler/Dodge
and probably soon Plymouth brands will be seen on UK streets as normal.
The Neon and PT cruiser are badged Chrysler here, but the 300 Sedan is a
It is just that Mercedes got the rough end of the stick. Chrysler
improves, mercedes gets weakened.
Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz
Well, Chrysler improves? I haven't seen it. The service manager at our local
Chrysler dealership says that they can't keep up with all the problems, and
half of the problems don't have a solution yet. Across the street at Honda,
the only backup they have on service is the oil change lane.
BBC's top gear did a review of an F150 in the UK a few months back.
Actually it was the F150 lightning, but still. Anyway
Pro - 2/3 seats, qualified for commercial vehicle rates, large load
area, car-like driving position
cons - huge reletively unpowerfull engine, handles like shit, load
There are *some* pickups, but they're not common, mainly rangers and
hi-lux (a downloadable clip on bbc.co.uk/topgear/ does show them
trying to destroy a hi-lux pickup - a must watch) but the drop-side
transit is far more popular. Its not hard to see why either. The load
capacity is greater, the engine more efficient, and, you can drop the
sides, makes it more of a flat-bed with fencing. For everyday work,
you've got a range of vans, of variosu sizes, from car-based ones
capable of taking a full pallet with a car front-end, to long
wheelbase hi-cube vans with a 3.5ton GMVW. Did i mention that these
are enclosed, so hearer to steal from, and also more efficient, since
you've not got the bed's door acting like a 'chute. They're not even
that slow - a standard road legal Diesel transit can manage the
nurenburg ring in just over 10 minutes.
In short, pickups are too over-engined for family use (engines detuned
for those damned slush-boxes) fuel inefficient, don't drive very
nicely (poor handling and turning circles) and leave anything carried
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:35:30 -0400, flobert wrote:
Hmmmm....my boss had a Lightening and I asked for a 'ride', he said "Key's
in it" didn't have to tell ME twice.
I thought it was a pretty damn good truck for a '68 Corvette!
The fact that it handled that well and that fast amazed me.
I've actually seen that on US telly and on the web.
but the drop-side
Mayu handle well in the US for a US vehicle, but, UK roads are narrower
and we have corners and twisty roads. It doesn't quite have the
precission needed for a vehicle that is so big compared to the road it
needs to be driven on over here.
Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 10:13:34 +0100, NeedforSwede2 wrote:
Drove it on an old US (two lane...they were just marking the Brand New
pavement (uh, that's NOT a sidewalk for those of you from Yirrup...)
and then on the Interstate. Pretty good to me.
Uh, he had made some 'mods', like exhaust and chipping the thing. Est. 425
No, no, no! Please DO try to keep up!
I said the performance of the LIGHTENING was the same as a '68 Vette.
He Chipped the Lightening to 425HP
(the trick here was; look at my first sentance. Then in the second one I
said the truck was pretty good for a '68 Vette...because that's what it
felt like I was driving...sorry for the confusion!)
I have to say, you've obviously never had much experiance with
high-end vehicles then. Turning is sloppy and vaugue, suspension is
floaty and nausia inducing, unless its in a sports car where they've
decided that shock absorbers are a weighty extravigence. Build quality
is usually poor, and engines are usually detuned to give more torque
low-down for the ubixuitus slush-boxes to work best.
in 99, i used to drive a 98 TVR cerbera for a daily driver, the speed8
with the 4.5 I think.I had to make a trip to LA. I was staying with a
friend, and he let me use his car when i needed to (a brand new, 2000
corvette) First time i drove it, I thought it was in limp mode. I took
the cars owner out in it later that day, and said 'can't you feel it?'
"Feels fine to me". A small fibreglass car with that big of an engine
should not perform that badly. It was on a par with a delorian, and
that should say something.
yeah, i gave you the weblink, wasn't sure though if it'd been on the
discovery channel yet.
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.