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 ?
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
... and now we have cameras for backing up or turning right!
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.
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.
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
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!
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
But are they? Here in the states, even the mini-cars go over 2500
pounds. It's obscene. Fiat 500 is 2400 pounds.
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:
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.
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
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.
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...
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.
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?
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.