New car purchase

I appreciate the comments about ABS and starter-linked seat belts, and especially the reassurances that high quality, well-built Corollas come out of the NUMMI plant. I'm now no longer worried about buying a Corolla, even though my old Tercel's VINny started with a "J."

But I can't be convinced that safety belts shouldn't be linked to the starter. I would say it's better to have lotsa people late for work because of malfunctioning seat belt interlocks than lotsa people seriously injured and dead because of outlawed interlocks, which is what we have today.

Sounds to me like the worst court ruling ever. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think the human body evolved over eons to somehow withstand the forces involved in even a

20 mile per hour collision, let alone 55.

And over time, had the interlocks been given a chance, I'm sure their malfunction rate would have been greatly reduced, as is the case with many new things.

I'd guess hauling around 3 thousand pounds of metal at 65 miles an hour is just about the most dangerous thing most of us has ever done, and we do it every single day for years and years. How's that for being a super dare-devil and risk-taker!

Reply to
TenPercent
Loading thread data ...

I believe, IIRC, the ruling was that the 'state' can't force you to wear your seatbelt, and it was an invasion of privacy or something like that. It was (...) a long time ago, and I was 17 at the time. I drove the car for about 6 months before it was removed, and what you had to do was pull the seat belt out so far, start it and then...let go of the seat belt...

Damn, I can still remember the smell of that car. My FIRST car and it was Brand New to boot...and BRIGHT YELLOW!!!!

Um, I am NOT a fan of non-J VIN Toyotas...I go out of my way to buy one with a J. I have driven two '4' vin Camrys and didn't like them. One had

225 miles on it and the window jammed open, and the other one had a nasty rattle coming from the rear somewhere. They were both Fleetmobiles, so I just asked for a new one...

I buy Japanese cars because they are made in Japan, Dammit!!! ;)

Reply to
Hachiroku

When the NUMMI plant first opened in Fremont, CA, it was a joint venture between GM and Toyota. Prior to that, GM assembled pickups there. One of the things that amazed me is that only about half of the vehicles in the employee parking lot were GM, with the majority of the remaining half imports of various brands. I do not know if that is the case at other GM plants today.

Although manufacturers do not publish quality data for individual assembly plants, you can rest assured that they monitor quality at each plant very closely. So much attention was paid to the quality of the FX's and Novas that were the first vehicles to come out of the NUMMI plant that after 1 year, the quality was actually better than some Japanese assembly plants. Of course, that was over 20 years ago, and I do not have any information as to whether this is still true or not.

BTW, I've been to 4 plants that assemble Toyotas, and 99% to 100% of the vehicles are Toyotas. When I visited the Subaru-Isuzu plant in Indiana, all except 1 or 2 vehicles were Subarus, Isuzus, or the Honda-badged SUVs that were assembled there. I drive by Daimler-Chrysler's plant in Belevedere, IL, and 90% of the vehicles in the employee lot are Chryslers.

Anyone who has passed a 5th grade science class could figure out a way to bypass a seatbelt interlock. Many states have mandatory seatbelt laws, which gives government a chance to make money off of stupid people.

I think that insurance companies should not have to cover accident victims who were not wearing seatbelts at the time of the accident, with ejection from a vehicle without the seatbelt anchors failing being de facto proof of the lack of seatbelt use. The people who wear seatbelts would not have to fund those who do not wear them.

Operating a 3 thousand pound vehicle is not necessarily dangerous in and of itself. Millions of vehicles travel at highway speeds every day without accidents. It's just that when an accident happens at those speeds, the consequences are severe.

Reply to
Ray O

Just a clarification: I was talking about the 2006 Accent (or 2006 Kia Rio), not the predecessor. The previous generation was too small to be a direct competitor. But the new generation is comparable in interior space, and still cheap. There's no question that the Corolla is more fuel efficient, but is it significant now that the gap has closed?

Let me put it this way: a 2006 Accent's MSRP starts at $11,455. It's rated at 28/36 (auto) or 32/35 (manual). Its Rio twin is rated at 29/38 (a) or

32/35 (m).

formatting link
7687?mktcat=insideline&kw=HTML&mktid=NL990482&DARTmail The Corolla CE's MSRP starts at $14,545, and that doesn't include the side air bags. The EPA guide at
formatting link
estimates the Accent's annual fuel cost to be $1030, the Corolla's to be $1000. So cost-wise, with a Corolla you start off with a $2000+ deficit and you save $30/year. Throw in the time value of money in the equation, and you will NEVER catch up.

I'm sure the Corolla is a superior car in other ways, but the cost argument based on MPG does not work. The same goes for the new Civic, which is both more fuel efficient and pricier. Toyota and Honda make good compact cars, but I don't think that old phrase "economy cars" applies anymore.

Chris

Reply to
Christopher Wong

I worked for GM in western NY state in the late 50's. I drove a Volvo. I got a lot of "official" comments (no serious presssure, though)

Often the car had someone examining it in the parking lot. Many of the lookenspeepers remarked about the excellent finish and precision with which the body panels fit. This was the era in which American car manufacturers were using rubber hammers to achieve closability after hanging a door.

Brent

Reply to
Brent Secombe

You do make a good point, but take these scenarios into consideration:

  1. One commutes a long distance to go to work everyday.
  2. The car is to be kept for a long time, e.g. more than 5 years.
  3. Gas prices again reach Hurricane Katrina aftermath levels.

A combination of one or more of these factors increases the likelihood of the fuel costs more than offsetting the extra cost of buying a Corolla or a Civic.

Alternatively, you could wait a while to get a Toyota Yaris (Echo replacement) which, according to Toyota USA's website, will be available in the U.S. next spring as a 2007 model (it just went on sale here in Canada). The Yaris should cost less than the Corolla and about the same as the Echo. Its gas mileage is similar to that of the Echo, which means it is even better than all of the previously mentioned cars.

Reply to
High Tech Misfit

formatting link
7687?mktcat=insideline&kw=HTML&mktid=NL990482&DARTmail>

You will at trade in or selling time. People will pay more for a Corolla even with higher mileage than they will for a Hyundai or a Kia (I don't think I could own a car that's name could be construed as "Killed In Action"...)

Reply to
Hachiroku

"TenPercent" wrote: snip

You people ARE kidding AREN'T you!... unconstitutional? surely you're kidding!...please say you are...

Reply to
Gord Beaman

"Ray O" wrote: snip

I agree with this...seat belt laws protect only the people in the car involved...whether they're worn or not makes NO DIFFERENCE to anyone in other cars at all...unlike the lack of DRL's which can have a profound effect on OTHER drivers and cars, and should therefore, be enforced by law "IMO".

IOW, *I* should be restricted BY LAW from doing ANYTHING which presents a danger to YOU. (and vice versa of course)

So the law should NOT be involved in seatbelt legislation... and SHOULD be involved in DRL legislation (again IMO)

Reply to
Gord Beaman

Hilarious! I found the comments made by the Corolla service technician in 1974 funny too. Surely requiring the use of seat belt interlocks cannot be something that is UnConstitutional.

Similarly, it CAN'T be a constitutional right to drive a car, because if driving were an innate, constitutional right, you couldn't be forced to get car insurance before exercising that right.

Paying car insurance, in that case, would be considered as unconstitutional as having to pay "poll taxes" to vote or take a reading test to vote, which used to be the case for African-Americans living in the South a half-century ago.

Imagine a teen at the DMV saying, "I ain't gotta take no stinkin' Driving Test!! It's my god-damn Constitutional Right to drive! :-)

Reply to
TenPercent

DRLs are a waste of circuitry and cost. My evidence to that is manufacturers don't even install them anymore.

I think you should live in a cocoon and never be exposed to any danger ever again in your lifetime.

Maybe the law should be involved in enforcing laws they already have on the books. If you want more laws I suggest the use of cell phones be eliminated from moving vehicles. I'm willing to bet THAT would prevent more accidents than vehicles equipped with DRLs.

Reply to
badgolferman

One thing about the 1995 model year Tercel I bought in

1995: I bought it used with 18,000 miles on it. In 10 years I added another 15,000 miles.

The car always worked well. However, I noticed that first summer I had it, on extremely hot days while climbing up medium-grade hills, the car would have trouble shifting into either 3rd or

4th gear (automatic transmission) if pushing it too hard with the accelerator. If accelerating at an easier pace, the shift would happen without a problem. Anyhow, would that kind of thing suggest problems with the tranny later in the future, say at the 100 K or 150 K mile mark?

Anyways, that's one reason I'm now buying a brand new Corolla instead of an 8-month old slightly used Corolla with 18,000 miles on it. I guess I could save 12 or 20 percent buying slightly used, but....

Thanks for any insights.

Reply to
Built_Well

That business of being slow to upshift while accellerating is quite normal for auto transmissions...it's also a very subjective thing and what's slow to one driver may not be to another...

Reply to
Gord Beaman

Cheers. Enjoy your upcoming winter there in Canada. I lived in Northern Maine and Upstate New York for many years. I don't envy your cold and snow.

Reply to
badgolferman

Ok, thanks...and I've been all over the States while flying with the Canadian Military...you can keep your humidity and heat in summer and especially your autumn with back to back city wrecking hurricanes. Cheers. Watch out for flying roofs and hotels...

Reply to
Gord Beaman

OT: Slightly off-topic, but is military service compulsory in Canada, like in some European countries? If yes, can you tell us how many years of service is required, etc? Thanks.

Reply to
TenPercent

Not required...we have no draft...all our service-people are volunteers...

Reply to
Gord Beaman

Driving is a privilege not a right, like the right of free speech and to bear arms etc. ;)

mike hunt

Reply to
Mike Hunter

That is far from universal assumption. Tests completed several year ago by the Engineering Department of two Universities in the US have shown the DRLs may actuallycause more accidents than they prevent! That is why the are not mandatory in the US or any of the states. You can do a search of the US Congressional record of the Senate hearings on the subject for the details.

mike hunt

"Gord Beaman"

Reply to
Mike Hunter

Why should -I- search it?...its -you- who are asserting it...so 'you' prove your assertion...

Reply to
Gord Beaman

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.