WSJ Article- GM Prices Have Remained The Same..

That was what they were saying three years ago when fuel went to $2. The F150 is still the best selling vehicle in the country, and has been for 28 years.

I doubt those that can afford 50K for a vehicle are concerned about the cost of fuel as long as they can drive a larger safer vehicle. It is those, that can not afford large cars and the fuel to run them, that buy small cars that will cut back on their driving

Personally I do not drive a truck/SUV, I prefer V8 powered RWD cars. No matter what the price of fuel I will not buy or ride in a small FWD vehicle, just to save a few dollars a week on fuel, life is too short aa it is. ;)

mike hunt

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

I call the civic et-al Kamikaze cars. What price your life? Is it worth a couple dollars?

Re: WSJ Article- GM Prices Have Remained The Same.. Group: alt.autos.toyota Date: Sat, Jul 9,

----I call the civic et-al Kamikaze cars. ---

I feel safer in my 4 cyl. camry than I did in my 6 cyl. chev. blazer. It is lighter so the difference in power and weight makes the camry quicker. It is way more nimble and able to zip and twist out of situations that would roll my top heavy blazer.

I've not tried it in the snow yet, but I'd be willing to bet the camry is better there as well. Even though the blazer was 4 wheel drive. It had faulty 'anti'stop' brakes that GM recalled a dozen times and still couldn't program right.

The ride in my car is extremely better than riding in that TRUCK. For me life is too short to be bouncing around in a blender. To me people who drive trucks daily are cheating themselves of a nice smooth ride in exchange for an 'implied' margin of safety..???

BIGGER DOESN'T EQUATE TO SAFER. I know some 'analytical type' on this board has the numbers to back this last statement up.

CP

A few years ago there was an accident in my area involving an SUV and an old Sunbird. The SUV rolled over and suffered major damage, while the Sunbird had only minor damage. The SUV's driver was killed.

So I agree, bigger does not always mean safer.

"Damage level" as a measure of build quality and safety is the biggest fallacy going.

When a well-designed modern car is involved in a major collision, it gives itself up to absorb impact. The alternative is to transmit the forces to the occupants. Older cars often suffered seemingly smaller amounts of damage, leaving dead people inside.

If the Sunbird had minor damage, it WAS a minor collision. The rollover was a secondary factor.

Yes, you got it haven't you?...same as the little old lady who said "I'd have been drowned if I'd have been wearing my seatbelt when that aircraft crashed into the bridge that I was driving across and threw my car upside down into the only spot in the river that was deeper than my car was high". Yes, makes perfect sense that seatbelts are dangerous doesn't it?...brilliant...

And your point is?

All things being equal, a heavier vehicle has a longer braking time and a longer braking distance, and less maneuverability. Also, for some unexplicable reason, many SUV drivers have unreasonable expectations about the handling etc. of their vehicles, such as the bizarre belief that 4WD will enhance braking on an icy or wet road.

You don't recognize sarcasm when you see it?

Here, I'll help you out:

SARCASM n. A keen, reproachful expression; a satirical remark uttered with some degree of scorn or contempt; a taunt; a gibe; a cutting jest. Witty language used to convey insults or scorn; "he used sarcasm to upset his opponent"; "irony is wasted on the stupid"; "Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody''s face but their own"--Johathan Swift

You dig?...

That may be your opinion, but it is not based on fact. The greater mass of a large vehicle and the greater amount of frontal area, before the passenger compartment, allows engineers to build in better crumple zones that reduce the terminal speed of the passenger compartment more slowly, thus making them inherently safer for properly belted passengers.

The NHTSA in its report to the US Senate, attributed the rapid decline in injuries and deaths amount children over the past five to ten years to the fact more of them are riding, properly belted, in the larger safer SUVs. If a large 5 star rated and small 5 star rated vehicle collide, the properly belted passengers in the lager vehicle are more likely to survive than those in the smaller vehicle. One car not defy the laws of physics

mike hunt

Charles Pisano wrote:

You have hit upon the reason todays car are safer. I worked as an automotive design engineer for thirty years and helped in the design automobile crumple zones. Our goal was to reduce the speed of the 'third collision' by absorbing the force of the first collision. The second collision is when the body of a properly belted passenger strikes the restraint system. The third collision is the one that will kill, when ones organ strikes their skeleton. I've seen many collision reports where properly belted passengers were killed even though the passenger compartment was not impinged upon and the SRS system deployed properly, because the terminal speed of the third collision was greater than ones organ can survive. From what I know and have seen I will never ride in a small FWD vehicle

mike hunt

B>

Maintaining control of a 4wd vehicle on a wet or icy road is almost as bad as doing so in a FWD vehicle. ;)

mike hunt

No Spam wrote:

What about a small RWD?

A large RWD is better, but anything with a north/south engine layout is better than a small FWD car with an east/west engine layout.

mike hunt

Ray O wrote:

It makes sense that a large car is safer than a small one and now that you have explained it, it makes sense that the north/south engine layout of a RWD vehicle is safer than a transverse mounted one, on top of the benefits of RWD handling.