Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Cash for Clunkers - Good or Bad Idea?
4110 messages, Last post on Nov 23, 2009 at 11:42 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
For questions about how the program works or to discuss program details, please visit our discussion titled, "Cash for Clunkers - Does it Work for You?"
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 13, 2009 7:22 pm) Some of the bigger safety factors on older vehicles, like my truck, include how far you sit back from the front of the vehicle, the location of the steering box, and how far away the dashboard is. Well, the steering box is located ahead of the front axle...VERY bad. In the old days, before collapsible steering columns, that meant it didn't take a very hard hit to drive the steering wheel into the driver, like a spear. As for how far back from the front of the vehicle, there's probably less distance between me and my front bumper than there would be in a Corolla, let alone a CamCord. Most modern equivalent trucks are about a foot longer than mine, and most of that is up front. As for the dashboard, it's a reasonable distance from me. Any of my old cars are better, but it's still better than my Intrepid. The down-side though, is that the truck's lower dash is all metal...not too good on the knees! Now, in such an impact, some things that WOULD go in favor of the truck would be its 800 or so lb of extra weight, and the crumple zone in the CamCord, which also benefits the truck, as it would become, in a sense, MY crumple zone. So, I'd be better off in a head-on collision with a 2009 CamCord than I would be with another 1985 Silverado. Still, I think the CamCord would do a good job at protecting the occupants, better than my Silverado. Now, in lower-speed impacts, the CamCord would get disabled long before my Silverado. So in a demolition derby yeah, bring it on! But in a high-speed head-on, say I'm out on the highway and a Camry coming the other way crosses the median and slams into me. Well, I wouldn't want to be in either car, but I'd say the Camry driver would have a better chance. Now in other types of accidents, the Silverado might come out better. For example, I'd rather be in my '85 Silverado, and T-boned by a 2009 CamCord, than be in the CamCord, and T-boned by a 1985 Silverado! Well, as long as the CamCord hits me below 73 mph, and I don't have explosives strapped to my saddle tank!  Still, in an accident like this, the CamCord would have the benefit of side airbags, but the truck would have the benefit of a higher position and added weight. It wouldn't be a "fair" fight, because the impacts wouldn't be "frame-to-frame" level. The CamCord would be impacting a stronger part of my truck with a weaker part of its own body. The stronger part, where the bumpers/subframe/unit-body floor are, would be below the level of my bumper and frame. And in a rear-ender, well I've already experienced what it's like to be hit by a 2000 Infiniti I30-something (Infiniti's Maxima) at a good clip. The end result was $350 worth of damage to my truck and a sore head from smacking the rear window, while that Infiniti probably had about $4-5K or more damage done to it. My bumper wasn't even damaged, but one of the brackets got bent. So they replaced both brackets and the bumper. However, if I was to rear-end a CamCord (or said Infiniti) in my '85 Silverado, it probably wouldn't have been pretty, either. I'm sure my truck would've fared much worse. In a collision like that, BOTH vehicles probably would've fared worse, as I'm sure a hit like that would've buckled the rear of a car, right over the rear axle. Probably would've done a good little number on my truck, too. As for reliable versus durable, that's something totally different. But I agree with you, cars today aren't as durable. To me, reliable means that it doesn't break down unexpectedly under normal use, presuming you maintain it. Durable means that you can abuse it and it won't break. For example, when the tailgate on my Silverado doesn't close right, I kick it shut. That's durable. And DON'T try that on a modern vehicle! But, say, when the distributor crapped out, or the radiator, or the gas tanks, I'd say that's more of a reliability factor. Still, even there, it took 19 years for the distributor to crap, 20 years for the gas tanks (and my mechanic said that the gas tanks on the 1988 redesign tend to fail sooner!), and 21 for the radiator, maybe there is a bit of durability in there, too.
|
|
|
Replying to: isellhondas (Jul 14, 2009 6:11 am) I remember my Granddad bitching, because he had to do a valve job on his '72 Impala around the 70,000 mile mark. I don't think he was impressed by that. But then it was a Chevy engine. People are griping because they need to overhaul their transmission after 100,000 miles! In the "old days" people would have been bragging that they made it that long! This is only personal experience, and not scientific I know, but I've seen more trannies make it beyond 100K miles than not. Among the "nots" that come to mind...well, my great-uncle had a 1957-58 Ford. He got it stuck in the snow and tried to rock it out, and burnt it up. It was only 1-2 years old, but I'd classify that as abuse. My grandparents had a 1977 Granada that had the tranny fail under warranty, within a year. My Mom & stepdad's '91 Stanza's tranny started getting weak around 90K, but did make it to around 110-120K, when they sold it. Their '99 Altima's crapped out at 35K. My '82 Cutlass Supreme got rebuilt at 62K. My buddy's '98 Tracker got an "overhaul" at around 20K, 40K, 60K (luckily these were all under warranty), then died at 86K. Transmission shop got it running for 60 bucks, but said it probably wouldn't hold, and sure enough, around 92K it went again. However, we threw in a used unit from a '95 or so model with 55K on it, and it never gave any trouble for the 42K more miles he had it. Oh, and a guy at work bought a 2000 Lincoln LS. Tranny failed immediately. So did a few other things. So, my experience has been that it's the newer cars, not the older ones, that are seeing the early tranny failures. However, what could be going on is that all the older cars that already had the tranny failures have long since been taken off the road...in some cases before I was even born. So the ones that are left are the "cream of the crop". And in all honesty, I have no way of knowing if the tranny in my 230K 1979 Newport hadn't been replaced at some point before. Ditto my '68 Dart. I DO know it was replaced (but with a used unit) at 242,000 miles. Had 338,000 miles on it when I quit driving it, and the only time I had transmission trouble was when one of the cooling tubes got crimped, pressure built up, and fluid started spitting out of a seal. I remember the transmission guy said that if I kept driving it like that, I *might* need a rebuild, but if it had been a modern car, it probably would've been dead by now! |
|
|
Replying to: maryh3 (Jul 14, 2009 4:53 am) 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Jul 14, 2009 6:48 am) Alas, the statistics prove the point decisively. Traffic deaths are going down year after year while and miles driven going up and up. There is no logical explanation for this except safer cars on the road. Old cars are simply not defensible statistically. I don't think teenagers should even be *allowed* to drive cars without air bags. The "weight" argument is specious as well IMO. The safest cars in the world today are also the lightest (race cars). Who wants to crash at 200 mph in a 1950 Packard? It's all about design, and in 1956, "safety" wasn't even a consideration 50s cars. With no seat belts and nice pointy dashboard objects to imbed in the human head, the car is obviously a death trap. When it hits something head on at 50 mph, it will stop, but the driver will keep on going straight into paradise.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jul 14, 2009 7:25 am) 1. Driver inattention. Race cars don't operate in an environment full of distracted drivers. A smaller, lighter car can be a safer car, in that it has the innate ability to respond more quickly to changing driver inputs. But that only applies if it is helmed by an alert driver. US drivers are notoriously inattentive, undertrained, and distracted, compared to their European counterparts. 2. Unlike race cars, road cars face the prospect of colliding with moving vehicles of radically different mass. This is a factor, and it can offset the inherent responsiveness of the smaller car, particularly in light of #1 above. I would argue that the safest car in the world is one that balances mass with agility, and provides the driver with as few distractions from the task of driving as possible. It must provide the driver with all of the necessary feedback, without making him/her uncomfortable in the process. So, from the point of view of maximizing safety, I would rather be in an E-Class Mercedes than any of the above. Unfortunately, the E-Class starts at $53,200, so I couldn't buy one using my C4C voucher.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: stephen987 (Jul 14, 2009 7:33 am) In fact, both cars would fold up nicely and be scrapped most likely. Which is the whole point in their design. If a train hits a Honda Civic, do we ban the Civic 'dangerous'? Of course not. We fix the railroad crossings.
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jul 14, 2009 7:25 am) Well, it's not all about weight, but weight is certainly a factor. And I stand by my statement that if I'm in my '85 Silverado, I'd rather hit a 2009 CamCord head-on than another '85 Silverado! Granted, I don't want to hit either one, but I'd still come off better (or, less worse, at least) hitting the Camry.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 13, 2009 7:22 pm) My modern unibody structure absorbs all the energy of the crash, the airbags deploy saving me and lastly the seat belts with pre-tensioners just give me some bruises on my chest. The paramedics have to scrape your body off the dash of the Packard. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Jul 14, 2009 7:39 am) Saving "clunkers" based on safety arguments won't hold water I don't think.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 13, 2009 7:45 pm) First you mention an 85 pickup being better than a modern CamCord. This simply is not correct. If both vehicles get hit by the same force of a modern SUV the CamCord occupants will do better overall. Yes there is no doubt about a Fit hitting an Accord they are vehicles of different sizes and weights knocking against each other. This creates differing forces between the vehicles. But that's not the subject you first brought up. You mentioned an 85 pickup being hit vs a new CamCord being hit. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Cash for Clunkers - Good or Bad Idea?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
