What kind of car is this?

[Calais]

Re: What kind of car is this?

I'll take my two ton 70's hunk of metal, thank you very much.

[Eddie6th]

Re: What kind of car is this?

there's quite a few round here.

they look alright...in the flesh,but not much good with HP.

They cost too much aswell.

I agree with what Roush said...wouldn't fancy an argument with anything bigger.

[roushstage2]

Re: What kind of car is this?

Do you mean you couldn't care less about how it looks when...?

LOL, at least I now know I wasn't the only one thinking it.

there's quite a few round here.

they look alright...in the flesh,but not much good with HP.

They cost too much aswell.

I agree with what Roush said...wouldn't fancy an argument with anything bigger.

I'm always worrying now about someone pulling out in front of my 5,500 lb. truck with 1/4" plate steel bumpers in one of those little 1,500 lb. fiberglass deathtraps.

[Justin A]

Re: What kind of car is this?

No disdain for SMART cars other than I feel they are quite unsafe, especially when compared to a car like the 944 which as at least quadruple the crumple zone space.

I've seen the aftermath of a 944 in an offset, head on collision with a slightly larger car. Everyone walked away. Watch some of the You Tube videos of the SMART in a similar crash....it's not pretty.

The laws of physics also say if you can disperse the energy away from the occupants they have a better chance of surviving / going away uninjured. The SMART does not do a good job of this, the 944 (and most larger cars) do.

As for weight, your average 100% stock 944 weighs closer to (if not over) 3,000lbs:

http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforum...lly-weigh.html

That's a good point that I hadn't considered. At the same time though, people still ride motorcycles and bicycles every day.
Owners manual in my 944 says 2750 for the N/A. Owners manuals are known to "embellish" though

Do you mean you couldn't care less about how it looks when...?

Nope. I could in fact care less. For example, I care less about whether or not Michael Jackson's doctor did anything unethical than I do about how the SMARTs look after a crash. I also care more about my GPA than I do about how the SMARTs look after a crash. The crash results are somewhere in the middle really .
Just being snarky

[hacker-pschorr]

Re: What kind of car is this?

I'll take my two ton 70's hunk of metal, thank you very much.

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Lack of crumple zones is just as dangerous in a 30 foot long caddy as a SMART. Ok, almost as dangerous.
The problem with older (actually into the 90's with some) American cars is lack of good crumple zones. When you are in an accident with a 1975 Caddy, the energy from the crash goes straight to the passenger compartment.

Good example is my sisters former 1981 VW Rabbit cabrio. She was turning left off a busy highway, traveling under 10 mph when an big Buick traveling over 60mph slammed into her. The four girls walked away from the crash, the guy in the Buick was injured.
Hard to imagine when you consider from the back seat to the rearmost portion of the VW was about 1.5 feet. Where as the Buick had an acre and a half between him and the other car.

That's a good point that I hadn't considered. At the same time though, people still ride motorcycles and bicycles every day.
Owners manual in my 944 says 2750 for the N/A. Owners manuals are known to "embellish" though

That's the base weight = no A/C, sunroof, power seats, power steering, stereo etc..... all kinds of things most 944 were not sold without.

[Calais]

Re: What kind of car is this?

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Lack of crumple zones is just as dangerous in a 30 foot long caddy as a SMART. Ok, almost as dangerous.
The problem with older (actually into the 90's with some) American cars is lack of good crumple zones. When you are in an accident with a 1975 Caddy, the energy from the crash goes straight to the passenger compartment.

In low speed crashes crumple zones are not really necessary, more crashes occur at low speeds on city street. Based on that logic, I am statistically safer in my car than a newer car.

Granted, in a high speed crash I am probably going to die. No airbags, no crumple zones and a lot kinetic energy.

[hacker-pschorr]

Re: What kind of car is this?

In low speed crashes crumple zones are not really necessary, more crashes occur at low speeds on city street. Based on that logic, I am statistically safer in my car than a newer car.

Sorry, that's not true.

There are plenty of tests around the web with video disproving your theory. Anything past the impact absorption of the 5mph bumpers (on some cars they are effective up to about 7-10mph) the crumple zones are very much in play. This is why modern cars look destroyed in slow impact urban accidents. Those are the crumple / crash zones absorbing the impact which would otherwise be transferred to the passengers.

My 1990 Caddy didn't even have inertia lock seat belts. Something the Germans were using in the 70's.

[CieraSL]

Re: What kind of car is this?

Here's an interesting article I found online. Source: http://neptune.spacebears.com/opine/safety.html


Old Car Safety

There's a certain breed of car person who always seems to pine for the old days. You know the guy; he's the one who claims carburetors are better than electronic fuel injection because they're easy to work on -- conveniently overlooking the fact that carburetors need to be adjusted a couple of times a year to run optimally, whereas a good EFI system will need to be adjusted... well, never. This automotive Luddite is also likely to say something along the lines of "If I'm ever in an accident, I'd much rather be in some old tank than in one of these modern tin cans." Press for details and he'll get defensive, with a line like "Hey, if a Honda gets hit by a 1968 Chrysler Newport, which do you think is gonna come out better?"
The underlying assumption here, outside of the hyperbole, is that today's cars are featherweights compared to their peers of thirty years ago. However, there is little evidence to support that assumption. To find out the truth, three drivers put four cars on the same scale. Each car had a full tank of gas; after weighing the car, the drivers deducted their own weight and the weight of the gas to arrive at a "dry weight" of just the car with nobody in it and no fuel on board.
The 1998 Pontiac Firebird Formula checked in at 3,345 lbs.; the 1995 Ford Mustang GT checked in at 3,325 lbs.; the 1992 Eagle Talon TSi AWD saw 3,265 lbs.; and the 1970 Dodge Charger saw 3,485 lbs. There's only 140 extra pounds in the Charger compared to the Firebird, despite the Charger's extra inch and a half of height, two inches of width, and fifteen inches of length! Old cars may be large, but they're also hollow.
Another way to look at it is to compare curb weights of vehicles that served the same purpose then and now. The curb weight of a 2002 Chevy Camaro Z28 is 3,439 lbs.; the curb weight of a 350-powered 1967 Camaro was 3,384 lbs. -- the two cars weigh nearly the same. A 1964 Chevy Impala weighed 3,450 lbs.; today's Impala weighs 3,466 lbs. -- again, nearly identical. A 1962 Mini weighs 1,400 lbs.; a 2002 Mini weighs 2,500 lbs. -- darn close to double, which suggests that smaller cars have seen the greatest weight gain. The Beetle faces a similar girth problem, going from 1,720 lbs. in the 1960s to 3,005 lbs. today.
So where are these modern tin cans?
Then there's the question of technology. There's a lot of stuff going on under the skin of today's cars than there was 30 years ago, which helps explain why today's cars are so heavy. This chart points out many of the differences between two cars with relatively similar purposes:

	1998 Pontiac Firebird Formula	1970 Dodge Charger
Brakes:	Four-wheel power-assist disc brakes with twin-piston calipers and vented discs up front; ABS standard; traction control optional.	Four-wheel manual drum brakes. Power assist, and front-only discs, optional. In rain, be sure to check adjacent lanes before using brakes.
Tires:	245/50ZR16 high-performance radial tires mounted to 16x8 wheels.	Bias-ply tires mounted to 15x5.5 wheels. Roughly equivalent to 195/70R15. Check for mailboxes before cornering.
Body:	5-mph bumpers with impact-absorbing crush zones; crumple zones to keep the engine off the occupants; side-impact door beams.	Er, two big metal bars: one front, one rear.
Interior:	Padded dashboard, dual airbags, headrests for all passengers, and three-point inertia-reel seatbelts for all passengers.	Padded dashboard and lap belts. Aren't steering wheels yummy.

Clearly, the late-model car is superior both for surviving an accident and -- perhaps most importantly -- for avoiding one to begin with. Add these features to the myth of the old-car weight advantage, and it's hard to imagine why anyone would prefer to be in an accident with an old car.
Usually, such assertions use a grossly outmatched "victim" car, such as a 1966 Cadillac Sedan de Ville against a 1990 Plymouth Duster, which makes the choice obvious. But the analogy can be just as easily turned around: which car is going to come out ahead in a collision betwen a 1971 Ford Pinto and a 1995 Lincoln Town Car?
Compare vehicles of similar purpose, and see which one is the obvious choice:

• How will it feel to suffer a rollover in a 2001 Land Rover, as compared to a rollover in a 1961 Land Rover?
• If a 2002 Camaro and a 1967 Camaro both go into a corner too fast, which has a better chance of staying on the pavement?
• If a driver is forced off the road and hits a telephone pole, is he more likely to survive in a Mini built in the 1960s or in a Mini built in the 2000s?

Old cars are great fun, but it's important to recognize their limitations. And collision safety is definitely a limitation.