Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Safety is more than just airbags and anti-lock brakes. It's also about strength of the body's structure. Since the 80s, a major safety focus was on the passenger compartment remaining virtually intack after an offset crash, one of the most common types of accidents on the road, as well as side impact crashes (or T-boned). The cage was ever strengthened over the years and now includes roll over safety meaning if the car ends up on it's roof, the roof will not cave in and kill the passengers. All of this means more and more steel and more and more weight. I have a 2003 Malibu, a design that first debuted in 1997. It's about 3,000 lbs and is considered a midsize sedan. Today's compact sedans weigh about as much or more than my Malibu and is probably safer in a crash. My aunt's Dodge Avenger (the current generation) was in an offset crash with a full size Dodge Ram truck and she (in her mid 60s) suffered a broken collar bone and walked away from the crash. There was a news video back in the 1980s regarding the crash safety of the CRX put out by the insurance institute. One of the test they did was back the vehicle at 5mph into a steel post. Most vehicles suffered minor damage. With the CRX, the post left a perfect indention in the back body of the car and was several thousands of dollars of damage. Because the CRX was so small and light, if hit from the rear, the car would go flying forward more than the average vehicle of it's day. A side impact or offset crash was very dangerous with this vehicle and others of it's class.
Thanks--that makes more sense.
I didn't realize that much of the safety designs done with the chassis added so much more weight. I knew one of the bigger weight gains was in the '60s by the required side-impact protection addition of essentially a steel beam placed in each door.
I thought most of today's safety improvements centered upon designing more crumple zones and designing the chassis so that it would collapse in such a way as to essentially collapse around the driver rather than, um, through him. I just wasn't aware that the concept of crumple zones involved the addition of much weight.
I figured the new roof strength requirements would add some, but didn't figure it'd really be much.
I guess I figured with the lighter (much) sheet-metal, wheels, shoot, even engines and the increased addition of materials such as carbon-fiber that most cars would be lighter today than even during the late '80s/early '90s.
I didn't realize that much of the safety designs done with the chassis added so much more weight. I knew one of the bigger weight gains was in the '60s by the required side-impact protection addition of essentially a steel beam placed in each door.
I thought most of today's safety improvements centered upon designing more crumple zones and designing the chassis so that it would collapse in such a way as to essentially collapse around the driver rather than, um, through him. I just wasn't aware that the concept of crumple zones involved the addition of much weight.
I figured the new roof strength requirements would add some, but didn't figure it'd really be much.
I guess I figured with the lighter (much) sheet-metal, wheels, shoot, even engines and the increased addition of materials such as carbon-fiber that most cars would be lighter today than even during the late '80s/early '90s.
It's not the crumple zones that add the weight but the steel cage around the passenger compartment. And that's really just the start of what ends up being a cascade of weight gain. More weight means larger suspension parts, which adds more weight. More weight means you need bigger brakes, which adds more weight. Bigger brakes means larger wheels and tires, which adds more weight. And then you need a larger engine to push it all around. And so it goes until even a Smart ForTwo, a car that makes the CRX look like a full-size SUV, winds up weighing just as much as the CRX did just to be drivable while meeting today's crash test standards.
But let's also not forget that if you're simply comparing the same models from past and present that the models have gotten much bigger. Today's BMW 3-series is as big as a 5-series from 20 years ago; a Civic is as big as an Accord from 20 years ago; a Corolla is as big as a Camry from 20 years ago, et cetera. But even if you compare size for size, today's Mini Cooper is about the same size as a CRX but it weighs about 700 pounds more.
As you alluded to, the two best materials for reducing weight are aluminum and carbon fiber. The problem is they are both more expensive, and in the case of carbon fiber, a whole lot more expensive. That's why you only see it used extensively in six-figure exotic sports cars.
Cars from 20 years ago would get at least 10% less MPG today based on ethanol being used. I did some driving yesterday and the three drivers that stood out as the most inconsiderate/aggressive were driving a big Dodge Ram truck( crossed 3 lanes while passing to get to an off ramp), a Toyota Prius( really cut somebody off when he changed lanes, no turn signal) and a ( not so)Smart car who ran a red to make a left turn. It seems like drivers in big vehicles feel they can force their way any where they want to go and small car drivers think they can squeeze their cars anywhere.
We rented a Yaris up in Montana and did our whole weekend's driving (including driving back and forth from Bozeman to Big Sky) on less than half a tank of gas.
Location: Butler County Ohio and Winters in Florida
929 posts, read 2,724,186 times
Reputation: 635
CRX !
I am glad someone brought up my favorite car.....ever !
I started with an 86 Civic Si, Then a 89 CRX Si. Like reported, 45mpg, fast, quick,
and a ton of room for a tall driver. Loved that car!
I agree with the above, safety standards killed these and so many other great little imports.
Back then the imports had alot of charm, not so much anymore IMO.
The CRX was a great car but new cars make it seem, well old. Their own CR-Z has failed to recapture the MPG and magic.
Sorry but I want a 2000 lbs Lotus, not a 2000 lbs car to drive around when most people drive their huge cars and can't drive in the first place. No thanks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
