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.
You are playing it safe and protecting against the theoretical potential of a problem, not an actual problem. NO HACKER HAS EVER TAKEN CONTROL OF A STRANGERS CAR. Never. Not even once. The jeep was hacked after researchers bought it and worked on it full time for a year. The other common example took researchers years, and by the time they brought it out, the manufacturer had updated the software to block it while the car was on the road. Furthermore, it requires a car with a built in internet connection, and most cars don't have that, even brand new cars.
I tell you what when the automakers get their act together and stop making computerized cars that constantly malfunction and are recalled,make them easy to repair, and prove they are not easy to hack I will buy one.
I have been very interested in the discussions about the crumple zones, and cell cages on the new cars. Now that is technology I approve of.
I do use technology or I would not be able to have this conversation with you. I just believe it has limitations.
I tell you what when the automakers get their act together and stop making computerized cars that constantly malfunction and are recalled,make them easy to repair, and prove they are not easy to hack I will buy one.
The computerized components are rarely a problem. Computerized fuel injection is much more reliable and efficient than carburators or mechanical fuel injection. Computerized ignition is much more reliable and efficient than old points and condensers. Computerized ABS, traction and stability control is very reliable and much safer than any old system.
At the risk of being labeled one of the "mean posters" for disagreeing with you, you are factually and conceptually wrong on just about every count.
Older cars didn't have recalls often because back in the day, manufacturers weren't held to the fire to ISSUE recalls on crap they put out. Cars didn't have as long a warranty because manufacturers didn't care that they put out unreliable crap and weren't held accountable. So you THINK that modern cars are less reliable and have more problems but they DON"T. They actually have MUCH FEWER problems than old cars, last longer and are much more efficient and safe. Get a clue and get the hell over your paranoia. I mean, buy what you want, but quit arguing with people that actually know what the hell they are talking about.
All new cars sold in the US have to be crashed frontward into a solid barrier at 30 MPH and protect test dummies in the front seats, but I believe manufacturers can choose to substitute a sled that quickly jerks the car, and they choose the sled because it's easier.
A former Ford, Chrysler, VW engineer who specialized in designing the crash safety structures of cars, including the original Ford Taurus, said the federal government's 35 MPH full frontal solid barrier test was a better predictor of front crash survival than the IIHS offset test (40 MPH into a soft barrier, sort of like crashing into a parked car), and he did not trust results unless the test was repeated at least 5 times, something the IIHS did not do at the time he said this (and probably still does not). His advice was to buy the heaviest vehicle affordable with the best federal 35 MPH results.
MotorTrend.com used to have government and IIHS crash test results for almost every car, going back to about 1980, but I can't find the kind of detailed information they used to post there, which included the actual test result numbers, not just star ratings. You may also want to try searching for NCAP (new car assessment program) and also terms like femur, HIC (head impact criteria), and chest (how fast the torso stops).
Newer cars are safer. A few decades ago, HIC scores of about 1,000 were common, but now you rarely see anything above about 600, and I think floors have gotten stronger because the femur loads are also down. Plus side airbags really, really help in side crashes.
Crash test results can vary by the size of the crash test dummy chosen, which affects how the seats are positioned, and even by the vehicle's body style. For example, back in the 1970s or 1980s, one Nissan's sedan version gave good crash test results while the hatchback for the same model did poorly, and a VW did better in the 2-door version than the 4-door. This does not mean 2-door cars or sedans are always safer because for other vehicles the rankings were the opposite; I'm just saying you can't always generalize. And in crashes between vehicles, typically the occupants of the vehicle that's higher will do better than those in the lower one, and a car with a sloped hood is more likely to go under a truck and the car's occupants heads chopped off.
Safety features like ABS, traction control, and stability control should just quit working if something goes wrong with them, making the car act just like one without those features, only with blinking warning lights to nag you. The systems check themselves a lot. For example, the computer checks if the airbag force sensors vary in readings as the car speeds up and slows down, and if there are no variations in sensor readings for a long time, the computer assumes something is wrong. Then you'll need the problem diagnosed by a real mechanic who can pinpoint the defects, not a junior grade parts swapper who replace parts until he gets lucky or the bill reaches $1,000. Car computers are so fancy now that cars even weigh themselves when you accelerate. They may use components very similar to those in your PC, but a lot more care was taken in the design of the hardware and software.
There's no debate about whether unibody or body-on-frame is safer in crashes. Either constructon can be made very safe, but less metal is needed to do so with a unibody.
Strength isn't everything. A car can be built like a battering ram so it doesn't collapse horizontally as much in a crash, causing higher forces to be transmitted to the occupants. That was seen when the US government stated to do the 35 MPH frontal solid barrier test in the late 1970s or early 1980s and a Mercedes got poor results because its front crush space collapsed only about half as much as average. The best results were for a Ford Mustang and GM's FWD X cars, like the Chevy Citation, while Japanese cars did horribly, as did a Volvo. The moral her is, don't trust marketing hype about safety.
I don't know how prone modified lowrider vehicles are to rolling over, but Virginia Tech found that jacked up trucks were almost 30 times as likely to crash as average cars. I don't know how much of that was due to the vehicles being raised up versus being driven by idiots. And while lowering a vehicle may make it less prone to rolling over, but it could affect how well it steers.
Car computers have been designed to be hard to hack because originally car makers didn't want people modifying the program that controlled the fuel & emissions systems, but I assume car makers are also plenty paranoid about wanting their computers not causing crashes. If you check some videos of car computer teardowns, such as at EEvblog.com, you'll see that the quality is very high -- no Chinese components, and some computers contain a second computer to continuously monitor the first one.
The Chevy ignition switch problem was just awful quality control, probably what's to be expected in a poorly run bureaucracy that encourages people to be team players who don't make waves instead of doing the right thing. OTOH apparently the Toyota acceleration problem was either all due to accelerator pedals rubbing the floor mat or didn't exist. Popular Mechanics had an article explaining how the gas pedal interfaced to the computer in the Prius and revealed plenty of healthy paranoia in the design.
Cars, despite being more complex than ever, are also more reliable than ever. In the 1970s, Consumer Reports would count 10-20 initial defects per new car, including serious stuff like the engine valves being adjusted wrong (kind of common), then in the 1990s that count dropped to maybe 0-2, and for the last decade or so virtually none of their test cars have shown initial defects.
Do not get a Volvo. Their engines are considered very durable, but otherwise the cars are not up there in reliability, and parts are expensive. If you want a plain Jane car, you'll need to go back to the early 1980s, the last time cars were made with carburetors and no computers, but most cars for the US market got computers in 1981 (to meet pollution standards), some transmissions were computer controlled in the mid-1980s and almost universally so by the early 1990s, and airbags were in all cars by about 1994. Cars without computers were not necessarily more reliable, as any mechanic who worked on vacuum-controlled fuel/emissions systems of 1970s cars can tell you. Problems with stalling and stumbling were so common that Consumer Reports always commented about this until fuel injection became universal.
It is interesting that you prefer the crash results from NHTSA over IIHS. I had read it was the opposite because the IIHS seems to be more critical and is not afraid to call a bad car a bad car . I just feel that even though the majority of crashes are frontal that it is not enough info. I also want crash test information about the side and the head and the rollover , everything.
What you are saying about how the crash test results can be different if things such as dummy sizes are changed is exactly what I have been wondering. I see I may be right about that.
Would it be safer if cars started having their engines in the back like the VW bug ?
No, and for side crashes there's not nearly much room available for crumpling. Ever hear of those tandem parachute jumps where something goes wrong, so the instructor flips around to be on bottom to lessen the ground impact? The instructor dies, but sometimes the student on top lives, albeit with severe injuries, all because of a crumple zone of just 10 inches, and that's probably a 50-90 MPH impact (I assume a parachute that deploys even slightly slows down the fall). That should give you an idea of how much better protection can be if the crumpling happens more evenly over time.
All cars have crumple zones, whether intended or not, and around 1975 the US became the first country to require cars to pass crash tests in order to be sold.
The instructor is willing to sacrifice his life to save the student? He is very brave and a hero.
Not all cars have crumple zones, I read about a really interesting car built with safety in mind I wanted to discuss. It is called the Pininfarina Nida from Italy. Built it 2004 this little car rethinks safety by creating an internal sled and safety cones.
The NIDO by Pininfarina rethinks automobile design
Here is a quote from the article .
"
In the event of a head-on collision, the vehicle absorbs part of the energy with the deformable front section of the chassis, constructed of two metal struts with internal plastic foam absorbers. These components are shaped as truncated cones in order to dissipate the energy over the cellular sheet metal firewall, which in turn transfers the energy along the central tunnel and the side members. The remaining energy shifts the sled itself forward and compresses the two honeycomb absorbers between the rigid cell and the dashboard of the sled shell, resulting in the gradual and controlled deceleration.
The insertion of honeycomb absorber elements between the rigid cell and the sled shell means that, in a collision, the deceleration curve for the sled is lower than the curve for the rigid cell. Additional, smaller absorber elements may also be fitted between the rear of the sled and the rigid cell, to provide occupant protection in the event of a rear-on collision. This principle, applied here in a small, rear-engined two-seater city car may also be used in a mid-engined two-seater sports car. Simulations also showed that thanks to the mobile sled system, the deceleration sustained by the occupants during a collision is low enough to render the use of airbags unnecessary in certain cases, meaning that the way in which they are currently used may be reconsidered."
Last edited by vanguardisle; 02-04-2016 at 08:12 AM..
First, sure you can "read a lot about" a variety of things. The things you're reading about are news because they are so rare. It sounds that your anxiety is focussed on computerized components because computers seem uniquely vulnerable or mysterious to you. (Although I suspect you have no greater understanding of how the conventional components of an automobile work.) In fact, no matter what the parts look like, cars today are much safer and more reliable than they have ever been. Don't get overwhelmed by theoretical possibilities.
Second is the DMCA issue. I agree that manufacturers are throwing their weight around, but this is not a prohibition of repairing cars, but a much more limited argument about vehicle purchasers reprogramming the software embedded in what they buy. I agree that they should be allowed to do it, but like your concern about what you read, it does not detract in the least from the safety and reliability of modern vehicles.
Okay you are correct I do not know as much about cars as I would like to . A typical female I guess but I do want to learn and I have been researching as much as I can. I have formed strong opinions from reading articles written by experts and by talking to knowledgeable mechanics.
Last edited by vanguardisle; 02-04-2016 at 08:18 AM..
The computerized components are rarely a problem. Computerized fuel injection is much more reliable and efficient than carburators or mechanical fuel injection. Computerized ignition is much more reliable and efficient than old points and condensers. Computerized ABS, traction and stability control is very reliable and much safer than any old system.
At the risk of being labeled one of the "mean posters" for disagreeing with you, you are factually and conceptually wrong on just about every count.
Older cars didn't have recalls often because back in the day, manufacturers weren't held to the fire to ISSUE recalls on crap they put out. Cars didn't have as long a warranty because manufacturers didn't care that they put out unreliable crap and weren't held accountable. So you THINK that modern cars are less reliable and have more problems but they DON"T. They actually have MUCH FEWER problems than old cars, last longer and are much more efficient and safe. Get a clue and get the hell over your paranoia. I mean, buy what you want, but quit arguing with people that actually know what the hell they are talking about.
I did not think I was arguing I thought I was calmly discussing and debating. I do admire the new safety designs in cars but nothing you say can convince me that computer parts are not prone to malfunctioning over time, they may start out being helpful but when they go down they are more trouble then they are worth, there should definitely be a way to disable a malfunctioning computer part and drive the car without it, and while I may not know that much I have read expert reviews from people who do and I have formed my opinion .
What has also turned me off to these new computerized cars are the opinions and complaints from the car owners themselves. Read about the problems they have had with them sometime and you will see how much trouble computer parts can be.
I actually came to this forum and posted this thread to ask questions and get advice in choosing a car that has the best mixture of the old and new . The safety features of the new cars like a newer Volvo, with the ease of repair and reliabiilty of some of the well known older cars ( like an old honda accord or a tough pickup truck) .
Last edited by vanguardisle; 02-04-2016 at 08:40 AM..
I did not think I was arguing I thought I was calmly discussing and debating. I do admire the new safety designs in cars but nothing you say can convince me that computer parts are not prone to malfunctioning over time, they may start out being helpful but when they go down they are more trouble then they are worth, there should definitely be a way to disable a malfunctioning computer part and drive the car without it, and while I may not know that much I have read expert reviews from people who do and I have formed my opinion .
What has also turned me off to these new computerized cars are the opinions and complaints from the car owners themselves. Read about the problems they have had with them sometime and you will see how much trouble computer parts can be.
I actually came to this forum and posted this thread to ask questions and get advice in choosing a car that has the best mixture of the old and new . The safety features of the new cars like a newer Volvo, with the ease of repair and reliabiilty of some of the well known older cars ( like an old honda accord or a tough pickup truck) .
Volvo has just as many "computer parts" as any other car.
It's obvious your mind is made up. If you go looking for complaints, you will find complaints. Few people give glowing on-line comments about a car in proportion to those that go online to complain....just human nature. Sure, lemons happen but they are way over-represented in the on-line comment world.
You'd have to go back pretty far to find a "non-computerized" car (whatever that actually means). That car will have inferior fuel management, inferior brakes, wonky steering, and smaller tires and wheels.
I'll take today's airbags over 20+ year old seatbelts and not much else.
I'll take today's 4-wheel disc ABS systems over 20+ year old under-sized disc/drum setups.
Tinkering around with carbs is fun...on a snowblower...but I'll take modern EFI or DI 100 out of 100 times.
etc.
Cars simply do not breakdown as much as you believe they do. But go ahead and do what you like, of course.
I'll take today's airbags over 20+ year old seatbelts and not much else.
I'll take today's 4-wheel disc ABS systems over 20+ year old under-sized disc/drum setups.
As I've said before, the styling of old vehicles trumps () any safety benefits. I am not denying that new cars are safer, but they don't look as good and I'd rather have the styling of something older.
As I've said before, the styling of old vehicles trumps () any safety benefits. I am not denying that new cars are safer, but they don't look as good and I'd rather have the styling of something older.
Yes, all old cars look better than all new cars. Of course.
Yes, all old cars look better than all new cars. Of course.
The very vast majority do, in my opinion. That doesn't mean I don't like how some new cars look. I love the look of the Opel Adam (would buy one if they offered it in the US ), the '16 Civic, the big three's American Muscle, etc.
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.
) any safety benefits. I am not denying that new cars are safer, but they don't look as good and I'd rather have the styling of something older.
), the '16 Civic, the big three's American Muscle, etc.
