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.
The small cars of the 1970s and the small cars of today are two completely different things. There have been numerous advances in safety over the years. Today's midsize cars get much better gas mileage than the small cars of the 1970s.
The small cars of the 1970s and the small cars of today are two completely different things. There have been numerous advances in safety over the years. Today's midsize cars get much better gas mileage than the small cars of the 1970s.
My 78 Rabbit Diesel would get 50mpg. My 2012 TDI won't routinely do that.
It was in 1978, during the Carter presidency, that CAFE standards first went into effect to regulate fuel standards on cars, and then in 1979 they went in effect to regulate light trucks. You may not like the truth, but there it is.
And the highest amount of motor vehicle deaths occurred 5 years before that.
You are skewing the facts here. How safe would cars be if safety was paramount, and gas mileage was not forcing unwanted changes to the car materials, design and construction?
The point that cars have become safer, more stable under high speed, better breaking, more maneuverable, better construction. However, at the same time we've had mandatory CAFE standards reducing their safety by making them lighter and using inferior materials.
I beg to differ, and in one paragraph you basically contradicted yourself.
Please cite how materials used are inferior. I'll take the high strength metals wrapped in plastic skins, used in today's cars, over those soft metal boats of yesteryear in a heartbeat.
If anything, I'd prefer to see less stringent pollution systems allowing engines to breath and increasing gas mileage. In the UK the cars get 20-50% better gas mileage, making the pollution output less per mile, though slightly higher per gallon. It would take paragraphs to explain the physics and trade offs.
Your TDI is bigger, safer, faster, and emits less garbage into the atmosphere.
But the TDI doesn't emit less garbage into the atmosphere per mile. See, this is how the deception is foisted on us. They use a "per gallon" metric, rather than a "per mile" metric.
If the Rabbit puts out 50% more pollution than the TDI, yet get's double the mileage, it's 20% more efficient.
Somehow I'm guessing the motivation for pickup was more cultural in natural than any real data driven decision.
The only metric that shows a car to be safer than a pickup is in a roll-over scenario. Also, because SUV's, Vans, and Pickups have become so popular, of course the fatality numbers would rise.
I own an Accord and an F-350 Dually, and if I were to choose which to be in if the two were going to collide... the F-350 would be my choice all day long. The Honda would have to center punch the truck doing 70mph to stand a chance of rolling it. In any case, the truck would crush the Honda.
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.
