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.
bek your prior driving habits were hurting OPEC and chevron and DC was taking a lot of heat bek of it. things are better now, keep driving that hummer.
Yeah, an old thread, but it got me wondering something...
Just scanning through it, quite a number of people responded that a car in the late '80s early '90s didn't have the safety equipment then that they do today as a way of explaining why a car then could get around 50 mpg.
Can anyone tell me a real fundamental, weight-causing difference between now and then? That wasn't exactly ancient history, and other than airbags and anti-lock brakes, what else was there that would add so much weight to cause mpg to drop? I don't see airbags and anti-lock brakes as real heavyweight causes. Many of the other safety features since then (anti-yaw, anti-burnout, etc.) are essentially computer chip/fuel injector issues and again, not real heavyweights.
The weight isn't safety features as much as comfort features...
Funny thing is,from what I just read,the CRX and the Prius are both 'average' when it comes to safety,even though the Prius has airbags,ABS,traction control,etc.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinem
Yeah, an old thread, but it got me wondering something...
Just scanning through it, quite a number of people responded that a car in the late '80s early '90s didn't have the safety equipment then that they do today as a way of explaining why a car then could get around 50 mpg.
Can anyone tell me a real fundamental, weight-causing difference between now and then? That wasn't exactly ancient history, and other than airbags and anti-lock brakes, what else was there that would add so much weight to cause mpg to drop? I don't see airbags and anti-lock brakes as real heavyweight causes. Many of the other safety features since then (anti-yaw, anti-burnout, etc.) are essentially computer chip/fuel injector issues and again, not real heavyweights.
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.