Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Chris Phillipo wrote:

> Repeal CAFE and what, bring back the 454cu "family sedan"? Now there's
> a plan.

That sounds like quite a plan (no quotes necessary by the way).


>Offer it in 4wd and maybe I'll buy one.

GM-Holden already does, almost. Tows 5000 lbs. All they need now is a ladder
frame, which I believe one related model uses, and a big block V8 (or just an
LS1 bored out to 427ci, which does already exist).

--Aardwolf.

In article <[email protected]>, Aardwolf wrote:

> No it isn't, there are and will continue to be far heavier vehicles such
> as 20,000-80,000lb busses and semis, that at any remotely reasonable speed
> will still have far more impact energy than any car or light truck; the
> smaller vehicles will still need to be reasonably sized (e.g. ~4000 lb.
> cars, which are rather moderate in weight compared to some that were
> rolling off the assembly lines 25 years ago) in order to have strong
> enough frames to give their occupants some semblance of a chance in a
> passenger vehicle-large truck collision.

Unlike alot of SUV's etc, semi's tractors have a front bumper that
is aligned with the structure of cars. And based on personal experience
what we need for protection is to bring back the side impact beam
designs of the 1970s before CAFE and mix them into the more modern
methods.

Those big door beams of the 70s were over designed for the regulations
but of course did a better job when implemented well. CAFE required
shaving every pound so side impact beams got smaller.

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Unless you're driving an Infiniti FX,

I actually like the styling of the Infinity FX, it's Japanese and it's an SUV.
What's the world coming to?

(Though I do think it'd look better if it was lowered and used slightly smaller
wheels, i.e. was a _CAR_. Kinda like the upcoming 300 Touring AWD, although it
still wouldn't look quite that good...)


--Aardwolf.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
>
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
> > Repeal CAFE and what, bring back the 454cu "family sedan"? Now there's
> > a plan.
>
> That sounds like quite a plan (no quotes necessary by the way).
>
>
> >Offer it in 4wd and maybe I'll buy one.
>
> GM-Holden already does, almost. Tows 5000 lbs. All they need now is a ladder
> frame, which I believe one related model uses, and a big block V8 (or just an
> LS1 bored out to 427ci, which does already exist).
>
> --Aardwolf.
>

I assume you are talking about something like the Adventra. If they can
just avoid having the "SUV" moniker applied to it it will coast
effortlessly under the greenie radar. Of course that thing would never
sell in America if they called it a station wagon.


--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> "Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> newsine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904->
> > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has
> > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
>
> This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing vehicles
> to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying each
> year
> as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost by
> one
> thing are balanced by the other.
>

It's been shown more than once that the vast majority of the problem--probably
more than 80%--is caused by a very small minority of severely out of tune
vehicles, of any age, any engine size, but most less than 10 years old simply do
to demographic trends in the vehicle population. Even a 1968 Hemi Charger,
running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily drivers
anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand new
car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
pollution-spewing wrecks.

--Aardwolf

In article <[email protected]>, Aardwolf wrote:
>
>
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>> "Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> newsine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904->
>> > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has
>> > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
>>
>> This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing vehicles
>> to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying each
>> year
>> as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost by
>> one
>> thing are balanced by the other.
>>
>
> It's been shown more than once that the vast majority of the problem--probably
> more than 80%--is caused by a very small minority of severely out of tune
> vehicles, of any age, any engine size, but most less than 10 years old simply do
> to demographic trends in the vehicle population. Even a 1968 Hemi Charger,
> running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily drivers
> anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand new
> car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
> pollution-spewing wrecks.

You are generally correct.... but...
'68 is a little too far back, it would be impossible to get a stock
'68 to current new car levels. But it would probably be about the
same as an SUV on cold day. Back when IL had the same test for cars
of all years, my '73 had test results similiar to a '94 S10. this
was in 1995 or 96.

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has been
> several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.

No the simple solution is to tax gas. Utterly fair, cost dependent on use, no
arbitrary restrictions as to which types of vehicles can and can't be produced.
Also the only real way to make people _want_ to use less fuel each and every
day. Wouldn't even need a huge one like in Europe, or any of thos e
double-jeopardy diplacement taxes either, just a moderate one like in Australia.
Unfortunately it won't fly.

So instead of legislating comfortable, solid, useful vehicles out of existance
(even a V6 Ford Contour won't pass CAFE standards as they stand), much less
raising them, especially to ludicrously unrealistic standards like 45 mpg, they
should all be lowered to current truck standards to let much more efficient large
cars back into the market. Or eliminated entirely--domestic manufacturers would
still have to compete with European and Japanese imports, which of necessity have
to be designed to be economical enough to sell in their home markets. Those that
aren't specifically designed for U.S. export that is--the high end German
manufacturers are some of the "worst" violators of U.S. CAFE laws, paying huge
fines relative to sales figures, for peddling their big-engined models here--but
they're only providing what the customer wants, the only problem is that the
added cost incurred won't fly in the $25,000 Chevy market.

What should be and more to the point _could_ be done to make a large positive
change very quickly, in terms of both fuel efficiency and vehicle choice is to
mandate the use of variable cylinder displacement technology as soon as it comes
on line (Chrysler and GM at least are already about to intoduce it), this should
make it possible to get highway milage figures of 40+ mpg out of a 400
horsepower, 5.7 liter V8, and similar (proportional) city mileage figures, with
no loss in maximum available power. The fleet fuel efficiency averages would
rise _significantly_.

--Aardwolf.

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has been
> several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.

No the simple solution is to tax gas. Utterly fair, cost dependent on use, no
arbitrary restrictions as to which types of vehicles can and can't be produced.
Also the only real way to make people _want_ to use less fuel each and every
day. Wouldn't even need a huge one like in Europe, or any of thos e
double-jeopardy diplacement taxes either, just a moderate one like in Australia.
Unfortunately it won't fly.

So instead of legislating comfortable, solid, useful vehicles out of existance
(even a V6 Ford Contour won't pass CAFE standards as they stand), much less
raising them, especially to ludicrously unrealistic standards like 45 mpg, they
should all be lowered to current truck standards to let much more efficient large
cars back into the market. Or eliminated entirely--domestic manufacturers would
still have to compete with European and Japanese imports, which of necessity have
to be designed to be economical enough to sell in their home markets. Those that
aren't specifically designed for U.S. export that is--the high end German
manufacturers are some of the "worst" violators of U.S. CAFE laws, paying huge
fines relative to sales figures, for peddling their big-engined models here--but
they're only providing what the customer wants, the only problem is that the
added cost incurred won't fly in the $25,000 Chevy market.

What should be and more to the point _could_ be done to make a large positive
change very quickly, in terms of both fuel efficiency and vehicle choice is to
mandate the use of variable cylinder displacement technology as soon as it comes
on line (Chrysler and GM at least are already about to intoduce it), this should
make it possible to get highway milage figures of 40+ mpg out of a 400
horsepower, 5.7 liter V8, and similar (proportional) city mileage figures, with
no loss in maximum available power. The fleet fuel efficiency averages would
rise _significantly_.

--Aardwolf.

Brent P wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Aardwolf wrote:
>
> Even a 1968 Hemi Charger,
> > running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily drivers
> > anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand new
> > car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
> > pollution-spewing wrecks.
>
> You are generally correct.... but...
> '68 is a little too far back, it would be impossible to get a stock
> '68 to current new car levels. But it would probably be about the
> same as an SUV on cold day. Back when IL had the same test for cars
> of all years, my '73 had test results similiar to a '94 S10. this
> was in 1995 or 96.

I wasn't referring to it actually _meeting_ new car standards, just _comparing_ it to
them and then contrasting that with whatever is coming out of the pipe of a gross
polluter.

--Aardwolf.

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> You have got to be kidding if you think that auto exhaust isn't toxic. But
> obviously you do, and your going to keep believing it no matter that the
> facts are otherwise.
>
> For the non-morons in the group that are actually willing to listen, see the
> following:
>
> http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/sixpoll.html

That isn't the issue here--CAFE deals only with fuel _efficiency_ standards.
Corporate Average Fuel Economy. The only thing that that regulates--and
indirectly--is CO2 emissions, as they are directly tied to the amount of fuel
burned.

Actual pollutants, defined as such by the EPA, including oxides of nitrogen,
etc., are regulated in grams per mile, _regardless_ of engine size or amount of
fuel used. Which means that theoretically at least, it is actually easier for a
smaller-engined car to meet those standards. Less fuel burned, so the relative
emissions level, per gallon, can actually be _higher_ and still meet the
requirements.

--Aardwolf.

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:

> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > But most trucks aren't designed with crumple zones to absorb impact energy as
> > most cars are. The full frames also don't crumple like unitized bodies do.
>
> Not true. As another person posted here recently in links to, I think,
> the IIHS site, at least one pickup, the F150, crumpled TOO much.

As do many bantamweight unit-bodies I've seen.

> A full
> frame can be designed to crumple in a controlled fashion.

Can be.

I've thought for some time that a really well designed vehicle would have a sort of
old-school, very heavy-duty frame (or unit-body, my preference is for a separate
frame) but one that would be _designed_ to crumple--_just_ enough to prevent
significant injuries at low speeds, and progressively, stiffer inboard, so it would
still have plenty (?) of impact resistance at upper highway speeds. Good belts and
really ergonomic seats should be able to mitigate effects of lower-speed impacts as
well.

--Aardwolf.

"Aardwolf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> > "Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > newsine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904->
> > > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE
has
> > > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
> >
> > This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing
vehicles
> > to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
each
> > year
> > as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost
by
> > one
> > thing are balanced by the other.
> >
>
> It's been shown more than once that the vast majority of the
problem--probably
> more than 80%--is caused by a very small minority of severely out of tune
> vehicles, of any age, any engine size, but most less than 10 years old
simply do
> to demographic trends in the vehicle population. Even a 1968 Hemi
Charger,
> running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily
drivers
> anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand
new
> car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
> pollution-spewing wrecks.
>

That may be the case with hydrocarbons, but definitely not NOx. NOx is
directly
related to combustion temp, and most 60's cars had no EGR valve.

However, let's explore your argument a bit.

Suppose that the 68 Charger emissions are identical to a modern passenger
car.
Thus, let's say for for every gallon of gas that is put into either car we
are gonna
get a half pound of air pollution.

Now, if both cars are driven the same number of miles each year, because
CAFE
forces the modern vehicle to have 28 Mpg, and the Charger gets 14 Mpg, over
1 years time the Charger is going to be using double the amount of gas, and
putting
double the amount of pollutants into the air.

Ted

"Trentus" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Nate Nagel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>>
>> > On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, [email protected] (Dianelos
>> > Georgoudis) wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
>> >>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
>> >>car.
>> >
>> >
>> > I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
>> > bought a very safe SUV.
>> >
>> > Go figure.
>> >
>>
>> Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
>> handling for crash safety.
>>
>> What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
>
>It isn't posted only in rec.autos.driving, it's posted in about a dozen
>newsgroups.
>
Does that somehow prevent P e t e, a regular of r.a.d, from reading the
posts in r.a.d?

Just because you aren't reading it from r.a.d doesn't mean that I don't
know whether Nate or P e t e read it from r.a.d (or more apropos, whether
Nate knows P e t e reads it from r.a.d).

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I don't drive simply to avoid crashes. I drive to get places, haul
>things, plow snow, etc. My K1500 does all these things well. A car
>wouldn't. End of discussion.

Then you are not one of the people being discussed. The discussion was
about safety and the people that buy particular vehicles for safety. When
that feature is not on the list of attributes considered, then this current
discussion on safety would be quite irrelevant to your purchase.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Marc wrote:
>> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>The results aren't linear, but it's safe to say that even with enhanced
>>>safety design, a 2000 lb vehicle won't fare well when hit by something with
>>>twice as much mass. There's a limit on what can be achieved with design,
>>>simply a matter of physics, no matter what the greens & safety mavens want
>>>you to believe.
>>
>>
>> If every vehicle was 2000 lbs, everyone would be safer than if every
>> vehicle was 6000 lbs.
>
>Why?

Because crashes with solid stationary objects and objects of the same size
are roughly the same safety for all sizes of cars (the extremely small
being an exception mainly because they are usually cheaply made, and the
extremely large for the opposite reason). But if all vehicles were 1/3 the
weight of another comparison population, then the smaller vehicles should
be more able to avoid crashes.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Marc wrote:
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>These stats alone tell you next to nothing. It is also well know that
>>>drivers are involved in accidents in substantially different rates based
>>>on age. If the large cars are being driven by people in the safer age
>>>ranges (very likely) and the SUVs are being driven by people in less
>>>safe age ranges (a good chance), then death rates (which are typically a
>>>function of accident rates), will be higher for the vehicles driven by
>>>the class of driver that has higher accident rates.
>>
>>
>> Then we should move everyone currently in an SUV into a Metro because they
>> crash at an exorbitantly high rate and in the smaller vehicle will do less
>> damage to others.
>>
>> Since many of the pro-SUV nuts claim that everyone that doesn't like SUVs
>> is jealous because they are too expensive and exclusive for the peons, I'd
>> tell you that you aught to get with them and present a unified pro-SUV
>> front, as you are claiming that the younger drivers (generally with less
>> money than older drivers) are buying up the SUVs.
>>
>> And did you stop to think that the reason the SUVs are crashing more is
>> because they handle poorly and the drivers are unable to avoid avoidable
>> crashes?
>
>Certainly this is part of the equation, but my point is that it isn't as
>simple as you make it out to be. Trucks and SUVs do handle differently
>and not as well on pavement as cars. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to
>figure that out. People who drive them should learn how to drive them.

Simply put, that is all you need to say. We know that there are a large
number of incompetent drivers out there. Would you rather them be hitting
you while driving larger or smaller vehicles? Do you think that their
inferior skills attempt to control a 6000 lb vehicle with a high roll
center that wasn't designed solely for on road use (despite the fact that
they will never take it off-road) or would you rather them be in a 2000 lb
vehicle with a low roll center optimized solely for on-road travel?

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Finally, a note of sanity...
The problem is that little fast car drivers don't like big slow SUVs because
they get stuck behind them and cant see past them, so they seize on any
argument to get them banned... tell me it isn't so !

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: Marc wrote:
: > "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
: I don't buy this crap about vehicles being inherently bad just because
: of their design criterion. The problem is idiots that don't learn the
: characteristics of their vehicle and then drive it accordingly.
:
:
: Matt
:

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> That may be the case with hydrocarbons, but definitely not NOx. NOx is
> directly
> related to combustion temp, and most 60's cars had no EGR valve.

I'm not aware of any that did. A long duration performance cam would have a
somewhat EGR-like effect though, able to suck some of the unburnt gases back
through the cylinders. Besides EGR systems can fail, valves can get stuck.



> However, let's explore your argument a bit.

'Kay.


> Suppose that the 68 Charger emissions are identical to a modern passenger
> car.
> Thus, let's say for for every gallon of gas that is put into either car we
> are gonna
> get a half pound of air pollution.
>
> Now, if both cars are driven the same number of miles each year, because
> CAFE
> forces the modern vehicle to have 28 Mpg, and the Charger gets 14 Mpg, over
> 1 years time the Charger is going to be using double the amount of gas, and
> putting
> double the amount of pollutants into the air.

Only the CO2, other pollutants are regulated by the EPA in grams per mile,
regardless of fuel use or engine size.

Besides I was only comparing it to a modern car vs. a gross polluter, not just
a modern car, nor was I asserting that it would meet modern emissions
standards.

--Aardwolf.

"Bill Funk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> That's becasue they are designed to do different things.
> Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the
> same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do)
> the same thing others do.
> The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing
> them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply
> ignores reality.

No problem with that argument if everyone paid all costs associated
with driving a car.

However, keep in mind that everyone breathes the exhaust of everyone
else's vehicle, and we all held hostage to OPEC, and I have to move
my fat ass out of your way on the freeway to give you some room, and
vis-versa.

In short, the concept of limited resources applies to vehicles.

Therefore, why is it fair that just because Billy Bob has a need of
hauling a big 50 foot crackerbox trailer down the road that he gets
to suck up tons of gas (thus driving up the price, see law of supply
and demand) spew out tons of pollution, and occupy tons of
space, do lots of road damage due to his vehicle weight, and so on,
whereas someone else who has an econobox
that they drive a total of 5 miles a week, doesen't get 3 car lengths
of room around his car when he gets on the freeway (the same amount of
space Billy Bob gets) is required to fix the emissions stuff on his
car that breaks even when broken he's still polluting less than
Billy Bob, pays the same federal taxes even though he's not
doing the same damage to the freeway Billy Bob is,
and doesen't get a price break on fuel because
he's not sucking up all the fuel supply?

If you can devise a system that hit the wallets of all drivers in
proportion to the amount of money they cost the rest of us,
then by all means, let everyone drive whatever the hell they want.

But until that time, the people that drive gas-guzzling, heavy
trucks and SUV's and do it all day long, they are driving up
road repair, fuel, insurance, and a host of other associated
costs for the drivers that aren't doing this. So we all have to
pay for their "needs"

> it would be good to remember why light trucks and SUVs are so popular:
> it's a direct result of the CAFE rules that were supposed to bring all
> vehicles into line with the ideals of a select few.

Rubbish. Light trucks and SUV's are still a minority of vehicle traffic
on the road, they are not "so popular" The reason they are popular
at all is because they have additional utility than just moving people
around.

Despite all that was done with the station wagon body, it's still
easier to haul a stack of plywood and 2x4's in the bed of a
truck. People that think that everyone who has a light truck or
an SUV are going to give them up just because CAFE is repealed
on sedans and a few big fast sedans are produced, are foolish.

Ted

Chris Phillipo wrote:

> I assume you are talking about something like the Adventra. If they can
> just avoid having the "SUV" moniker applied to it it will coast
> effortlessly under the greenie radar. Of course that thing would never
> sell in America if they called it a station wagon.

How about a "sports tourer"?

They've got a Monaro/GTO coupe version too, btw. To paraphrase another poster, 0-60
in 6.4 seconds--on gravel!

--Aardwolf.