14th Oct 2010, 16:02

""I too would prefer a full frame car in an accident with greater mass. Having less of a crumple zone in the footwells to avoid being crushed and trapped. More mass surrounding my family, air bags etc. I also would prefer more mass around me in a larger full frame vehicle such as a bus as well."

Thank You!"

Yeah, just read the post above yours!

14th Oct 2010, 20:10

The most common accident with the most fatalities are T Bones in a unibody car. I will stay with a full frame car. Plus, it's easier to repairwWith all the road salt we get in the Northeast. I prefer not to have a rotted out unibody.

15th Oct 2010, 06:23

The frame doesn't add much collision safety. Upon impact at high speeds, it will buckle like tin foil.

On modern body on frame based cars, the collision safety is built into the body and not the frame, see example for the Ford Explorer; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FoXrp8Jqco

On older full frame/body on frame cars, like full size cars from the seventies and the eighties, neither the body nor the frame gives much collision safety. A Crown Victoria will have less than average collision safety, due to poorly designed crumple zones. It's only partly helped by its size and weight.

15th Oct 2010, 08:59

"Has it ever occurred to anyone that people who own full-framed could care less about safety and fuel mileage? We buy them because they are the type of cars we prefer as far as good classic looks, large size, ride quality and interior room. Car accidents happen, you can't do anything about it. You drive what you like and we will drive what we like. End of story."

Well I guess this is self explanatory. You don't care about safety or fuel mileage?? Huh, well then I guess that's one reason gas is still around $3 per gallon. I am still kinda shocked this post is up here... guess that's all I have to say.

15th Oct 2010, 09:52

I bought a Grand Marquis because I felt more responsible strapping 2 children in car seats vs a light car like the Mini Cooper in an accident.

By the way, accidents happen in bad road conditions without hitting other cars. We have deer everywhere, even near the city. Bad icy conditions etc. I prefer AWD and 4WD SUVs in the deep snows, yet without the horrible bouncy ride as well.

The only downside on the Marquis was rear wheel drive in snows. Small FWD cars are too low in bad snows also.

15th Oct 2010, 10:03

The story you are referring to came out from a British publication, and was a completely unjustified story with no basis in reality. The Volt can run at any speed on the battery so long as it is charged. So again - I suspect outside interests have a great deal of desire to propagate false information.

Electric cars are here to stay. Nissan, Toyota, Ford, and Chrysler amongst others have electric cars, either here already, or about to appear next year. There are already many startups making charging stations, and there are even plans for gas stations to have charging ports. The cars are probably going to be initially expensive. But so too were the first Fords. This is how technology works: The action of mass production and means of finding efficiency, drives down the costs.

15th Oct 2010, 10:06

"Has it ever occurred to anyone that people who own full-framed could care less about safety and fuel mileage? We buy them because they are the type of cars we prefer as far as good classic looks, large size, ride quality and interior room. Car accidents happen, you can't do anything about it. You drive what you like and we will drive what we like. End of story."

... If you think a Crown Victoria has "Good classic looks" then go for it. My Grandmother thinks her Buick LeSabre looks great too, as do most people in their 80's. Yes - We're well-aware that some people could care less about safety and fuel economy. They're the same people who were out there crying when gas shot up to $5 a gallon a few years ago, and they'll be crying again when fuel inevitably goes up in cost again.

15th Oct 2010, 12:24

Exactly... most people have very little knowledge or understanding of physics or engineering. All they know is that surely, some huge dinosaur of a car is in their book safer than some "New-fangled car". If those of you are really and truly concerned about safety, do your research first. A full size car with a frame is in no way an automatic guarantee in regards to safety.

Just consider this: In Germany there are no speed limits on their AutoBahn, yet somehow virtually all of the BMWs, Mercedes, Audis and VW's have a unibody frame, and for the most part have excellent crash ratings - some with a 5 star rating at that. Why? Because these cars HAVE to be engineered to withstand accidents, often at much greater speeds than in the US.

15th Oct 2010, 14:13

The Prius is incredibly ugly, and I agree the Marquis is old fashioned, but the idea was to let my children to have a safer chance to grow old. Why do so many new cars have to be so incredibly ugly? I guess the bean shape is the wind tunnel result, making the inside room vs the exterior look. I am sorry so many new cars I just saw at the auto show are hideous to look at, and it's ridiculous on pricing on most I saw.

15th Oct 2010, 17:26

True, and another factor is the high cost of repairs to poorly built unibody cars involved in even very small collisions. Recently my wife was hit from behind as she was backing out of a parking space in her full frame GM SUV. The small Japanese car she was hit by crumpled like tin foil, incurring thousands of dollars in damage (probably totaled). My wife's solidly built SUV had only a tiny trace of paint on her rear bumper. I easily buffed it out.

15th Oct 2010, 18:23

I agree that the newer unibody cars are safer and better designed, but check the crash test ratings on the Crown Vic before slamming it. It rates extremely well in all but passenger side impact, which it got a 4 out of 5 stars (not sure why). The rest...5 stars across the board. Even as a full frame car, the Crown Vic design has incorporated more crumple zones, and they have a much improved overall car than the previous models.

People in general have a false idea of what crumple zones are, and what their purpose is. They are designed to keep the damage away from you, and provide a cushioning for the initial blow from the accident. Full framed cars from long ago didn't have this ability to isolate the driver, so even if the car sustained little damage, the occupants were thrown all over the inside of the car, which caused many serious injuries. Design has advanced over the years, and the reduced number of deaths in auto accidents proves that... reduced number relative to the number of cars on the road that is... so the percentages are better than they used to be.

15th Oct 2010, 18:27

"No it's not just about the size and weight. have you ever seen how beefy and massive the front frame rails are on a Victoria? If not they are thick gauge steel and are just well...massive. The only uni-body cars that were actually strong, and I mean very strong were the 1960s Lincoln Continentals, Chrysler Newports, and Fifth Avenues.

But as far as today's uni-garbages go, it shouldn't take a genius to figure out that oh say my 85' 3/4 ton Suburban I had or my Crown Victoria would decimate a new Explorer, or that hideous Traverse."

If it is not just about the size and weight, then why did you go on about the massive frame rails on the Crown Vic, and then list the land yachts from the 60's as your examples of fine uni-body cars? Also, were those cars actually unibodies? I thought the Camaro, Mustang and Firebird were among the few cars that were unibody, but most full size cars had a full frame under them still.

Also, how about not thinking about how you can "decimate" other cars on the road, and just drive safer so you don't have to think about how you will do in a crash.