2007 Toyota Camry CE from North America - Off Topic Comments

<<It always amuses me that import owners are so desperate for something to latch onto to criticize domestics that they will invariably go back to a THIRTY YEAR OLD PINTO as an example of a domestic safety defect!!!

In reality the Pinto was only one of a NUMBER of both foreign and import cars that used a rear fuel filler opening, and the only reason Ford got into the news about it was because of a very high profile lawsuit about it.>.

Blatantly untrue. Stop posting your myths about how safety conscious domestic manufacturers are. Foreign manufacturers either did not have the fuel tank near the bumper or installed the plastic casing that prevented fires, something Ford KNEW about, but REFUSED to install on the Pinto until the lawsuits.

Ford made and makes endless unsafe vehicles that it KNOWS are unsafe. Just a few examples are Pinto, original Mustang, Bronco II, Ford Explorer, Crown Victoria.

Ford has a HUGE documented history up to this day of calculating the amount of lawsuits vs. the amount of profits it would generate from an unsafe vehicle. Current court cases involving the Explorer just prove this mandate is STILL in force.

Also remember that AMERICAN automanufacturers continued to use three part seatbelts to save money instead of the one piece and SAFER seatbelts the Japanese and Germans ALWAYS used. And they have NEVER taken the initiative on ANY safety device unless FORCED to by the law or by market forces. And the same holds true for any quality advances.

And I could go on and on about such examples. LIke how in 1993, FOURTEEN years ago, GM ran ad campaigns saying how safety was soooooo important that ALL of its cars had ABS as standard. Here we are in 2007 and ABS is STILL not standard on every GM car. Why is that, especially when they are telling the world how ABS is sooo good?

And remember, American manufacturers also loved and love SUVs because they can AVOID lots and lots of safety requirements that cars had to adhere to. Funny how they were sooooo excited to avoid protecting the consumer. Only now are they remotely installing safety equipment, and the ONLY reason is because of the competition and consumer demand, not because they care about their customers living or not.

I keep reading these ridiculous statements that "SUV's AVOID USING SAFETY DEVICES". Please advise us just WHAT safety devices SUV's DON'T HAVE. Mine has every safety feature my car has. As for the groundless argument that "Ford never recalled the Explorer", NO manufacturer recalls a vehicle just because it has a high center of gravity. That is ludicrous.

6:41 I owned both until recently for years... it made no difference import or domestic... but lately I am 100% domestics got the longest standard warranty and much more features. The import standard warranty 36,000 miles is short and repairs are very expensive on drivetrains. I do not like extended warranties with sizable deductibles.

8:49...so I own 2007 GM's am I safe to drive them or should I be concerned about 1993? When there is a design correction doesn't that actually help us that buy new vehicles with the newest technology? You might do better relocating over to 14 year old sites that you are enamored over and continue this tirade. It seems like here we are focusing on 2006 and up comparisons. I use to ride as a kid in cars that didn't even have seat belts or even safety glass offered from the manufacturer, but that's living in the past and has no relevance. Now my new vehicles have them, air bags, safety glass, ABS, Onstar, continuous onboard diagnostics on the mechanicals and 100,000 mile warranties. Sorry, but there is so much more offered anymore its hard to wait a few years.

<<I keep reading these ridiculous statements that "SUV's AVOID USING SAFETY DEVICES". Please advise us just WHAT safety devices SUV's DON'T HAVE. Mine has every safety feature my car has. As for the groundless argument that "Ford never recalled the Explorer", NO manufacturer recalls a vehicle just because it has a high center of gravity. That is ludicrous.>>

The Explorer design flaw was basically in its shortened width, which directly attributed to its unstable nature. This is common knowledge and only those in denial would disagree.

As for your other point, SUVs do not have safety cells for one. They are the most dangerous deathtrap you can buy next to a compact pickup.

But, hey, they thought the Titanic was safe as well.

Why in Heaven's name would a solid vehicle like a truck-based SUV NEED a "safety cell"?? They have much higher gauge steel and a rigid frame. There is nothing to require a safety cell FOR!! They don't fold up in a crash like a small, frameless car.

<Why in Heaven's name would a solid vehicle like a truck-based SUV NEED a "safety cell"?? They have much higher gauge steel and a rigid frame. There is nothing to require a safety cell FOR!! They don't fold up in a crash like a small, frameless car.>.

Really? Where did you ever get that idea? Please provide links to statistics that show SUVs have no need of safety cells since they are so incredibly safe as is.

Also explain why highway deaths have INCREASED since SUVs have become the dominant form of transportation in America.

Oh, and please provide objective sources, not comments from www.ilovemysuv.com

I fear the import crowd is living in a world where the laws of physics don't apply. Anyone who would argue that heavier, more massive vehicles will crumple easier than smaller, flimsier vehicles is not reasoning logically. A vehicle with a full steel frame and heavier gauge metal is ALREADY a "safety cell" in and of itself. You don't NEED safety cells in vehicles that don't crumple.

I am perfectly confident that if some idiot street racer in a fart-can import were to lose control of their car and hit my Chevy SUV I would be the one walking away from the accident; not them, safety cells or no. This is simple logic people! The big car always wins in the accident.

If a Toyota sedan hits my SUV I suspect I may need to buy new tires as I am up a lot higher. Hitting my tires will probably help both as they will likely cushion the blow!

<<I am perfectly confident that if some idiot street racer in a fart-can import were to lose control of their car and hit my Chevy SUV I would be the one walking away from the accident; not them, safety cells or no. This is simple logic people! The big car always wins in the accident.>.

Really? Care to prove that with proven statistics from third party sources? Because I can 100% prove the opposite.

<<I fear the import crowd is living in a world where the laws of physics don't apply. Anyone who would argue that heavier, more massive vehicles will crumple easier than smaller, flimsier vehicles is not reasoning logically. A vehicle with a full steel frame and heavier gauge metal is ALREADY a "safety cell" in and of itself. You don't NEED safety cells in vehicles that don't crumple.>.

Really, then why did highway deaths INCREASE after SUVs became the dominate vehicle on American roads?

Using your logic, they should have gone down, and dramatically since they represent over 60% of new vehicles sold.

Wish you SUV posters could post some facts instead of this 'because I said so' stuff.

7:30 so if a Honda Civic hits head on with a Suburban/Denali/Yukon the Civic driver will come out healthier? He mentioned colliding with a small import. The bumper heights don't even coincide... may blow tires though as posted earlier and the SUV driver may be sitting over the Civics hood. Would be an interesting experiment... but I would not risk it.

Of course highway deaths went up after SUV's became popular. All the people who ran stop signs in front of them in their little tin imports were totally squished.

<<Of course highway deaths went up after SUV's became popular. All the people who ran stop signs in front of them in their little tin imports were totally squished.>.

No, the deaths were attributed to the SUVs themselves and, on average, a person was 43% more likely to die in an SUV than a typical car.