25th Jan 2007, 10:57
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.
25th Jan 2007, 13:23
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.
25th Jan 2007, 19:58
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.
26th Jan 2007, 09:01
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.
26th Jan 2007, 15:42
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.
26th Jan 2007, 18:30
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 SUV fan sites.
26th Jan 2007, 20:17
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.
26th Jan 2007, 21:54
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.
27th Jan 2007, 05:09
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!
27th Jan 2007, 07:30
Really? Care to prove that with proven statistics from third party sources? Because I can 100% prove the opposite.
27th Jan 2007, 07:33
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.
27th Jan 2007, 11:02
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.
27th Jan 2007, 13:43
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.
27th Jan 2007, 15:04
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.
28th Jan 2007, 15:18
That's interesting. Camry drivers and passengers are over 50% more likely to die in crashes than those driving an average car too. Does that mean Camrys roll over too!!
28th Jan 2007, 19:56
Proof please, since this is obviously more disinformation being spread by the domestic crowd. The Camry has a five star crash rating and has multiple airbags for every passenger.
1st Feb 2007, 18:14
Safety statistics DO indicate that you are 50% more likely to die in a Camry than in the average car, and TWICE as likely to die in a Camry than in a Buick.
4th Feb 2007, 15:14
What the stats do not state is that the Buick travels at an average speed of 30 miles per hour--get driven 8,000 miles a year--the average buyer is in their 60's and the car sits in the basement of a senior apartment complex... all this happens while young people and families buy camry's and drive around putting many mile on them.. simple facts make simple truths... Did you really think Iraq had weapons of mass destruction... I bet you thought so because a report said it did. If you sit back and think about demographics and things these statistics could be deciphered..
4th Feb 2007, 16:45
Exactly how does a car with a five star crash rating accomplish this?
You can't simply say MORE people die in Camrys because there are MORE of them on the road.
You have to take crash data from an individual crash.
5th Feb 2007, 16:31
A 5-star crash rating is meaningless in regard to the likelihood of death or injury in a particular type of car. The tests determining the star ratings are extremely limited and very atypical of real world collisions. There are references to the website on the Toyota Tundra site referring to the data showing how poorly Camry fares (50% below average) in protecting its passengers. The domestic Buick is rated as 50% LESS likely to kill its occupants, making it fully TWICE as safe as Camry.
6th Feb 2007, 08:15
I see, so when it comes to foreign cars tests are meaningless and not "real world" yet when it comes to sacred Buick suddenly the rating is 100% accurate.
You have to PROVE to me that the Camry is "50% less safe" than a Buick, and you have not. ALL you are doing is simply stating the frequency of accidents and, given over 400K Camrys are sold per year, that means that there are more Camrys on the road.
Using your logic, I could say a Wartburg or a Fiat is the safest car on the road in America since the frequency of accidents is so low - there aren't many out there.