Comments: 1-15, 16-30, 31-45, 46-60, 61-75, 76-90, 91-105, 106-120, 121-135, 136-150, 151-161
Then you'll have to explain to me why I see tons of people with handicapped stickers/plates driving cars that are notoriously unreliable.
Who watches PBS?
All the SUVs of that time were prone to rollovers, and all of them still are. Its the fact that the explorer was the best selling made it a target for investigations, while crappy copies like the s10 blazer never sold enough to justify such a response. If it is an suv, it will flip if driven hard.
Well you better not buy a Porche Cayenne or a Trailblazer SS. I suspect there will be other performance oriented ones in the works as well. I love the suspension and tires on mine.
"Who watches PBS?"
Oh, that's right, they don't show people eating worms for an hour, so I guess no one. Geez.
The Explorer was the main subject because it had the MOST incidents and because it had a design flaw for 12 years that caused it to kill/maim its occupants.
Ford has a long history of designing cars that kill people due to faulty design, from the original Mustang to the Pinto to the Bronco II to the Explorer and the Crown Victoria.
Remember the American way, profits over people!
What constitutes "notoriously unreliable"? Most modern cars (even imports) are reasonably reliable up to 100,000 miles. There are exceptions, of course. A recent article in a weekly news magazine describes the near-bankruptcy of Nissan because of the disastrously unreliable Titan pickup and Armada SUV. It also discusses the failed merger attempt Nissan attempted with GM (apparently GM isn't THAT desperate!!). A new CEO is attempting to save Nissan and build more reliable and appealing vehicles. Hopefully Toyota, whose quality has been in decline for years, will take a cue from Nissan and make some much needed changes in both reliability (especially in the case of the problem plagued Highlander and Camry lines) and buyer appeal. The rumored merger of GM with Toyota might offer some benefit in the area of better build quality and reliability to the beleaguered Toyota lines, just as Jaguar and Mazda have made tremendous strides in quality and reliability since being taken over by Ford.
Just read some reviews of the various cars on this site, even late models, and you 'll find what "notoriously unreliable" is.
Also, you need to do a little more research as it was not the American trucks that cause Nissan its problems. The near-bankruptcy happened before they had any real effect.
And I find it funny you failed to mention Renault, since that is who essentially owns Nissan. Also Google Carlos Goshn.
PBS specials or not, crash tests show you are FAR more likely to die in a Toyota than in ANY domestic car.
To 21st Dec 2006, 17:10 posting.
I agree entirely. Lighter smaller cars are more dangerous in a crash. They "may" save you 10c per 20 kilometers, but they are not as good to be in as a bigger car.
Bigger cars tend to last longer also.
SUVs are the worst!!! Dangerous to drive, poor on fuel, high running costs, dear to buy.
Big station wagons are excellent!!
Geez I have sky dived, scuba dived,water and snow skiied, white water rafted, raced motorcycles and cars and would not trade my first 50 years for anything. I would rather drive a fun vehicle with performance than sit on the sidelines scared about everything in life. If you enjoy these boring vehicles more power to you.
Statistics are not always accurate. I bet I can drive my Accord with a better peace of mind then I could in my old Le sabre. With all of the technology my Accord has and all the stuff the Buick does not have. Oh by the way, my Accord is older than the Buick!!!
Sorry, but you're going to need to prove that Toyotas are less safe than "any" domestic vehicle. Research and real-world testing prove that to be a untrue.
And, again, you'll need to prove that a smaller car is less safe in an accident because research says the opposite. Funny how a complement of airbags, electronic nannies, and safety cells ALWAYS trumps "it's big and it's American so it's sooooo safe"
Go on believing your myths, but the reality is you're more likely to die or being injured in any given SUV than any given small car.
But we are alive and on this forum. Why not go out and treat youself for Christmas with the domestic car of your dreams! This tirade is getting boring...
"The reality is you're more likely to die or being injured in any given SUV than any given small car."
What?! Do you have proof to back that up? I'd rather be in an SUV in a crash over some econo box simply because the SUV weighs more, you have more steel between you and the impact, and someone in a little, cheaply made car like a Corolla or Scion is at most three feet away from the impact, and considering most of those cars are plastic, that sounds a lot more dangerous. But no problem, you drive the little plastic car and hope you never have a bad accident where your safety is in question and I'll drive the nice Buick or Chevy and pay less money at the same time!
Yup, proof was by an independent research firm and reported in BusinessWeek in 2002. One of many reports.
And that was before all the additional advances now in small cars like side curtain airbags.
Go on believing your myths. The truth is quite the opposite.
For a nominal fee those "independent research firms" will gladly discover that your riding lawnmower will keep you safer in a high-speed crash than a Hummer.