|
`Nemesis posted:Does every part on a car need to last the lifetime of the vehicle? At what point is it acceptable to expect that things will need occasional replacement? From the companies that brought you: "Our Cruise Control can light the vehicle on fire....when the vehicle is off" and "Your huge SUV still has worse crumple zones than a small sedan"
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 22:58 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:From the companies that brought you: "Our Cruise Control can light the vehicle on fire....when the vehicle is off" and "Your huge SUV still has worse crumple zones than a small sedan" Don't forget the classic "we knew our ignition switches were poo poo and did nothing about it until the issue got several people killed"
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:"Your huge SUV still has worse crumple zones than a small sedan" I thought crumple zones were largely an afterthought on body-on-frame vehicles to begin with...
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Going off memory here, but I think they started actually making body on frame trucks crash-safe in the mid 2000s.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Of course no manufacturer has ever done something so foolish as making a gas pedal that sticks or using a water pump impeller that melts at 212F.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Yep. Our 4th gen 4Runner got quite good safety ratings, at least as far as BoF trucks go.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
revmoo posted:Yep. Our 4th gen 4Runner got quite good safety ratings, at least as far as BoF trucks go. That's a Toyota. Not a domestic.  2001 F-150  2001 Dodge 1500 CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:20 on May 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Great Beer posted:Don't forget the classic "we knew our ignition switches were poo poo and did nothing about it until the issue got several people killed" In addition to that, there's the "we did get around to fixing the bad ignition switches but kept the part and revision number the same so there's no way to tell the good and bad ones apart besides physical inspection. But now that we have no choice but to perform a massive recall, physical inspection would be very time consuming and potentially inconsistent so we'll have to replace ALL OF THEM." As a mechanical engineer that has done a lot of drafting and documentation, this was the most egregious detail in that whole scandal. 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:That's a Toyota. Not a domestic. They have improved now, but it was later than mid 2000s here, more like late 2000s when they wanted to sell dual cabs to families and brought out new models. Fo3 fucked around with this message at 18:51 on May 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Fo3 posted:Yeah, they were all terrible 2 star ratings here for ages too, even Japanese made. Didn't have to conform to passenger vehicle standards, so they didn't. One of the main reasons I planted my arse into an aussie ute instead. Before that I had Japanese made or branded commercial utes which rode like a truck and had low safety ratings. That was the trick: In 2001, even shoddy imports like VW and others were getting better front crash survivability ratings than domestic trucks and SUVs.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Problem has always been, being commercial vehicles, they are normally 2 generations behind in safety features. Best thing about the aussie ute was it is based on the latest passenger vehicle (possible difference being rear axle to account for the load). But from front door forward and sidewards, (ie the passenger compartment) it is the same safety level as the passenger vehicle sedan/wagon. E: That, and the engine options is why I love the aussie ute so much.
Fo3 fucked around with this message at 18:56 on May 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Fo3 posted:Problem has always been, being commercial vehicles, they are normally 2 generations behind in safety features. Best thing about the aussie ute was it is based on the latest passenger vehicle (possible difference being rear axle to account for the load). But from front door forward and sidewards, (ie the passenger compartment) it is the same safety level as the passenger vehicle sedan/wagon The Ford Explorer suffered from the same weaknesses as the F-150, being roughly the same design.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
We didn't have the explorer here (maybe we did once, for a year, a long long time ago). We had/have the 'escape' and the local 'territory' based on the falcon platform. When ford AU shuts down we will probably get the explorer, or something made in Thailand based on the mazda/ranger platform. I don't think f series trucks, or anything based on them is ever going to be sold here as a mainstream vehicle to be honest though as fuel is expensive here. Fo3 fucked around with this message at 19:03 on May 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Edward IV posted:As a mechanical engineer that has done a lot of drafting and documentation, this was the most egregious detail in that whole scandal.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The Ford Explorer suffered from the same weaknesses as the
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
 Thanks for the correct.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
When will these kids learn, that's why you don't stretch your tires.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
I'm only aware because of my unfortunate firsthand experience. Twice the junked cars to choose from! 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
I remember being a kid of the 90s hearing all the moms going on and on about how safe their Explorers/Expeditions/Suburbans/etc. were. For the children. I mean I guess if you were planning on hitting another (smaller) car they would be pretty drat safe. 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
Read the book High and Mighty for a look at SUV philosophy from the turn of the century.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
I guarantee the Expedition (which was F150-based) was hilariously unsafe too, though.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
Every year, a new and even more gigantic Canyonero-like Ford SUV beginning with "Ex". When the Excursion came out I did that Seinfeld gif in real life.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:Every year, a new and even more gigantic Canyonero-like Ford SUV beginning with "Ex". When the Excursion came out I did that Seinfeld gif in real life. HEY NOW, what's wrong with using a F750 SUV for day to day travel!?! (At least it's not a semi-SUV?)
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:I remember being a kid of the 90s hearing all the moms going on and on about how safe their Explorers/Expeditions/Suburbans/etc. were. For the children. This is pretty much what I was getting at - crumple zones are largely irrelevant when your vehicle's primary defense strategy is to outmass and outsize most other vehicles on the road.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
Fire Storm posted:HEY NOW, what's wrong with using a F750 SUV for day to day travel!?! (At least it's not a semi-SUV?) You may joke, but there's a legit market for this stuff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F650_Pickups
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Geoj posted:This is pretty much what I was getting at - crumple zones are largely irrelevant when your vehicle's primary defense strategy is to outmass and outsize most other vehicles on the road. It's an unfortunate facet of mental health treatment in the country today that being a complete sociopath is not only unrecognized and untreated but offered a tax break.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
The Door Frame posted:You may joke, but there's a legit market for this stuff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F650_Pickups A Chinese guy runs a company (in the US!) that takes an F650, bolts a whole bunch of cheap sheetmetal to the outside to make it look like an armored vehicle - it is emphatically *not* armored in any way, and then sells them in China for $500k. http://www.usspecialtyvehicles.com/#!vehicles/albumphotos3=2 Literally the only selling point s are a) MADE IN USA MURICA and b) all the sheetmetal makes it look big. I'm only unhappy because I didn't come up with the idea first.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:That's a Toyota. Not a domestic. Stepdad owns a 2001 F-150 extended cab, exactly like the one pictured, aside from exterior color and wheels. That's one of a few reasons I refuse to get in it (the main other reason is his horrible driving, I can't believe he hasn't lost his license with all the tickets he racks up). Even when I drive it myself, I immediately know my knees will become the crumple zones if I hit anything. You just know from how everything is positioned.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 07:23
|
|
|
rainwulf posted:That was the much maligned rover/kia sedona V6 of hell, the one that leaked oil so bad that some engines had to be replaced before actually being rolled out onto the yard as NEW STOCK. This deserves some kind of award. Has a bigger failure ever occurred?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 07:54
|
|
|
some texas redneck posted:Stepdad owns a 2001 F-150 extended cab, exactly like the one pictured, aside from exterior color and wheels. You probably know more about this than I do but I am pretty sure texas and rhode island are the only states with no points system, thus why he hasn't lost his license. I do love how those F150s set themselves on fire with the cruise system.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 13:21
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:http://www.usspecialtyvehicles.com/#!vehicles/albumphotos3=2 Not a good spokesperson for USA MURICA.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
Isn't there some kind of loophole with trucks where they don't have to meet the same safety standards as they are not classed as cars?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
kastein posted:You probably know more about this than I do but I am pretty sure texas and rhode island are the only states with no points system, thus why he hasn't lost his license. Hey now Illinois also gives no fucks about how much of a poo poo driver you are.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
BigPaddy posted:Isn't there some kind of loophole with trucks where they don't have to meet the same safety standards as they are not classed as cars? As far as I know, yes. If you think normal cars fare poorly in a rollover situation, just wait until you see what happens to a truck. 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
BigPaddy posted:Isn't there some kind of loophole with trucks where they don't have to meet the same safety standards as they are not classed as cars? In the US, vehicles over a certain GWVR are considered differently by the EPA, so on 3/4t and above trucks you can have diesel engines and whatnot, and they don't have to provide any fuel economy information for consumers. As far as "safety standards" go, it's really more of an excuse for carmakers to complain about than anything real. What "safety standards" are there? I'm genuinely curious because I don't think there really are any. Other than things like must have ABS and 1 airbags I don't know of any that would seriously impact cars that would currently be sold. Certainly there is no requirement for any carmaker to disclose to their customers any crash test information - e.g. there are no publicly available crash test ratings that I am aware of for any US market Land Rover/Range Rover vehicles, the NHTSA's star rating system is completely voluntary and JLR has never submitted to it, while the IIHS has no interest in doing any crash tests on their own. Range Rovers might fold up like a cardboard accordion in a 35mph crash for all I know, and nothing is stopping their sales. Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 14:59 on May 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
I get your point for US Domestic vehicles but a Range Rover is a bad example as you can just pull the Euro NCAP test results http://www.euroncap.com/en/results/land-rover/range-rover/10934 as I doubt they are going to make less safe cars for the US market as it would cost them more than just using the same tooling for all their cars.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:In the US, vehicles over a certain GWVR are considered differently by the EPA, so on 3/4t and above trucks you can have diesel engines and whatnot, and they don't have to provide any fuel economy information for consumers. I would have thought that the Euro NCAP results will give you a pretty good indication for any US market cars too (obviously where the same model is are also available in Europe) While specifications may vary slightly for the US versions, I suspect it shouldn't be too hard to find out what these differences are and you can tell if they would affect the safety rating.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:In the US, vehicles over a certain GWVR are considered differently by the EPA, so on 3/4t and above trucks you can have diesel engines and whatnot, and they don't have to provide any fuel economy information for consumers. No, it is very real. ABS, ESC, side impact standards, headon impact standards, survivability, multistage airbags, even pedestrian impact safety and survivability when not wearing a seatbelt are criteria that must be met. FMVSS and many other standards are what you want to read for more info on this, I can ask around at work and get more info if you want. Even just FMVSS is a book the size of a medium phone book or small factory service manual however.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 22:58 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:That's a Toyota. Not a domestic. I guess it doesn't matter that my brother doesn't ever wear a seatbelt (he's a cop). If he ever hits anything he's toast anyway. He drives a 2001 half ton Chevy.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 16:20
|
|