Archives

Some experts point out bigger is not always safer (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0612/p01s04-usgn.html?page=1)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Car_Crash.jpgMark Clayton - Christian Science Monitor - June 12, 2007

In a high-stakes showdown over proposed fuel-efficiency standards, the auto industry is playing its ace: the "safety" card.

In radio ads and over the Internet, it's pushing a message that implies that tougher standards will force automakers to make smaller and lighter cars that are not as crashworthy as today's less efficient models.

That's a message that has worked before. But this time, as Congress is set to begin debate Wednesday over whether to boost Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for new cars and light trucks, some experts are not sure the argument holds water. Recent research suggests that new technology can make small cars safer and guzzlers more efficient. Some fuel-efficient cars are already safer than bigger, less less-efficient counterparts, a new study finds.

"There's no reason that higher fuel-economy standards would force automakers to change the size of the vehicle, [its] structural integrity or crash-worthiness," says David Greene, an Oak Ridge National Laboratory researcher and co-author of the study released last Thursday by the International Council on Clean Transportation. "It's unfortunate that manufacturers are trying to cast the debate in that way."
… http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0612/p01s04-usgn.html?page=1

Related Story: MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19244490/)

Want to give Laurie credit for first finding this article last night. Be sure to click the graph listing the various vehicles.

Want to give Laurie credit for first finding this article last night. Be sure to click the graph listing the various vehicles.

thanks, chuck. i remembered this morning i was going to post it. glad you took care of it.

I've never started one, but I get into an argument at least once or twice per month regarding this very topic. It seems to be one of those subjects that everyone has an opinion on, but less than 1% of the populace has done any actual research into.

When I try to describe the difference between "vehicle survival" and "human survival" in a collision, I get blank stares. When I try to explain how kinetic energy (KE) builds and transfers between things, I get blank stares. When I explain that the Yaris actually has a 1-star higher crash rating overall than our old Tacoma 4x4 does due to crumple zones, the "egg" cabin and airbags, I get blank stares. When I explain crash avoidance abilities vs. being stuck "tanking" a collision, I get blank stares.

as we hear over and over again.....

they just don't get it :(

Dilbert today was on topic...

http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2004073470620.gif

He works for CNW Marketing - right?

BailOut, try explaining it by relating it to catching an egg with a frying pan versus an oven mit. Or you could just throw the eggs at the people. I doubt you'll get blank stares then. :p

I'm suspicious about geniune concern for safety after seeing so much questionable driving on the roads....

My experience is completely anecdotal but it is worth mentioning on this topic. My last vehicle was a 05 Honda CRV (certainly not a FE king, but certainly not an Excursion either). I was sitting at a stop light on my morning commute when I was rammed from behind by a large semi-sized transport truck going approx. 40 mph according to the police report. The back of my CRV looked like a crushed beer can, but I walked away with nothing but a sore neck for a few days.

I was in awe of the engineering that saved me from serious injury. The passenger cabin was completely intact while the crumple zones and the energy absorbing aspects of the frame did their job marvelously.

My real world experience would seem to lend credence to this report or maybe I was just lucky. In any event, I'm grateful to those Honda engineers.

My experience is completely anecdotal but it is worth mentioning on this topic. My last vehicle was a 05 Honda CRV (certainly not a FE king, but certainly not an Excursion either). I was sitting at a stop light on my morning commute when I was rammed from behind by a large semi-sized transport truck going approx. 40 mph according to the police report. The back of my CRV looked like a crushed beer can, but I walked away with nothing but a sore neck for a few days.

I was in awe of the engineering that saved me from serious injury. The passenger cabin was completely intact while the crumple zones and the energy absorbing aspects of the frame did their job marvelously.

My real world experience would seem to lend credence to this report or maybe I was just lucky. In any event, I'm grateful to those Honda engineers.

ouch! i had an 04 CRV. i really loved it, but, as you say, it was a mileage stinker. i almost tripled my FE when i traded it on my HCH.

I read an article long ago comparing the safety of VW Jettas to SUVs. The Jettas statistically were safer. The reasoning was the size of the Jetta relative to a truck makes the driver feel unsafe so he/she must drive more carefully.

ouch! i had an 04 CRV. i really loved it, but, as you say, it was a mileage stinker. i almost tripled my FE when i traded it on my HCH.

Absolutely, my CRV only got decent FE going downhill with a tailwind, but this was before I heard about hypermiling. I wonder how well I could have done hypermiling with the CRV?

We'll never know because my pewter pearl is in that great junkyard in the sky. Sigh.

Is anyone else wondering why the auto manufacturers don't understand that they have a tremendous opportunity here? Their ad campaigns convinced people that they needed SUV's so people bought those. They upped the ante with performance and amenities and people bought into those. So why not switch to fuel efficiency, convince people that their current SUV's and AWD things are obsolete, and sell lots of new vehicles built to the new paradigm? Not necessarily hybrids, just FE vehicles.

I'm thinking of how the music industry benefitted from the switch from cassettes to CD's by re-issuing the same music in the new CD format and selling it to people again.

It's not like the auto industry didn't know this was going to happen. What amazes me is that they did not plan for it. I think even Toyota and Honda were caught a bit unprepared.

Fighting the inevitable as the US automakers seem to be doing is a bit pointless.

I read an article long ago comparing the safety of VW Jettas to SUVs. The Jettas statistically were safer. The reasoning was the size of the Jetta relative to a truck makes the driver feel unsafe so he/she must drive more carefully.

Sure, that works for a smaller car of any make really. The worst thing to give a teenager is a big powerful land yaght, SUV or truck that makes them feel even more invincible than teenagers already do....
:Banane45:

SlowHands looks at chart, finds Ranger... :eek::mad:

Absolutely, my CRV only got decent FE going downhill with a tailwind, but this was before I heard about hypermiling. I wonder how well I could have done hypermiling with the CRV?

We'll never know because my pewter pearl is in that great junkyard in the sky. Sigh.

awww. i drove mine for exactly one year. i traded it in on the civic, and ended up with the same payment. it was just about mint when they got it back. i wonder too about hypermiling it, since it had a 5 speed. but hard as i tried, and i worked it like crazy, i couldn't improve the mileage. it must have been the gear setup, since i had a 93 civic before that i could get high 40s with. my husband is still driving it.

Is anyone else wondering why the auto manufacturers don't understand that they have a tremendous opportunity here? Their ad campaigns convinced people that they needed SUV's so people bought those. They upped the ante with performance and amenities and people bought into those. So why not switch to fuel efficiency, convince people that their current SUV's and AWD things are obsolete, and sell lots of new vehicles built to the new paradigm?

i was thinking that same thing recently. advertising these days consists of creating something and then convincing the masses that they need it. if there were a way to make it trendy and some kind of status statement to drive a fuel efficient vehicle, they would be hard pressed to keep them in stock.

i was thinking that same thing recently. advertising these days consists of creating something and then convincing the masses that they need it. if there were a way to make it trendy and some kind of status statement to drive a fuel efficient vehicle, they would be hard pressed to keep them in stock.

I'm with you on that. It needs to be promoted as being in the national interest. That's a point that should fly even with political/economic conservatives.

I say we need FE rallies with good looking young people and ice cold beverages and hoopla and all. Shucks, every weekend racetrack could have an MPG challenge. Make the drivers go through slaloms and other FE obstacles.

This is a great idea - turn it into a "game" with MPG as the "high score." With iFCD's in every vehicle, it would be great to see how high folks could go. MPG is the new HP! :D

This is a great idea - turn it into a "game" with MPG as the "high score." With iFCD's in every vehicle, it would be great to see how high folks could go. MPG is the new HP! :D

and WE, ladies and gentlemen, are the STARS.......:Banane35:

The car manufactures are still pushig the big SUV's and larger cars. Toyota and Honda are just as bad. They are not even pushing the Hybrids in my area. All the car testers do is complain about the CVT [Jerkie] . I think a CVT is smooth a butter!: H:D

My wife and first kid were in a accident involving a 99 VW jetta, a 2000 Chevy Tahoe, and a 9? 5ish accord. The Jetta(wifes car) and the tahoe were waiting at a toplight. the accord going 50-55mph never hit her brakes and rearended the tahoe. major damage to the accord and tahoe. the jetta had the trunklid get busted, but the tailights stayed intact. The Tahoe(one of the general's premium vehicles) had a completely crushed front end, busted motor mounts, about 12-13K in damages. The Jetta about 1500. That convinced me right there that bigger does not necessarily mean safer.

Sure, that works for a smaller car of any make really. The worst thing to give a teenager is a big powerful land yaght, SUV or truck that makes them feel even more invincible than teenagers already do....
:Banane45:
And yet I constantly hear parents of teenagers justify giving them large vehicles because they're new drivers and need to be "protected". [cringe]

MPG is the new HP! :DNew bumpersticker for the CleanMPG store, Tom?

The car manufactures are still pushig the big SUV's and larger cars. Toyota and Honda are just as bad. They are not even pushing the Hybrids in my area. All the car testers do is complain about the CVT [Jerkie] . I think a CVT is smooth a butter!: H:D

Well, like most thing, it boils down to money. I like the notion that Car companies could be convinced to radically change their tune (pardon the pun on lightfoot's tape-to-CD analogy), I really do. However, I think it's too large of a juggernaut to change quickly. Profits drive their decisions, and the tantalizing profits of the larger cars are not something you can distract them from. I'm sure we've all heard as much from GM reps over the years. Hence you're going to have the 2-mode Yukon before a PHEV next-gen Prius. They'll probably just start throwing more air-bags in 'em. Heck, maybe one of those bouncy-castle things to protect the children...