Is bigger better?

mad_machine wrote: What amazes me is that I -still- see SUVs, usually Exploders, with worn out sidewalls on their front tyres. Either from underinflation or running and dragging against Kerbs. You would think after the firestone fiasco involving the Explorer, people would not let their tyres get like that. But I may give people too much credit

Just the other day I saw a Ford Explorer going onto the entrance ramp to the freeway, and both tires on the driver's side looked like they had about 5 pounds of air in them.

stuart in mn wrote: Just the other day I saw a Ford Explorer going onto the entrance ramp to the freeway, and both tires on the driver's side looked like they had about 5 pounds of air in them.

And people like that are the reason we are all stuck with TirePressureMonitoringSystems (TPMS) on new cars.

And it is a PITA when you want to change to some aftermarket wheels and tires.

If you can follow a trace on a circuit board, you can probably cut the circuit that lights the light. Or, there may be an actual bulb to pull. Although, i wonder if there are any stability control systems that default off if the tire pressures are too far out of whack.. kinda doubt it.

I should know this already but TPMS doesnt post codes to OBD2, does it?

Common enthusiast solution seems to be toss all the sensors in a 6" long PVC tube, cap the ends, pump to ~30psi and toss it in the trunk.

While body-on-frame has advantages for heavy duty use, and acts as a fine battering ram against anything at the same height as the frame, it does little to protect against anything that impacts the passenger compartment itself...Which means it may do well against unibody cars in front and rear impact situations, especially since it's too often placed above the strongest portion of many unibodies, but is also too narrow to provide any help in a side impact with even a subcompact unibody car...And obviously the frame adds nothing but extra roof crushing weight in a rollover, which becomes more likely with the higher center of gravity. So, pick your poison.

Overall, my wife and I have found in many facets of life (homes, automobiles, portable electronic devices, etc.) that we're almost always happiest in the long run with the smallest variant capable of meeting all of our needs, even if it is occasionally lacking on a couple of our wants. This does mean sometimes paying the same or a little more for the same grade of "right sized" item than a bigger one, or getting a slightly lower grade item due to availability in the "right sized" range. For us, following the 'bigger is better' mentality generally provides more drawbacks than benefits, and would have actually left us less satisfied in the long run.

You, sir, were obviously a very poor student at The American School of Consumer Indoctrination.

Lowest Vehicle Deaths Per Million Vehicles

Chevrolet Astro: minivan very large 7
Infiniti G35: luxury car midsize 11
BMW 7 Series: luxury car very large 11
Toyota 4Runner: 4WD SUV midsize 13
Audi A4/S4 Quattro: 4dr car midsize 14
Mercedes E-Class: luxury car large 14
Toyota Highlander: 4WD SUV midsize 14
Mercedes M-Class: 4WD SUV midsize 14
Toyota Sienna: minivan very large 17
Honda Odyssey: minivan very large 17
Lexus ES 330: luxury car midsize 18
Lexus RX 330: 2WD SUV midsize 18
Toyota Sequoia: 2WD SUV large 18
Honda Pilot: 4WD SUV midsize 19
BMW X5: 4WD SUV midsize 19

Highest Vehicle Deaths Per Million Vehicles

Chevrolet Blazer: 2dr 2WD SUV midsize 232
Acura RSX: 2dr car small 202
Nissan 350Z: sports car midsize 193
Kia Spectra: hatchback 4dr car small 191
Pontiac Sunfire: 2dr car small 179
Kia Rio: 4dr car mini 175
Chevrolet Cavalier: 2dr car small 171
Mitsubishi Eclipse: 2dr car small 169
Dodge Neon: 4dr car small 161
Pontiac Grand Am: 2dr car midsize 160
Chevrolet Cavalier: 4dr car small 150
Ford Mustang: sports car midsize 150
Ford Ranger: 4WD pickup small 150
Mazda B Series: 2WD pickup small 147
Mitsubishi Eclipse: convertible sports car small 146
Mitsubishi Montero: Sport 2WD SUV midsize 146

Source: http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2007/04/iihs_lists_dead.html

In summary, I think a small car is only safer when designed and driven well. In this day and age, for the average (poor) driver, an SUV is better.

With the very bizarre exception of the Astro, I think that list is reflective of the engineering of the cars. A lot on the lowest death list are high end, expensive cars that had some serious money sunk into their development. Some of it may have to do with who drives the cars, what they use them for, etc... On the low end, some of the cars on the list were notoriously poor in how they were designed to withstand an accident. Notably, the Cavalier/Grand Ma twins. I've seen hundreds of those things wrecked, and it's never pretty. A stiffly built Schwinn would take one out. Same with the Ranger/B series twins.

Kind of at a loss to explain the Astro's appearance on the low list. Maybe they're only used as show cars for stereo equipment, so they never get driven?

I knew there was a good reason I bought my second Astro.

With the very bizarre exception of the Astro,

I think it has a lot to do with driver demographics. Anyone who bought a new Astro over competing designs probably did so because they drive so conservatively that they are unable to appreciate a difference in vehicle dynamics between a 1975 chevy full size van and, say, a Honda Odyssey which GRM has proven to spank older sporty cars.

Likewise, Im guessing the reason why the RSX and 350z are near the TOP of the death list is because the drivers bought them to do more than soul-sucking A-to-B transit and actually drove them hard enough to appreciate their relatively rewarding dynamics right before they flew out of control and died a fiery death.

Vigo wrote:

With the very bizarre exception of the Astro,

I think it has a lot to do with driver demographics. Anyone who bought a new Astro over competing designs probably did so because they drive so conservatively that they are unable to appreciate a difference in vehicle dynamics between a 1975 chevy full size van and, say, a Honda Odyssey which GRM has proven to spank older sporty cars. Likewise, Im guessing the reason why the RSX and 350z are near the TOP of the death list is because the drivers bought them to do more than soul-sucking A-to-B transit and actually drove them hard enough to appreciate their relatively rewarding dynamics right before they flew out of control and died a fiery death.

This.

The drivers have a lot more to do with it than the car does.

Because the Astros are all being driven by self-employed general contractors who need the most compact van they can find.

In reply to Tom Suddard:

Most of the generalizations and conclusions people try to draw from that list are questionable at best. While there may be a correlation drawn in regards to size/weight and fatalities, there is nowhere near enough data and far too many variables for that to imply causation. In other words, that list does next to nothing for telling you which vehicle has a higher likelihood of survival in any given situation.

In my opinion, the one crash test which offers the best apples-to-apples crash comparison across the entire spectrum of vehicles is the side-impact test, as it shows the result of ANY vehicle being T-boned by a ~3300lb SUV like vehicle at 30mph. In my opinion this is the best indication that it's the individual car, and not the size or weight of it, that really matters in most accidents. Consider that a very small/light Honda Fit protects its occupants better in this directly comparable scenario than the extremely large/heavy Chevy Silverado. This even though the Silverado weighs nearly 2,000 lbs heavier than the vehicle hitting it, while the Honda weighs in 750 lbs lighter than the vehicle hitting it.

Add to this the fact that the "average (poor) driver" seems to barely have enough situational awareness and skill to operate a golf cart safely, let alone be safer for them or anybody else on the road behind the wheel of their own personal short-bus.

Interstate or city streets? On the Interstate size matters.

In reply to JoeyM:

It's not the size of the boat, it's the motion of the ocean.

or

30 minutes in a dinghy is better than 30 seconds on a yacht.

Tom Suddard wrote:

Lowest Vehicle Deaths Per Million Vehicles

Chevrolet Astro: minivan very large 7
Infiniti G35: luxury car midsize 11
BMW 7 Series: luxury car very large 11
Toyota 4Runner: 4WD SUV midsize 13
Audi A4/S4 Quattro: 4dr car midsize 14
Mercedes E-Class: luxury car large 14
Toyota Highlander: 4WD SUV midsize 14
Mercedes M-Class: 4WD SUV midsize 14
Toyota Sienna: minivan very large 17
Honda Odyssey: minivan very large 17
Lexus ES 330: luxury car midsize 18
Lexus RX 330: 2WD SUV midsize 18
Toyota Sequoia: 2WD SUV large 18
Honda Pilot: 4WD SUV midsize 19
BMW X5: 4WD SUV midsize 19

Highest Vehicle Deaths Per Million Vehicles

Chevrolet Blazer: 2dr 2WD SUV midsize 232
Acura RSX: 2dr car small 202
Nissan 350Z: sports car midsize 193
Kia Spectra: hatchback 4dr car small 191
Pontiac Sunfire: 2dr car small 179
Kia Rio: 4dr car mini 175
Chevrolet Cavalier: 2dr car small 171
Mitsubishi Eclipse: 2dr car small 169
Dodge Neon: 4dr car small 161
Pontiac Grand Am: 2dr car midsize 160
Chevrolet Cavalier: 4dr car small 150
Ford Mustang: sports car midsize 150
Ford Ranger: 4WD pickup small 150
Mazda B Series: 2WD pickup small 147
Mitsubishi Eclipse: convertible sports car small 146
Mitsubishi Montero: Sport 2WD SUV midsize 146

Source: http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2007/04/iihs_lists_dead.html

Hmmm.... Maybe the question should be --- Is bigger and more expensive, safer?

Vigo wrote: If you can follow a trace on a circuit board, you can probably cut the circuit that lights the light. Or, there may be an actual bulb to pull. Although, i wonder if there are any stability control systems that default off if the tire pressures are too far out of whack.. kinda doubt it. I should know this already but TPMS doesnt post codes to OBD2, does it?

You guys are overthinking it. I just took off the clear cover of my gauge cluster (takes 30 seconds) and put a small square of black trim tape over the light. Can't even see it unless you shine a flashlight in there, lol. THen in the winter when I put my OEM wheels/snow tires on (which have TPMS) I just take the little square off.

hamster wrote: Toyota 4Runner: 4WD SUV midsize 13 Toyota Highlander: 4WD SUV midsize 14

This kind of speaks to my argument above that was dismissed about body-on-frame SUVs vs. Unibody.

4Runner and Highlander are pretty much the same size, with the same engine power. And the highlander arguably has a better 4WD/AWD system for street driving. Yet the 4Runner has slightly less deaths.

And it's not because of a difference in drivers. If anything, Highlander drivers (mostly soccer moms like my in-laws) would be less aggressive driving than 4Runner drivers (who tend to be younger men, from what I've seen).

So, I would argue that the unibody vs. frame argument doesn't hold much water in the "real world"...especially considering that the 4Runner essentially had the same chassis for over a decade.......so didn't have all the "new technology" that a newer-designed highlander might.

(I'll note that the 4Runner and Highlander also have similar NHTSA crash ratings as well).

I much prefer a compact over a bigger "safer" car, anything built post 1996 will be safe enough in all reality. I'd rather avoid an accident altogether than survive one I could have powered/maneuvered out of in something that doesn't weight 3 tons.

moparman76_69 wrote: In reply to JoeyM: It's not the size of the boat, it's the motion of the ocean. or 30 minutes in a dinghy is better than 30 seconds on a yacht.

well played

Driven5 wrote: In reply to Tom Suddard: Most of the generalizations and conclusions people try to draw from that list are questionable at best. While there may be a correlation drawn in regards to size/weight and fatalities, there is nowhere near enough data and far too many variables for that to imply causation. In other words, that list does next to nothing for telling you which vehicle has a higher likelihood of survival in any given situation. In my opinion, the one crash test which offers the best apples-to-apples crash comparison across the entire spectrum of vehicles is the side-impact test, as it shows the result of ANY vehicle being T-boned by a ~3300lb SUV like vehicle at 30mph. In my opinion this is the best indication that it's the individual car, and not the size or weight of it, that really matters in most accidents.

Nope. Ask anyone who's seen a lot of crashes, and they'll tell you that a lot of the cars on this list have earned their spot. Yes, there are a lot of variables and they can account for some of the cars making the list. But like I said, there are a lot of cars on the list that have proven time and time again that they're dog E36 M3 in a crash of any kind. Or conversely, they're the E36 M3. The side impact test measures the uniside structure assembly strength, which is an important test. Big trucks usually suck at this. But a car could well in that test, but do poorly in frontal impacts. Take the Smart. It did amazingly well in side impact, roll over and frontal stationary barrier impacts. But when crashed head on into a mid-size car, not so much.

There's really no one "right" answer to this. Bigger is better in certain circumstances, but in others it makes no difference or can make it worse.

irish44j, unibodies far and away do better in crashes than full frames. It's been shown over and over.

I've driven small cars for most of my driving career - mostly Saturns and Miatas, with the occasional MR2, Civic, or Senta SE-R in there. All of those are small cars, and the versions I had were from the 90s (80s in the case of the MR2 and a RT4WD Civic wagon).

I've been driving a P71 for about a year and a half. Now, when I get back into one of those smaller cars, I feel cramped. That goes double for the Miata, even though I'm still almost the same size I was back when I drove them all the time. Yes, I admit to putting on a few pounds since then, but not many, and my body isn't large enough to interfere with my driving these small cars.

I don't think I could go back to something quite that small, especially as my only car. I'd consider another Miata as a second car, but not my only at this point. I certainly don't need something as big as a P71, though it's a good option for someone who wants a car instead of an SUV and is concerned about crash protection. I'm thinking something like a WRX/Saaburu or E36/E46 for my next ride, or possibly the Fiesta ST if I want to splurge. I'm trying to love the FRS/BRZ, and in theory I do, but despite rocking Miatas for so long I'm concerned it'll be too small for me - plus I could get a new WRX for the same money...

irish44j, unibodies far and away do better in crashes than full frames. It's been shown over and over.

Yeah, i dont think one can defend body-on-frame as being just as good, let alone BETTER in a crash than a unibody unless you just dont think about it or dont look at any data. The advantage may have gone the other way in the 70s and 80s, but by now unibody structure design is so advanced that you can design in energy-diffusing trickery that a body-on-frame vehicle can only dream about.

Vigo wrote: i dont think one can defend body-on-frame as being just as good, let alone BETTER in a crash than a unibody unless you just dont think about or dont look at any data.

Probably not for safety......I think there's a fair case, though, that swapping bits can be easier for repairs after minor accidents.