Is bigger better?

I actually wrote that and then cut it out before posting, so you're absolutely right. I decided that if i was trying to make a point about safety, that factor was a useless distraction, but that doesnt make it not true, just a different point.

I actually think the difference in ease of repair gets bigger the more serious the damage. You can basically rebuild a body on frame vehicle just by turning things lefty loosey righty tighty. MAJOR unibody repair requires way more complicated methods and usually isnt even advisable from a safety standpoint even if it's feasible from a process standpoint.

I have a friend who's a mechanic for a high-volume bodyshop. Apparently he did enough 'frame swaps' (take everything off the frame, roll it out, and put a new frame in and reattach everything) that it was considered pretty normal.

But ease of repair stops mattering AT RIGHT ABOUT THE POINT where the cost of human repair exceeds the cost of vehicle repair, which if you think about it, doesn't take a whole lot.

Klayfish wrote: Nope....

...As you proceed to then reiterate the same point(s) I was making. About the only thing you seem to possibly be trying to disagree with, is my belief that regardless of how safe (unsafe) a vehicle at the top (bottom) of that might actually be, or how well deserved of a reputation it has for being so, the list itself cannot be used to infer anything about the safety of a specific vehicle or class of vehicles directly due to the inherent limitations of the method of measurement. Otherwise that would mean not only is the Chevy Astro the safest vehicle on the road, but also that the G35 is a protective cocoon while the very closely related 350Z is a complete death trap...Which is obviously not actually the case.

It's the old "a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square" conundrum...Except that it becomes "a very safe (unsafe) car should rank high (low) on that list, but a car high (low) on that list is not necessarily a very safe (unsafe) car."

Vigo wrote:

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.

oy vey.....

I am simply comparing two similar-sized SUVs from the SAME company, which have pretty much the same safety features otherwise (airbags, TCS, ABS, etc). I can defend it by the fact that they rate equally in the deaths table and they rate equally in NHTSA testing. I'm defending it by the actual data, you're just defending your argument with generalizations about unibody technology which "in general" are accurate but there are always exceptions (as, perhaps, in my case in point).

What I'm NOT doing is comparing a 1995 Honda Civic with my 1970 GT6. I KNOW that the GT6 is a death trap, and it is body-on-frame. Nor am I comparing a Toyota Highlander with an F-150 or some other body-on-frame SUV from a different maker, price point, size, or class.

Just like we can't compare a Smart with a 1998 BMW 7-series. I'm betting the Smart has more "safety technology" and "energy-diffusing trickery" than the 7-series. But If I'm gonna hit something (or be hit by someone), I think I'll opt for the 7-series thank you very much. How about you?

Technology can make a difference when all other factors are equal, but rarely in the real world are all other factors equal, and technology can't always be the silver bullet that some people act like it is, IMO.

Driven5 wrote: , but also that the G35 is a protective cocoon while the very closely related 350Z is a complete death trap...Which is obviously not actually the case.

I may be wrong, but are the G35 and 350Z really all that closely related in body/chassis construction? I was always under the impression that they used the same platform/drivetrain/mechanicals. I park next to a G37 at work every day. It's a very large car compared to my WRX. A 370z is a pretty small car compared to my WRX. If they were compared head-to-head in crash tests, do you think that the 370 passenger would be "just as safe" as the G37 passenger?

It's a question for the sake of discussion. I don't know if the answer is "yep!" or "not even close."

I'm not implying that they're necessarily equal by any means, but rather that there is no way they're far enough apart to be simultaneously among both the very "safest" and "least safe" cars on the road respectively. To the best of my knowledge, from the firewall forward they utilize at least a reasonably similar physical structure. So I would expect at least some level of similarity in frontal impacts. Meanwhile, having only one opening on each side vs two might even be structurally advantageous in a side impact. Even if a small handfull of deaths can be attributed to equivalent collisions where the G35 was survivable but the Z was not, I think it should be pretty obvious where the vast majority of otherwise unaccounted for difference in "safety" ranking between the two cars likely comes from. But for most other cars on the road, I would argue that their ranking in that report is not so easily attributed to any singularly dominant factor.

Driven5 wrote:

Klayfish wrote: Nope....

...As you proceed to then reiterate the same point(s) I was making. About the only thing you seem to possibly be trying to disagree with, is my belief that regardless of how safe (unsafe) a vehicle at the top (bottom) of that might actually be, or how well deserved of a reputation it has for being so, the list itself cannot be used to infer anything about the safety of a specific vehicle or class of vehicles directly due to the inherent limitations of the method of measurement. Otherwise that would mean not only is the Chevy Astro the safest vehicle on the road, but also that the G35 is a protective cocoon while the very closely related 350Z is a complete death trap...Which is obviously not actually the case.

I can see argue both sides of the discussion because I believe they're both valid. I agree there are variables that account for some anomalies, such as the Astro or the G35/350Z twins. But what I was disagreeing with you is I believe there are clearly patterns you can't dismiss due to variables. Look at the list again.

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

On the low end, pull the 2 agreed anomaly cars out. The other 14 cars on that list are either German, Toyota or Honda.

On the high end, again pull out the 350Z. 12 of the remaining 15 are either American brand or Mitsubishi (I'm counting the B Series since it's a Ranger), with 2 more being Kia. The Cavalier and Sunfire are twins, as are the Ranger and B Series.

So what I'm saying is I while I fully agree there are many factors that I don't think variables account for that, I would argue that's strictly design.

This is simifying things but in some (many?) cases sheer mass does win out all things being equal (or sometimes not so equal).

Much of the serious injuries that occur in the human body comes from extreme changes in speed ie: head stops, brain smashes into front of skull. Or the torso stops or even reverses direction quickly while the heart, lungs, liver and spleen smash forward into broken bones or tear from inertia.

I assume that if a 1975 LTD hit a stationary object such as a parked car or small tree or even a building, the sheer mass would cause these obstacles merely to slow it down while a much smaller, lighter vehicle may well come to a very sudden stop when coming in contact with said obstacles.

Airbags come in handy here which I guess takes the place of sheer mass/pure strength in most cases allowing the body's sudden stop to not be so sudden.

By the way, does it seem that the newest P71 you can buy are pretty good safety features in and of themselves? I've YouTubed and read lots of police crash scenarios including a cop friend of mine who got rear ended HARD and made out ok where it looks like they should've been killed.

ebonyandivory wrote: This is simifying things but in some (many?) cases sheer mass does win out all things being equal (or sometimes not so equal). I assume that if a 1975 LTD hit a stationary object such as a parked car or small tree or even a building, the sheer mass would cause these obstacles merely to slow it down while a much smaller, lighter vehicle may well come to a very sudden stop when coming in contact with said obstacles. Airbags come in handy here which I guess takes the place of sheer mass/pure strength in most cases allowing the body's sudden stop to not be so sudden.

Yes, unfortunately it is simplifying things a bit too much. That '75 LTD has no crash structure built into it. It wasn't designed to take a hit and protect its' occupants. Along with the front end, the passenger compartment also collapses and passes the impact energy to the cars' occupant. Google the IIHS video of a '59 Impala vs. '09 Malibu and you get the picture. Newer cars have crush zones designed to collapse and absorb the impact, but that stops before the cabin. The cabin is designed to be more rigid and protect the occupants. You're right that a car with a smaller front end will have less impact space before the cabin. So in those cases, the airbags and seatbelt have to do more of the work.

In reply to Klayfish:

Agreed. I guess that I'm picturing me at 6'-3" and 260 lbs vs my son at 4'-8" and 75 lbs running headlong into a picket fence. I'm gonna plow through it while my son comes to a very abrupt stop and actually reverses direction as be bounces off it.

Then picture us running top speed into each other. My forward movement would be merely slowed down a bit while his would not only STOP but he would instantly reverse direction with the resulting trauma.

Maybe this isn't a great comparison but I think there are some analogies to be drawn from this scenario.

Is bigger better?

All the marketing sells increased length as more desirable but in my experience a bit of extra girth will give her the ride she is looking for.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

Is bigger better?

All the marketing sells increased length as more desirable but in my experience a bit of extra girth will give her the ride she is looking for.

Living up to your screen name I see!

Klayfish wrote:

ebonyandivory wrote: This is simifying things but in some (many?) cases sheer mass does win out all things being equal (or sometimes not so equal). I assume that if a 1975 LTD hit a stationary object such as a parked car or small tree or even a building, the sheer mass would cause these obstacles merely to slow it down while a much smaller, lighter vehicle may well come to a very sudden stop when coming in contact with said obstacles. Airbags come in handy here which I guess takes the place of sheer mass/pure strength in most cases allowing the body's sudden stop to not be so sudden.

Yes, unfortunately it is simplifying things a bit too much. That '75 LTD has no crash structure built into it. It wasn't designed to take a hit and protect its' occupants. Along with the front end, the passenger compartment also collapses and passes the impact energy to the cars' occupant. Google the IIHS video of a '59 Impala vs. '09 Malibu and you get the picture. Newer cars have crush zones designed to collapse and absorb the impact, but that stops before the cabin. The cabin is designed to be more rigid and protect the occupants. You're right that a car with a smaller front end will have less impact space before the cabin. So in those cases, the airbags and seatbelt have to do more of the work.

Actually by the 70s most cars had some degree of thought put into impacts. There is a huge amount of difference in the structure of a 50s car vs a 70s equivalent. The 59 Impala has a frame shaped like an X, the only thing protecting it in a offset collison is the decorative sheet metal body work, they more or less took every precaution in that video to make it look as bad as possible.

By the 70s everything was perimeter framed or unibody, both of which put a big structural member around the perimeter of the passenger compartment, collapsible steering columns were mandatory, as were shoulder belts. Dashboards were no longer made of steel, engine mounts deigned to send the engine under the car rather than through it, etc.

By the late 70s things were pretty reasonable https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFtmeIxxElw

Even small cars had gotten to be survivable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMQP0xus1Kk

Cars didn't just magically become safe in 1990.

I am simply comparing two similar-sized SUVs from the SAME company, which have pretty much the same safety features otherwise (airbags, TCS, ABS, etc). I can defend it by the fact that they rate equally in the deaths table and they rate equally in NHTSA testing. I'm defending it by the actual data, you're just defending your argument with generalizations about unibody technology which "in general" are accurate but there are always exceptions (as, perhaps, in my case in point).

If your point was that narrow i wouldnt have disagreed with it. There are exceptions to every rule. But you were making the opposite point, that you felt the 4runner was safer than other vehicles on the list primarily because it was body-on-frame.

I attribute this to two factors: 1. it's a body-on-frame SUV, not unibody. Big strong steel frame has to be worth something in a collision from most any direction.

That's making a general, broad point about body-on-frame.

I WAS trying to make a more general point, and i think it still holds.