TMonter said:
Problem is that the smaller cars have trouble meeting minimum crash standards in the US. They can do it, but it's not cheap nor easy on most subcompacts with such a light weight.
Yea- that is the joke. "Minimum" is a relative word, isn't it ? I am not so worried about a crash at 40 mph cuz if you get into a crash with a tree or a truck- you are going to get hurt- maybe a little, maybe a lot. But, with these new cars- if you run hit something at 5 mph- it is going to cost THOUSANDS $$$. I know, I know- they are suppost to 'fold', yea- thats a nice 'feature'. I just don't want to have a multi-thousand dollar car get all messed up from a 'minor' bender.
Here I go talking crazy again....
Since we have done away with mass transit- expecilly in the ruael areas, how about everyone having a small, dependable, inexpensive and fuel efficent car ( or el camino type wagon) that is completly standardized- so that the parts of one would fit on any one, (KIS) ??? And, you can paint yours any wild color scheme you want- so your's would look different from anyone elses. Make it the law that in 5 years- they would be the only kind of cars allowed on interstates, but 'classic' cars would still be allowed on all other roads for 10 more years. That would fix the 'high speed crash/ mis-match' problem.
I still with you JAG- my roads are C**P too. Pot holes ( more like open-pit mining !), rocks, gravel, tree limbs and some places they even call 'paved' (HA !). I have to get an alighment twice a year...if I am careful- and I am. So what ever they come up with has to be tough- and I don't care so much if it is 'pretty'.
For the record- my car is a 2004 Subaru Forester, 100K miles- I have to have AWD, cuz eight friday nights in a row this past winter- I had to drive home 35 miles at 11 pm in a snowstorm ! AWD, Dependabily and Grippy Tires are a must here.
Come- on Detroit: Call- I will help you build "A Car, That You Can Believe In !" (TM & Copyrighted, 2008 by R.L.Taylor)