What car should I buy?

[zippyt]

My step daughter SWEARS by Altimas ,
her first was an ex rental car ,
she drove the HELL out of that thing (300,000+ miles ) ,
I NEVER had to come rescue her .

Plus Toyotas have TINY steering wheels ,

Just my 2 cents

[orthodoc]

I have had nothing but the best experience with Toyotas. Bought a Tercel in 1986, back when it came with optional 4-wheel drive - drove it into the ground 15 years later with more than 200,000 miles on it. We similarly drove a Corolla into the ground over 15+ years, and currently own a basic level Camry that will not give up, and a 2005 4Runner that is my 'baby' - it's in Colorado now but will come back east in 2014 with 170,000 miles on it, still going strong. I love and recommend Toyotas. They are reliable, dependable, honest cars.

[Big Sarge]

Lola - buy yourself a bright red convertible and let the wind blow through your head

[Griff]

Yeah, a Volkswagen Beetle convertible. Knock'em dead!

[Lola Bunny]

Originally Posted by Griff

Yeah, a Volkswagen Beetle convertible. Knock'em dead!

If I have money and don't give a shit about anyone else, I'd buy a mini Cooper. :-D. I share the car with sister, and I have to consider driving my mom and my nephew. And sometimes when I go anywhere with my nephew and his parents, we take my car because they bought a 2 door car. Why? Cuz we have a sedan. :-/

[Lola Bunny]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

Lola - buy yourself a bright red convertible and let the wind blow through your head

If I have oodles and oodles of money! I'll get a bright red convertible and let the wind blow through my hair as I drive to see you. ;-)

[Undertoad]

I enjoy how you chose the 60s (!) marketing (!) term "positrack" which was used to market only GM (!) vehicles with RWD (!).

Mona Lisa Vito: The car that made these two, equal-length tire marks had positraction. You can't make those marks without positraction, which was not available on the '64 Buick Skylark!

Vinny Gambini: And why not? What is positraction?

Mona Lisa Vito: It's a limited slip differential which distributes power equally to both the right and left tires. The '64 Skylark had a regular differential, which, anyone who's been stuck in the mud in Alabama knows, you step on the gas, one tire spins, the other tire does nothing.

[the jury members nod, with murmurs of "yes," "that's right," etc]

Vinny Gambini: Is that it?

Mona Lisa Vito: No, there's more! You see? When the left tire mark goes up on the curb and the right tire mark stays flat and even? Well, the '64 Skylark had a solid rear axle, so when the left tire would go up on the curb, the right tire would tilt out and ride along its edge. But that didn't happen here. The tire mark stayed flat and even. This car had an independent rear suspension. Now, in the '60's, there were only two other cars made in America that had positraction, and independent rear suspension, and enough power to make these marks. One was the Corvette, which could never be confused with the Buick Skylark. The other had the same body length, height, width, weight, wheel base, and wheel track as the '64 Skylark, and that was the 1963 Pontiac Tempest.

A classic scene which tells us about the benefits of "posi-track" in the 1960s.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

A classic scene which tells us about the benefits of "posi-track" in the 1960s.

So that a car does not crash, all wheels must rotate independent of each other. Positrack and other systems used in all-wheel drives must keep wheels from rotating separately. Otherwise one wheel will spin and no other wheel will move the vehicle. Positrack (as noted earlier was just another word for how it is still done.

Four wheel drive gets you going. That same system then makes a vehicles less stable and less safe at higher speeds. Jeeps are particularly barbaric - less safe. Just one of many reasons why all-wheel drive vehicles roll over or spin off roads at higher speeds. And why they eat tires faster.

Many just know all-wheel drive is safer because feelings say so. Same advertising myths ignore another fact. Cars with anti-lock brakes also crash more often. Why do numbers contradict popularly held beliefs? Most of us even believed a lie about Saddam's WMDs - because only spin said it must be so.

A safety feature that should be standard in an Altima or Camry is speed sensitive steering. Far more important than all-wheel drive or anti-lock brakes. Just another reason why those vehicles are rated batter. But rarely known to many only informed by advertising.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by tw

Same advertising myths ignore another fact. Cars with anti-lock brakes also crash more often. Why do numbers contradict popularly held beliefs?

So I went to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

ABS not reducing crashes was an early finding during the lifetime of ABS. Studies in 1995-96 showed no differences in crash numbers. and yet ABS dramatically improves your ability to stop. How could that be?

Leonard Evans, a researcher with General Motors, reported that antilock-equipped cars were less likely to rear-end other vehicles but more likely to have other vehicles rear-end them.

Makes sense right? You've just improved your car's stopping power by a large margin. So now you don't hit the car in front of you, but the vehicle behind you, which doesn't have ABS, rear-ends YOU. The improvement resulted in the crash.

Also, in the first decade of ABS, half the people didn't know how to use it:

A 1994 Institute survey of drivers with antilock-equipped cars found that more than 50 percent in North Carolina and 40 percent in Wisconsin incorrectly thought they should pump the brakes.

So... what happened when ABS became more broadly available? Especially since today it's required on all cars? A 2009 study on the long-term effect of ABS says...

A more recent federal report concluded that ABS reduces overall crash involvement risk by 6 percent for cars and 8 percent for pickups and SUVs but has no effect on fatal crash risk.

So, ABS improves your chances of not hitting things when you're at non-fatal speeds. Well sure. Under slippery conditions, drivers tend to be below fatal speeds, whereas if you're going 80, fatality is in the reaction time hitting your brakes at all.

Bottom line: once numbers are provided, another tw canon falls.

[xoxoxoBruce]

ABS does NOT allow you stop faster. ABS allows you brake as hard as possible, while retaining the ability to control(steer) the vehicle around shit.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

ABS does NOT allow you stop faster. ABS allows you brake as hard as possible, while retaining the ability to control(steer) the vehicle around shit.

Why do cars with ABS brakes have higher crash rates? And why did GM promote them as a solution to stopping on ice? Spinning myths (and the resulting spinning car) is easy when a majority of consumers are educated by hearsay and advertising. Most people only believe the first thing they are told. Then get angry rather than learn when ABS realities are reported.

Both ABS and all-wheel drive were promoted as safer. If true, then someone said why. Nobody did for one simple reason. Only recited was an impression promoted by hearsay and advertising.

All-wheel drive cannot work properly if wheels are not designed to fight each other. That interlocking means four wheel drive gets one moving. Accurately reported is to not use all-wheel drive above 50 because all-wheel drive means the wheels fight. 50 MPH severely decreases safety. All-wheel drive also decreases safety at 30. Just not as much since at 50, since higher speed means these vehicles often roll over. A result of interlocked and fighting wheels.

Lola Bunny asked about safer and more reliable cars. Speed sensitive steering makes them even safer. Since that means a driver knows about black ice and other dangerous conditions unknown to SUV drivers.

[orthodoc]

The others have already provided the numbers, so I'll throw in a little experience ... my 2005 4Runner was one of the last SUVs to have true 4WD. You have to shift over to it manually at low speed. You can then shift to a lower differential if needed. Not only does 4WD get you going, it gives you immeasurably better traction and control in snow and mud of various depths. It's not meant to be used above 50-55 mph and the owner's manual is emphatic about this. Of course - if conditions warrant 4WD, you shouldn't be traveling that fast. But if you have to navigate country roads and steep hills in a severe snowstorm (Canadian or American), you'll do it at relatively low speed, far more safely in 4WD than in 2WD or all-wheel drive. 4WD is good for much more than just getting going. My $0.02.

[Clodfobble]

I love that movie.

[zippyt]

Get a Cooper Lola !!!

[monster]

Originally Posted by zippyt

Get a Cooper Lola !!!

No don't. It was my friend's dream car and it's gone already. uncomfortable