Not an anti-truck-based-SUV tirade, but more informational

[Mazdaspeedgirl]

Here's an interesting article put together with information from a multitude of studies about truck-based SUVs:

http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html

Long read...

What I determine from this information is that we CX drivers possibly have a bit of benefit from both sides of the spectrum, being our cars handle well (active safety) but also provide a bit of sustenance in a wreck (passive safety). I like monocoque cars.

Thoughts?

 

[Mazdaspeedgirl]

Anyone? I see 22 of you fuggers have viewed the thread...

 

[koala]

I opened the thread earlier and then got sidetracked doing something else (thumb)

The part I found most interesting is their profit margins on Expeditions/Navigators back in the day.

When it comes down to safety, I prefer nimble, small cars with a load of safety features... I'd rather try to avoid an accident in the first place, and that's a hell of a lot easier to do in a Miata or S2000 than in an F-150 or a Hummer.

 

[Mazdaspeedgirl]

I opened the thread earlier and then got sidetracked doing something else (thumb)

The part I found most interesting is their profit margins on Expeditions/Navigators back in the day.

RIGHT!! And people couldn't get enough! Well, they say ignorance is bliss.

When it comes down to safety, I prefer nimble, small cars with a load of safety features... I'd rather try to avoid an accident in the first place, and that's a hell of a lot easier to do in a Miata or S2000 than in an F-150 or a Hummer.

Ditto. but it is easier to haul the kiddos in the CX than my MX-5
And an S2000 is much more difficult to put on that delicious edge on the autocross course. Superior to miata, yes, but not quite the driver's car. Also a bit more expensive (at least to my cheap ass).

 

[UpNorth]

Ok, that is one long article but it is really good. (I'll confess to some skimming.) The points discussed already are amazing, about the pricing and consumers' attraction to the vehicles despite the fact that they are far less safe than perceived. And I agree that with our CX-7 purchases, we have probably taken the best of both worlds.

I think one reason why the misconception about safety persists - that hummers & the like are safer - is that the safety ratings generally available compare like to like and don't give any indication of how the classes compare to each other. The chart provided in the article showing fatality rates for various vehicles was very telling.

I also appreciated the discussion of the differences between passive versus active safety features and what it says about us. I don't necessarily agree with all the author's statements about the psychological explanations for our love of cupholders and air bags, but I do think there is something to the notion that people are too quick to give up their role in keeping safer.

One thing I love about this car is how well it handles for 4000lbs. Here's to avoiding accidents or at least mitigating the damage. (I know some are unavoidable, but we can still try to avoid the rest.)

Thanks for posting the link & starting the thread. I think more folks will weigh in once they have time to catch up on their reading.

 

[koala]

RIGHT!! And people couldn't get enough! Well, they say ignorance is bliss.


Ditto. but it is easier to haul the kiddos in the CX than my MX-5
And an S2000 is much more difficult to put on that delicious edge on the autocross course. Superior to miata, yes, but not quite the driver's car. Also a bit more expensive (at least to my cheap ass).

Typically for most people the Miata is just easier to drive at it's limits (which makes sense as it's limits are lower)... not a lot of people can drive an S2000 at it's limits (and I wasn't one of them, but I didn't do a ton of auto-x [4 or 5 events and 1 evolution driving school).

I really like the new Miata... I've been meaning to go test drive one.

 

[koala]

We could all just drive F1 cars of course... look what happened to Kubica and he's fine, lol.

0-100-0 in under 7 seconds? That'll do...

 

[SuperStretch18]

One thing that jumped out at me was the trailblazer vs. boxter test and how a larger heavier vehicle could put in a greater likelihood to have an accident. You always hear about roll-overs and such, but not much is made about being able to prevent an accident in the first place. I will also note that the CX-7 goes from 60-0 in about 119 ft (according to motor trend truck of the year testing), RDX does it in about 134 ft; the boxter did it in 124 ft. Very interesting...

 

[Mazdaspeedgirl]

Ok, that is one long article but it is really good. (I'll confess to some skimming.) The points discussed already are amazing, about the pricing and consumers' attraction to the vehicles despite the fact that they are far less safe than perceived. And I agree that with our CX-7 purchases, we have probably taken the best of both worlds.

I think one reason why the misconception about safety persists - that hummers & the like are safer - is that the safety ratings generally available compare like to like and don't give any indication of how the classes compare to each other. The chart provided in the article showing fatality rates for various vehicles was very telling.

I also appreciated the discussion of the differences between passive versus active safety features and what it says about us. I don't necessarily agree with all the author's statements about the psychological explanations for our love of cupholders and air bags, but I do think there is something to the notion that people are too quick to give up their role in keeping safer.

One thing I love about this car is how well it handles for 4000lbs. Here's to avoiding accidents or at least mitigating the damage. (I know some are unavoidable, but we can still try to avoid the rest.)

Thanks for posting the link & starting the thread. I think more folks will weigh in once they have time to catch up on their reading.

I skimmed your post

We never even noticed the cupholders in the door or the rear seat until after we bought Evie. hahaha

 

[Mazdaspeedgirl]

Typically for most people the Miata is just easier to drive at it's limits (which makes sense as it's limits are lower)... not a lot of people can drive an S2000 at it's limits (and I wasn't one of them, but I didn't do a ton of auto-x [4 or 5 events and 1 evolution driving school).

I really like the new Miata... I've been meaning to go test drive one.

I like the new MX-5. It still has the driver's car quality yet seems more balanced than my 10AE (I say that specifically because we have owned 2 other MX-5s and my model MX-5 that I have now is a special edition with a lowered stance, Bilsteins, factory strut tower brace, LS rear diff, and ABS: top of the line for '99s). It could still use some lowering and 15" wheels.

The reason the miata is such the driver's car is that it has those certain characteristics: more body roll, softer springs, and less power than the S2K. It translates to a FEEL of impending loss of control when they car is only at about 80% of its capabilities. Hence when I take a passenger along for a ride on an autocross track they have a glossy eyed look when we are done. (rofl)

We could all just drive F1 cars of course... look what happened to Kubica and he's fine, lol.

0-100-0 in under 7 seconds? That'll do...

Oh yeah! and how about Enzos? Look what happened to Eddie Griffin and he is ok! (lol)

 

[Mazdaspeedgirl]

You always hear about roll-overs and such, but not much is made about being able to prevent an accident in the first place. I will also note that the CX-7 goes from 60-0 in about 119 ft (according to motor trend truck of the year testing), RDX does it in about 134 ft; the boxter did it in 124 ft. Very interesting...

Those are good numbers. I'd be interested in seeing some slalom numbers for a fair comparison instead of just linear braking power. I know the Boxter will be better in the slalom, but there's no way I am autocrossing my CX-7 to find out.

 

[SuperStretch18]

Those are good numbers. I'd be interested in seeing some slalom numbers for a fair comparison instead of just linear braking power. I know the Boxter will be better in the slalom, but there's no way I am autocrossing my CX-7 to find out.

Don't have the boxter stats, but here is the breakout of the CX-7 & RDX.

http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?t=123671776

Note, by no means am I suggesting that the 7 handles better than the Boxter. More than anything it probably was track conditions, driver response time, etc., but I thought it was worth mentioning. LOL, no I won't be AutoX in the CX-7 either, but it is nice to know that it will move when you tell it to!

 

[Mazdaspeedgirl]

http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?t=123671776 Note, by no means am I suggesting that the 7 handles better than the Boxter.

oh I know that's not what you meant.

LOL, no I won't be AutoX in the CX-7 either, but it is nice to know that it will move when you tell it to!

Yes! My tribute was a trusty little puddle jumper but she was downright dangerous when it came to merging with the relentless San Antonio traffic.

(usa)