The Cadillac Forums Lounge / Member IntroductionsOnly non-Cadillac discussion goes here. Cadillac discussions belong elsewhere. New members, please take a moment to introduce yourself.
There was a study done a couple years ago about purchasing factors, and safety was not at the top of the list. I was a little suprised at this. Have things changed? For example when I look at a car, they are SAFETY, COMFORT, and QUALITY. There may be others, like OPTIONS, PRICE, TECHNOLOGY, etc. What is important to you?? Just curious. Plus, I think that the so called "crumple zones" perform their purpose of absorbing impact in a collision, but are they really necessary? Cars seem to become easily totalled in a wreck nowadays, is this because of extra damage allowed by crumplezones? Could they be increasing insurance costs?
For me, I look for performance, then comfort, then quality. I think all vehicles are come a long way improving passive safety and handling, braking, and power to avoid accidents are important factors. I buy only GM and with this latest purchase I wanted a performance rwd 4-dr car. My choices were the CTS and, well, the CTS.
I think you are right regarding crumple zones contributing to more vehicles being totalled after accidents. A number of years ago I did some consulting with the vehicle safety units of GM, Ford, and Chrysler. The structures in front and behind the passenger compartment are designed to deform and absorb crash forces without deforming the structure of the passenger compartment. All this is heavily simulated on computers and vehicle crash tests (hopefully) only confirm the simulations. Accidents are costing more for vehicle repair / replacement, but more lives are saved.
I wonder what the financial impact of these safety improvements have been on the medical costs for insurance companies? To be rather cold about it, lack of safety equipment translated into more fatal accidents with less medical costs. Lots of safety equipment means more people survive with severe extremity injuries requiring extensive,long-term physical therapy.
For me, I look for performance, then comfort, then quality. I think all vehicles are come a long way improving passive safety and handling, braking, and power to avoid accidents are important factors. I buy only GM and with this latest purchase I wanted a performance rwd 4-dr car. My choices were the CTS and, well, the CTS.
I think you are right regarding crumple zones contributing to more vehicles being totalled after accidents. A number of years ago I did some consulting with the vehicle safety units of GM, Ford, and Chrysler. The structures in front and behind the passenger compartment are designed to deform and absorb crash forces without deforming the structure of the passenger compartment. All this is heavily simulated on computers and vehicle crash tests (hopefully) only confirm the simulations. Accidents are costing more for vehicle repair / replacement, but more lives are saved.
I wonder what the financial impact of these safety improvements have been on the medical costs for insurance companies? To be rather cold about it, lack of safety equipment translated into more fatal accidents with less medical costs. Lots of safety equipment means more people survive with severe extremity injuries requiring extensive,long-term physical therapy.
Interesting, plus the autobody shops must love it. Cars seem more disposable to me today.
1. Size, I'm not going to buy a small car. Ever. No thank you. Some safety comes with size - try running a 5200# 75 Deville into a Civic and see who comed out of it in better shape.
2. Styling, I'm not going to buy an ugly car that looks like an insect either.
3. Comfort, The Medium D needs to feel good.
4. Performance (doesn't really have to have great factory performance if it's easy enough for me to make it perform.)
So you can see why 70s Cadillacs are perfect for me, Huge dimensions, nice boxy styling, really comfortable, 500/472/425s standard.
Things I don't give a crap about:
1. Handling. There are about 3 curvy roads in the whole state. If I need to turn, it's usually at an intersection where I need to slow down anyway to make sure no one's going to hit me.
2. Gas Mileage. Well I care about this but I won't sacrifice any of my top 4 for it.
Crumple zones? I think they're a good idea, I'd rather not die.. although there's not much use for them in giant cars like I like, if I hit another car I'll live, if I hit a semi I'm screwed anyway.
1. Size, I'm not going to buy a small car. Ever. No thank you. Some safety comes with size - try running a 5200# 75 Deville into a Civic and see who comed out of it in better shape.
2. Styling, I'm not going to buy an ugly car that looks like an insect either.
3. Comfort, The Medium D needs to feel good.
4. Performance (doesn't really have to have great factory performance if it's easy enough for me to make it perform.)
So you can see why 70s Cadillacs are perfect for me, Huge dimensions, nice boxy styling, really comfortable, 500/472/425s standard.
Things I don't give a crap about:
1. Handling. There are about 3 curvy roads in the whole state. If I need to turn, it's usually at an intersection where I need to slow down anyway to make sure no one's going to hit me.
2. Gas Mileage. Well I care about this but I won't sacrifice any of my top 4 for it.
Crumple zones? I think they're a good idea, I'd rather not die.. although there's not much use for them in giant cars like I like, if I hit another car I'll live, if I hit a semi I'm screwed anyway.
I've heard on the news that they believe in a weight advantage if you are unfortunate enough to get into a car accident. The boxy styling seems to be making a comeback.
