Tweet
Interesting thread. Now I understand why the USA cannot make the same commitments to the Kyoto protocol on global warming as most other countries. 
As for bigger being safer, think of the Voyager! With this argument, why not a Sherman tank? Now that was a real guzzler
Incidentally, the other day I gave a ride to a friend in my Honda CRV (2 litres). He reacted on getting in the car that it seemed bigger inside than his car (Nissan Patrol 3,5 litres diesel). So we measured it: it was 5 cm shorter from the back load area roof to floor and practically the same in payload width and length. It will seat 4 - 5 tall persons (I'm 1 m 83 and there is at least 10 cm headroom over my head, even when sitting tall). Being a petrol (gas) engine, mine is nippier, quieter and more comfortable for long drives (4 wheel independent suspension, rare for 4-WD vehicles, so much less unsprung weight). I get 9,3 - 10 l/100 km lead-free in winter (slightly more in summer because of the aircon): he gets about the same, as diesels are more efficient. However, he has one thing with his vehicle that I don't: double the chance of being carcinogenic! I know which I would rather drive for a full day, and it ain't his. Big ain't always beautiful.
Incidentally, ADAC (the national German automobile club) does safety tests on many cars, often with surprising results. Three makes that have recently come out with less than good results (I forget which models) were Volvo, Mercedes and BMW. I remember that the Toyota Camry came out well because I had one at that time. I don't remember seeing anything about 4-WD models and pickups but I think most of them are probably less good than saloon cars because the rigid chassis offers less of a "crumpling absorption zone" than smaller cars. Certainly, many vans have failed miserably on safety tests, the best being the Renault Espace and the worst the Voyager.
I therefore thing that gas-guzzling capacity and safety are two entirely independent parameters. OK, I would not like to drive a Citroen 2CV full speed into MACK truck going in the opposite direction.
I hope this will heat up the debate
------------------
Brian (the terrible)
As for bigger being safer, think of the Voyager! With this argument, why not a Sherman tank? Now that was a real guzzler Incidentally, the other day I gave a ride to a friend in my Honda CRV (2 litres). He reacted on getting in the car that it seemed bigger inside than his car (Nissan Patrol 3,5 litres diesel). So we measured it: it was 5 cm shorter from the back load area roof to floor and practically the same in payload width and length. It will seat 4 - 5 tall persons (I'm 1 m 83 and there is at least 10 cm headroom over my head, even when sitting tall). Being a petrol (gas) engine, mine is nippier, quieter and more comfortable for long drives (4 wheel independent suspension, rare for 4-WD vehicles, so much less unsprung weight). I get 9,3 - 10 l/100 km lead-free in winter (slightly more in summer because of the aircon): he gets about the same, as diesels are more efficient. However, he has one thing with his vehicle that I don't: double the chance of being carcinogenic! I know which I would rather drive for a full day, and it ain't his. Big ain't always beautiful.
Incidentally, ADAC (the national German automobile club) does safety tests on many cars, often with surprising results. Three makes that have recently come out with less than good results (I forget which models) were Volvo, Mercedes and BMW. I remember that the Toyota Camry came out well because I had one at that time. I don't remember seeing anything about 4-WD models and pickups but I think most of them are probably less good than saloon cars because the rigid chassis offers less of a "crumpling absorption zone" than smaller cars. Certainly, many vans have failed miserably on safety tests, the best being the Renault Espace and the worst the Voyager.
I therefore thing that gas-guzzling capacity and safety are two entirely independent parameters. OK, I would not like to drive a Citroen 2CV full speed into MACK truck going in the opposite direction.
I hope this will heat up the debate
------------------
Brian (the terrible)
Comment