At 2,800 lbs. how is the CRZ the spiritual successor to the CRX?

Discussion in 'General Motoring' started by Steve Pankow, Aug 30, 2009.

  1. Steve Pankow

    Steve Pankow Guest

    I'm a little surpised to read just how heavy this thing's going to be.
    Everyone in the automotive press makes comparisons to the beloved Si
    model, but have they completely forgotten the HF? Save for the
    discountinued Insight coupe it's still one of the highest MPG vehicles
    out there, hybrid or not.

    I don't see how Honda couldn't make a high MPG CRZ option with either a
    low horsepower gas engine or perhaps one of their Euro spec diesels.
    They seem so focused on providing IMA hybrids that they overlook other
    efficiency options like cutting weight and installing detuned engines.

    Opponents to this idea cite high 0-60 times and a boring driving
    experience. Those same arguments existed back in the days of the CRX,
    yet it didn't deter Honda from offering high efficiency models. What
    has changed?
     
    Steve Pankow, Aug 30, 2009
    #1
  2. Steve Pankow

    jim beam Guest

    "crash testing".

    apparently, "someone" has convinced our wise, straight and financially
    independent leaders that the 20% of accidents that have a side impact
    component, and which by definition are pretty much impossible to provide
    significant protection for since there is almost no bodywork to deform
    between the foreign object and the vehicle occupant, are worth investing
    600+lbs of extra metal in, and thus require car manufacturers to build
    accordingly.

    of course, the oilcos, which never display any interest in anything like
    increasing vehicle weights thereby increasing fuel consumption, have
    never been known to show up in d.c. with truckloads of cash in unmarked
    envelopes.

    and oilcos have never displayed any interest in daytime running lights
    either - you know those things that cause idiots not to use their real
    lights at night, and which consume ~100W per vehicle at all times. [big
    picture, imagine ~100W x 100M vehicles at ~~30% conversion efficiency.
    that's a shitload of gasoline.]

    oh, and while we're talking "safety", let's quietly overlook the fact
    that heavier vehicles are harder to brake, so with the same tire
    traction, you are thus more likely to get into an accident because you
    can't corner as hard or brake as quickly/take longer to stop.

    bottom line - if our wise, straight and financially independent leaders
    were really interested in vehicle safety, they'd mandate tubular crash
    cages like race cars, 5-point seat belts like race cars, and helmets
    like race cars. race car drivers walk away from 100+ mph accidents all
    the time, and their cars weigh what?
     
    jim beam, Aug 30, 2009
    #2
  3. Steve Pankow

    Dillon Pyron Guest

    I've seen a couple of nasty side impacts. Most of these involve folks
    running red lights at pretty high speeds. One was a 'Burb vs a Lexus.
    Lexus smacks 'Burb. 'Burb loses (surprisec?). 'Burb was legally
    crossing the intersection when Lexus hit it doing (according to DPS)
    70. 'Burb driver's side pax in serious shape. Lexus driver did not
    need medical attention. She did get a ride in a black van provided by
    the county. So much for 1) side protection 2) big vehicles protecting
    pax better 3) improved front protection. Smack anything hard enough
    and everybody gets hurt.
    There are a few cars that, thank goodness, only light up the "parking"
    lights. A few. But that's still something on the order of 25W per
    side. Meanwhile we're being asked to replace our 60W bulbs at home
    with CFLs that use 15W (we've got some LEDs that burn 7W and seem to
    have better light).
    Let's not overlook that fact that bigger vehicles transfer more energy
    in a colliision. So even if you're in a 'Burb, if a 'Burb rearends
    you, you're still going to hurt. But when my CRX got rearended by a
    Corolla, we got out and looked at the damage.
    Yup. I can testify to that. Six point harness (many years ago when
    Simpson first developed and introduced the 6 pt, they ran an ad "only
    women and boys wear 5 pt.."), helmet, HANS, FIA firesuit, arm
    restraints, Nomex undies, gloves & boots. etc. I've backed a car into
    a wall at about 130 (suddenly running into rain on the back of the
    course with slicks on), gone airborn at ?? (wheel to wheel). If we
    want safe cars, we need to start with a clean piece of paper. As it
    is, all we're doing is taking the current cars and stuffing stuff into
    them. Ten pounds here, fifteen pounds there and suddenly your 2800
    pound car is a 3200 pound car.

    --

    - dillon I am not invalid

    "Iran wants nukes? North Korea wants nukes?
    I'm sure we can give them some. Or the Navy."

    - former B52 wing commander
     
    Dillon Pyron, Sep 1, 2009
    #3

  4. And yet the improvement of the nut behind the wheel never enters any of
    the safety related discussions...

    JT
     
    Grumpy AuContraire, Sep 4, 2009
    #4
  5. Steve Pankow

    jim beam Guest

    unfortunately, that one's proven impossible to fix. as you will
    doubtless witness every day on our freeways.
     
    jim beam, Sep 4, 2009
    #5
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.