Sluggish seeming petrol cars

Lum

Airbags, seatbelts and the like are "secondary safety", to mitigate the effect of a crash

I'm much more interested in "primary safety" which is where you avoid having a crash in the first place. This is why the current trend of filling the A pillars with airbags annoys me so much. The pillars are now so big you can hide a transit van* behind them while approaching a T junction, so if you don't do a blind spot check around either side of both pillars you can end up pulling out into the side of someone. Then you need those airbags.

Also LOL at "more airbags than Baywatch"

* or several motorbikes >.<

BillScarab

Lum wrote: »

Airbags, seatbelts and the like are "secondary safety", to mitigate the effect of a crash

I'm much more interested in "primary safety" which is where you avoid having a crash in the first place. This is why the current trend of filling the A pillars with airbags annoys me so much. The pillars are now so big you can hide a transit van* behind them while approaching a T junction, so if you don't do a blind spot check around either side of both pillars you can end up pulling out into the side of someone. Then you need those airbags.

Also LOL at "more airbags than Baywatch"

* or several motorbikes >.<

It's not just because they're stuffed with airbags, they're bigger to provide more roll over protection. It's amazing when you look at the difference in the thickness of the pillars on a modern car compared to cars from the 70s/80s.

Modern cars may be stronger but the windows are so small now in comparison to older cars that the blind spots are much worse. As you say it's easy to lose a transit let alone a motorcyle, pushbike or pedestrian.

bigjl

I may get cained for this but the previous generation Astra, 1999 to 2004 roughly, was a nippy car, we had the 1.8 Astra Auto as a response car, they went like stink for what they were, even good on fuel. From memory they were about 8.2 to 60 in the manual and about 9.0 to 60 in the Auto, a lot of my work colleagues have these or did have them as personal transport over the years.

I would have one any day in the estate version they may not be beautiful to look at, but they are very underated, also safe in a crash, as a few where, erm, involved in crashes in London, we had several reshelled after big thumps, and I don't know of any serious injuries sustained in them.

The Elegance spec that we had also came with driver and passenger airbags, airbags in the A pillar, and I am sure it had airbags in the front seats aswell.

Not sure what the ncap rating was, but as said above we had no serious injuries, though the Met Police had the 1.7 DTi and they had a few injuries over the years, but theirs where lower spec so maybe came with less airbags.

Billy-no-Money

Can't really offer anything constructive other than to say I hired a 1.6 Focus a few months ago and found it one of the most unpleasant experiences I've had in years. Handling was great, and it cruised quietly, but it was terrifyingly sluggish and the brakes were heavy and lacked feel (drum brakes at the rear - I didn't know they were still used). Couple that with mpg that never got above the mid-30s and it seemed a bit pointless.

I haven't bought a car for years and all the old yardsticks I used to use seem to have gone out of the window - a 2-litre used to mean a seriously quick car, and a 1.6 would do the job fine. Not anymore. No wonder I out-accelerate most cars from the traffic lights on my pushbike (OK, up to about 15mph, but it's good while it lasts).

Dave_Z

The problem is the weight of cars keeps increasing but the engines haven't been getting more powerful (relatively). I traded up my first car (a 1993 1.1 Fiesta) for a then-new 2003 1.4TDCi Fiesta and there was little noticeable difference in speed. I dread to think how much my Volvo V50 T5 weighs with its 200+ airbags and various acronym-strewn safety systems, but having 230 turbo-charged horses under the bonnet certainly helps it on it's way. I had the same car with a 1.8 petrol before and that really struggled.

I love the American attitude to performance. They aren't interested in anything that takes over 10 seconds to 60. We rented a Ford Expedition 4x4, which weighs almost 3 tonnes, but it cracks 0-60 in 8.1 seconds. Driving something that huge which takes off so quick is scary, lol. Naturally, it doesn't go far between fill-ups though.

Gloomendoom

Dave_Z wrote: »

I dread to think how much my Volvo V50 T5 weighs with its 200+ airbags and various acronym-strewn safety systems

Just think how much extra it would weigh if they didn't use the acronyms. :eek:

forgotmyname

Buy a 1.6 petrol focus, Throw away the stereo & fit a cheap FM radio, Remove the aircon and all the electric motors in the seats,
heater etc. Strip out all the airbags.

After a while i reckon you should be able to get it below the weight of your old car and it will now be faster.

optimus_primera

I often wonder why manufacturers don't make a basic 'base' model.
No aircon no electric seats and windows, basic fm stereo etc etc ..... less to go wrong as well, i know they couldn't do much to the engines due to emmissions regulations these days.

My dad would probably buy one ......

Gloomendoom

optimus_primera wrote: »

I often wonder why manufacturers don't make a basic 'base' model.
No aircon no electric seats and windows, basic fm stereo etc etc ..... less to go wrong as well, i know they couldn't do much to the engines due to emmissions regulations these days.

My dad would probably buy one ......

Porsche does.... and then charges extra for it.

bigjl

Whats the one James May talks about? Ah, yes the Dacia Sandero or something like that.

There is something strangely satisfying about hammering a basic no frills car about, I used to like the late model Renault 5, and a lot of Fiats have that, revvy engine, chuckability that is strangely pleasant.