SAC 441 wrote:
> With a very few exceptions,I consider BMW's Saab's and Volvo's to be the
> most unstylish vehicles I have ever seen.They are nothing but boxes on
> wheels in my opinion,a LOT worse style wise than any Honda product.To
> each his own I guess.
>
i can appreciate the subtlety of the BMW and volvo styling, and the way
they (at least used to) have a common "theme". chris bangle is doing all
he can to uglify the BMWs, tho.

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <c30pg1554i5j19v8au8c5b04p6vlodfuv4@4ax.com>,
> noydb <noydb@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>But Volvos are looking good lately. They've got some beauties in the
>>pipeline. They're gonna go after the sports sedan market hard.
>
>
> With Ford chassis.
>
> Wheeee.
>
but they HIDE it well. most people dont know some jags are reformulated
fords. yet, theyve been able to bring prices down and now anyone can buy
a jag. is that good, or bad?

 

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-27DC91.16184224082005@nntp2.usenetserver.com...
> In article <c30pg1554i5j19v8au8c5b04p6vlodfuv4@4ax.com>,
> noydb <noydb@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > But Volvos are looking good lately. They've got some beauties in the
> > pipeline. They're gonna go after the sports sedan market hard.
>
> With Ford chassis.
>
> Wheeee.
>
These days, any manufacture can make a strong chassis, but the hard part is
also making it light and crash worthy, without blowing the budget... I don't
know about Ford/Mazda chassis, but they're on the right track with their
suspension design. The double wishbone up front is probably going to keep
them in the game.

Back on topic.. If the 05 Civic could be the most grotesque car on the
road, but if it can get 1022Km from a tank of gas (50L), then it'll still
get my thumbs up.

Pars

 

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 20:39:28 GMT, Bozo <spam@spamme.com> wrote:


>Have a look at the next EU civic (not available in US) at
>http://www.honda.co.uk/
>
>Good lookin eh ???

Thanks for the link !
Damn ! that's nice.
They really got the interior right.
I gotta believe something like that would sell like hotcakes over
here. I just don't understand their decisions.

Just poking around looking at all the details on that site made my
mouth water.
Did you notice that it will have a hybrid option ?
It will be a serious hybrid offering improved performance over the
standard model. (similar to our Accord V-6 hybrid)
There will also be a diesel option.
With the diesel, it will do 0-60 in less than 9 sec.,
AND it will get 55mpg.
Why can't we get cars like that ?
(just a rhetorical question...I know the answer)

I am reminded of a car that is available for sale in Britain.
A car made by GM. (yes, THAT GM...)
How's this:
0-60 4.7 sec. (wow)
top speed 151 mph
33mpg (wow again)
$40,000.
Of course, not available in the US...
They're too busy selling us SUV's...
The car is the Vauxhall VX220 turbo.
(not suitable for Americans...)

We should start complaining.

Cheers, --N

 

> Saab also took a step back with their new designs.
> But Volvos are looking good lately. They've got some beauties in the
> pipeline. They're gonna go after the sports sedan market hard.
> Honda still has some great stuff...it's just that a lot of it is in
> Europe and not available in America.
> In my previous post, I was referring specifically to marques that
> aren't available in the US. Peugot has some smoking models all across
> their range. And the Alfas...Damn, you should see one in person.
> Europeans have really embraced the hot hatchback category.
> I really wish we had more of a selection here in the US.
>
> Cheers, --N

European car makers would import them if there were a market for their
automobiles here. Both the Honda 2 door hatchback and the Mazda 4 door (or 5
door, if you prefer) hatchback are non-starters. The Civic SI is the deal of
the century (leather Momo wheel, electric sunroof, Alcantara recaro-like
seats, decent sound system, alloys, and a nice 2l iVTEC engine) and the
dealers can't give them away at $17,000. Car's got cooties. Now, if they
could make a Honda just like an F350 dually 4x4 with a Cat T6 Turbodiesel
and extra heavy armor-plating (just in case) THAT would be a big seller :) A
very sensible ride for that commuter with a 120 mile round trip. I wish we
weren't so ignorant.....

 

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:
>
> In article <c30pg1554i5j19v8au8c5b04p6vlodfuv4@4ax.com>,
> noydb <noydb@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > But Volvos are looking good lately. They've got some beauties in the
> > pipeline. They're gonna go after the sports sedan market hard.
>
> With Ford chassis.
>
> Wheeee.

Volvo. The safest car for the world's worst drivers.



--


On May 01, 2003, President Bush declared that,
"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

--------

"I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain --
I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the
interesting thing about being the president.
Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they
say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody
an explanation. "
- George "Dubya" Bush

 

slim wrote:
>
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:
>
>>In article <c30pg1554i5j19v8au8c5b04p6vlodfuv4@4ax.com>,
>> noydb <noydb@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But Volvos are looking good lately. They've got some beauties in the
>>>pipeline. They're gonna go after the sports sedan market hard.
>>
>>With Ford chassis.
>>
>>Wheeee.
>
>
> Volvo. The safest car for the world's worst drivers.
>

you ever been to a junk yard to look at the wrecks? volvo are nothing
special. "safety" is just their marketing schtik.

 

jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in news:2-
2dnZ2dnZ20k2DenZ2dneDqk96dnZ2dRVn-z52dnZ0@speakeasy.net:

> slim wrote:
>>
>> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>
>>>In article <c30pg1554i5j19v8au8c5b04p6vlodfuv4@4ax.com>,
>>> noydb <noydb@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>But Volvos are looking good lately. They've got some beauties in the
>>>>pipeline. They're gonna go after the sports sedan market hard.
>>>
>>>With Ford chassis.
>>>
>>>Wheeee.
>>
>>
>> Volvo. The safest car for the world's worst drivers.
>>
>
> you ever been to a junk yard to look at the wrecks? volvo are nothing
> special. "safety" is just their marketing schtik.
>
>


"Safety" is right between your ears. Everything else is window dressing.
That includes seat belts.

--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

In article <Xns96BDE1E05EBC5tegger@207.14.113.17>, "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> writes:
> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in news:2-
> 2dnZ2dnZ20k2DenZ2dneDqk96dnZ2dRVn-z52dnZ0@speakeasy.net:
> >
> > you ever been to a junk yard to look at the wrecks?

Yes, and I used to work in a tow shop. Some models withstand a lot
more than others, and Volvo as a brand tends to have such models.

> > volvo are nothing special. "safety" is just their marketing schtik.

More structural strength around the passenger compartment is more
structural strength. In many situations, it won't do you a bit of
good, true; but in side impacts, for example, it's damn nice to
have. And Volvos do have more structural strength than the average
vehicle.

As far as personal injury goes, what matters is the work done on
some tissue relative to the rest of the body. (When the entire
body is accelerated uniformly, there's no injury, obviously.) An
accident may involve so much acceleration that the safety restraints
cause a fatal degree of tissue compression and hydrostatic shock;
in that case, structural strength of the cabin doesn't help and may
even hinder survival (since the cabin absorbs less of the energy).
However, many accident injuries are the result of penetrations into
the cabin encountering tissue, and either fatally compressing or
dividing it; in those cases, structural strength does reduce chance
of serious injury.

Contemporary Volvos built on the same platform as some Ford and
Mazda models have significantly higher curb weight because of the
additional steel in their cabin cages.

> "Safety" is right between your ears. Everything else is window dressing.
> That includes seat belts.

Bah. While I'll grant that driver behavior is the most important
component of driving safety,[1] I've been in more than one collision
where my car was legally positioned and stopped in traffic, and some
jackass ran into it. I've seen a *lot* of such accidents. As far
as I'm concerned, the safety equipment in my car is there to protect
me from events I can't anticipate - and as long as I drive, there
will be some.

I've towed a car which had been proceeding properly down the road
when a vehicle coming the other way swerved into their lane
immediately in front of them. No room for avoidance; no time to
stop, and it wouldn't help anyway since the oncoming vehicle wasn't
under control. If the passengers in that car hadn't been wearing
seatbelts, their chances of survival would have been very small.

Obviously, safety features are secondary, and certainly for me
they're not the deciding factor in choosing a brand or model; while I
like my Volvo, I enjoyed my Hondas more, and I like their efficiency
and practicality. But safety differences do exist among models and
it's not unreasonable to make that a criterion when selecting a
vehicle.


1. Other than avoiding being in or near moving vehicles in the
first place, of course.

--
Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@microfocus.com

Every allegiance to some community eventually involves such a fetish,
which functions as the disavowal of its founding crime: is not 'America'
the fetish of an infinitely open space enabling every individual to
pursue happiness in his or her own way? -- Slavoj Zizek

 

jim beam wrote:

> slim wrote:
>
>>
>> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>
>>> In article <c30pg1554i5j19v8au8c5b04p6vlodfuv4@4ax.com>,
>>> noydb <noydb@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But Volvos are looking good lately. They've got some beauties in the
>>>> pipeline. They're gonna go after the sports sedan market hard.
>>>
>>> With Ford chassis.
>>>
>>> Wheeee.
>>
>> Volvo. The safest car for the world's worst drivers.
>
> you ever been to a junk yard to look at the wrecks? volvo are nothing
> special. "safety" is just their marketing schtik.

How can you tell from looking at wrecks?

 

In article <denccm01vk7@news4.newsguy.com>,
mwojcik@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik) wrote:

> > > volvo are nothing special. "safety" is just their marketing schtik.
>
> More structural strength around the passenger compartment is more
> structural strength.

Right. And I'll put any Volvo up against the 99-up Honda Odyssey.

Schtick.

 

Sparky Spartacus wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> slim wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <c30pg1554i5j19v8au8c5b04p6vlodfuv4@4ax.com>,
>>>> noydb <noydb@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But Volvos are looking good lately. They've got some beauties in the
>>>>> pipeline. They're gonna go after the sports sedan market hard.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With Ford chassis.
>>>>
>>>> Wheeee.
>>>
>>>
>>> Volvo. The safest car for the world's worst drivers.
>>
>>
>> you ever been to a junk yard to look at the wrecks? volvo are nothing
>> special. "safety" is just their marketing schtik.
>
>
> How can you tell from looking at wrecks?

you can see what happens to the structure on various types of impact.
ones where the passenger compartment caves are the one /not/ to have a
crash in. you see all kinds of educational things in junk yards.

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <denccm01vk7@news4.newsguy.com>,
> mwojcik@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik) wrote:
>
>
>>>>volvo are nothing special. "safety" is just their marketing schtik.
>>
>>More structural strength around the passenger compartment is more
>>structural strength.
>
>
> Right. And I'll put any Volvo up against the 99-up Honda Odyssey.
>
> Schtick.
>
some cars are definitely different in design philosophy. bottom line,
the strong passenger cell is important, and energy absorption of the
outer "soft zones" is important too. but how "soft" is safe? the
contention is that a lot of vehicles are designed so that the "soft
zone" structural deformation ocurrs at a lower than necessary treshold
and in locations that cause more structural damage than necessary
because it means more cars get written off after relatively minor
low-speed impacts. for instance, it's common to see frames deform in a
zone that is just behind the engine/steering gear, making repair next to
impossible. if the low-energy zones were /before/ the engine
compartment, repair could more easily be undertaken. the actual yield
point necessary to protect occupants is the key issue. the old 5mph
bumper laws were fine from a safety standpoint, but lobbying from
detroit soon, er, made it clear that 5mph bumpers were just not business
friendly enough for them - once it became clear that they significantly
reduced the write-off rate and thus new vehicle sales figures. funny
how that is.

it's like rollover rates for suv's. the nhtsa debates rollover safety
rules, but finds itself powerless to implement them as it fears it would
rule whole classes of current vehicles unsafe. and that would never do.
even the issue about about making roof columns more able to withstand
rollover without collapse is being avoided. certainly less financial
impact for detroit, but consumer safety??? funny how that is.

 

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:00:48 -0700, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
wrote:


>some cars are definitely different in design philosophy. bottom line,
>the strong passenger cell is important, and energy absorption of the
>outer "soft zones" is important too.

Very important indeed.
Check out this link:

>http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/Cra...operVsFordF150

Which passenger cell would you rather be in ?

The F-150 (on the right) is essentially the same vehicle as the Ford
Excursion. The people who buy them think they are safe...

BMW obviously did their homework with the mini.
I'm glad Honda also places a great deal of importance on a strong
passenger cell as well.
It's important stuff.


Cheers, --N