Saw the new '07 Sebring Thursday

I can't understand why anyone would do that. Old-fashioned brakes,
old-fashioned and dangerous construction, probably no seat belts or air bag.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Joe Pfeiffer" > wrote in message
...
[....]
>
> My daily driver is a 1978 Chrysler Newport.
> --
> Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
> Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
> New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer

And no modern safety features (all cars, not just American).

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

> wrote in message
...
[...]
>
>
> I've owned older cars as well (like a 67 Dodge Dart). And quite
> honestly, they may still be running but the ones I've owned and the
> ones I've seen are, figuratively speaking, total crap.
>
> They handle like a boat, rattle like dump truck, drink gas like
> flushing a toilet and the fit and finish would make a blind man blush.
>
> And don't even get me started on the paint.
>
> No thanks, older American cars are like older Vettes. Great to look
> at, but you have no idea what's involved to keep them looking nice and
> on the road.
>

"Dori A Schmetterling" > writes:
> "Joe Pfeiffer" > wrote in message
> ...
> [....]
> >
> > My daily driver is a 1978 Chrysler Newport.

> I can't understand why anyone would do that. Old-fashioned brakes,
> old-fashioned and dangerous construction, probably no seat belts or
> air bag.

So, you're not terribly familiar with US cars, are you? Of the list
you suggest, only "no air bag" is accurate.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer

On 28 Oct 2006 15:41:09 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer >
graced this newsgroup with:

>
>"Dori A Schmetterling" > writes:
>> "Joe Pfeiffer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> [....]
>> >
>> > My daily driver is a 1978 Chrysler Newport.
>
>> I can't understand why anyone would do that. Old-fashioned brakes,
>> old-fashioned and dangerous construction, probably no seat belts or
>> air bag.
>
>So, you're not terribly familiar with US cars, are you? Of the list
>you suggest, only "no air bag" is accurate.


did the 78's have disk brakes? I thought they had drums?

> wrote in message
...
> On 28 Oct 2006 15:41:09 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer >
> graced this newsgroup with:
>
>>
>>"Dori A Schmetterling" > writes:
>>> "Joe Pfeiffer" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> [....]
>>> >
>>> > My daily driver is a 1978 Chrysler Newport.
>>
>>> I can't understand why anyone would do that. Old-fashioned brakes,
>>> old-fashioned and dangerous construction, probably no seat belts or
>>> air bag.
>>
>>So, you're not terribly familiar with US cars, are you? Of the list
>>you suggest, only "no air bag" is accurate.
>
>
> did the 78's have disk brakes? I thought they had drums?
>

Front disc brakes, rear drums.
--

Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 21:08:57 +0100, "Dori A Schmetterling"
> wrote:

>I can't understand why anyone would do that. Old-fashioned brakes,
>old-fashioned and dangerous construction, probably no seat belts or air bag. <snip>

Schmetterling has outed himself as someone who posts about things he
knows nothing about.

"Safety equipment" had progressively been mandated on US cars since
1966.

The '78 Newport has:

1.) Front disc brakes
2.) 6 passenger lap belts, front 2 passenger shoulder belts.
3.) Far beefier construction than the later M-body version that came
shortly thereafter. The Ms had one safety flaw that was serious: lack
of side impact protection. Earlier C-bodies didn't have a problem
with that.

writes:
>
> did the 78's have disk brakes? I thought they had drums?

Of course they had front disk/rear drum. I think 1969 was the last
year for drums -- it certainly was within a year or so of then.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer

So you're telling me that crumple zones and were so developed then as they
are now? Internal cabin design to minimise injury?

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Joe Pfeiffer" > wrote in message
...
[...]
>
> So, you're not terribly familiar with US cars, are you? Of the list
> you suggest, only "no air bag" is accurate.
> --
> Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
> Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
> New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer

"Dori A Schmetterling" > writes:
> "Joe Pfeiffer" > wrote in message
> ...
> [...]
> >
> > So, you're not terribly familiar with US cars, are you? Of the list
> > you suggest, only "no air bag" is accurate.

> So you're telling me that crumple zones and were so developed then as they
> are now? Internal cabin design to minimise injury?

There were huge improvements made in the 1960s, with only incremental
changes since then. By the early 1970s cars had side-impact beams,
collapsible steering columns, and, yes, designed-in crumple zones
along with active safety features like vastly improved brakes compared
to a decade earlier.. Is it *as* advanced as a modern car? No. The
modern car is able to get comparable levels of survivability with less
material. But the difference is probably less than the difference
between a modern small car and an SUV. To put it another way, my
crumple zone isn't as well designed as a Honda's, but I've got a *lot*
of crumple zone.

Going over to the NHTSA's crash test data site, I compared a 1979
Newport (that was the earliest I could find; the 1979 was a redesign
going to Chrysler's old mid-size platform, so it's a smaller car than
my 1978) against a 2006 Civic. The only directly comparable data was
head injury; for the Newport, head injury indexes in left and right
front seats were 897 and 106. They tested two Civics and only gave
information for left side front and rear for both. For one, left side
front head injury criterion was 237 and rear was 751; for the other,
the numbers were 356 and 355. So the Honda scores better, but they
are close enough to have substantial overlap -- my passenger is in
better shape than the Honda's driver.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/databas...o.aspx?LJC=181
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/databas...ryvehicle.aspx

Incidentally, results for a 1979 Honda Civic showed head injury
criteria of 2029 and 2095 for front left and right seats.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/databas...fo.aspx?LJC=94
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer

I accept your point about much of the progress having been made by the early
seventies, though I wonder if all the features actually helped (side-impact
beams are good only if designed correctly) but, anyway, the NHTSA's facts
speak for themselves.

It is interesting that you should take a Japanese car for comparison. When
I was following European crash test results in the nineties (usually
conducted by consortia of leading motoring organisations and trade mags or
newspapers) the Japanese cars performed poorly compared with European
models, and some European models performed markedly worse than others.
'American' cars (i.e. those made in the USA as opposed to made by
American-owned companies) were never tested because there were too few of
them being sold.

However, within a product line there would usually be improvements so that,
e.g. I would expect a Chysler of today (or of 5 years ago) to perform
significantly better than one of 20 years ago in safety and handling.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Joe Pfeiffer" > wrote in message
...
> "Dori A Schmetterling" > writes:
>> "Joe Pfeiffer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> [...]
>> >
>> > So, you're not terribly familiar with US cars, are you? Of the list
>> > you suggest, only "no air bag" is accurate.
>
>> So you're telling me that crumple zones and were so developed then as
>> they
>> are now? Internal cabin design to minimise injury?
>
> There were huge improvements made in the 1960s, with only incremental
> changes since then. By the early 1970s cars had side-impact beams,
> collapsible steering columns, and, yes, designed-in crumple zones
> along with active safety features like vastly improved brakes compared
> to a decade earlier.. Is it *as* advanced as a modern car? No. The
> modern car is able to get comparable levels of survivability with less
> material. But the difference is probably less than the difference
> between a modern small car and an SUV. To put it another way, my
> crumple zone isn't as well designed as a Honda's, but I've got a *lot*
> of crumple zone.
>
> Going over to the NHTSA's crash test data site, I compared a 1979
> Newport (that was the earliest I could find; the 1979 was a redesign
> going to Chrysler's old mid-size platform, so it's a smaller car than
> my 1978) against a 2006 Civic. The only directly comparable data was
> head injury; for the Newport, head injury indexes in left and right
> front seats were 897 and 106. They tested two Civics and only gave
> information for left side front and rear for both. For one, left side
> front head injury criterion was 237 and rear was 751; for the other,
> the numbers were 356 and 355. So the Honda scores better, but they
> are close enough to have substantial overlap -- my passenger is in
> better shape than the Honda's driver.
>
> http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/databas...o.aspx?LJC=181
> http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/databas...ryvehicle.aspx
>
> Incidentally, results for a 1979 Honda Civic showed head injury
> criteria of 2029 and 2095 for front left and right seats.
> http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/databas...fo.aspx?LJC=94
> --
> Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
> Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
> New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer