Reply to Best car for new driver

Forum Index » Cars and Transportation

Reply to "Best car for new driver"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Used Volvo XC90 or xc60 with high miles. You can say whatever you want about the tech features involved in prevention—-but don’t kid yourself, kids drive like kids.  but perhaps the most important aspect is a cage that when an accident  does occur, will protect the occupants.   Honda Toyota Subaru are great for one accident, but bc they all have heavy crush zones, they don’t do as well on the 2nd or third accident.   The old xc90 and xc60 have steel cages and doors, which need to be replaced with the same material—so are better for multiple accidents.  I’m not an engineer so google the gist of what I’m saying and do your own research as my explanation isn’t that great via an iPhone. Good luck. [/quote]

[quote=Anonymous]Subaru or Volvo.  I don't necessarily agree with all the details in the other Volvo post (why are you driving a car after multiple crumple zone accidents?) but I agree that what you want is a solid cage designed to protect the occupant even if the car is totaled.  Subaru and Volvo both have those, even in very old models with no other safety bells and whistles.  Toyota does not have the same crash test record although I agree they are reliable cars overall.

I grew up driving a 1984 Volvo sedan that got frighteningly loud and shaky above 55 mph, which is its own kind of safety feature.  But I guess I wouldn't recommend a 1984 car these days.[/quote]

I agree with the volvo theory, and can expand on what the first poster mentioned---I think.....---most cars these days have 'crumple zones' where the car will get crushed to absorb the impact and not put force on the cage of the driver.  In Japanese cars, the cruple zones are very broad and soft, meaning one can be at a stoplight, just start to accelerate, and just 'bump' someone in front of them and the entire front end crumples and now needs to be straightened out, which means that it was good for one accident.  Imagine if the car doing the hitting was a Toyota that crumpled, and it hit the back of a volvo that has a more rigid bumper--the bumper in the volvo would absorb  most of the force, not affecting the 'crumple zone' and the volvo would now, once the bumper was replaced, be good for multiple accidents.  Cars are now designed to be disposable, so the manufacturers want the car to crumple---volvo is the only company I know of that still has slightly more rigid bumpers and then crumple zones.  Even audi and bmw and land rover can now be crushed easily, especially with the advent of aluminum that is good for one crumple and then needs to be replaced--but it's weight saving.  The good aspect of volvos is that they are heavy, have a steel unibody construction, and their mission even to this day is safety.  Not reliability, or low cost of ownership--which is its one bag of worms, but for new drivers, my thought is the safety aspect.  If not that, then weight---so a 10-15 year old suburban wins the weight aspect of an accident.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics