Quite a while ago, a bunch of engineering students at San Diego State got a 280Z to get about 120 mpg.

 

It is enevitatble what is going to happen to the truck market. I'll just drive older trucks at that point and daily a eco box. I would love to have a supercharged ute or small f100 type truck tho. The Ute's might be the way to better fuel economy for people who don't NEED a truck. That said, I don't like many cars or suvs. I'm a truck guy.

 

Where is this research you talk about? Cars have gotten safer (as shown by lower per-mile deaths) with the inclusion of more safety equipment. The video was to show that newer cars are lighter AND safer, something that your original post said wasn't possible. My point was that technological advancements can make lighter cars safer. It's a fact that cannot be denied. Just because a vehicle is heavier does not mean it is safer.

Now, show me how you can have two identical vehicles with one weighing less. The fact that one weighs less means they aren't identical.

Now, take a Super Duty and crash it head-on into a Focus, and yes, the SD driver is going to be safer due to weight. But to say a lighter vehicle in a couple years is going to be less safe than the same vehicle today is wrong. Now, crash that Focus in a concrete wall at the same speed you crash that SD into the same wall (which is the same as crashing head-on into a vehicle of the exact same size at the same speed as the vehicle is traveling), and my bets would be on the Focus being safer due to its more advanced crash structure and attention to safety than the SD.

Weight advantage of the vehicle only matters in collisions with other vehicles.

Don't forget that lowering weight can make a vehicle safer by making it easier to handle, less top-heavy, less prone to rollover, etc.

Weight != safety.

We are in agreement there!

 

HOW CAFE INCREASES RISKS TO MOTORISTS
The evidence is overwhelming that CAFE standards result in more highway deaths. A 1999 USA TODAY analysis of crash data and estimates from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that, in the years since CAFE standards were mandated under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, about 46,000 people have died in crashes that they would have survived if they had been traveling in bigger, heavier cars.5 This translates into 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon gained by the standards.6

While CAFE standards do not mandate that manufacturers make small cars, they have had a significant effect on the designs manufacturers adopt--generally, the weights of passenger vehicles have been falling. Producing smaller, lightweight vehicles that can perform satisfactorily using low-power, fuel-efficient engines is the most affordable way for automakers to meet the CAFE standards.

More than 25 years ago, research established that drivers of larger, heavier cars have lower risks in crashes than do drivers of smaller, lighter cars.7 A 2000 study by Leonard Evans, now the president of the Science Serving Society in Michigan, found that adding a passenger to one of two identical cars involved in a two-car frontal crash reduces the driver fatality risk by 7.5 percent.8 If the cars differ in mass by more than a passenger's weight, adding a passenger to the lighter car will reduce total risk.

The Evans findings reinforce a 1989 study by economists Robert Crandall of the Brookings Institution and John Graham of the Harvard School of Public Health, who found that the weight of the average American automobile has been reduced 23 percent since 1974, much of this reduction a result of CAFE regulations.10 Crandall and Graham stated that "the negative relationship between weight and occupant fatality risk is one of the most secure findings in the safety literature."11

Harvard University's John Graham reiterated the safety risks of weight reduction in correspondence with then-U.S. Senator John Ashcroft (R-MO) in June 2000. Graham was responding to a May 2000 letter distributed to Members of the House from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) and the Center for Auto Safety.12 Graham sought to correct its misleading statements, such as its discussion of weight reduction as a compliance strategy without reference to the safety risks associated with the use of lighter steel. For example, an SUV may be more likely to roll over if it is constructed with lighter materials, and drivers of vehicles that crash into guardrails are generally safer when their vehicle contains more mass rather than less. Further, according to Graham, government studies have found that making small cars heavier has seven times the safety benefit than making light trucks lighter.

The evidence clearly shows that smaller cars have significant disadvantages in crashes. They have less space to absorb crash forces. The less the car absorbs, the more the people inside the vehicle must absorb. Consequently, the weight and size reductions resulting from the CAFE standards are linked with the 46,000 deaths through 1998 mentioned above, as well as thousands of injuries. It is time that policymakers stop defending the failed CAFE program and start valuing human lives by repealing the standards.

from Why the Government's CAFE Standards for Fuel Efficiency Should Be Repealed, not Increased:
http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...ld-be-repealed

 

The laws of physics are stubbornly impervious to Obama’s green slogans, no matter how abrasively he shouts them. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety concluded in 2007 that “None of the 15 vehicles with the lowest driver death rates is a small model. In contrast, 11 of the 16 vehicles with the highest death rates are mini or small models.”

“Fuel-standard lethality is as obvious as a smashed windshield,” J. R. Dunn observed in The American Thinker. He chillingly has detailed the mayhem that CAFE standards have unleashed:


According to the Brookings Institution, a 500-lb weight reduction of the average car increased annual highway fatalities by 2,200-3,900 and serious injuries by 11,000 to 19,500 per year. USA Today found that 7,700 deaths occurred for every mile per gallon gained in fuel economy standards. Smaller cars accounted for up to 12,144 deaths in 1997, 37% of all vehicle fatalities for that year.

How many deaths have resulted? Depending on which study you choose, the total ranges from 41,600 to 124,800. To that figure we can add between 352,000 and 624,000 people suffering serious injuries, including being crippled for life. In the past thirty years, fuel standards have become one of the major causes of death and misery in the United States — and one almost completely attributable to human stupidity and shortsightedness.

Focus briefly on the tears and tombstones behind these casualty figures. Most of these injuries involved major pain and hardship. Nearly each one of these CAFE-caused deaths featured crying loved ones, a casket, and someone inside it who probably made people smile just days earlier.

The only good news here is that road deaths have fallen lately, but for other reasons.

“I personally do not like the CAFE laws, due to their aroma of social engineering,” says Dr. Soumi Eachempati, Chief of Trauma Services at Manhattan’s Weill Cornell Medical Center. “I feel the recent decreases in fatality data are due to many safety measures including better airbags, more states having seat belt laws, higher seat belt compliance, more strict drunk driving laws, better trauma care, better EMS, more traffic congestion in certain areas, and what some feel are safer road conditions.”

But rather than leave bad enough alone, Obama and company clamp down, ever harder. Strengthening CAFE standards by 53.5 percent by 2025 likely will yield deadlier cars. Airbags will do only so much while surrounded by materials that recall aluminum siding.

Before Washington sends additional Americans to early graves, Team Obama should step off the gas pedal and ponder the physicist who wrote Traffic Safety. Dr. Leonard Evans was perfectly clear: “CAFE kills, and higher CAFE standards kill even more.”

from CAFE Standards Kill:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-deroy-murdock

 

In Chapter 8, On Enviro-statism, Mark Levin begins with a long history of DDT and how this highly effective mosquito repellent could save thousands of lives if not for irrational statist fears. He describes how government regulation such as CAFE standards for cars have resulted in more Americans deaths in car accidents than soldiers have died in wars.
Levin's ‘Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto’

http://books.google.com/books?id=xGQ...ndards&f=false

 

A number of studies have documented the lethal consequences of requiring carmakers to improve fuel standards.

* According to a 2003 NHTSA study, when a vehicle is reduced by 100 pounds the estimated fatality rate increases as much as 5.63 percent for light cars weighing less than 2,950 pounds, 4.70 percent for heavier cars weighing over 2,950 pounds and 3.06 percent for light trucks. Between model years 1996 and 1999, these rates translated into additional traffic fatalities of 13,608 for light cars, 10,884 for heavier cars and 14,705 for light trucks.12

* A 2001 National Academy of Sciences panel found that constraining automobile manufacturers to produce smaller, lighter vehicles in the 1970s and early 1980s "probably resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993."13

* An extensive 1999 USA Today analysis of crash data found that since CAFE went into effect in 1978, 46,000 people died in crashes they otherwise would have survived, had they been in bigger, heavier vehicles. This, according to a 1999 USA Today analysis of crash data since 1975, roughly figures to be 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon gained in fuel economy standards.14

* The USA Today report also said smaller cars - such as the Chevrolet Cavalier or Dodge Neon - accounted for 12,144 fatalities or 37 percent of vehicle deaths in 1997, though such cars comprised only 18 percent of all vehicles.15

* A 1989 Harvard-Brookings study estimated CAFE "to be responsible for 2,200-3,900 excess occupant fatalities over ten years of a given [car] model years' use." Moreover, the researchers estimated between 11,000 and 19,500 occupants would suffer serious but nonfatal crash injuries as a result of CAFE.16

* The same Harvard-Brookings study found CAFE had resulted in a 500-pound weight reduction of the average car. As a result, occupants were put at a 14 to 27 percent greater risk of traffic death.17

* Passengers in small cars die at a much higher rate when involved in traffic accidents with large cars. Traffic safety expert Dr. Leonard Evans estimates that drivers in lighter cars may be 12 times as likely to be killed in a crash when the other vehicle is twice as heavy as the lighter car.18


Useful Quotes

In addition to the above studies, the following quotes provide a quick reference point of safety experts' results and statements on the consequences of CAFE regulations as they relate to vehicle safety.

* "The negative relationship between weight and occupant fatality risk is one of the most secure findings in the safety literature."
-Dr. Robert W. Crandall, Brookings Institution, and John D. Graham, Ph.D., Harvard School of Public Health19

* "Why Does CAFE kill? It does so because it constrains the production of larger cars and, in most modes of collision, larger, heavier cars are more protective of their occupants than are small cars."
-Sam Kazman, Competitive Enterprise Institute20

* "[I]n terms of just the total number of lives, when I purchase a larger car, there is a reduction of risk. I'm safer, and so is society overall... We can conclude, beyond any reasonable doubt, that when weight is reduced, as it must be under CAFE, we will increase casualties."
-Dr. Leonard Evans, physicist, author of Traffic Safety and president of Science Serving Society21

* "During the past 18 years, the office of Technology Assessment of the United States Congress, the National Safety Council, the Brookings Institution, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the General Motors Research Laboratories and the National Academy of Sciences all agreed that reductions in the size and weight of passenger cars pose a safety threat." [/B]
-[B]National Highway Traffic Safety Administration22

* "If you want to solve the safety puzzle, get rid of small cars."
-Brian O'Neill, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety23

* "CAFE is a solution in search of a problem."
-Dr. Robert W. Crandall, Brookings Institution24

* "The evidence is overwhelming that CAFE standards result in more highway deaths."
-Charli E. Coon, J.D., Heritage Foundation25

* "The conclusion is that CAFE has caused, and is causing, increased deaths.... CAFE kills, and higher CAFE standards will kill even more."
-Dr. Leonard Evans, physicist, author of Traffic Safety and President of Science Serving Society26

from CAFE Standards Kill: Congress' Regulatory Solution to Foreign Oil Dependence Comes at a Steep Price:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA546CAFEStandards.html

 

I read most of that, and you know what it sounds like to me? Sounds like someone using numbers to support their argument when there is no direct link between the statistics and the conclusion drawn. Correlation is not the same as causation. This is propaganda for the sheeple!

Not to mention, light weight does not equal small! Just because a vehicle is lighter doesn't mean it has less space inside. The article mentions less space, but really, that has nothing to do with making a vehicle lighter using aluminum!

Riddle me this...if all vehicles decreased weight by 10%, wouldn't the statistics stay the same since in relation to other vehicles, all vehicles would then weigh the same as before?

 

You are aware that vehicles crash into things besides other vehicles of the same vintage, right?

 

I say take away the cars and put people on bicycles. America could use some exercise.

 

Ford denies it???

Mitt denies he didn't pay taxes for 10 years, too.

Only time will tell for both issues, so hurry up and wait.

Carry on..........smartly.

 

They do? No, I never realized that.

Go back and watch the video I posted.

Point is, as time goes on, and all vehicles lose weight, and older vehicles leave the road, shouldn't the relative safety (with regards to weight) of a vehicle remain the same as it is today?

Ahhh, now is that time when you realize your smart-*** comment backfired...

 

Seen the video many times before.

Of course saftey technology improves over time. If 'relative safety' remains the same over time, something is wrong. Cars SHOULD keep getting safer.

I will gladly acknowledge that, just as you should be willing to concede that there are accidents where heavier vehicles are safer than lighter vehicles, other factors besides weight being similar.

IMO, the manufacturers will continue to improve safety and mileage, as they know it helps them sell cars. Forcing them to comply with unrealistic fuel economy goals accomplishes two things:

1) Reduces consumer choice
2) Adds to vehicle cost

IMO, it also reduces the 'relative safety' that a vehcile at a similar price point would have if the manufacturer and consumer were not paying the burden of CAFE. But apparently that point is arguable with you.

My bottom line is that the negatives for CAFE outweigh the positives.

 

anybody notice the guys that are requiring this BS are being driven in armored limos? just saying.....

 

By relative safety, I mean safety relative to other vehicles of the same vintage. You know, 2020 F150 vs. 2020 Focus should be similar to 2012 F150 vs. 2012 Focus, based on weight.

So, let's say we have two 2012 F150's. One is a SuperCrew, loaded to the max with the 6.2L. The other is a regular cab with few amenities and the 3.7L V6. I will agree that the SuperCrew should be safer because it weighs more (neglecting the fact that the SuperCrew has more structure to fold around the occupants and absorb the crash energy).

For sake of argument, let's say you have a 2012 F150 vs. 2015 F150. The '15 weighs 700 lbs less, but they have the exact same safety cage and safety structure, but somewhere the 700 lbs was removed. In theory, yes, the '12 should be safer since it weighs more. But, not knowing how that weight is distributed, it's extremely difficult to even guess which would be safer in a similar accident. There is a lot more going on that just weight. It has to do with how it is distributed. Maybe the frame is built to crumple better, and while there may be a great chance of frame damage in the '15, the actual chance of being severely injured may be less.

That is the point I am trying to make. Just because it weighs less, doesn't make it less safe. Sure, when you have huge differences with say a Focus vs. Super Duty, it's obvious the weight will be a huge factor. But, when you have a 2012 F150 weighing 6000 lbs and and a 2015 F150 weighing 5300 lbs, you can't tell me that the 2012 is going to be safer, just because it weighs 700 lbs more.

Race cars in Indy or NASCAR races are very safe, but their weights don't even begin to compare to that of an F150. (just to show that it isn't the weight, it's the structure built with the weight used)

I'm not saying I agree with CAFE at all. IMO, there are much better ways to reduce the cost and usage of gasoline than requiring manufacturers to meet such high (unattainable???) standards. We agree there! I don't agree that it reduces consumer choice though. We would have the option of a twin-turbo EcoBoost if it weren't for CAFE? Would the Explorer have a 2.0 EB as an option? What about the Edge? We currently have more engine choices than we have in years. Chances are, it would have happened anyway, but I think it would have taken longer to see the options to increase fuel economy.

Again, don't shoot me because I am agreeing with CAFE standards, because I am not!