Crash Test Dummies Show Difference Between Cars In Mexico And U.S.

MarkVI said:
Food for thought for the anti-regulation crowd. Sometimes we need regulations to ensure basic safety standards.
Click to expand...

How? As stated, the options are there, and can be bought. They are comparing bottom priced car to bottom priced car in each market, they should have compared to a Mexican car of the same price as the US market car to get a better idea, as the Mexican car is 30% cheaper than the US car.

What is better, the new reliable "zero star" car, or people being to poor picking up a used beater that has tie rods about to give out and an engine that is lucky to start, and crash ratings probably worse than these zero star cars. All regulation does is limit choice, nothing more.

Ducman69 said:
Wrong, because you can get the exact same safe cars in those countries, as long as you *CHOOSE* to pay for it.

They have 0-star cars, but they also have plenty of 5-star cars, they simply have choices we don't.

You are arguing against consumer choice, because given the option, consumers are too stupid to choose to buy basic safety equipment.

Fact is, they aren't stupid, and they know the car isn't as safe, but its all some people can afford. The alternative for many such poor is to not buy that car, and instead to ride to work on a scooter or moped or commute sitting in the bed of an old pickup truck. How did the moped or passengers in the bed of a pickup truck fair in that crash test?
Click to expand...

Pretty much this.
 
BlueFireIce said:
How? As stated, the options are there, and can be bought. They are comparing bottom priced car to bottom priced car in each market, they should have compared to a Mexican car of the same price as the US market car to get a better idea, as the Mexican car is 30% cheaper than the US car.

What is better, the new reliable "zero star" car, or people being to poor picking up a used beater that has tie rods about to give out and an engine that is lucky to start, and crash ratings probably worse than these zero star cars. All regulation does is limit choice, nothing more.

Pretty much this.
Click to expand...

Well, There is public transport systems. Just because someone cannot afford a car does not mean they cannot afford to commute. Public transport can really change the situation.
 
auntjemima said:
Even with airbags, that Mexican car would have killed the occupant. Appeared to be zero crumple zones at all. I felt I was watching that video of a 2000's vs 1960's vehicle a while back.

The cabin folded on that guy and the windshield didn't even break on the other. Crazy.
Click to expand...

What do you mean the entire Mexican car looked like a crumple zone...

The cabin in the Mexican car get crumbled because of the metal used. The American made car may be made down in Mexico but it is usually AS600 for the frame while the Mexican car is likely not even S4. Crumble zones do not work the crash test reports show that, they usually drop the engine in the person lap as the whole frame fails. A correctly built frame is four sides with two cross braces lag bolted through the center. usually you see two sets of risers from ledging edge of the hood to the top of the dash board and two risers at the the door or just in from the door where it is safe to use a jack to life the car to change a tire... then the other side of the door back to the half way into the trunk and the rear of the rear windshield. Depends hatch back couples also can have an internal roll cage through the ceiling. I was talking to a guy who helps out with the fire department wondering how many cars roll a year and he said it it was either a hundred cars a year on the highways around here or a thousand, much more often than you think. I am pretty sure I could find some official report but in the usa the metal in the car is usually worth more than the parts once a mkg is no longer making parts for it. My car to build from factory parts would cost 11 grand for the engine alone, eight more for the transmission, alternator four hundred dollars... and so forth while the depreciated value is based on what ever confiscated car the cops took from some one and sold for less than pennies on the dollar at auction. It does not mater to the private auctions or the municipalities because no one thinks about the values of people cars dropping through the floor because the cops take people's stuff and don't pay for it selling it as cheaply as possible. Legally they are not even allowed to seize half of what they do but do you want a mugger walking down the street with a stolen handgun shooting people? But cars could be built to last far longer by looking at computer case design. A transmission is going to wear out over time and they cost more to repair than replace but that is mostly due to gearing needing to be tested and mostly replaced if broken but the metal is still good once reforged... so I think tesla is on the right track they just did not take it far enough.

Imagine going into a dealer with your car empty of everything you put in it. They unbolt the seats and dashboard. They then strip the internal furnishing down to bare metal and wire sockets. They check the frame and metal for corrosion. Then either buy the rolling body off you or upgrade the parts. You decide you want a new body you go into the dealership and they show you the lastest set designs by ford, chevy, covette, bmw, gmc, audi... (you could fill page with these) etc... and you chose a frame that is all wheel drive, fwd, or rwd. From there you chose the engines and transmissions that work with it or a set piece that is ready to go. Kinda like chosing trims but only not limited to this years model but what ever designs they still have on hand. This way you see what your car goes together like. You trust a mkg you only their factory stuff, but if your are not trying to target a certain price point and factory warranty you make sure you have enough to have a dealer certified daily driver, you want to do a buck ten you buy something rated for that. In Florida I have to put V rated tires on my car due to the torque the transmission puts to the wheel a normal tire can separate and blow potentially killing you even at slow speeds. I usually put z rated tires because touring tires that have not heated up are really weird to drive when they are not gripping... the point is you could buy a frame that is safe for accidentally crashes and have it certified by the dealer and it would shift them from selling new cars when people just need maintenance and selling new cars when people's frames are unsafe or people have money and want a different look. It would also allow for people to keep that thirty sixty a hundred or the rare cases million dollars invested into the parts that still work, and only replacing what does not work.

Good example of this a hurricane washes corrosion onto the undercarriage of car but the the layout the seats the speakers of the classic car is not replaceable... they have to have someone build a car from scratch and certify that then start swapping in their parts over time it order for it to look feel like the classic car, instead of unbolting the bad parts from the good ones, stripping the paint off everything rebolting everything and repainting it. You paint last to make sure any gaps are covered with enamel.
 
BlueFireIce said:
How? As stated, the options are there, and can be bought. They are comparing bottom priced car to bottom priced car in each market, they should have compared to a Mexican car of the same price as the US market car to get a better idea, as the Mexican car is 30% cheaper than the US car.

What is better, the new reliable "zero star" car, or people being to poor picking up a used beater that has tie rods about to give out and an engine that is lucky to start, and crash ratings probably worse than these zero star cars. All regulation does is limit choice, nothing more.



Pretty much this.
Click to expand...

I knew some of you would respond this way. Not all regulations are good, but not all regulations are bad. As a thought experiment, let's pretend that the government regulates nothing. What will you do when e.coli makes its way into the food supply? Who will track the quality of drinking water? What will we do when acid rain returns? People tend to make decisions that are in their short term interests, like skimping on health care, buying an unsafe car, etc. Humans are terrible at making the kinds of sacrifices we're discussing without being prodded into it. Most of us would rather have cash in our pocket than anti-lock breaks...until the day we need them.

Can regulations limit choice? Sure. Not all choices should be on the table. Sometimes your bad choices effect others. If I were to get sick from eating hypothetical less expensive but unregulated meat I might need to use the ER for healthcare and it would cost the taxpaying public quite a bit of money, especially if I have an unregulated insurance plan that doesn't cover much. If I drive in an unsafe car I might not be able to stop in time and I could cause an accident. What if I hit black ice on the road and since I don't have traction control I skid into a pedestrian? My likely incarceration probably would be of little solace to the victim. If only the person making a bad decision had to bear the consequences your argument would make more sense.

We should weigh the costs and benefits of each regulation before judging it. I, for one, appreciate that when I go shopping for a car that I can trust that it has basic safety equipment and that I don't have to even worry that it might not. I'm glad the FCC is enforcing net neutrality and that I don't have to worry about Verizon deciding what I can and cannot access on the internet and at what speed. I'm glad that the EPA protects our drinking water and that what happened in Flint is a tragedy and not a common occurrence. I'm glad that the FDA forces the drug companies to prove the efficacy of medications before bringing them to market. It does slow things down and add cost, but the alternative is pretty frightening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rat
like this
drakken said:
What do you mean the entire Mexican car looked like a crumple zone...

The cabin in the Mexican car get crumbled because of the metal used. The American made car may be made down in Mexico but it is usually AS600 for the frame while the Mexican car is likely not even S4. Crumble zones do not work the crash test reports show that, they usually drop the engine in the person lap as the whole frame fails. A correctly built frame is four sides with two cross braces lag bolted through the center. usually you see two sets of risers from ledging edge of the hood to the top of the dash board and two risers at the the door or just in from the door where it is safe to use a jack to life the car to change a tire... then the other side of the door back to the half way into the trunk and the rear of the rear windshield. Depends hatch back couples also can have an internal roll cage through the ceiling. I was talking to a guy who helps out with the fire department wondering how many cars roll a year and he said it it was either a hundred cars a year on the highways around here or a thousand, much more often than you think. I am pretty sure I could find some official report but in the usa the metal in the car is usually worth more than the parts once a mkg is no longer making parts for it. My car to build from factory parts would cost 11 grand for the engine alone, eight more for the transmission, alternator four hundred dollars... and so forth while the depreciated value is based on what ever confiscated car the cops took from some one and sold for less than pennies on the dollar at auction. It does not mater to the private auctions or the municipalities because no one thinks about the values of people cars dropping through the floor because the cops take people's stuff and don't pay for it selling it as cheaply as possible. Legally they are not even allowed to seize half of what they do but do you want a mugger walking down the street with a stolen handgun shooting people? But cars could be built to last far longer by looking at computer case design. A transmission is going to wear out over time and they cost more to repair than replace but that is mostly due to gearing needing to be tested and mostly replaced if broken but the metal is still good once reforged... so I think tesla is on the right track they just did not take it far enough.

Imagine going into a dealer with your car empty of everything you put in it. They unbolt the seats and dashboard. They then strip the internal furnishing down to bare metal and wire sockets. They check the frame and metal for corrosion. Then either buy the rolling body off you or upgrade the parts. You decide you want a new body you go into the dealership and they show you the lastest set designs by ford, chevy, covette, bmw, gmc, audi... (you could fill page with these) etc... and you chose a frame that is all wheel drive, fwd, or rwd. From there you chose the engines and transmissions that work with it or a set piece that is ready to go. Kinda like chosing trims but only not limited to this years model but what ever designs they still have on hand. This way you see what your car goes together like. You trust a mkg you only their factory stuff, but if your are not trying to target a certain price point and factory warranty you make sure you have enough to have a dealer certified daily driver, you want to do a buck ten you buy something rated for that. In Florida I have to put V rated tires on my car due to the torque the transmission puts to the wheel a normal tire can separate and blow potentially killing you even at slow speeds. I usually put z rated tires because touring tires that have not heated up are really weird to drive when they are not gripping... the point is you could buy a frame that is safe for accidentally crashes and have it certified by the dealer and it would shift them from selling new cars when people just need maintenance and selling new cars when people's frames are unsafe or people have money and want a different look. It would also allow for people to keep that thirty sixty a hundred or the rare cases million dollars invested into the parts that still work, and only replacing what does not work.

Good example of this a hurricane washes corrosion onto the undercarriage of car but the the layout the seats the speakers of the classic car is not replaceable... they have to have someone build a car from scratch and certify that then start swapping in their parts over time it order for it to look feel like the classic car, instead of unbolting the bad parts from the good ones, stripping the paint off everything rebolting everything and repainting it. You paint last to make sure any gaps are covered with enamel.
Click to expand...

Good god, are you going to be alright?
 
SPARTAN VI said:
Interesting that it's only an option considering it's usually good business to keep your buyers alive for repeat business: customer wrecks car, survives, and buys another. A dead customer 100% will not return business.. hah
Click to expand...
The premium buyers will buy cars more often, but the budget buyers will just drive their cars into the ground before buying another.
 
I'm all for free market, so forcing companies to make safer cars is not exactly a free market principal. However, when it comes to seat belts my thoughts are different. It has been shown statistically that seat belts help the driver control the vehicle better during an accedident than those not wearing them. That protects the other drivers who pay taxes to keep these public roads open, therefor seat belt laws are reasonable. If a safety option protects other drivers or people, than they should be mandatory, but if they cannot show that, then the owner should be able to choose whether to buy the options or not.
 
MarkVI said:
Food for thought for the anti-regulation crowd. Sometimes we need regulations to ensure basic safety standards.
Click to expand...

But also take in to consideration, what the price difference is.

As some other posted noted, in lower income countries, a car with safety features/any features puts it beyond the price range of anyone being able to buy it. And I would be willing to bet that many models like that are almost being sold at no profit to the car makers.
 
BlueFireIce said:
How? As stated, the options are there, and can be bought. They are comparing bottom priced car to bottom priced car in each market, they should have compared to a Mexican car of the same price as the US market car to get a better idea, as the Mexican car is 30% cheaper than the US car.

What is better, the new reliable "zero star" car, or people being to poor picking up a used beater that has tie rods about to give out and an engine that is lucky to start, and crash ratings probably worse than these zero star cars. All regulation does is limit choice, nothing more.
Pretty much this.
Click to expand...

That a very erm narrow "letme just look at this simple thing and ignore the rest" view...


The fun part is that countries that has stronger regulations from government and/or unions, to protect the people, are doing far superior in almost any metrics compared to the statets.
Does it have a prices. yes it does. but the gains are huge:

Less poverty. which kinda removes the needs from said cheap cards.
less energy usage
less pollution
less workhours per week
more paid vacations
more GNP produce per workhour
More donations to outside countries
higher levels of education
higher levels of happiness
less rapes
less murders
less school shootings
less drug use
less car theft
less cops kills
less cars accidents
etc


You are right that choices a good in generel, but sometimes regulations stuff actually GIVES the people more choices because it regulates how companies can remove our choices (monopolies).
The unregulated free marked only works until a certain size. Then companies don't try to compete anymore and just try to join together and monopolize to lock in your choices. That's when regulations needs to come in to make sure we get that competition we wanted from the free market.
I've never had less choices and had to deal with more unneded obsolete stuff since I moved to the states.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rat
like this
KazeoHin said:
Well, There is public transport systems. Just because someone cannot afford a car does not mean they cannot afford to commute. Public transport can really change the situation.
Click to expand...

Public transport is great if you live in a metro area and have access to them, however many people and jobs do not allow use of buses, either because of the need for travel independence or because of housing location. Local city buses are also far less safe than these cars as well, they carry as many as can fit, its very common to see people having to hang on the outside of the bus in rush hour. The reason? The people are to poor, nice safe buses exist, but people can't afford them, so they take "unsafe" crowed buses or they don't have a job and starve to death. If these buses were forced to the same standards in the US, prices would really climb and people would be then limited to jobs they could access on foot, even further limiting upward mobility. The best part about the unregulated bus system in Mexico is that you have the CHOICE to use these packed buses or the nice buses, they are even nicer and safer than the buses like grey hound in the US, most of these buses are also CHEAPER and only carry 24 passengers, they are luxury in comparison to US buses. But hey, lets praise regulation because without it, buses would not even exist. :banghead:

These kinds of regulations DO NOT protect these people, it's not the difference from having a safe car or unsafe car, its the difference of having a car at all and not. Again, the same here in America, many people buy poor condition older cars that are far less safe than these because they can't afford the higher priced "safe" new cars. Now, did that regulation protect them? No, they just ended up with an old less safe car because it is all they can afford. That or they ended up with no car at all.

MarkVI said:
I knew some of you would respond this way. Not all regulations are good, but not all regulations are bad. As a thought experiment, let's pretend that the government regulates nothing. What will you do when e.coli makes its way into the food supply? Who will track the quality of drinking water? What will we do when acid rain returns? People tend to make decisions that are in their short term interests, like skimping on health care, buying an unsafe car, etc. Humans are terrible at making the kinds of sacrifices we're discussing without being prodded into it. Most of us would rather have cash in our pocket than anti-lock breaks...until the day we need them.

Can regulations limit choice? Sure. Not all choices should be on the table. Sometimes your bad choices effect others. If I were to get sick from eating hypothetical less expensive but unregulated meat I might need to use the ER for healthcare and it would cost the taxpaying public quite a bit of money, especially if I have an unregulated insurance plan that doesn't cover much. If I drive in an unsafe car I might not be able to stop in time and I could cause an accident. What if I hit black ice on the road and since I don't have traction control I skid into a pedestrian? My likely incarceration probably would be of little solace to the victim. If only the person making a bad decision had to bear the consequences your argument would make more sense.

We should weigh the costs and benefits of each regulation before judging it. I, for one, appreciate that when I go shopping for a car that I can trust that it has basic safety equipment and that I don't have to even worry that it might not. I'm glad the FCC is enforcing net neutrality and that I don't have to worry about Verizon deciding what I can and cannot access on the internet and at what speed. I'm glad that the EPA protects our drinking water and that what happened in Flint is a tragedy and not a common occurrence. I'm glad that the FDA forces the drug companies to prove the efficacy of medications before bringing them to market. It does slow things down and add cost, but the alternative is pretty frightening.
Click to expand...

Who would they get safety information from if not the government? Oh, I don't know, maybe the Latin NCAP that performed this test and video? How about CESVI Mexico? Or the number of others? Or do you never research anything and just hope for daddy government to take care of you?

Why should not all choices be on the table? So you use government regulated and forced healthcare from taxes as a reason for more forced regulation in others? I don't get your logic here. And unregulated insurance plan that doesn't cover much? Ohhh, you mean then having no insurance plan that covers nothing, because the now regulated insurance plans that are required to cover items most people will never need and have sky rocketed in price so even more people are going without? Damn, that sounds like an AMAZING idea!

Unsafe car? You mean possibly any car made before 2012? As that is the date ESC was made mandatory. Ford, GM, Toyota, Lexus, Sicon, Opel, Holden, Saab, Cadillac, and all their sub brands etc etc all had ESC standard on their cars by 2007, but according to you, without government regulation this would have never happened....Even though the regulation didn't happen until 5 years later. Take off the rose colored glasses when looking at regulation and do some actual research.
 
auntjemima said:
Even with airbags, that Mexican car would have killed the occupant. Appeared to be zero crumple zones at all. I felt I was watching that video of a 2000's vs 1960's vehicle a while back.

The cabin folded on that guy and the windshield didn't even break on the other. Crazy.
Click to expand...

I think you are wrong, It was 100% crumple zone. So.. at least 1 crumple zone, not zero.
 
Ducman69 said:
Wrong, because you can get the exact same safe cars in those countries, as long as you *CHOOSE* to pay for it.

They have 0-star cars, but they also have plenty of 5-star cars, they simply have choices we don't.

You are arguing against consumer choice, because given the option, consumers are too stupid to choose to buy basic safety equipment.

Fact is, they aren't stupid, and they know the car isn't as safe, but its all some people can afford. The alternative for many such poor is to not buy that car, and instead to ride to work on a scooter or moped or commute sitting in the bed of an old pickup truck. How did the moped or passengers in the bed of a pickup truck fair in that crash test?
Click to expand...

For 8000 bucks you can import a good condition preowned Mercedes Benz for crying out loud. What's the point with these silly plastic buckets?
 
BlueFireIce said:
Unsafe car? You mean possibly any car made before 2012? As that is the date ESC was made mandatory. Ford, GM, Toyota, Lexus, Sicon, Opel, Holden, Saab, Cadillac, and all their sub brands etc etc all had ESC standard on their cars by 2007, but according to you, without government regulation this would have never happened....Even though the regulation didn't happen until 5 years later. Take off the rose colored glasses when looking at regulation and do some actual research.
Click to expand...

These vehicles had to pass the Euro NCAP since 1997.
 
Dekar12 said:
But also take in to consideration, what the price difference is.

As some other posted noted, in lower income countries, a car with safety features/any features puts it beyond the price range of anyone being able to buy it. And I would be willing to bet that many models like that are almost being sold at no profit to the car makers.
Click to expand...
You'd be wrong. It thoroughly depends on the country as well not all counties buy and sell cars the same way. Take the US dealers have contracts between automakers and themselves the price of the car is the price of the car to the manufacture the only thing that changes their profits margins is volume. Dealers with more volume get cars sold to them with lower profit margins to the manufacture the perk of volume. The auto maker always makes a good profit margin in this case the dealer absorbs the flux, this is how any intermediary works in economics. This is why in america you have to haggle on the price because the dealership already bought the car they took the risk, the manufacture sold it as a flat price with profit for themselves well within their expectations.

Take that in contrast to some places like Brazil in which automakers are allowed direct sales the price drop comes from avoiding the intermediary they reap similar profit margins. They also change their manufacturing from volume production into build to order regulating systemic costs of manufacturing lines.

Anyone who loves cars a thinks that regulations hurt them obviously hasn't worked on a car that was pre OBD but had computers on it. I want to work on a car not have to reverse engineer chips on them. Not all regulation is evil standards are probably the best form of regulation, especially standardization of i/o and interfaces. Especially in the day of intellectual property.
 
B00nie said:
For 8000 bucks you can import a good condition preowned Mercedes Benz for crying out loud. What's the point with these silly plastic buckets?
Click to expand...
Having owned an older Mercedes, I can assure you the cost of ownership is very high, which is why you can pick one up for $8K. Just about anyone can also afford an 80s Ferrari, at least out the door, but the reliability and cost of ownership of an older higher mileage vehicle makes that a far less attractive option than an inexpensive new reliable car.
 
MV75 said:
Aren't these still pretty expensive even compared to our markets? $8000 or so? And what is amazing is that they can still produce what was a 1995-2000 model pulsar alongside the current version. You'd think they would be making just the one model to save costs. Global platforms and economies my arse.
Click to expand...
That's not bad for Latin America. Looking around the exclusive distributors, the cheapest Nissan in Costa Rica, the Tiida, is $18500. The Sentra is $24300 there. And their GDP is lower than Mexico's!
 
Ducman69 said:
Having owned an older Mercedes, I can assure you the cost of ownership is very high, which is why you can pick one up for $8K. Just about anyone can also afford an 80s Ferrari, at least out the door, but the reliability and cost of ownership of an older higher mileage vehicle makes that a far less attractive option than an inexpensive new reliable car.
Click to expand...

Lol bull. You just need to avoid getting a high spec model with expensive breakables such as adaptive damping. Especially the older models have very cheap spare parts.

I still wish I didn't sell my 1996 E320. Drove 130 000 miles without a single trouble.
 
I get some regulations as they are needed but others are done to spite people or companies...
 
B00nie said:
Lol bull. You just need to avoid getting a high spec model with expensive breakables such as adaptive damping. Especially the older models have very cheap spare parts.

I still wish I didn't sell my 1996 E320. Drove 130 000 miles without a single trouble.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. I drive around a 2000 Impreza WRX STI that I imported in. 160,000 km on it. If I was just a normal driver, then all I would have had to fix was the busted exhaust flange. Like a $50 fix at the local welders.
 
Skripka said:
Cars are increasingly made out of plastic...because in a crash it crumples and deforms rather than passing energy into the occupants. Which is why in a crash they're death traps.
Click to expand...

In democratic Mexico, you are the crumple zone.
 
Skripka said:
We (humanity) figured out in the 1920s that lead was poisonous. So why was lead still in common products like gasoline until the ban in 1996 in the USA, 70 years later?

A>B, A<B...and people whose only worry was making a quick buck.



History side note...leaded gasoline was still legal in Afghanistan, Iraq, and a handful of other places worldwide up through a few years ago IIRC. Might still be.
Click to expand...

further history side note, leaded gas is still legal and sold all over the US, for use in collector and high performance vehicles. and old lawn mowers. you just get to pay an extra buck a gallon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top