Old Big Cars on a budget - am I mad??

The W124 is unreal though, I have a 1992 one with 227 000 miles on her, E250 diesel, does 34mpg mixed, big and comfy. Only downside is the motor tax. Modern stuff makes little financial sense due to the depreciation. You can buy a decent old bus for less than €2000 with the guts of a 2 year NCT if you look around, service her once in the 2 years and even if you throw it away then it's cheap motoring. Also you can change the older car without losing your drawers on them.

A 3 or 4 year old Focus or Megane doesn't really have any status either so give me an old big bus anyday.

maidhc

Here is a mad notion:

Why not buy a "normal" car that is a few years old.

I bought a 03 Octavia with under 60k on the clock for under 3k recently. It is a 1.4 Petrol and utterly dull in every way. But the best bit is parts are 10 a penny (even if the 1.4 engine goes AWOL it hardly matters), insurance is very low (my 18 yo sister has it insured in her own name for under 800), tax is low, and it can easily do 40mpg.

The cheapest cars to run from my experience are not luxobarges, but mid/large family cars of a reliable make and with a good history. They will do 250k miles without a bother and are cheap to run even into old age.

I'd sooner have an old bus than an Octavia, not my cup of tea at all at all.

maidhc

RoverJames wrote: »

I'd sooner have an old bus than an Octavia, not my cup of tea at all at all.

I don't mean an octavia at all, but something reasonably mainstream with an engine which has scared away half the population because it is decent sized.

I think straying into old merc/saab/bmw territory is something you should only do if you are comfortable with a big repair bill a now and again. It may never come, but you need to recognise it might.

unkel

Well said lads

RoverJames wrote: »

The W124 is unreal though, I have a 1992 one with 227 000 miles on her, E250 diesel, does 34mpg mixed, big and comfy.

The last W124 250d I was in was just shy of a million kilometres

quarryman

maidhc wrote: »

I don't mean an octavia at all, but something reasonably mainstream with an engine which has scared away half the population because it is decent sized.

I think straying into old merc/saab/bmw territory is something you should only do if you are comfortable with a big repair bill a now and again. It may never come, but you need to recognise it might.

completely agree. I have an 02 Mondeo that cost me less to buy than my previous 97 BMW cost in repairs alone. The Mondeo is cheap to insure, tax and run. The downside is that it is pretty boring. That's where the 2nd car plan comes in

mumblin deaf ro

I drive a 1987 saab 900 turbo but have only had it a few months. While you are looking at a newer generation (post '93) 900, I would still say that with older cars the cost is not necessarily in the purchase price but in the unpredictable maintenance and repair costs. You are not necessarily going to save money by buying a fifteen year old car for €1,500 as you may have to spend the same again (or more) on repairs to get it through the NCT/keep it safe/prolong its life. If the budget is tight i would suggest getting a small newer car in good condition.

If you do go the older Saab route, there is a good online community for technical advice and some good independent Saab mechanics around, although some are very pricey.

Good luck.

Stevie Dakota

I left a 1995 BMW E34 for a 2008 Focus. The BMW was costly to run, heavy on juice but was just such a wonderful car, built like a tank, I miss it everyday. However, the Focus is much quicker (2.0TDCi), great fun to drive and returns over 40mpg. It made sense to change in my case but I can certainly see the appeal of SOME big old cars, mostly Germans cars engineered in the 80's.

BrianD3

StealthRolex wrote: »

There's a reason why people die on Irish roads and it's because Green cars are killing them.
Buying and driving tax friendly cars is like buying an house with ceilings 1 inch higher than you are - it's a false economy in terms of survival. Not to mention it is pandering to ill-informed environmentalist bandwagoneers.

IMHO

But *modern* small cars are a lot safer than older, large cars. It's not just that they have more safety features, they also have much stronger bodies.

The W124 might have been a very safe car in its day but that day is long gone. Given the amount of newer cars on Irish roads, any W124s, Volvo 940s etc. left are some of the least safe cars on the road. The Saab 9000 would be worse again.

edit: should be said that the age of the design is very important. Big improvements happened in a few years. A 10 year old Volvo S80 would compare well to brand new cars and would be significantly safer than say a 15 year old BMW E34.

StealthRolex

maidhc wrote: »

I think straying into old merc/saab/bmw territory is something you should only do if you are comfortable with a big repair bill a now and again. It may never come, but you need to recognise it might.

Fair point. When I found my first W124 I was just looking for a car. A bit of research, fora and website checking yielding these old mercs as a reasonable buy. Given that the standard saloon has something of a reputation as a taxi or, in some parts of the world, a drug dealers mover of choice, and the TE is something of a hearse, the CE came out as stylish, if slightly dated, and expected to be a classic in the near future. As a retrophile of sorts it suited me perfectly. Comfortable, understated and with enough power for dealing with boy racers and the occasional swift overtake on a country road.

There were occasional breakdowns but nothing that left me stranded - thermostat failure (plastic housing replaced with aluminium after that), plug failures traced to a maintenance error, window motor failure, cruise control packing in - nothing major. I did shell out for a prophylactic head gasket replacement that turned out to be the source of the dead cylinder issue but what the heck, I still had 5 working ones that got me home.

Unfortunately the websites plugging the W124 were US based where such animals as the E500 exist but the underlying message is clear - these are the last of the true mercs before the Chrysler accountants got their grubby moist little paws on MB and did away with the over-engineering and customer statisfaction. Repair bills can be mollified by using secondhand or generic parts and an MB qualified mechanic.

I reserve judgement on the new E series (post Chrysler) until they've proved themselves. My only problem now is finding the right coupe for not too much down. When it comes to the new E's I think I'll wait until they are down at the 5-10K price point on the pre-loved market.

quarryman

I've done a quick scout around carzone, prices seem to be all over the place.

How about this:

I think there's a drug dealer parked outside.

Well regarding the repair bills, my 227 000 W124 only needed a relay that controls the ABS to get through the NCT. Big repair bills are not uncommon for the Focus or Octy either, far from it to be honest.

Of course if you are semi competent with the spanners yourself loads of stuff is easy DIY, trips to the dealer won't be cheap regardless of the brand.

StealthRolex

BrianD3 wrote: »

The W124 might have been a very safe car in its day but that day is long gone. Given the amount of newer cars on Irish roads, any W124s, Volvo 940s etc. left are some of the least safe cars on the road. The Saab 9000 would be worse again.

I think you'll find some who would disagree with that, particularily those of us who have had the misfortune to hit one of the "newer safer stronger" models.

When it happened to me my W124 was back on the road within two weeks with a new bonnet and radiator. The other car went straight to the scrapyard with it's engine on the back seat.

When it comes to physics where do you want to be - inside small and light or big and heavy?

The reason some people want W124s and similar off the road is because of the damage they can do to these new small, light and allegedly strong things.

What the government and quango spongers fail to realize is that there is a world of different between the drivers of a new cars and those who appreciate the engineering of quality older models. For a start if we drive a classic we don't want it scratched and drive accordingly. New car drivers seem to be hell bent on getting their money's worth back from their insurance companies.

The safety argument is also a straw man. if you drive safely you only have to consider the other idiot and when it comes to other idiots I want to be inside something substantial. If I can't have a tank I'll take my chances in a W124.

mullingar

What about an 98-00 Lexus GS300?

Here is a 2001 model for under 5k:
http://www.driving.ie/usedcars/index.cfm?fuseaction=car&carID=200922192961653





A doddle to maintain as they are glorified Toyota's and parts can be got at half the Irish price from the USA (even if you get stung by customs!)

I have mine 3 years and its never let me down and the engine is very tuneable (same as the Supra)


How about this to empty your pockets for fuel economy for under 2k!:



http://www.driving.ie/usedcars/index.cfm?fuseaction=car&carID=200925194343819

A 4litre Supercharged monster. :D

I believe thay are around 350bhp.

EPM

StealthRolex wrote: »

I think you'll find some who would disagree with that, particularily those of us who have had the misfortune to hit one of the "newer safer stronger" models.

When it happened to me my W124 was back on the road within two weeks with a new bonnet and radiator. The other car went straight to the scrapyard with it's engine on the back seat.

When it comes to physics where do you want to be - inside small and light or big and heavy?

The reason some people want W124s and similar off the road is because of the damage they can do to these new small, light and allegedly strong things.

I cant search it here in work but you tube search Volvo 760 Vs Renault Modus - The Renault Supermini is where I'd rather be thats for sure

artic

Please someone think of the road tax !!

kasper

luxury and economical 2 litre 140bhprenault 030.jpg

renault 032.jpg

Alun

StealthRolex wrote: »

When it comes to physics where do you want to be - inside small and light or big and heavy?

Talking of physics ...

I'd rather be in something that crumples safely and absorbs the energy of the impact, rather than something made out of angle iron and box girders that transfers the full amount of the energy of the impact into my body.

BrianD3

I cant search it here in work but you tube search Volvo 760 Vs Renault Modus - The Renault Supermini is where I'd rather be thats for sure

Yeah. And it's not the only video either. Take your pick
New Yaris vs old Volvo 940

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-OgTtDwoBI

Renault modus vs Volvo 940

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBDyeWofcLY

New Espace vs old Landrover

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ad8dHYAIhZ4

New Espace vs old Espace

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l4YBf2tjag

New Fiesta vs old Sierra

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-C764S1k_U

mullingar

kasper wrote: »

luxury and economical 2 litre 140bhprenault 030.jpg

renault 032.jpg

If that is the 2.0 12valve unit that was also in the 21 TXI, its an animal of an engine. cough 140mph cough

StealthRolex

Alun wrote: »

Talking of physics ...

I'd rather be in something that crumples safely and absorbs the energy of the impact, rather than something made out of angle iron and box girders that transfers the full amount of the energy of the impact into my body.

A reasonable point however if you look at the videos, especially the slo-mo shots from above you can see that the bigger older cars tend to continue in a straight line whereas the small cars get spun around.

if your body continues in a straight line you can get whiplash due to deceleration

if your body twists you can break your neck or back due to translational g acceleration forces.

There is a point to be made for airbags and in some of these videos the older cars are deliberately chosen to have no airbags or the airbags have been disabled.

Getting back on point, later W124 models are fitted with airbags and in some cases SIP systems.

Airbags, safety cages, crumple zones and seatbelts are no substitute for careful driving. Ask any biker.

If the case for modern safety devices was valid then motorbikes would be banned as they have yet to be fitting with adequate safety measures.

I would rather not be in an accident and will do all in my power to ensure I drive with due care and attention rather than rely on NCAP marketing tactics.

Let's be honest here. Airbags and crumple zones are installed primarily to cater for drivers who have a tendency to drive into things at speed. Nice to have but not a necessity. Redo biker argument.

StealthRolex

Alun wrote: »

Talking of physics ...

I'd rather be in something that crumples safely and absorbs the energy of the impact, rather than something made out of angle iron and box girders that transfers the full amount of the energy of the impact into my body.

A smaller car will absorb the energy of the impact and the momentum of the larger car.

The larger car will give up some energy and momentum to the smaller car.

Unless the accident you are describing is a car and an immovable object such as a wall, cliff face or building, in which case yes, energy absorption is an advantage.

StealthRolex

mullingar wrote: »

If that is the 2.0 12valve unit that was also in the 21 TXI, its an animal of an engine. cough 140mph cough

but it's French. Why on earth did they not just stick with cheese, wine and perfume

StealthRolex

Dear Mike,

This thread does appear to have taken a slight turn in direction (guilty as charged your honour).

If you like driving into big walls or other road users - buy a new car. With air bags and crumple zones.

If you want to have fun - buy with your heart after your head has done the research. If it happens that an older Saab, Vulva, Merc , BMW or even a classic Porsche takes your fancy - go for it - but watch out for those people that like driving into things.

As a professional green lobby environmental scientist my personal vehicle of choice is a Hybrid Hummer. It is a new car with crumple zones, airbags, seatbelts and all those nice things new cars have but with the personality of an older luxury barge. Not to mention the ability to avoid unnecessary deployment of the airbags by its ability to drive over most obstacles - usually French bureau agents who bear a grudge. The fact that they tend to drive French cars really saves on the tires as German and Swedish steel can tear them up sometimes.

Happy Motoring.

unkel

BrianD3 wrote: »

Yeah. And it's not the only video either. Take your pick

As some others here posted, many of those tests are really old car designs (80s) without airbags. Especially that 940 vs Modus. Most big cars suggested here are newer with crumple zones, multiple airbags, side impact protection, etc. To quote yourself from your own thread on the 940 vs Modus - about the now 15 year old 7-series E38:

BrianD3 wrote: »

AFAIK the E38 got the equivalent of a 4 star rating when subjected to a EuroNCAP style offset test. So it is pretty good as well as being v. big and heavy. It is very likely safer than a Modus alright.

EPM

StealthRolex wrote: »

A reasonable point however if you look at the videos, especially the slo-mo shots from above you can see that the bigger older cars tend to continue in a straight line whereas the small cars get spun around.

if your body continues in a straight line you can get whiplash due to deceleration

if your body twists you can break your neck or back due to translational g acceleration forces.

I'd rather take my chances being thrown around a little rather than have a limb chopped off in the initial impact to be honest;)

kasper

mullingar wrote: »

If that is the 2.0 12valve unit that was also in the 21 TXI, its an animal of an engine. cough 140mph cough

sure is

mick.fr

2L big engine?
Probably been said already, but it will probably cost the same thing maintaining a 1.5L and 2.0L.

Now get a 3L+ and V8/V10/V12, that's more like it. V6, V8... engines have everything in double, head gasket, cylinder head :-) That is way more expensive to maintain that a 2.0L...

StealthRolex

EPM wrote: »

I'd rather take my chances being thrown around a little rather than have a limb chopped off in the initial impact to be honest;)

Lost limb or severed spinal cord. Hmmm

kasper

why didnt they use two 5star ncap cars one big one small i am sure it would be very interesting

BrianD3

unkel wrote: »

As some others here posted, many of those tests are really old car designs (80s) without airbags. Especially that 940 vs Modus. Most big cars suggested here are newer with crumple zones, multiple airbags, side impact protection, etc. To quote yourself from your own thread on the 940 vs Modus - about the now 15 year old 7-series E38:

Fair enough but I see mention of a Saab 9000, Saab 900, an E32 7 series and a W124 in the thread. All old designs. The Saabs were shown to be lagging behind in terms of safety even when they were new. The first poster to mention safety here was a W124 driver who said that "There's a reason why people die on Irish roads and it's because Green cars are killing them" . There is no evidence to support this viewpoint.

The E38 is a harder one to call. Not very old but not new. Older than E39, younger than E36. Big and heavy but not *that* heavy by modern standards when you consider how heavy family cars have gotten. So who knows. We established in the other thread that I was wrong about it getting 4 stars in a EuroNCAP style test

EPM

StealthRolex wrote: »

Lost limb or severed spinal cord. Hmmm

And bleed to death waiting for an ambulance...

BrianD3

Anyway, where's the evidence that small cars being spun around in offset crashes causes "severed spinal cords" in restrained occupants.

The evidence from the youtube videos, from EuroNCAP and from other testing is clear. The passenger compartments of older cars are weak. In 30-40 mph crashes, the dashboard and footwell will often come in on top of the driver causing severe injuries and trapping him in the car. If airbags and pretensioners are fitted they are token gestures - there is little point having an airbag if the steering wheel ends up behind your head.

And if scientific measurements using dummies isn't your thing and you'd like it a bit more real life and gory - there are emergency services and other websites which put up pictures of real life crashes.
Hungarian fire service searchable archive
http://www.langlovagok.hu/html/kepek/
1000+ pages of crash pictures
http://www.forum-auto.com/automobile-pratique/section16/sujet66892-38605.htm

StealthRolex

BrianD3 wrote: »

"There's a reason why people die on Irish roads and it's because Green cars are killing them" . There is no evidence to support this viewpoint.

I see clarification is in order. In my opinion "Green cars" are a contributory factor in a number of accidents and by green I mean cars that are underpowered for their size or have a smaller engine size to reduce VRT and annual road tax costs. I don't have the stats to hand but when I see the remains of a car at a crash site or pictures in the newsprint or on TV what jumps out at me is that the cars tend to be smaller or have small engines e.g.1.6L BMWs, 1.4L Golfs etc.

Their contribution in accidents is due to there not being enough power to complete certain maneuvers or to drive away from trouble.

Too many times I have seen cars coming towards me on the wrong side of the road because their car does not have the power to get around a long articulate lorry in time (it may also be that while overtaking they got into a race). If there is a hard should I'll break and move into it. If not I break and find somewhere safe to head for and in both cases hope the oncoming vehicle has enough time to clear or the good sense to back off and pull back in.

In a head on collision the cause can be either plain bad driving, bad driving judgement or trying something the car is not capable of especially when it is obvious that the accident involved someone on the wrong side of the road travelling at speed.
I can't recall which program it was but one of the TV car shows once ran an artice on TED. Time Exposed to Danger. This was a test of how long it took to overtake a vehicle of a certain length. All the tests showed that the more powerful the car the shorter the TED. To me this is a good thing. Unfortunately in this country a short TED means a higher annual tax.

As far as older cars are concerned it can be easier and more cost efficient to obtain an older ( older, not ancient!) more powerful car that can overtake safely rather than try silly overtaking moves in a car that was designed for a 1.8 or 2L engine but for "green" or "VRT" purposes has been fitted with a 1.4 engine for the Irish market.

My gripe is not with properly green cars or smaller cars per se but with a governement that uses taxes to prevents us from buying and using cars that suit our purposes and forces manufactures to put in smaller engines to make sales prices attractive.
There is also a case to be made that certain drivers don't make allowances for the cars they have but that's for another day.

In terms of safety, of course younger cars are safer but in a safety discussion we should compare like with similar.

While I used "Green cars" originally I probably should have said that it is the Government that is killing people on our roads.

StealthRolex

kasper wrote: »

why didnt they use two 5star ncap cars one big one small i am sure it would be very interesting

Good poiint. The safety aspect of older cars is a concern however we are talking "older" cars here, not old classics and bangers. Considering a 30 or 40 year old car v new as against a 10 year old v new provides two completely different aspects.

There are are number of issues in any collision - the relative size of each car, the relative speeds and the angles of approach are just as important as the presence or absence of safety features and whether they are more recent innovations or the basics. Additionally there is driver experience. A driver with 20 or 30 years experience is more likely to be reviewing "outs" for collision avoidance in an imminent accident situation than a driver with less than 10 years experience who is more likely to just hit the brakes and hope\pray for the best.

Some examples that would be useful would be a 1994 E class Merc v 2009 E class Merc. I've no doubt that the newer model would win in any NCAP test.

However in budget terms I can buy a 1994 E Class outright and run it. To get into a 2009 E class I need a bank loan. As the car is newer the insurance is higher due to the replacement cost and the service charges are higher as the car would have to go to an MB dealer for a number of years to mitigate depreciation.

Some would suggest that a 2000 Merc is a better bet but research indicates that in 2000 the Chrysler influence led to poorer quality cars at this time.

I can't speak for BMW or Volvo as they are not my cup of tea but in straight comparisons if I could not afford a 2009 BMW but wanted to be a Beemer driver I would buy as young as I could afford.

My reason for preferring older bigger cars? I want to drive safely and feel safe when driving. Maybe it's just me but you just can't put enough airbags into a 1.2 or 1.4L car to make it feel as safe as a 3L Merc or BMW of any age that has airbags.

When if comes to a collision momentum is a factor. If you are in a small car it doesn't matter what the NCAP rating is if you are hit by something substantially bigger.

StealthRolex

BrianD3 wrote: »

The evidence from the youtube videos, from EuroNCAP and from other testing is clear. The passenger compartments of older cars are weak. In 30-40 mph crashes, the dashboard and footwell will often come in on top of the driver causing severe injuries and trapping him in the car. If airbags and pretensioners are fitted they are token gestures - there is little point having an airbag if the steering wheel ends up behind your head.

As you might have gathered my preference for an older car is the Mercedes W124 1992 - 1996 which does have a particularly strong passenger compartment and more than adequate airbags and effective seatbelts with pretensioners does not appear in any of the posted youtube videos.

Your points may be valid for the various Volvos, Renaults and Fords depicted in the videos and may indeed be valid for any number of other older cars but as older cars go the W124 is a solid bet for reliability and safety which extends beyond it's age.

I've copied the following from the Wikipedia article on the W124 to support my point that for an older car it is safe.

"Some main innovations of the W124 series were related to occupant safety. Derived from the Mercedes 190 (W201), with whom the W124 shares the basic layout, its likewise edgy body was designed to withstand an offset-crash in a concrete barrier at some 35 mp/h without serious harm to the occupants and a largely undamaged passenger cabin, a windshield that stays in place and doors easily to open without special recovery tools. This crash-test configuration, outstanding in 1984 and developed by Mercedes-Benz[citation needed] from the early 70's on with on-the-spot research to meet more adequately the requirements of accidents occurring in real traffic, became the base for the Euro-NCAP procedure currently being the standard crash-test configuration in the EU. Most remarkably: Unlike Euro-NCAP, Mercedes required the body of the W124 to withstand an offest impact from the front and from the rear. The W124 also featured a driver's side airbag (option in Europe, standard in the US), height-adjustable seat belts with electronic-mechanical pre-tensioneers (standard) for both front passengers, rear seat belts which automatically adapted to the seize of the passengers (standard), pedals that were moved inversely in a frontal impact (away from the drivers feet and in the direction of the bulkhead separating the cabin from the engine) and door arm rests with deformable elements designed to reduce abdominal injury risk resulting from a side impact. The dashboard made of impact-absorbing, artificial foam was reinforced with a thin aluminium layer which effectively prevented hoses, valves, housings and other components from heating and engine from penetrating through the dash board inside the passenger cabin in a severe impact. Also, the passenger glove box featured a defined point of rupture, which considerably reduced the probability of front passenger injuries. Apart from the Mercedes 190, the W124 was the first serially manufactured car in history to see widespread use of light-weight high-strength steels, which today are a standard in car design. From late 1988 on, the W124 was one of the first cars available with a passengers side front-airbag as an option worldwide."

Other links supporting Mercedes safety even in older cars

http://www.whnet.com/4x4/W210_crashtest.html

YouTube - Fifth Gear's W124 Built Quality Test Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bIV_hHPAFQ

YouTube - Fifth Gear's W124 Built Quality Test Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRKhKKdXIl4&feature=related

YouTube - Fifth Gear's W124 Built Quality Test Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dn19Qj5jtf4&feature=related

YouTube - Fifth Gear's W124 Built Quality Test Part 4 Final Test
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTedyrdAzV0&feature=related


While I take your point Brian there are no brand new cars available for €4000, give or take €2,000 that can compete with a W124 euro for euro.

kasper

safer cars cost more because of vrt as stated earlier safer roads cost more because of tolls ,safety in this country is a cash cow for our government to buy and fly its 3 jets

nialler

Smart TwoTwo (4 star ncap) hitting a W220 S Class Merc, currently retailing at around 7,500 euro for a 00 Model.

mumblin deaf ro

I wouldn't bring our baby out in our saab 900 - we only use our family car (Focus) for him. Much and all as I love the saab I wouldn't be as confident about its safety features when compared to a modern car. That said, I drive very differently in the saab and most owenrs of older/classic cars will tell you the same thing. By differently, i mean more conservatively.

maidhc

I have 190E (1990), a Focus (2003) and a Capri (1974).

The Capri is a deathtrap, no doubt about it, but the Focus and 190E are harder to call, especially since the Merc has ABS that Ford did not feel was worth fitting as standard until late 03. The 190E also has an airbag (only 1), and without a doubt is a heavier more substantial car.

unkel

BrianD3 wrote: »

We established in the other thread that I was wrong about it getting 4 stars in a EuroNCAP style test

LOL - reread the whole thread this time and I sure remember it now

¿Que pasa, amigo?

BrianD3

unkel wrote: »

LOL - reread the whole thread this time and I sure remember it now

¿Que pasa, amigo?

LOL, one thing I've found is that most good web articles and forum discussions on car safety are not in English.

Here's a good one in Portuguese. I don't speak the language but can make out enough to know its a good and detailed discussion with loads of pics and scans of old magazine articles.
http://forum.autohoje.com/forum-geral/33531-topico-dos-crash-tests-indice-pagina-115-post-3436-a-117.html

Mr Benevolent

BrianD3 wrote: »

LOL, one thing I've found is that most good web articles and forum discussions on car safety are not in English.

Here's a good one in Portuguese. I don't speak the language but can make out enough to know its a good and detailed discussion with loads of pics and scans of old magazine articles.
http://forum.autohoje.com/forum-geral/33531-topico-dos-crash-tests-indice-pagina-115-post-3436-a-117.html

That's some very German Portugese, isn't it?

unkel

Confab wrote: »

That's some very German Portugese, isn't it?

You haven't had a proper look. The site is Portuguese, the link Brian provided is massive and fair play to the punters on the site, they have no problem quoting and reading links in Spanish, French, Portuguese, German and whatever else I did not spot yet in looking at it for a few minutes

StealthRolex

BrianD3 wrote: »

Anyway, where's the evidence that small cars being spun around in offset crashes causes "severed spinal cords" in restrained occupants.

amongst other injuries. there is a body of evidence that suggests that in a two vehicle collision those in the smaller car will fair worst

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2009/04/14/456824.html

http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=159873

http://ntlsearch.bts.gov/tris/record/tris/00373929.html

http://www.georgiainjurylawyerblog.com/2009/04/car_accidents_in_small_vehicle.html

Mr Benevolent

there is a body of evidence that suggests that in a two vehicle collision those in the smaller car will fair worst

That's fairly obvious, but we all can't buy medium/big cars. The evidence is more against the really, really small cars, i.e the Smart Car. Simple physics shows that a smaller mass will be more affected by a momentum change than a bigger mass. Unfortunately you can't design around these things without active safety measures such as prebraking and collision detection. It's put me off buying a Smart Car though

beachlife

mcirl2 wrote: »

Hi,

I am looking to buy a car right now and I really want to buy an older big car as there is way better value for money (less demand for one). They are way more comfortable, powerful etc and I dont mind paying the extra insurance / tax but I just got a few questions:

Im looking at the following car models: Saab 900 3dr 2L, Saab 9000 CSE 2L, Saab 95 2L or Volvo S70 2L.

I dont know much about any of these cars but which would you guys choose in terms of reliability. I heard Saabs can be a nightmare but I really want the 9000 as they are v good value - Im just terrified that if something goes wrong its cost a bomb.

Also is the MPG really awful on these 2L models. I know it wont be great. I do a mix of City / Longer drives but would 30MPG be ambitious.

My head says buy an almera / escort / astra but my heart tells me buy one these - I had an escort for yrs and hated it so much, so Im thinking if I had one of these cars I'd enjoy it much more.

My budget is about 1500 (not a lot I know but I dont mind driving 1995 saab 900 - dont care about the year).

What would you guys do - should I be as worried about the running costs as much as I am or should I just go for it?

Any advice / similar experiences would be greatly appreciated!!

Mike

if i had your buget and was on the look out for a big (cheapish to run car/not a tank 3 or 4liter) then it has to be a merc e 200 more economical than a 1.8 mondeo and still rock solid reliability.You should get a 96 model(twin lights) for that with a nct. should have full or close to full history though cause thse cars can go around the world(i had one i got as a stopgap car with 450,000 miles on the original engine and clutch!!)

Zonda999

StealthRolex wrote: »

there is a body of evidence that suggests that in a two vehicle collision those in the smaller car will fair worst

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBDyeWofcLY

Thought that too myself but this certainly made me rethink:)

quarryman

Drive this away for €1500?

BrianD3

StealthRolex wrote: »

amongst other injuries. there is a body of evidence that suggests that in a two vehicle collision those in the smaller car will fair worst

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2009/04/14/456824.html

http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=159873

http://ntlsearch.bts.gov/tris/record/tris/00373929.html

http://www.georgiainjurylawyerblog.com/2009/04/car_accidents_in_small_vehicle.html

I don't see any mention of severed spinal cord in those links? The IIHS test between large and small cars is good but crucially those are large new cars, not large old ones. I don't think anyone is disputing that a large heavy new car is safer in a two car collision with a smaller, lighter new car. But if the large car is an old design then the small car is likely safer. Even taking into account greater potential deceleration for the occupants, the car being spun around etc.

BTW check the kerb weights of modern cars and compare them to larger older cars. You may be surprised at how heavy relatively small cars are. Something like a MkV Golf would have very little of a weight/physics disadvantage in a collision with an E34, W124, 940 etc. The Golf also has much stronger body and more advanced restraint systems. I know which I'd rather be in. Will leave it at that.