Is bigger better?

Does SWMBO need a bigger vehicle?

I daily my E30 and she commutes to work in her '95 Corolla.

Just lately I've been pondering the need for her to join the rest of America in careening around in something big. I feel like we are riding Shetland ponies while everybody else is riding elephants.

Does bigger mean safer?

it means more comfortable...

novaderrik wrote: it means more comfortable...

This, and inertia is a bitch...

It's not a need thing, it's a want thing. Me, I like medium to big. E24, T-bird, F350. Then again there it a RoSpit in that mix as well, just not for the street.

hamster wrote: Does bigger mean safer?

depends. bigger takes longer to stop, isn't as good at evasive maneuvers, etc. So in that respect it's less safe.

but bigger in most cases obeys the laws of mass in that assuming equal build quality/safety features, a bigger vehicle is going to "win" in collision.

Example is that the 4Runner (which we have) has (or did at some point) the lowest per capita death rate of any passenger vehicle on the road (e.g. the percentage of 4Runner owners that die in a crash is lower than the percentage of any other vehicle). I attribute this to two factors: 1. it's a body-on-frame SUV, not unibody. Big strong steel frame has to be worth something in a collision from most any direction. Plus with body-on frame the passengers are sitting higher off the road than on a comparably-sized unibody SUV (Highlander, for example). 2. it's not acutally a huge vehicle and is far more maneuverable and/or controllable in emergency maneuvers than most large SUVs. Plus it has some of the best brakes of any SUV out there, hands down.

I'd actually suggest looking at the 4Runner. It drives pretty small and physically is fairly compact compared to most of the mid-size SUVs out there. Sport Edition has fairly car-like handling with the XREAS suspension. But the seating position is very car-like....more reclined.

Personally I like driving smaller cars (e30, WRX) and only drive the 4Runner when I need to (it's my wife's DD/kid hauler). That said, I do like having a truck with a REAL frame, REAL 4WD, good towing ability, and good utility. None of which my other vehicles have.

But if I didn't have to use it for family-hauling, I'd say a Tundra is a better choice - even more utility and towing :)

Have you asked her what she wants?

All of the folks in our family drive the Grand Caravan when we need to for capacity. All of us prefer smaller cars at all other times. Personally, I'd rather avoid accidents rather than just survive them. It's going to boil down to what she wants, butane sure the science backs up the safety claims, not just the perception.

There is a section of highway near my house that EVERY time I drive in the rain I see an SUV in a single vehicle roll over. I even witnessed one, on dry pavement. It's not a twisty 2 lane either. It's a four lane divided highway. The one I witnessed I think the driver just wasn't paying attention. Dropped off the edge of the pavement, over corrected and Whoopsie! Let the roll over begin.

If you can't tell, I don't think large SUV's are safer. In a collision with a smaller vehicle you will come out on top, but I think they are more likely to be involved in an accident in the first place.

I commute everyday in a 4 door F250. I would much rather drive to work in something smaller than my redneck limo.

Bigger means more expensive, in all aspects. More brake, tire, suspension, and even engine wear. More gas used, and in some cases even more oil due to increased capacity in a larger engine. To me it's not worth it to go bigger. I would suggest if your looking for increased safety, go newer, but looking at 1995 Corolla crash ratings it gets 4 stars for front an side impacts, and the next gen only goes 5 star up front and still 4 star on side impacts. If your really worried about safety, get a SAAB.

stuart in mn wrote: Have you asked her what she wants?

I'm betting she'd like it bigger.

stuart in mn wrote: Have you asked her what she wants?

Actually, In the past she has mentioned her fondness for the Volkswagen GTI.

I personally never thought I would like an SUV. I have always prefered smaller more nimble hatchbacks and sports cars.

The LandRover changed my mind on them. While not considered one of the most reliable vehicles around (3000 miles with no issues so far) it handles -much- better than the Volvo 850 I had before it. Much much better

irish44j wrote: Personally I like driving smaller cars (e30, WRX) and only drive the 4Runner when I need to (it's my wife's DD/kid hauler). That said, I do like having a truck with a REAL frame, REAL 4WD, good towing ability, and good utility. None of which my other vehicles have.

Hmmmm.... Maybe that is the real reason I am thinking about having the wife get a bigger vehicle.

According to this washington post article almost 60% of fatal accidents in the MD-DC-VA area in their study period were SINGLE VEHICLE ACCIDENTS. The "bigger is safer because heavier vehicles 'win' in a head-on collision" argument is: A. making road safety a zero sum game because your safety in this argument comes directly at the expense of the other guy; and B. ignoring the fact that most of us who will die behind the wheel will not collide with any other cars, rendering the argument irrelevant most of the time. That bridge abutment is equally unyielding to the F350 and the Fiesta alike.

I know of no source, and it would be tough to design a study to find this out, but I bet a small, well-designed, maneuverable-but-predictable modern car (think Mini Cooper) is "safer" (however you define that) in general use by a good driver than a much-heavier, but poor handling vehicle like an Exploder or Trailblazer. When that potentially-fatal-single-vehicle situation arises the Mini driver has the brakes and handling to avoid it.

1988RedT2 wrote:

stuart in mn wrote: Have you asked her what she wants?

I'm betting she'd like it bigger.

I wonder if this is really about cars

But, my take is a bit more global. She needs what she needs. Don't assume that bigger is safer. My wife is in a Scion xB which scores very well on the NHTSA crash tests and its big enough for her needs. She is starting to talk about a bigger car, but not for safety, just because she needs a bigger car for work. Her focus is on A) hugging trees with a high MPG car, B) safety, and C) enough space. You could give her an Excursion and she'd sell it to buy an Outback.

As we're shopping for her next car, she has wisely learned that bigger is NOT necessarily safer. Narrow down her needs to a list of cars that suit her size needs. Then pick based on her other hot buttons. If she doesn't care about MPG and going from midsize to full size would be safer with a 2mpg hit, maybe that's your ticket.

One of the more telling safety benchmarks is "deaths per million vehicles." I can't find the link, but for instance, the Ford Ranger scores pretty high on the crash tests, but it is one of the highest deaths per vehicle on the road.

hamster wrote:

irish44j wrote: Personally I like driving smaller cars (e30, WRX) and only drive the 4Runner when I need to (it's my wife's DD/kid hauler). That said, I do like having a truck with a REAL frame, REAL 4WD, good towing ability, and good utility. None of which my other vehicles have.

Hmmmm.... Maybe that is the real reason I am thinking about having the wife get a bigger vehicle.

That's why I had my wife get it instead of getting it for myself. She cashed in her much-loved Mazda3 to drive the 4Runner, which she likes but doesn't love. With a new kid and a dog, we had to go bigger and she didn't want a minivan or a wagon (since there are few desirable ones in the price range). So I chose the truck I wanted and talked her into it by getting the options she wanted :)

Luckily she drives less than 10k miles per year (including our road trips) so fuel, tire wear, etc aren't much of an issue.

Keep in mind that a smaller but newer car will probably provide better crash protection than an older but larger vehicle. Never mind things like improved accident avoidance.

Personally, if you're concerned about safety but dont want a larger vehicle, id just go for as new of one as you can afford so you can get Stability Control, Electronic Brake Assist, Side Airbags, etc. The 'nannies' make 99.9% of drivers safer when the E36 M3 flies, and unless your significant other is a trained badass who reacts with extreme speed and precision under pressure, she will be safer with those things.

There is a lot of disdain among enthusiasts for these safety measures, but almost all of it is borne of misplaced egotism and unfounded faith in their own abilities. Even people who are VERY GOOD at driving can be VERY BAD at it when they are taken totally by surprise, and since noone INTENDS to wreck their car, it's sort of ALWAYS a surprise.

ShadowSix wrote: According to this washington post article almost 60% of fatal accidents in the MD-DC-VA area in their study period were SINGLE VEHICLE ACCIDENTS. The "bigger is safer because heavier vehicles 'win' in a head-on collision" argument is: A. making road safety a zero sum game because your safety in this argument comes directly at the expense of the other guy; and B. ignoring the fact that most of us who will die behind the wheel will not collide with any other cars, rendering the argument irrelevant most of the time. That bridge abutment is equally unyielding to the F350 and the Fiesta alike. I know of no source, and it would be tough to design a study to find this out, but I bet a small, well-designed, maneuverable-but-predictable modern car (think Mini Cooper) is "safer" (however you define that) in general use by a good driver than a much-heavier, but poor handling vehicle like an Exploder or Trailblazer. When that potentially-fatal-single-vehicle situation arises the Mini driver has the brakes and handling to avoid it.

What amazes me is that I -still- see SUVs, usually Exploders, with worn out sidewalls on their front tyres. Either from underinflation or running and dragging against Kerbs. You would think after the firestone fiasco involving the Explorer, people would not let their tyres get like that.

But I may give people too much credit

mad_machine wrote:

ShadowSix wrote: According to this washington post article almost 60% of fatal accidents in the MD-DC-VA area in their study period were SINGLE VEHICLE ACCIDENTS. The "bigger is safer because heavier vehicles 'win' in a head-on collision" argument is: A. making road safety a zero sum game because your safety in this argument comes directly at the expense of the other guy; and B. ignoring the fact that most of us who will die behind the wheel will not collide with any other cars, rendering the argument irrelevant most of the time. That bridge abutment is equally unyielding to the F350 and the Fiesta alike. I know of no source, and it would be tough to design a study to find this out, but I bet a small, well-designed, maneuverable-but-predictable modern car (think Mini Cooper) is "safer" (however you define that) in general use by a good driver than a much-heavier, but poor handling vehicle like an Exploder or Trailblazer. When that potentially-fatal-single-vehicle situation arises the Mini driver has the brakes and handling to avoid it.

What amazes me is that I -still- see SUVs, usually Exploders, with worn out sidewalls on their front tyres. Either from underinflation or running and dragging against Kerbs. You would think after the firestone fiasco involving the Explorer, people would not let their tyres get like that. But I may give people too much credit

that's their problem right there... they need to get some proper tires on there with a proper load rating- in other words, something that doesn't have the letter "P" at the beginning of the tire size..

The plus of "bigger" most likely is HIGHER seating position. Better visibility, above others' bumpers and maybe my favorite is that people seem to be less likely to pull out in front of you and less likely to tailgate you and more likely to give you more space on the roads over all.

Whether some of this us perception is debatable. I will insist however that when driving the Caravan, the car at the cross street WILL pull out at the last second so as not to be behind a "soccer mom" in a minivan, showing 1) a complete lack of fear of getting hit and 2) a lack of respect for the driver.

<== disappointed. Came in here thinking this thread was about my hootus

hamster wrote: Does bigger mean safer?

This answer to this is "yes and no". Trust me on this, I do this topic day in and day out. Oooohhh...that sounds so dirty to say.

A lot of it depends on the quality of the vehicle design. Sorry irish44j, but full frame vehicles actually tend to do worse than unibody vehicles in accidents. Unibody vehicles are designed to absorb impact, so even a well designed small car can take an impact well. Cars like the Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris and even Smart FourTwo do very well in single vehicle crash testing. It's all due to their design and engineering. However, at some point, physics take over. Crash a Yaris into a Camry at high speed, and the Camry will fare better. It's a simple equation... F=MA. The more A, the exponentially more F. But how often do head on crashes happen? Not often.

Again, back to vehicle design. Large pick up trucks have been shown to do very poorly in side impacts...even worse than many small cars. Large trucks and SUVs are also much more likely to roll over or rear end people.

So I'd say that bigger isn't necessarily safer. Just do your research on anything you're looking to buy.

Wear your seat belt and don't drive drunk and you've eliminated about half of the single car fatalities right there. Don't be a 16-25 year old male and you take care of a significant portion of the rest.

Also, newer means safer. A new Civic has the latest crash-test engineering built in, and will protect you better than a 70's land barge. Airbags, knee airbags, curtain airbags, crumple zones, door intrusion bars, offset crash zones...these things didn't exist not so long ago.