Discussion in 'The Guru's Pub' started by -Ruin-, Sep 29, 2008.
I love the swift sport, very cool car!
This is definitely true - and probably a large part of the reason why American cars (still) have a dreadful reputation for build quality and reliability in Europe. They're huge cars built to a price. Something the size of a BMW 7 series built to cost the same as an entry level VW Golf will obviously have had corners cut somewhere along the way.
Neither is wrong or right - they're just very different.
That swift is not bad, i origionally wanted one but they dont do a turbo version so didnt end up getting one.
yea i also prefer the swift sport to be turbo but for a non turbo car 0-100 for 8.9 its good.. i installed a new exhaust system and new air filter and i love the sound. only downside its hard to find a tuning program for suzuki.. their original engine settings are difficult to change!
Get the **** in!!!, garage have just phoned, i pick me Rocco up next Friday
LOL 8.9 seconds to 60 is NOT good. My old honda prelude with a tiny lil engine did it in like 7 seconds back in the late 90's.
He said 0-100, not 0-60. Even my Minivan can do 0-60 in less than 7 seconds.
I'm happy with my fullsize SUV that can do 0-60 in a bit under 10 seconds...
Then again it does weigh about 2 tons...and has the aerodynamic properties of a brick
Clean. It's strange that the US doesn't have that car.
Big cruisers have a lot of sound insulation. Sometimes you can't even tell the engine is on.
They also are sprung soft with soft dampers. Their weight helps them stay steady.
(albeit this does kill their cornering ability.)
They "flow" over the road, slowly pitching and rolling, but never jarring.
You can glide over a speed bump like it's not even there.
You can go over a pothole like it's not even there.
That video also said that the passengers probably would have not survived.
The small car provided little deceleration time (short nose).
A longer car has more time to crumple, and spread the deceleration out over time.
Also, I'd hate to lose my legs in that little smart.
Anyways, it's a car vs a concrete wall.
Car vs car, if everyone drove a small car, we'd all be safer.
Materials are the same strength, small or large.
Larger cars have more mass pushing on the material, causing it to deform more.
If people crashed small car into small car, it'd be less destructive.
While the time taken to decelerate the car does have something to do with the crash safety of a car, its not just the length of the nose that matters. There are huge differences between the material used between different cars. The steel used in the cage of that smart is seriously tough, much stronger then what you will find on normal cars. also why it's not as light as you would imagine for such a small car. Therefore, while the smart may not have as much space to crumple, that doesn't mean that it doesn't absorb the energy from a crash.
Just look at the crash tests from some of those chinese SUV's for example. If your reasoning is correct, they should be much safer then a smart in a crash, because they have a big nose, but i know what car i would rather be in.
Lol ... you don't need a 2 ton car for that behavior... my car is an old Golf III (1995) with very soft suspension ... weights less then a ton and has exactly that behavior ... I hate it. I want a car, not a boat. This kind of suspension is for old farts that hardly press the gas pedal. I have a friend with a VW Scirroco ... It can do corners that would make my car easily slide off the road...
Would trade a sportier suspension for extreme comfort any day and judging from what most new Europeans cars have, so do most people.
Also, my dad's Renault Mégane (normal car in Europe) has a diesel engine, weights 1200kg and you almost don't hear the engine when inside. And diesels make a lot of noise.
The smart is well built, for sure.
But regardless it can't give the driver back his legs [see crushed bottom in that video].
Plus the less the car crushes, the harder you hit your seatbelt/wheel.
There needs to be a balance.
The problem with the smart is that it leaves so little room to crush, that you the driver have to soak up most of the energy into your belt/wheel (and legs - ouch).
And the crap Chinese SUVs go off the [opposite] deep end, lots of crushing and no rigid body.
I hate it too. Which is why I won't buy one.
But people that are 'old farts at heart' just eat them up.
That smart car crash video is unrealistic.
70Mph crash = over 120KM/h into a bloody concrete wall??
I mean seriously? Car vs Car crashes would be a hell lot different so yea, its safe to assume that every car on the road has enough safety standards but obviously, some have more than others.
Yes, in that video it doesn't do good. but i wonder how many cars would do good in a 70mph crash test into a concrete barrier. The only car I have seen tested is the smart, there is no real way to know how other cars do in that test.
What? They test another car in the same video right after the Smart.
Sorry, I didnt see it through to the end, please ignore that post. :leave:
Would love any of these:
http://www.hsv.com.au/e3/showroom/default.aspx?ID=Clubsport R8 Tourer