Unsafe Cars

Why I'm Not Interested In a New Car

by Neil Schubert

The term "cash for clunkers" has a reverse meaning for me. No, I did not get sucked into getting government funds to buy a new car. My conscience just couldn't take it, and I really can't afford a new car anyway, even if the government did fund my car.

What the government should have done is given me $2000 to get the major parts on my old car fixed. Yes, that is environmentally friendly - instead of wasting a perfectly good engine and a car, which gets destroyed and or sits in a junk yard, I would take that money and put it towards a tune up, new tires, a new transmission, and new drivetrain parts. Wouldn't that be good for the economy, and good for the environment?

The reason I would not replace my early 1990's vehicle with a 2010 vehicle is simple. My vehicle has real bumpers made out of metal, a properly designed wheel base, and a real braking system. It does not have vehicle stability control, built in tire pressure gauges, and air bags. In fact, most vehicles from the time cars were invented until the early 1990's did not have these items. The vehicle is of course, an Astro van, a piece of American engineering that needs only some minor mechanical improvements to make it a replacement for a Japanese car.

What's Wrong With a New Car?

1. Almost every car, starting in the early 1990's is missing the most critical saftey device of any car, next to the seat belt. It's called a bumper. If you do collide with something head on, it absorbs the impact, and stops blunt objects like trees and telephone poles from squishing you like a bug. In a low to moderate speed crash, it protects your vehicle from major damage.

The bumper for my vehicle costs between $75 and $200 depending on if you want it painted or not. So if I accidentally try to push out the snowbank behind my vehicle and discover that it is solid ice, it won't be a $2000 repair and an insurance claim.

Besides the fact that they stopped making the Astro in 2005 (they went to the fake bumper after 1995), my sole reason for not buying a new car is a lack of a bumper, or a safe one. Ford continues to make trucks with real bumpers, but they put a "fish mouth" air intake in the middle of them that makes the bumper worthless. General Motors is doing similar things.

I've looked at cars on several lots - that thin piece of metal behind the plastic and styrofoam thing in the front and back of the car might prevent cosmetic damage in a 3-5 mph collision. It may prevent injury if the car collides with a brick wall head on at 45 mph. But what if it hits a blunt object, like a tree, or another car, at an angle? I am tired of hearing about people injured in accidents, especially low speed ones. Maybe some people think that these cars look cool, but its not worth my life.

2. Handling and performance at varying speeds. One of the things I like about my Astro van is that it is very stable at freeway speeds. This applies to both the All Wheel and Rear Wheel drive models. The wheel base and tire size matches the weight and mechanical dynamics of the vehicle, such that it can swerve to avoid another car or object in the road, without rollover. This performance seems to degrade after 1995 models. It is very comfortable to drive at 65-70 mph, and does not have that feeling that you are going to move into the next lane with just a slight jerk of the steering wheel. Yes, this may just be adjustments. The reason a vehicle needs "vehicle stability control" is that the vehicle is poorly designed in the first place. It's an excuse for making a top-heavy unstable vehicle with a suspension system that cannot keep the vehicle upright when steering left or right quickly. While the astro is not invincible, how often do you see one on its side? It's all the clones of the Saturn Vue that are vulnerable to roll over. The toyota Lexus SUV?

3. Blind spots. All cars have blind spots. There's just nothing you can do. Many of these new cars are designed purely on looks. Add some really dark tinted windows, and you didn't see that car in you blind spot that you just hit!. Simply put, you need to be able to see well.

4. Ugly. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but these cars all look like toys. It's like they took the things they saw in sci-fi movies and made them. I'm sorry, but these cars are not cool. Not when you put them next to the cars of the 60's, 70's and 80's. If you want a car that gets good gas mileage to drive around town, get a smart car or a motorcycle. To me, I am willing to spend a little more in gas to have some comfort and safety, and if I want to, pass the guy next to me who's driving a prius! I wouldn't mind a prius, just for taking random trips to nowhere - driving around the city, or traveling across the country sight seeing. But then again, if I wanted to take a long trip, I wouldn't want to be in such a small car.

5. The price. For an average car, 22,000 to 30,000? Are you nuts? The problem is that American car companies are not doing what the Japanese companies were doing in the 1980's. They made an engine a transmission and four wheels.

6. What is most critical to me about a car is....four wheels, an engine, a transmission, and a good stereo. There's no reason that power windows and a digital dash are not standard. I'm seeing alot of cars that lack sufficient antennas. Yes, Ford has the right idea with adding technology to their cars. But if that increases the cost of the car to $30,000, it isn't such a good idea. Like I said, it is a car, not a house.

What I don't need are navigation systems and menu based controls in a car. If I want a navigation system, I will get one at the local electronics retailer. Those screens are great for cable installers, taxicab drivers, and limos. If I'm lost, I'll check a real map.

The feature I most like about my Astro van is that it has knobs on the radio, and a set of levers to control the heating and cooling. Sure, I'd like the features that Caddilac has, but even those are easy to use while driving a car, and the last time I looked at a Caddilac, they were still simple controls, push buttons instead of sliders, but still easy to use while driving.

You cannot use menu based controls in a car. If you are looking at a screen to see what you have pressed, you are not paying attention to your driving. Cars that use voice recognition? Well, they call that Night Rider, and it was out in 1982. Ford demo'd one of these in a movie, too. Yes, it is cool, but -why do I need to talk to my car? Ok, that is the coolness factor, I do like the idea, and the whole night rider thing appeals to me. So that one would probably pursuade me. But again, not if the car costs $50,000.

7. What is missing is diagnostics. Yes, they put NAG lights in cars now. But, when the service engine now light comes on, it doesn't tell me what is wrong. In fact, with all of the crap they put in cars, why don't they tell me that my oxygen sensor is putting out erratic data or no data? When the brake light comes on, why can't it tell me that I am low on fluid, or that my pads on the rear or front wheels are getting low or are worn out? Why don't they tell me that my M.A.P. sensor is not performing normally and I may need to check for a vaccuum leak? How about the condition of having low fuel pressure but a functioning car with an insufficient mist, causing it to waste fuel and lack power? How about a reset button? Sometimes the nag light is triggered by an unusual condition, such as extreme cold or warm conditions that cause sensors to operate incorrectly.

8. How about a car made out of metal, not all of this molded plastic. I'm sorry, but if I saw one of these when I was little, I would have said "dad, I want us to get a real car not a toy!". And I probably would have complained about the lack of antenna.

9. Recalls. The problem with car companies is that they are using engineers who went to college to do design work, and not persons who know what they are doing. The windsheild washer fluid heater recall by GM? No overheat sensor? What, didn't you test the scenario when there is no washer fluid? Between all of these car companies, they must have used the same engineers that built the Challenger Space Shuttle. It's really cool, its all hyped up, and then poof.

The Toyota gas pedal. Sticky grease, springs, what ever excuse, why does the brake pedal not slow the car. And how many Toyota vehicles were made for the last 40 years that did not have problems with the Gas pedal. Moving forward...

10. Size. Simply put, I want a big car, not a compact car, one that I can use to move stuff, one that does not require me to "duck" to get into. I hated bubble cars in 1989, and I hate them now. I don't want a Crown Victora, but every time I look at a Buick or a Caddilac, they seem to be getting shorter and shorter. What they should do is move the driver forward just like in an Astro, and give the car a larger cabin, increasing the distance between passengers and the rear of the car. Mitsubishi made one of these already.

Simply put, I don't want a clunker.