Sigh...another Camaro vs. Mustang comparo

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

Dude. How much air pressure do you run in those nittos?
It's like they aren't even flat at all on the bottom.

They are filled with helium, that is why it is not touching the ground

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by Tobra

They are filled with helium, that is why it is not touching the ground

That makes sense.
I figured maybe they put the bottom air on top by mistake.

[sugarwood]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

High beltline is for styling, not crash protection.

The high beltline is not about styling, it's a consequence of pedestrian crash regs.

Higher hood -> Higher cowl -> Higher seats -> Higher roof -> Higher beltline -> Bigger wheels.


http://www.caranddriver.com/features/taking-the-hit-how-pedestrian-protection-regs-make-cars-fatter-feature

[aschen]

interesting, the camaro has taken it to such an extreme though. Maybe they would have to raise the roofline to get more glass. I think even 2 cm would help tons though. Poor visibility really hinders the driving experience in my experience.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by sugarwood

The high beltline is not about styling, it's a consequence of pedestrian crash regs.

Higher hood -> Higher cowl -> Higher seats -> Higher roof -> Higher beltline -> Bigger wheels.


Taking the Hit: How Pedestrian-Protection Regs Make Cars Fatter - Feature - Car and Driver

Still styling, they take the high nose and continue it on. Many new cars meet modern regs but still have a reasonably low beltline.

[pwd72s]

Originally Posted by aschen

interesting, the camaro has taken it to such an extreme though. Maybe they would have to raise the roofline to get more glass. I think even 2 cm would help tons though. Poor visibility really hinders the driving experience in my experience.

Every road test I've read in the car magazines on the Camaro has complaints about poor visibility.

For me,"No GM" is a political decision made after the Government takeover resulting in the stock and bond holders of the old GM getting the shaft.

[Jack Olsen]

Car & Driver is really not what I would call a trusted source for rebutting myths that car manufacturers want us to believe. Cars were huge and belt/sill lines were high long before European pedestrian impact standards were a thing. Crash safety and other regulations have been used to counter the 'why are cars so big and fat' argument for a long time. I am not an expert on the issue. It's possible that safety regulations are exactly the reason, and customers not wanting to drive a smaller car than their neighbors plays no role at all. But I don't think that's the case. I think that it's easier to market large cars than small ones because of a persistent link between perceived status and vehicle size. It's no accident that even Porsche sells more SUVs than sports cars; consumers feel that sitting up high (or at least appearing to) means they are more in control of their surroundings.

[pwd72s]

Jack, one of the several reasons I have for selling my '72 was the freeway driving conditions of today. A near miss with a huge SUV when I was drivng it up to Rothsport scared the krap out of me. It wasn't the car damage I was worried about. It was not living to cry about the damage. A 2440 curb weight car vs. the porkers of today?

The near miss was not my fault, but if the hit had happened, it wouldn't have mattered. I'd have been "dead right".

L.A. is no longer the only "worst traffic" city on the west coast. Portland is hanging in there with it.

Also, not just C&D...Car magazines are really about trying to get readers to want to buy cars from car makers who place the advertising.

[Jack Olsen]

It’s a very valid point. And unfortunately, there’s no way to 'update' the older cars in terms of safety. That is one way the new cars definitely ARE superior.

[vmax]

Hey Jack, love your car, but you do have a DME... So it's not entirely computer free.

[Jack Olsen]

True. A data recorder as well.