💰🔑🏁 BUYING A NEW CAR 🏁🔑💰

[Uptight 534]

Disclaimer: I am not an engineer.

“Rigid does not equal safe.” Modern cars are designed the way they are to absorb impact and allow energy to dissipate. It is the same reason why Armco, SAFER, and Tecpro barriers are designed the way they are. As opposed to a concrete wall, they may get more damaged, but “all” the energy does not stay with the driver.

Piggybacking on Master Raiden, this is a video of a 1998 Toyota Corolla vs a 2015 Corolla. The 1998 model gets absolutely manhandled (airbags would not have made a difference here):

[Different]

When cars weigh as much as they do, the strength of metal and plastic becomes nearly insignificant.
The main advantage of metal is that it can bend without snapping.

Also, it's scary to see how old cars get destroyed by newer cars.

Yes, it is scary, and it’s disappointing. I think this is why people who have an appreciation for old school cars end up getting modifications done to avoid these issues, if possible. I see these tune ups and modifications in Fast and Furious movies for example.

Piggybacking on Master Raiden, this is a video of a 1998 Toyota Corolla vs a 2015 Corolla. The 1998 model gets absolutely manhandled (airbags would not have made a difference here):

Yeah that 2015 is more technologically advanced than a 1998 Toyota Corolla.

[Delphinoid_]

The basic idea is that, in a collision, you have two vehicles carrying a lot of kinetic energy. When they collide, their kinetic energy roughly drops to 0, so where does all that energy go? If you're using a modern car with a crumple zone, it mostly goes into deforming the nose of the car. If you're using an older car, typically the entire body deforms uniformly, crushing you inside (as you can see in those videos). I can't overstate how brilliant crumple zones are. Not only do they absorb a great deal of the energy in a collision, they do so gradually. As you know, gradual changes in acceleration are fine, but sudden and extreme changes can be lethal: crumple zones are strategically designed to minimize the average instantaneous force on the driver and passengers in a collision by spreading it over as much time as possible.

Technically there's nothing stopping you from building a "tank car" out of some super strong material as well. If it's much heavier than the other car, it would just barrel through it, annihilating everyone inside. Otherwise it would bounce or flip, not just throwing everyone inside around but subjecting them to a sudden and extreme change in acceleration (which would at least result in blunt force trauma and whiplash, but also almost certainly death).

So I mean, if all you care about is prioritizing your own safety, the safest car would be to drive something that's super heavy and super rigid (like a literal tank). The main downside is that more mass = more energy required to move it, meaning it's both significantly less fuel efficient and more dangerous for others in collisions. Even though you may be safe, you would be guaranteeing the death of anyone who you got into a collision with. And then of course if everyone started driving tank cars to compensate, without being able to barrel through each other they'd just go back to bouncing off each other, killing everyone involved.

By the way, as far as metal vs. plastic goes, modern cars do still use a lot of metal. They also use a lot of plastic, too. It's kind of hard to talk broadly about it in any meaningful way though because there's so much diversity in metal and plastic. There are weak metals and strong metals, and weak metals that can be made into strong metal alloys. There are weak plastics and strong plastics. Some modern plastics have 200x the strength-to-weight ratio of steel. That's just barely scratching the surface of the insane stuff that's coming out of materials science these days too, it has to be one of the coolest areas of research.

[Legend]

I'd rather keep the money because I really don't have the desire to buy a new car, which is ironic since I have a CDL and drive our semi trucks sometimes. They're fun to drive because you sit so high up and they're RWD. They actually feel pretty fast if you're driving bobtail since they're 400 HP and 2000 lbs of torque, despite having a 16000 lb curb weight.

I transferred to a new site so I haven't driven a day cab in a couple months. I've driven diesel and CNG Volvos, CNG Freightliners, and diesel Peterbilts, and the diesel Volvo is my favorite to drive. CNGs in general suck for parking since they actually idle forward when in reverse and you have to give them quite a bit of gas to get them moving.  Peterbilts have nice interiors but the mirrors are a little small. Volvos IMO have the best mirrors and the tightest turning radius. Another thing, semi trucks look way bigger in person when you're standing right next to one; they're 65-70 feet long which is longer than a house.

Pic of mirrors

Spoiler

   

Another pic parked close to another trailer

Spoiler

   

How large they are in person

Spoiler

   

[David]

I would spend a little bit upgrading my 2004 Civic and I would buy a reasonably priced and reliable electric car

[Mia]

I bike around town, or use ride sharing apps for extra long trips. Driving stresses me out too much.

[LCPD]

What year would you buy it in? I noticed the 2024 Toyota Tundra has a 10-Speed automatic with up to 389hp. That’s not bad for a V6 engine.

Probably 2025. I am personally a big fan of the 1794 Trim of the Tundra. It has that Texas feel.