Car Tech: What are the pros and cons of plastic cars?
- 6/6/07 1:57 PM
todays
by wcoffey81 - 6/23/07 10:22 AM In reply to: todays cars are much safer by styleline52yes, there is nothing like the sound of a door closing on one of those older beasts
Plastic Body Panels=Large Pro
by kpennell - 6/22/07 10:50 AM In reply to: What are the pros and cons of plastic cars? by wcunning
We recently sold my wife's old 1995 Saturn SL1 with almost 140,000 miles on it for $1275 on Ebay. After I detailed the car, the exterior looked new with virtually no defects. The insurance companies loved this Saturn too and gave it one of the lowest symbols because the plastic body panels were much more damage resistant. Despite the plastic body panels, it was one of the safest and most crashworthy cars in its class at the time due to a superior spaceframe. It's a shame that GM allowed Saturn to lose its way and depart from its heritage.
All about crash worthiness
by sgtdisturbed47 - 6/22/07 11:35 AM In reply to: What are the pros and cons of plastic cars? by wcunning
A rigid body and frame won't absorb impact, while composite bodies have crumple-zones that absorb impact like a spring. Back in the '50s and '60s, seeing a totally wrecked car on the highway meant that there were no survivors. Today, if the front end of a composite vehicle is completely smashed in, it means that the crumple zones just saved lives.
With newer frames means newer technology, and if plastic has benefits such as a lighter body for better fuel efficiency, maybe going with plastic is a good thing.
Anyone that says "my tank of a car can survive an accident", you're loosing sight of the fact that it's not the car you need to worry about, it's your well-being. Rigid bodies can't absorb impact, so you feel most if not all of the G-forces upon impact. with crumple zones, this is reduced, like I said above, in the fashion of a giant spring. I would rather have a wrecked car and be alive than drive around in a "tank", waiting to die in a 50 mile an hour accident, which are perfectly survivable today in newer vehicles that use crumple zones.
sgtdisturbed47 More on Crash Worthiness
by Coloboma - 6/24/07 11:04 AM In reply to: All about crash worthiness by sgtdisturbed47Take your old 52 Chevy (which I envy greatly!), add a 5 point harness and air bags. Now you can batter all the crumple cars into big wrinkled balls, in complete safety. 
****
by bmwman123 - 5/23/09 2:36 PM In reply to: All about crash worthiness by sgtdisturbed47someyimes thats correct. but my 1952 bmw saved my life when a nissan titan was pulling out to pass a car and hit head on with me going 70 kph. his truck was a right off and my car was repairable and expensive to find the parts for.
old vs. new
by psychochick29 - 6/22/07 5:23 PM In reply to: What are the pros and cons of plastic cars? by wcunning
Ok, im the first in line for fuel economy and saving the environment. First in line for veggie-diesel (up here in Canada we dont have it quite yet)... BUT... I had 2 Chev. Cavaliers ('95 model and '97)... both great little cars, great on gas.... Gave em up and bought a Chev Lumina... still lotsa plastic and super thin metal, but feels a whole lot safer to me.
I come from a long line of classic car collectors (my family and my hubbys family) and even though they are gas guzzlers, the "real metal" feels sooooooo much safer. Most of the older cars in my family are still lacking seat belts (Canadian law does not require them in cars that were originally manufactured without them), so that lacks the safety, however, whenever I look at one of these new teeny tiny cars that are supposed to be so efficient, I SHUDDER.
I've seen enough accidents with a newer car (plastic and "wanna-be" metal body combos) vs older cars ("real metal" bodies) and every time the older car won. (Every time I cried to see that a classic car had been "damaged", but soon realized it was hardly more than a few paint scratches, where as the new car ended up loosing the entire front end).
Safety wise, I feel a million times safer in an older METAL body car than in a teeny new car.
My father worked for General Motors for about 30 years, so he saw production of many different models. I'm gonna vote for the oldies any day....
Safety is first priority, but the rumble that comes out of a finely tuned muscle car.... Mmmmm.. Now thats nice.... (and something you ain't gonna get from some new jobbie!)
Quality makes all the difference...
by Impreza WRX - 6/23/07 12:54 PM In reply to: What are the pros and cons of plastic cars? by wcunning
I once owned a 1993 Honda Civic Sedan. It was 12 years old when I got it, and it had a few "old car" problems. This car was like a beer can when it came to structural integrity. However, I think it was a very good car. It had only what you needed and nothing more. The interior was a plastic interior, but it all fit together well. The car didn't make strange noises when you hit bumps, nor did it feel like it was going to implode on itself at any given moment. It only weighed 2400 lbs., if that says anything about "sparsity". You also fit in it. A tiny car with a huge interior. It got great fuel economy (42+ highway) and you could put a LOT of stuff into that car. It was easy to fix, and that little 1.5L SOHC "D series" engine saw the redline every day. It never failed on me due to running hard. I had to get rid of it when it got S.U.V.'ed, but it still works, because I see it still being driven, all busted up and stuff.
I now have a 2003 Chevrolet Cavalier. What a difference. The Cavalier may be built like the Civic, but the quality is just not there. It's like GM's idea of building a car is to poop out lots of cars out of a factory like diarrhea, and forget quality. The dashboard seams don't line up, the chassis is less strong than the Honda, the suspension is built for "ride comfort" so you don't have to feel potholes, but of course the handling isn't as good as the Civic, and neither is the braking. When you do go over bumps, everything squeaks, creaks, and makes noises that you don't want to hear. A couple parts of the interior have already "popped off" on me and I have had to pop them back in place. If there is anything that is good in the Cavalier, it is the drivetrain. The 2.2 ECOTEC is a strong engine with significant performance potential, and the Getrag 5-speed gearbox, while picky with the clutch, is a strong gearbox to boot. However, everything else just says "thrown together". The worst part is my Cavalier has 62,000 miles on it and the starter is already going bad. IT IS FOUR YEARS OLD! Four year old cars shouldn't have ten year old car problems! It's no wonder the sales dropped so bad GM had to stop making Cavaliers. they just started sucking by 2005.
I've heard people use the excuse "It's a mass produced car! What do you expect?" That is NOT a valid excuse. The Civic is mass produced, and it has amazing build quality, even though it is the second least expensive car on the lineup. I expect GM to at least put a little pride into their mass production cars. Honda and Toyota have done it for decades, it's way past time for GM to start investing into more R&D and to start making cars with that commitment to quality.
This is what makes the difference, not whether recycled plastic cars with weed eater engines are better than steel land yachts with V8 engines, but how well built is the recycled plastic car.
Appendaging...
by Impreza WRX - 6/23/07 1:04 PM In reply to: Quality makes all the difference... by Impreza WRXThe real kicker about the Cavalier is that even the 2003-2005 model scores worse in safety tests than the old 1993 Civic does.
Don't think because it's small it's dangerous. Cars like the brand new Civic weigh only 2600 lbs., same as my Cavalier, but they score much higher in crash safety tests.
Impreza-WRX, Apples - Oranges
by Coloboma - 6/24/07 10:54 AM In reply to: Appendaging... by Impreza WRXThose safety rating are relative, not absolute. The highest scoring big car is much more safe than the highest scoring smaller car. In fact, the lowest scoring large car is probably safer than the highest scoring small car.
About crumple zones: Crumple zones are a temporary, band aid approach until more rigid cabins and restraint systems are developed. Racing cars dispense with crumple zones and make brutally strong, intrusion-proof cages. When used with 5 point belts and helmets, racers routinely walk away from explosive 200mph crashes.
fruit
by wcoffey81 - 6/25/07 8:22 AM In reply to: Impreza-WRX, Apples - Oranges by Colobomathe race car also has a $10,000.00 custom seat, $300 seatbelts that get changed every couple of races, a $2000 fire suit, a $1000+ helmet, a $1500 hans device, a $500 crushable steering column.....do you want me to keep going??
OH, and by the way cup type cars have crush panels in all of the wheelwell areas and the bumpers have a certain spec on how strong they can be, plus the anti-intrusion part is made by welding plates of steel to the door-bars
plastic cars
by frmtrkr - 6/23/07 4:25 PM In reply to: What are the pros and cons of plastic cars? by wcunning
plastic cars is stupid. plastic is more flammable than metal. making a burning car more dangerous for victims and emergency responders. plastic is also made from petroleum, so we really are not saving money, just making oil companies richer and the world still more dependant on them. now, as for making a plastic panels ,with some strength to resist impact, the plastic would have to be thick,and heavy. again loosing the saving on weight of the vehicle
Good job.
by jty12388 - 6/23/07 7:34 PM In reply to: plastic cars by frmtrkrWay to pick all of the cons...even making some up of your own...and avoid all of the pros of plastic in cars. I don't think I really need to correct you, its already been done.
Plastics
by eccles - 6/24/07 5:45 PM In reply to: What are the pros and cons of plastic cars? by wcunning
Refers to the mechanical properties of a material,steel becomes plastic when heated.Plastic,as in polyvynl can be rigid,as in dashcovers/door panels/a/c grilles,or soft and flexible as the seat covers with the addition of more or different plasticizers.It can be made from soybean oil,or most hydrocarbons.U.v.resistance is the result of other,more expensive additives.Crash/crush resistance can be engineered into a "plastic",epoxy/kevlar laminates a good example.Eccles
Plastic fantastic car
by eccles - 6/24/07 6:00 PM In reply to: What are the pros and cons of plastic cars? by wcunning
My previous car,before a 45ft power boat landed on top of it courtesy of katrina,was an "88 fiero,steel frame,plastic shopping-cart ding free body,and 33mpg @ 75mph,eccles
Pros & Cons of Plastic cars
by wmt100 - 6/24/07 9:38 PM In reply to: What are the pros and cons of plastic cars? by wcunning
Never to build one.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
|
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
