[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
[Profile/Gallery]
, Thu, 4 Aug 2011 15:48:08
Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup
i dearly loved my '98 Cherokee (classic), but it came incredibly close
to maiming or killing me when it easily flipped many times for for about 70 yards, as i entered a shallow ditch
at 60mph, on frozen dirt, and the pounding was like nothing i have ever felt, beyond falling down on ice at 45mph skiing on ice. Granted, from 40 or 50- 85ish mph the injury scale goes rapidly/exponentially catastrophic.
(Until the wreck, I did not at all comprehend the speed quotient in injury probability, even though I had pored over the IIHS site for years and read other safety info. I read recently that over 50% of head-ons at 60mph cause fatal injuries--i still find that one hard to believe, but these are averages of course. (all the more need for a safe car for a youngster)
I'm 41, had driven 70K on in the Cherokee, including thousands sliding in ice, snow, dirt, mud, at substantial speeds---ie, i had experience.
Cherokee's don't have traction control, let alone Stability control. I would never own or rent an SUV without stability control now, nor a truck, simply too easy to flip, due to center of gravity. Youngsters really need to be in cars.
If i had not just been hiking five minutes before and didn't have very strong core strength, i would not have been able to remain conscious (the initial impacts were so hard i could not believe it at what i thought was a fairly slow speed , 60mph--i had previously been in a probably 50mph crash with car into car and it was easier than bumpercars at park).
brace away from side and top of car, which was getting crunched in, and barely remain conscious, as i could feel my brain's momentary desire to black out, which i never did, thankfully, and only very-lightly tapped my head on headliner.
So, though i dearly dearly loved the Cherokee, and the 1997 -2001 are built with a lot of strength, there is no question as to how deadly they (and the other SUV's have even higher centers of gravity, some much more tip-prone, including Grand Cherokee and Blazer) ( I can imagine myself doing very high speeds at age 22 in a Cherokee if i had had one back then---i did dangerously high speeds in my '76 Dodge Aspen, so i know how ignorantly strong i felt back then.
If u want ultrasafe car and don't mind using more gas and rear drive, the last rear drive Volvo's, around 1995-1998 960 (in '98 "S90), and V90 for wagon is worth consideration. Anders (swedecar) has mentioned those i recall).
But I've noticed that some more recent cars like around 2005 Chevy Malibu (boxy style, not "classic" fleet one mentioned in another post) has fairly high safety ratings and even the 6 cyl. has good fuel economy supposedly. They also have 2.2 4cyl.
You might be able to get a high mile one for not too much--i have noticed they seem expensive for what they are.
But an already sorted NG 900 Saab or 1999 Saab 9-3 is not a bad choice in Auto trans form, but it needs to have been sorted already.
posted by 24.18.248...
, Fri, 5 Aug 2011 10:16:30, Thu, 4 Aug 2011 15:48:08, Fri, 5 Aug 2011 10:11:39
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
