2007 Civic Odometer - switch between km & miles?

Some of this makes sense, but its not all quite right. Cars today do
have wider tires than most cars did in the 80s and early 90s. Even
though they weigh more they generally have better brakes and can corner
quite well. I am sure if you looked up the factory spec, the new cars
would out corner the old ones, even given the extra bulk. Safety is a
big picture kind of thing, but in reality accidents happen and thanks
to all the heavy safety equipment that is in todays cars, accidents are
much more survivable today than they were 15-20 years ago. If I were to
be in an accident with a 1990 CRX in my 2007 civic, there is no doubt in
my mind that I would have a better chance of being OK than the driver of
the CRX. Think about this, what about the amount of SUVs on the road
today, The CRX was not designed with these monsters in mind. I would
not want to be a CRX driver in any kind of collision with an SUV, being
small and quick on your feet will not get you out of an accident most of
the time, remember people usually don't know its going to happen until
it already has.

 

The current Civic Si is pretty damned hard to roll over, too, and is about
as controlled as you can get.

I don't mind the weight of it. It performs well, corners phenomenally,
and has a good road feel. The suspension is excellent, so far.

I have to admit, I never felt very safe in the older small cars. They
just didn't have enough metal for me. When I was 18, I was driving a 77
Impala. Not a looker, by any means, but nearly indestructible. I dumped
it because of gas prices.

I am a much better driver now, though, and would enjoy the HF for work,
since I drive a lot (almost 15k on my Si since July) and I work at night,
when there is little traffic.

While side-impact isn't as bad as much of the media makes it out to be
these days, I still feel better having my kids protected with the air bags
than I do with a paltry ultra-light steel or aluminum shell...

 

I guess my point was a more strict apples to apples comparison where 2
cars off the showroom floor 90 and 07 are compared. I don't like
comparing cars with aftermarket parts because it makes the comparo hard
to do, and it would have to exclude the majority of people who buy the
cars and leave the car stock. Also, in regards to the actual impact, I
don't even think it would be a fair comparison between an older honda
and a new one. You are correct about the front end crash tests being
pretty good on the older hondas, but they are not as good as the new
ones. Also, there is so much extra safety equipment in the new cars,
that it really can be said that the car is built around the safety
equipment. Time has shown that the older hondas are certainly great
cars (especially when compared to their contemporaries) but the company
certainly has come a long way when it comes to safety, even given the
weight increase. Also, in regards to the 48% of crashes being head
on, that means that you have better odds of being hit from one of the
sides or the rear. You would have less than a 50/50 shot of being hit
in your "safe" zone. Bear in mind all the times that "the accident
wasn't my fault", this implies that you were hit, and by most
descriptions this is usually not head on. That means nearly every time
that you are hit (most likely in a way that you can not avoid, being the
victim). A quick, maneuverable car is not really a reliable way to
prevent an accident, because 9 times out of 10 its driver error not the
car. To say a good offense is a good defense would not ring true in a
driving situation....... here it would be correct to say that a good
defense is a good defense.:2cents:

 

but it's not "apples to apples" because the suspension is different!

my cars /are/ stock. i used the same stock wheels for these comparisons.

front or rear is "safe". sides are impossible to make safe, unless you
don't mind having doors 3' thick and some weird seatbelt assembly that
holds you back from the sides of the vehicle like a traditional seatbelt
holds you off the steering wheel.

pretty much by definition, almost /all/ accidents are driver error. if
i hit someone in the rear because my car takes more distance to stop,
it's still my fault, but having a lighter car with a shorter stopping
distance means i'm much more likely to avoid accident statistics completely.

so drive a tank! and make sure you can't be thrown against the insides
of the vehicle in an accident. and wear a helmet.

actually, since cars would be significantly safer if we did wear
helmets, why not do that rather than endlessly increase the oil we buy
from a bunch of rag heads by having heavier and heavier vehicles? oh,
wait...

 

The US EX comes standard with DRL. Not sure about the other models.

 

That's interesting.

Can you turn them off if you want?

 

The Si comes with them, too, and no, there is no switch for them.

I suppose you could disable them with proper knowledge, but I don't see a
reason why. I kinda like having them. They reduce insurance rates, and
they keep me from getting a ticket if I leave the house and forget to turn
on the Headlights at dusk... ;-)

 

I don't know man, the facts seem pretty clear to me. I can't find any
specs on a stock CRX (for example) that prove it to have any better
performance (specifically braking/skidpad) than a stock modern civic.
I don't think that its braking/cornering prowess can be used as an
example of superior safety. Not only that but the new cars are tested
higher in all categories of safety. There is really no reasonable
argument to say the contrary.

Also, why was my example not apples to apples? The car does have a
different suspension, but it is standard from the factory. Two factory
vehicles compared is basically apples to apples in my eyes. Am I
misunderstanding?

 

Same here. In Illinois, it's the law that you must run headlights
whenever you use your wipers. I'm pretty good about remembering (and in
most cases, on dark days, I'll be one of the first drivers out there to
run with headlights, no matter what the law is). Sometimes I forget,
though, and the DRL's would keep me from getting a ticket.

What's more likely is that a cop will pass me in the rain with no
headlights and the wipers going...

They reduce insurance rates, and

 

eh? you don't think better braking is safer? likewise cornering?

where does braking or cornering figure in impact testing?

because the suspension is different.

eh? so a vette and a geo metro are the same because they're both from a
g.m. factory?

no disrespect, but i think you are, yes.

 

No disrespect taken, its a friendly discussion here. I am just saying
that a 2007 does in fact corner as well as a 90 CRX and does in fact
brake as well. The car is heavier but it has not shown to hinder it in
cornering/braking. Tires and suspension aside, the figures are about
equal. I don't see where the suspension matters, given that they both
are accomplishing the same performance. Even neglecting all the other
safety equipment/safer structure, where is the advantage of the older
car?

 

BlackGT2000 wrote:

i can't answer those questions without repeating myself.

 

I feel I have reached the same point. Perhaps something is lost when
its written word rather than voice. Oh well.