Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org

Pszemol wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:RcWdnaAvZ77uIPjVnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> one more thought - the later models you've been considering have what 
>> i consider to be a serious deficiency compared to your current vintage 
>> - lack of front sway bar.  the 96-2000 for instance only has sway bars 
>> on the ex and si models, not the lower models.
>>
>> i discovered this while having to make an extreme evasive [defensive] 
>> maneuver to avoid a freeway accident in my [then] new 2000.  damned 
>> thing nearly capsized.  i was used to driving an 89 that has sway bars 
>> as standard, and that pretty much goes wherever you point it, no 
>> excessive body roll.  the 2000, not only did you have to be careful on 
>> the transition between hard left/hard right, there was no "safety 
>> factor" in near-accident situations like i describe.  i ended up 
>> retrofitting the 2000 and that dealt with the problem, but i would not 
>> feel comfortable with one of those vehicles in stock configuration, 
>> especially as the body is so much heavier and thus more susceptible.
> 
> Talking about active safety  - how about ABS?
> Which model years/trims had it already installed, which not?

do you know much about abs?  did you know that it doesn't necessarily 
stop you any quicker, and can in fact /increase/ braking distances?  if 
you have an abs system on your car, open the owners manual and read what 
it says about that.

abs is /fantastic/ for people like my grandmother who will do something 
like skid on the freeway, all 4 wheels locked, and sit there pressing 
the pedal as hard as she can while she has absolutely no control of the 
vehicle whatsoever.  when i'm old enough to drive like her, maybe i'll 
consider abs.  in the mean time, as long as i know about cadence braking 
and friction coefficients, i'm quite happy with standard brakes thanks.


> 
> Talking more about safety systems... how about air bags? Would you 
> prefer driving with 20 years old airbag or 8 years old one?

i prefer to have /no/ airbag!  if true driver safety were the concern of 
gub'mint, roll cages, helmets and 5-point harnesses would be mandatory, 
not airbags.  just like in race cars.


> 
> How would seat belts work after 20 years of service?
> Are you going to replace them with new ones?

depends whether they work or not!  as a matter of fact, i /have/ 
replaced a seat belt with a retractor problem, but that's just me.  the 
inertial lock still worked ok.


> 
> Also, in case of unfortunate accident - how would you think 20 years
> old body would perform compared to the 8 years old with no rust?

mine's california and it has no rust.  and 8 years in the rust belt is 
no guarantee of integrity if you want to be really pedantic.


> If you even neglect rust problem (let's say you live below snow band)
> then how the next model year compares to the older in crash tests?
> Do you think 2000 model year will have upgraded crash test
> performance and cabin cage compared to, let's say 1989 model year?

if it were rusty enough to be structural, i either wouldn't drive it or 
i would have it repaired.  but it depends of the nature of the beast. 
cosmetic rust, say at the bottom of a door or the bottom of a wheel 
well, means nothing to crash safety.  structural rust is the only kind 
that truly matters and, as you may imagine, it takes a /lot/ more to 
rust out thick structural components than thin cosmetic ones.

i recall seeing some crash testing of rusty vehicles some years ago, and 
the researchers were "surprised" to find that the rusted out boxes of 
crap they'd found were no worse in crashes than the unrusted ones.  i 
guess that, like you, they hadn't bothered to think about the facts.