Honda Car Forum

"me@here.com" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:bnspgvg40et1ers3b3arc1ppjlrvbv513c@4ax.com...
> The time has come to get a new(to me) car. Thinking back on all of
> the cars that I've driven over the years, I'd have to say that my
> parents 1990 Civic was the best overall car that I've driven. It had
> 200k+ miles on it and was still going strong. Not exactly cool
> looking or fun to drive, but the damn thing started and drove EVERY
> time we needed it for those 10 years or so, and never needed any
> repairs over a couple $100. When my mom got into a head-on accident
> with an SUV and totaled it, she didn't have a scratch, and the car was
> still drivable even though the engine compartment was reduced by about
> 1/4.

So how do you "total" a vehicle and still drive it away from the scene?
Something tells me that car was far from totaled, and with some parts from a
junkyard Civic it woulda been good as new.

> So I need a new car, and don't have a lot of money to spend. In the
> local papers there are tons of old civics and accords with high
> mileage for like $1000. I figure even if the car has 150k+ on it,
> I'll probably get another 100k+ out of it before any major repairs are
> needed. My only concern is safety.

A cars longevity is _directly_ related to how it is cared for. My '67 lasted
200,000 miles before a major failure... Which was likely the result of abuse
and lack of maintenance by previous owners. My '68 has 95,000 miles and is
still going strong. Starts up every time and gets me where I need to go.
Both of my old Fords have been very reliable cars. As for your previous
comment about reliability in relation to cost of repairs, that's ridiculous.
It's the type of repair that says things about the car. If you spend those
couple hundred bucks on normal maintenance or parts that typically wear out
in that amount of time then sure, it's a reliable car. If that money was
spend on unforeseeable things that should not have failed, then it's not a
reliable car.

> I'm just trying to get a few opinions about the chances of survival in
> a serious accident between an SUV and a 1991 Accord. It sucks that
> SUV's have been consistently outselling cars in the US for years, so
> over time the proportion of SUV's and trucks on the roads will get
> even worse, and make it even harder and more dangerous to drive a
> reasonably sized vehicle. I hate getting caught up in this bullshit
> arms race, but I can't really see any way around it.

You must be delusional. How do lots of trucks/SUVs on the road make it "even
harder and more dangerous to drive a reasonably sized vehicle"? I drive a
reasonably sized vehicle (full-size passenger car) and have no trouble
whatsoever with regards to trucks/SUVs. I don't see how the type of vehicles
you share the road with will make the road more dangerous. So long as they
can move with traffic (i.e. not tractors and such) there is no increased
danger.

> So is it still moderately safe to drive an old Honda, or will I "go
> see God", as a friend put it in the event of an accident? I just
> don't have money to burn on thousands of lbs of armor to protect
> myself against Jane SUV-driver soccer mom's careless driving. Anyone
> know a website where you can get stats on different types of accidents
> and survival rates, etc?

Careless driving is found in drivers of all types of vehicles and is evenly
distributed between them. I suggest you stop being so paranoid about dying
in an accident and just accept the risk involved in driving. Start learning
to drive better, and how to avoid accidents. Play a game with yourself
whenever your alone in the car... Imagine other vehicles or circumstances
putting you in harms way, and then think of the various ways to get yourself
out of harms way. Do this enough and you will get fast at it, so if it were
to really happen you would know what to do in time to do it.

In article <pYOdnUG0TLN9OpCiU-KYgw@comcast.com>,
Cory Dunkle <cadnews@comcast.net> wrote:

> So how do you "total" a vehicle and still drive it away from the scene?

It's a '90 Civic. It doesn't take much paint or body damage for the
repair cost to approach the value of the car, which will result in the
insurance company totaling the vehicle.

Back in the northeast, I knew a few people whose cars were totaled by
hail damage. Obviously, those were still driveable. Here in California,
my girlfriend's Exploder was totaled by a sandstorm. Still driveable.

>So how do you "total" a vehicle and still drive it away from the scene?
>Something tells me that car was far from totaled, and with some parts from a
>junkyard Civic it woulda been good as new.

It was only totaled for insurance purposes. We could have fixed it up
a bit and kept driving it, but the accident drove home the point that
the car wouldn't be very safe in an accident. If the SUV had hit it
from the side instead of head-on, the chances for survival would be
slim to none.

>A cars longevity is _directly_ related to how it is cared for. My '67 lasted
>200,000 miles before a major failure... Which was likely the result of abuse
>and lack of maintenance by previous owners. My '68 has 95,000 miles and is
>still going strong. Starts up every time and gets me where I need to go.
>Both of my old Fords have been very reliable cars. As for your previous
>comment about reliability in relation to cost of repairs, that's ridiculous.
>It's the type of repair that says things about the car. If you spend those
>couple hundred bucks on normal maintenance or parts that typically wear out
>in that amount of time then sure, it's a reliable car. If that money was
>spend on unforeseeable things that should not have failed, then it's not a
>reliable car.

Good point. No matter what car I drive, I'm going to take care of it,
do regular maintenance, etc. I'm interested in how well the car is
built though, and how often the unforseeable failures you mentioned
happen. With our old Civic they DIDN'T happen, which is more than I
can say for any other car I've driven before or since.


>You must be delusional. How do lots of trucks/SUVs on the road make it "even
>harder and more dangerous to drive a reasonably sized vehicle"? I drive a
>reasonably sized vehicle (full-size passenger car) and have no trouble
>whatsoever with regards to trucks/SUVs. I don't see how the type of vehicles
>you share the road with will make the road more dangerous. So long as they
>can move with traffic (i.e. not tractors and such) there is no increased
>danger.
>

By danger, I'm not talking about the chances of getting into an
accident. I'm talking about the chances of surving the random
accident that WILL happen eventually if you spend enough time on the
road. If you have the best skills in the world and the fastest and
most nimble car on the road, that won't help you a bit when some drunk
swerves into your lane with no warning or some kid changing CD's
rear-ends you at a red light. If they're driving a car smaller than
or equal to the size of yours you'll probably survive. If they're
driving an SUV and you're in a compact car 1/8th as heavy as theirs,
you're screwed. Since SUVs have been outselling cars for some time
now, the proportion of SUVs relative to cars on the roads is
increasing, and therefore the chance that the random person who hits
you is driving an SUV instead of a car is also increasing.


>Careless driving is found in drivers of all types of vehicles and is evenly
>distributed between them. I suggest you stop being so paranoid about dying
>in an accident and just accept the risk involved in driving. Start learning
>to drive better, and how to avoid accidents. Play a game with yourself
>whenever your alone in the car... Imagine other vehicles or circumstances
>putting you in harms way, and then think of the various ways to get yourself
>out of harms way. Do this enough and you will get fast at it, so if it were
>to really happen you would know what to do in time to do it.
>

I do accept that there is risk involved in driving. But I'll be
damned if I'm not going to do everything possible to minimize that
risk. I probably am paranoid, but these days when the average person
drives a vehicle 5x as large as they need, you'd better be paranoid if
you're driving a small car. People are driving offroad, industrial,
and even military grade vehicles to commute and go between their
houses and the K-Mart parking lot because the advertisers tell them
they have to in order to fit the right image. Me- I just want a car
that gets me from point A to point B and will do so EVERY time with no
bullshit status symbols or image related expenses.

Like you said, careless driving is found in drivers of all types of
vehicle- but today the chances are greater that Joe Careless will be
driving a Suburban when he starts driving like an asshole and hits me.
Not because of anything about SUV's that attracts this kind of person,
but just because they are popular vehicles and more of them are on the
road today.

mph@wopr.caltech.edu (Matthew Hunt) wrote:
>In article <pYOdnUG0TLN9OpCiU-KYgw@comcast.com>,
>Cory Dunkle <cadnews@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> So how do you "total" a vehicle and still drive it away from the scene?
>
>It's a '90 Civic. It doesn't take much paint or body damage for the
>repair cost to approach the value of the car, which will result in the
>insurance company totaling the vehicle.
>
>Back in the northeast, I knew a few people whose cars were totaled by
>hail damage. Obviously, those were still driveable. Here in California,
>my girlfriend's Exploder was totaled by a sandstorm. Still driveable.

Spin out a '91 Q45 and smash the right side into a guard rail. The body
damage was quite sufficient to total it, but it still drove great.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

"me@here.com" wrote:


> By danger, I'm not talking about the chances of getting into
> an accident.


Pretty slim actually. According to NHTSA figures a new car sold
today has only and eight percent chance of being in an accident,
sufficient to deploy the air bags, in its LIFETIME. Statistically
I would be on the side of the laws of physics and drive in the
biggest heaviest vehicle I could afford, if I believed I would be
in one of the eight percent.



mike hunt

"me@here.com" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:ru9sgvsl8r8r1t155cbu9o1q7vk5ofrept@4ax.com...
>
> >So how do you "total" a vehicle and still drive it away from the scene?
> >Something tells me that car was far from totaled, and with some parts
from a
> >junkyard Civic it woulda been good as new.
>
> It was only totaled for insurance purposes. We could have fixed it up
> a bit and kept driving it, but the accident drove home the point that
> the car wouldn't be very safe in an accident. If the SUV had hit it
> from the side instead of head-on, the chances for survival would be
> slim to none.

Most people would feel safer in an accident in a '68 Ford than a '90 Civic.
They feel that way because the car is so big, weighs nearly 2 tons, and has
a frame. If I were to be hit hard in the side by a truck the armrests in
these old cars are notorious for taking out kidneys in side impact
collisions. That's assuming it doesn't penetrate far enough to kill me. From
and rear collision are a lot safer in such a vehicle, but I'd doubt it's
really any better than a '90 Civic. If you want a safe car you need a big
car. My cars larger size helps make up for its dated safety features... I
wouldn't wanna be in an accident in something like a '60s Mustang, as those
things are weak as hell, they have a unibody and crumble in a collision.
Your best bet is a large modern car like the Crown Vic, which has lots of
modern safety features. It's probably as heavy as many SUVs/pickups but is
still a car.

> >A cars longevity is _directly_ related to how it is cared for. My '67
lasted
> >200,000 miles before a major failure... Which was likely the result of
abuse
> >and lack of maintenance by previous owners. My '68 has 95,000 miles and
is
> >still going strong. Starts up every time and gets me where I need to go.
> >Both of my old Fords have been very reliable cars. As for your previous
> >comment about reliability in relation to cost of repairs, that's
ridiculous.
> >It's the type of repair that says things about the car. If you spend
those
> >couple hundred bucks on normal maintenance or parts that typically wear
out
> >in that amount of time then sure, it's a reliable car. If that money was
> >spend on unforeseeable things that should not have failed, then it's not
a
> >reliable car.
>
> Good point. No matter what car I drive, I'm going to take care of it,
> do regular maintenance, etc. I'm interested in how well the car is
> built though, and how often the unforseeable failures you mentioned
> happen. With our old Civic they DIDN'T happen, which is more than I
> can say for any other car I've driven before or since.

Again, I would say a Crown Vic is probably a good choice for reliability.
Police use them and put them under extreme conditions (i.e. high speed road
racing to Dunkin Donuts, etc.) often enough. They wouldn't choose a vehicle
which was not reliable, simply due to the amount of money involved in
maintaining an unreliable fleet.

> >You must be delusional. How do lots of trucks/SUVs on the road make it
"even
> >harder and more dangerous to drive a reasonably sized vehicle"? I drive a
> >reasonably sized vehicle (full-size passenger car) and have no trouble
> >whatsoever with regards to trucks/SUVs. I don't see how the type of
vehicles
> >you share the road with will make the road more dangerous. So long as
they
> >can move with traffic (i.e. not tractors and such) there is no increased
> >danger.
> >
>
> By danger, I'm not talking about the chances of getting into an
> accident. I'm talking about the chances of surving the random
> accident that WILL happen eventually if you spend enough time on the
> road. If you have the best skills in the world and the fastest and
> most nimble car on the road, that won't help you a bit when some drunk
> swerves into your lane with no warning

That's the sort of thing you should plan ahead for so you can react quickly
and get out of teh way or increase your chance of survival.

> or some kid changing CD's
> rear-ends you at a red light.

All the rear enders anyone I know have been involved in ahve been with
middle aged people. Though one was a 'front ender' by some woman who didn't
know where first was and put the car into reverse, slamming into my
girlfriend's father's car not once, but again after the police came and she
was allowed to leave. My particular accident was a 'side ender' in which a
77 year old bag blew through a stop sign at 5 MPH and crushed my passenger
side door in.

> If they're driving a car smaller than
> or equal to the size of yours you'll probably survive. If they're
> driving an SUV and you're in a compact car 1/8th as heavy as theirs,
> you're screwed.

You are ignoring all the safety features in modern cars. Small cars do
pretty darned well in collisions. That is to say, protecting the
occupants... The car may be totaled but the passengers will often live
through it with no permanent damage.

> Since SUVs have been outselling cars for some time
> now, the proportion of SUVs relative to cars on the roads is
> increasing, and therefore the chance that the random person who hits
> you is driving an SUV instead of a car is also increasing.

Agreed, but still, I see more compact sedans than SUVs/pickups. Regardless,
if you are the type to be paranoid about such things just get a lerger
modern vehicle. If you get a modern 'full-size' car there will be twice as
much length of car in front of and behind you to protect you.

> >Careless driving is found in drivers of all types of vehicles and is
evenly
> >distributed between them. I suggest you stop being so paranoid about
dying
> >in an accident and just accept the risk involved in driving. Start
learning
> >to drive better, and how to avoid accidents. Play a game with yourself
> >whenever your alone in the car... Imagine other vehicles or circumstances
> >putting you in harms way, and then think of the various ways to get
yourself
> >out of harms way. Do this enough and you will get fast at it, so if it
were
> >to really happen you would know what to do in time to do it.
> >
>
> I do accept that there is risk involved in driving. But I'll be
> damned if I'm not going to do everything possible to minimize that
> risk. I probably am paranoid, but these days when the average person
> drives a vehicle 5x as large as they need, you'd better be paranoid if
> you're driving a small car.

So we should all be driving Geo Metros now, eh? You say I don't need to
drive a Galaxie 500 every day, as I'm usually driving alone, or with one
passenger. Why do I need a car that comfortable seats 7 and has enough trunk
space for 5 corpses, tools, and luggage? Because it's comfortable. I'm 6'3",
most new cars are too small, they don't have the leg or head room I need. I
could go with a minivan, but they are just as 'dangerous' to other motorists
in a collision as a SUV/pickup due to their size and weight. Hell, plenty of
minivans are built with the same frame used in pickups. When driving my
dad's '93 Geo Prizm I feel about as safe as I do in my Galaxies should there
be a collision. I feel trapped though, like I'm strapping on the car it's so
small. I feel less safe driving it as it has no power whatsoever, I'm
cramped and uncomfortable, and I have to be a contortionist to see anything
as the post is right next to my head and eliminates any peripheral vision. I
don't feel safe driving like that.

> People are driving offroad, industrial,
> and even military grade vehicles to commute and go between their
> houses and the K-Mart parking lot because the advertisers tell them
> they have to in order to fit the right image. Me- I just want a car
> that gets me from point A to point B and will do so EVERY time with no
> bullshit status symbols or image related expenses.

I just want a nice, comfortable, reasonably powerful and stylish car that
will get me from point A to point B every time. I have that, but my car is
what some would call 'excessively big', or '5x as large as I need'. I agree
that people who do it for the status symbol are dorky posers. I personalyl
don't view having an overpriced vehicle that handles like crap as a status
symbol. I'd much rather have a car, which handles well and can get me out of
a hairy situation should I need it to.

> Like you said, careless driving is found in drivers of all types of
> vehicle- but today the chances are greater that Joe Careless will be
> driving a Suburban when he starts driving like an asshole and hits me.
> Not because of anything about SUV's that attracts this kind of person,
> but just because they are popular vehicles and more of them are on the
> road today.

Agreed. The way I figure it though is that there isn't much I can do about
it except drive safely and prudently. Admittedly though, I do enjoy the
luxury of a shoulder belt when I'm in my '68, whereas my '67 has no shoulder
belts. Be that as it may, the whiplash froma high speed collision and no
head restraint would probably snap my neck and perhaps paralyze me. Oh
well... I don't bother worrying about such things because if it ahppens it
happens, there isn't much I can do about it.

In article <XRednYF0j_70UpOiXTWJhw@comcast.com>,
Cory Dunkle <cadnews@comcast.net> wrote:

> That's a weird deifnition of totaled. I always thought totalled meant beat
> to hell and back again. Smashed up and most of the running gear is shot. I
> guess insurance companies think differently.

....

> No sense junking a perfectly good car because the insurance company
> considers it "totaled".

You don't have to junk it. Since you don't seem to be familiar with the
process, I'll explain it more thoroughly. The thing to keep in mind is that
"totaled" has everything to do with insurance; it's short for "declared a
total loss." If we didn't insure cars, we wouldn't use the word "totaled."

You have an old Civic, with a fair market value of $2,500. You get into
a relatively minor accident, or a hailstorm, or whatever. You carry
full insurance coverage on the car (not just liability) with a $250
deductible. You got to the body shop, and the repair estimate is, say,
$2,000 or higher.

Your insurance carrier decides to declare the car a total loss. That means
that they would rather pay you the value of the car (less your deductible)
than fix it. They'll do this even if the estimate is a little below the
value of the car, because there is the risk of finding more damage midway
through the repair. They cut you a check for $2,500 - $250 = $2,250.
(It is important to note here that the fair market value is open to
negotiation. They may try to lowball you, but you can try to convince them
that such cars sell for more than they're offering. They should also pay
the cost of sales tax and DMV fees.) They own the car (or what's left of
it), since they paid you for it.

However, you can buy it back from them, at relatively low cost (since it
has been damaged). Perhaps they will sell it back to you for $500. Now
you have your car, and $2,250 - $500 = $1,750. You will have to have the
car inspected for safety, and a salvage (or rebuilt) title will be issued.
This will make it harder to sell the car, but you do have $1,750 in your
pocket and a driveable car. Your insurance company will probably no longer
provide full coverage for the car, just liability.

Having a cheap car totaled for cosmetic damage often works out pretty well
for people without much money (college students, etc.) who just want a car
for basic transportation, don't care if it retains resale value, and don't
care how it looks.

> That's a weird deifnition of totaled. I always thought totalled meant beat
> to hell and back again. Smashed up and most of the running gear is shot. I
> guess insurance companies think differently.

it goes by cost. theyd likely total a mid-90s civic theft recovery with a
stripped interior, just because it would cost more than the car is worth to
get OEM seats, etc.

but if you go the junkyard route, sure... you can save a bunch.

> When paying someone else to fix the damage it doesn't take much to "total"
a
> car.

a guy at work bought a nice '72 caddy hearse for $1000.

someone sideswiped him, and the insurance co gave him $3000.

he then pushed the dents out, and sold as is for $1000.

In article <yESdnRXWqNs4yoyiXTWJhw@comcast.com>,
Cory Dunkle <cadnews@comcast.net> wrote:

> It is relevant, as the cost to repair it is likely less than the value of
> the car.

You pay full-price insurance premiums, but expect your insurer to use
junkyard parts when figuring repair costs? You must be their favorite
customer!

I've explained this once, but I'll try again. You let them total the
car, and take the money. Use a little bit of that money to buy the
car back from them. Use a little more of that money to go to your
junkyard and get the parts you want. Now you have your car, repaired
with junkyard parts like you want it to be, and you still have money
left over from it being totaled.

Please explain again why you don't want them to total the car?