[besson3c]

Apparently the reason why it is taking so long for the Smart cars to arrive in this country is because the cars needed a redesign to meet US safety regulations, and they needed to burn regular unleaded gas rather than diesel. In making both of these modifications, the fuel economy expected out of these vehicles will be much less than the European and Canadian versions of the cars.

This is frustrating. I personally would rather have the option to buy the car now and put up with the alleged dangers while enjoying significantly higher fuel economy (providing that Diesel was priced cheaper than unleaded gas in my area, which it isn't). If the car is "safe" enough for Europe and Canada, why do these mandates exist in the US?

Also, how is Diesel priced in your area compared to unleaded gas? If you go to a site like Fuel Economy you'll see that Diesel versions of cars almost always outperform gas versions in fuel economy, and many say that Diesel also burns cleaner. Are we missing the boat in making Diesel more viable for more people here?

[Chuckit]

Counterpoint: I don't want you killing me in your unsafe car just so you can save a couple of dollars a month.

[Buckaroo]

It's too bad they can't get Diesels into the country. I prefer diesel because of the advantage of better fuel milage.

[Doofy]

Diesel's crap guys. Stick with petrol.

[nonhuman]

Diesels are coming. For the past year or so US filling stations have been transitioning to low-sulfur diesel, which is required in order to run modern diesel engines. Until low-sulfur diesel is widely available in the US, however, we simply can't run the new, clean, efficient diesel engines that are in use in Europe. I know that VW is planning on bringing a diesel model or two to the US in the next year or two, and I think a few other manufacturers have mentioned the same.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Diesel's crap guys. Stick with petrol.

I dunno, I spent a decent number of miles in a Jetta TDi wagon while I was in Wales and it seemed like a pretty good car. I also loved the Mercedes diesel I was driving last year, of course it was an '83...

[Doofy]

Mileage might be a bit better with diesel, but servicing is more expensive.

Plus, as soon as you're hooked on diesel they'll raise the pump prices and you'll be just as stuffed as you are now.

It's swings and roundabouts, for much less fun.

[MacosNerd]

Where i live diesel is more expensive by a long shot, and there's not too many places to get it. Doof is right servicing is more expensive, they can be more troublesome in the winter and they're nosier.

So while you get better milage, you have to drive farther to find a station to fill up and then when you do, it will cost you more $$ out of pocket. Repair and maintenance is also more money so any perceived savings is quickly evaporated.

[nonhuman]

For a pretty long while diesel near me was actually about 10¢/gallon cheaper than gas. This was at the Hess station right up the street from me, and seemed to be true of all Hess stations near me. About 6 months ago that changed and diesel is now about 20¢/gallon more than gas. Happily the change happened right after we got rid of our diesel car and picked up a gas burner.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Apparently the reason why it is taking so long for the Smart cars to arrive in this country is because the cars needed a redesign to meet US safety regulations
...
This is frustrating. I personally would rather have the option to buy the car now and put up with the alleged dangers

As Chuckit pointed out, you want to circumvent safety regulations in the name of convenience and/or saving money and in doing so put yourself, your family and others in danger.

There's a reason that the US imposed those regulations. For our SAFETY,seems kind of arrogant for you to want to bypass this for your own needs

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Diesel's crap guys. Stick with petrol.

Three letters: BMW

[MacosNerd]

I remember back in the 80s the US manufacturers tried to jump on the diesel bandwagon. They made one major flaw, they just used regular gas engines and retro-fitted them for diesel. No long after that the engines failed because gas engines cannot handle the high compression that's required for diesel engines.

With that in mind, if I was ever to consider diesel, I'd do my homework and make sure the company has a long and positive history with diesel engines.

[OldManMac]

My next car may well be a diesel. I've owned two in the past; a 1982 VW Rabbit, which went 245,000 miles with no major maintenance (and was still getting 48mpg when I traded it eight years later), and a 1986 VW Golf diesel, which I drove for four years, 176,000 miles, and was also getting in the high 40s for mileage. Fuel could be 50 cents/gallon higher than gas, and a 40+ mpg diesel car would still be cheaper to fuel per mile than a 30mpg gas one.

The new diesels are a far cry from the old smoke belchers, and they are just as quiet, and with turbocharging and other enhancements they are almost as fast, which was definitely a problem I had with mine. What hurt the diesel market for several decades in the U. S. was when GM tried to convert their 350 block to diesel, instead of building a new engine from the ground up. They were a disaster in reliability.

[ghporter]

Modern diesel engines are clean, quiet, efficient, and lightweight. Unfortunately such diesels are also rather rare. Once "most" new diesel engines come off the line "modern," things will change. Until then, they're off the menu for many, many people-and often specifically prohibited for passenger cars due to old diesel engines' emissions.

Also, Canadian emission standards don't mesh well with most U.S. standards, especially California.

As for safety regulations, as ChuckIt pointed out, they are more stringent than those in many parts of the world. A coworker reported on a traffic accident he saw in Tokyo while there on business-he said it looked like the two cars had been slammed together like half-empty aluminum beer cans, with nothing of a passenger compartment left and no apparent chance for any of the occupants to survive. This was an accident IN Tokyo, on a small side street at speeds that can't have been more than 60kph. Do that with a U.S. standards car and you'll have plenty of damage but passengers that survive.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

As Chuckit pointed out, you want to circumvent safety regulations in the name of convenience and/or saving money and in doing so put yourself, your family and others in danger.

There's a reason that the US imposed those regulations. For our SAFETY,seems kind of arrogant for you to want to bypass this for your own needs

It is arrogant to assume that the US knows better than all of Europe and Canada. In the case of the Smart car, the difference is steel construction. This translates to different crumpling most likely, but it's not like the Europeans and Canadians are driving around in ticking time bombs.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Modern diesel engines are clean, quiet, efficient, and lightweight. Unfortunately such diesels are also rather rare. Once "most" new diesel engines come off the line "modern," things will change. Until then, they're off the menu for many, many people-and often specifically prohibited for passenger cars due to old diesel engines' emissions.

Also, Canadian emission standards don't mesh well with most U.S. standards, especially California.

As for safety regulations, as ChuckIt pointed out, they are more stringent than those in many parts of the world. A coworker reported on a traffic accident he saw in Tokyo while there on business-he said it looked like the two cars had been slammed together like half-empty aluminum beer cans, with nothing of a passenger compartment left and no apparent chance for any of the occupants to survive. This was an accident IN Tokyo, on a small side street at speeds that can't have been more than 60kph. Do that with a U.S. standards car and you'll have plenty of damage but passengers that survive.

bah, when cars collide at 60kph you can roll the dice as to what happens next regardless. You can't live in fear of this sort of random stuff. This is a reason why many people buy SUVs...

[MacosNerd]

No, its not arroganance but more accurate to state that the US has safety regulations to keep its citizens safe. Its really a moot point since you cannot do much about it, other then complain about the added safety measures which you seem to be doing

[besson3c]

I'm not sure about the high emissions standards argument either... What about all of the states that have little or no emission standards at all?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

No, its not arroganance but more accurate to state that the US has safety regulations to keep its citizens safe. Its really a moot point since you cannot do much about it, other then complain about the added safety measures which you seem to be doing

Where does our fear end? Why don't we all just drive around in tanks? They'll keep us safe...

I value fuel economy over what I'm assuming is a fractional safety probability increase.

[MacosNerd]

nobody even said anyhitng about fear, but the government has a responsibility to keep its citizens safe. While you may chafe at this I don't. Without these safety regulations we'd not have crumple zones, safety glass, seat belts. Baby seats air bags. All these existed but were not introduced until the car companies had to because of safety regulations.

So you see your whining about these regulations are foolish, and even more foolish is you trying to introduce the notion that we live in fear and should be driving tanks.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Mileage might be a bit better with diesel, but servicing is more expensive.

Plus, as soon as you're hooked on diesel they'll raise the pump prices and you'll be just as stuffed as you are now.

It's swings and roundabouts, for much less fun.

LOL

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by villalobos 

LOL

Problem?

[FireWire]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

So while you get better milage, you have to drive farther to find a station to fill up and then when you do, it will cost you more $$ out of pocket.

What?? You don't have diesel pumps at every station? I have yet to encounter a single station that didn't have it in Québec. As for the price, it's not very stable: sometimes it's cheaper, sometimes not.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

nobody even said anyhitng about fear, but the government has a responsibility to keep its citizens safe. While you may chafe at this I don't. Without these safety regulations we'd not have crumple zones, safety glass, seat belts. Baby seats air bags. All these existed but were not introduced until the car companies had to because of safety regulations.

So you see your whining about these regulations are foolish, and even more foolish is you trying to introduce the notion that we live in fear and should be driving tanks.

Why is it that the government allows us to buy cigarettes and alcohol but won't let us decide for ourselves what features we value in the cars we drive?

[Railroader]

Why is anyone debating this with him? Seriously. You are not going to convince him of anything he doesn't understand.

[IceEnclosure]

Originally Posted by FireWire 

What?? You don't have diesel pumps at every station? I have yet to encounter a single station that didn't have it in Québec. As for the price, it's not very stable: sometimes it's cheaper, sometimes not.

In my neck of the woods, hunting for a diesel station could leave you stranded.
I'm guessing 1 in 4 gas stations around here has diesel.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Mileage might be a bit better with diesel, but servicing is more expensive.

it's actually close to TWICE what you get with regular petrol, and considering that engines last about twice the distance...

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Modern diesel engines are clean, quiet, efficient, and lightweight. Unfortunately such diesels are also rather rare.

From what I can tell, they're the majority of cars sold in Europe.

[angelmb]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Apparently the reason why it is taking so long for the Smart cars to arrive in this country is because the cars needed a redesign to meet US safety regulations,

It is just different standards thought, american cars don't use to perform that well with EuroNCAP crash test.

and they needed to burn regular unleaded gas rather than diesel.

Smart cars have been available with petrol engines since day one here in Europe.

Diesel's crap guys. Stick with petrol.

Only diesel advantage is fuel economy as long as the engine is 'small', get a 2.5, 3.0 litres Diesel and you will see how fuel consumption goes over 10 l/100 km.
And they are still noisy no matter what press or the makers tell you, of course they are quieter than 20 years ago but that doesn't make them quieter than a petrol engine, particulary VW's TDI have a nasty, unelegant whack whack sound, Renault's dCi, Alfa's JTD not to mention Mercedes & BMW are quieter than VW Diesel engines.

Sure they are going to tell you how much more torque a Diesel engine has, but the new trend is to use Turbos with small petrol engines, and for small I mean, 1.2, 1.4 litres engines, no silly Diesel can compete with that.

Last but not least, Diesel smell is horrid.

Three letters: BMW

Two words, Mercedes-Benz. Those BMW, Audi, VW clean Diesel engines coming to America are based on Mercedes-Benz bluetec technology.

[badidea]

I'd always prefer a diesel over a petrol engine!

Personal favorites:
Mercedes C220 CDI (170hp)
Audi A4 2.0 TDI (170hp)
BMW 120d (177hp)

I had the BMW last week as a rental car and even at very high speeds (200km/h or 124mph) it still only needed 7l/100km (34mpg ??)!
At standard speeds like 120km/h (75mph) milage was at 52mpg!

Great engine!

[TailsToo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

bah, when cars collide at 60kph you can roll the dice as to what happens next regardless. You can't live in fear of this sort of random stuff. This is a reason why many people buy SUVs...

I think people buy SUVs as compensation for the size of something else...

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why is it that the government allows us to buy cigarettes and alcohol but won't let us decide for ourselves what features we value in the cars we drive?

The government actually does not allow drunk driving. If you want to build a model car that looks like these but can't be driven, I doubt anybody would object.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why is it that the government allows us to buy cigarettes and alcohol but won't let us decide for ourselves what features we value in the cars we drive?

And yet, they tax the crap out of cigarette sales to offset quit smoking programs and healthcare costs (not that it really does).

As for alcohol, your point is at best misguided. Using alcohol in moderation is safe and in fact very healthy and recommended by a number of health organizations. Using a car as intended (not speeding/recklessly) that dose not have safety equipment increases the danger for the driver and others.

Face it besson you cannot argue the point that these safety regulations are superfluous, no matter how much you complain or even bring up other examples. At the end of the day, the US has a set of standards and regulations on what safety components must be in cars sold in the US.

Is it perfect, no. Do some nations have better standards? I sure. Do yet other nations have less safety regulations, undoubtedly. But that's a moot point since it doesn't matter what those nations may or may not have since we're not living or driving in those nations.

Cars sold in the US must conform to US regulations. In addition, they must also conform to state regulations. California for example as much more stringent emissions regulation that is aimed at reducing greenhouse gases.

Don't like it, move to europe or keep on whining how unfair it is to have safety equipment on cars .

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why is it that the government allows us to buy cigarettes and alcohol but won't let us decide for ourselves what features we value in the cars we drive?

You'd find it hard to run me down out of the blue with cigarettes and alcohol. But with a car, you could hurt me without me having a chance to avoid you. And since there's no way to predict where you might come from, MY car must be built to protect me no matter what.

Legal fuel economy requirements are way behind what could be done, but the auto makers are pleading "near bankruptcy" so Congress is not pushing as hard as they might. Other than that, there are a number of interest groups that want ethanol rather than diesel, biofuels instead of either gasoline or diesel, mandatory use of additive X, Y or Z (depending on which one their industry makes) and so on. But safety requirements are a bare minimum here, and I'd be willing to pay more for a car that's safer.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Legal fuel economy requirements are way behind what could be done, but the auto makers are pleading "near bankruptcy" so Congress is not pushing as hard as they might.

In the case of Chrysler and Ford that unfortunately is the harsh reality.

there are a number of interest groups that want ethanol rather than diesel, biofuels instead of either gasoline or diesel, mandatory use of additive X, Y or Z (depending on which one their industry makes) and so on. But safety requirements are a bare minimum here, and I'd be willing to pay more for a car that's safer.

I see the wrangling that's now going on. Corn farmers are so far the big winners and the price of corn has steadily gone up because they're using more and more of that for biofuels.

[is not]

Smoke and get drunk is voluntary, traffic crash is not!!

Diesel is crap
Who told you that? Why are north-american saying diesel is crap when they don't own a culture of diesel cars engines? If building a diesel engine with the block of petrol engine is all the far american automotive industry went, you really do not own a culture of diesel powered cars. It is different to build a diesel engine by petrol engine enginers. That worked for Honda, and Subaru more recently. European brands have very capable diesel experts and their engines, wherever you look at, are top notch engines, because these engines are build with the ultimate technology at non-stop ratio. It has so many advanced components that you can find a small A-Klasse CDI sharing a component with an E-Klasse CGI engine. (this is diesel and petrol). Look at americans diesel cars sold on Europe, they are fitted with Mercedes engines, they are fitted with -noisy- VW engines, right?

US are different not better
The Smart delayed what for? LOL Several USA cars performed ridiculously on the EuroNCAP test despite all this 'our government keeps us safe' LOL A perfomance that was as impressive as european cars build in the eighties. For no reason Chrysler does not publish its EuroNCAP rating on their advertisements!! So stop the 'smart is unsecure' for the sake of being unsecure. It is essential that no attempt is made to compare the ratings between cars in different segments or mass groups. The frontal crash test aims to measure the performance of the car impacting another car of similar mass. There is no capability to determine what would happen if cars of widely different masses impact each other. It is not primarily the mass difference that has the effect, but the effect that mass has on the structural stiffness combined with the relative height of the structures from the ground. If you think the Smart is a bomb, at least is a glued bomb, it corners like no other LOL. Some points about the Smart, as was said by angelmb, it has petrol engines, turbo petrol engines, since day one, and turbo diesel (cdi) engines since days later. The new Smart front and bumper are cos to European pedestrian regulations , is not American regulations. I think that there is litte to be done to sell the Smart overseas.

About that Tokyo crash, you could give us more info, like saying when were made those cars involved, don't you think? :-o


Chrysler Voyager EuroNCAP crash test.


Chrysler Voyager EuroNCAP frontal crash test, 64Km/h - 40MPH


For a size wise comparison, the Renault Space 5 of 5 stars



Smart ForTwo EuroNCAP crash test



Any car under 4 of 5 stars is unacceptable.
At some classes, 4 of 5 stars is disappointing.


Chrysler has three cars with the following ratings.

Chrysler Voyager 1999 2 of 5 stars
Chrysler Voyager 2007 1 of 5 stars
Chrysler PTCruiser 2002 3 of 5 stars


Dodge has one car with the following rating.

Dodge Caliber 2007 4 of 5 stars

Jeep has three cars with the following ratings.

Jeep Cherokee 2002 3 of 5 stars
Jeep Cherokee 2002 4 of 5 stars
Jeep Cherokee 2005 4 of 5 stars


For a reference, these shitty French constructors (from american point of view): Renault has 7 cars with 4 of 5 stars and 11 cars with 5 of 5 stars. Take a look at a 2001 Laguna, 5 of 5 stars, yes it was on 2001 already !!!





Now check the superminis, European and Japanese, all of the following has 5 of 5 stars.

Renault Clio and Renault Modus



Mini and Fiat 500



Mazda 2 and Toyota Yaris



Peugeot 207 and Opel Corsa

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by is not 

Diesel is crap
Who told you that? Why are north-american saying diesel is crap when they don't own a culture of diesel cars engines?

Who told me that diesel's crap? I did.
And I'm very well versed in the culture of diesel engines.

[besson3c]

I was wrong about there not being a petrol version of the Smart car obviously, my apologies... AFAIK, the Smart car delay is due to the materials that are used having to be altered to heavier, less efficient materials that the US government deems safer.

My point about the cigarettes and alcohol was that I often grow tired of the government trying to protect us from ourselves. I'm not at all surprised to see the crash tests presented by is not though, if these are accurate.

Why should we trust that these US safety/crash standards are so much better than European ones, and not in place simply to somehow serve the best interests of the politicians who have designed this legislation, or the best interests of American companies (e.g. our steel mills)? I don't actually know this to be the case, but I sure have a hard time taking all of this at face value. Why shouldn't Europeans value safe cars just as we do? They even have the Autobahn highway which warrants relative safety at much higher speeds than Americans can legally drive.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

My point about the cigarettes and alcohol was that I often grow tired of the government trying to protect us from ourselves. I'm not at all surprised to see the crash tests presented by is not though, if these are accurate.

Why should we trust that these US safety/crash standards are so much better than European ones, and not in place simply to somehow serve the best interests of the politicians who have designed this legislation, or the best interests of American companies (e.g. our steel mills)? I don't actually know this to be the case, but I sure have a hard time taking all of this at face value. Why shouldn't Europeans value safe cars just as we do? They even have the Autobahn highway which warrants relative safety at much higher speeds than Americans can legally drive.

Is it really the government which is causing the delay though? Are we sure it's not the car companies protecting themselves from lawsuits and hiding behind the government? Because, let's face it, Europe has a long long way to go before it gets as sue happy as the US and the car companies really don't want to be laying themselves on the line.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Is it really the government which is causing the delay though? Are we sure it's not the car companies protecting themselves from lawsuits and hiding behind the government? Because, let's face it, Europe has a long long way to go before it gets as sue happy as the US and the car companies really don't want to be laying themselves on the line.

Excellent point!

It could be that the US legislation is simply outdated and needs an update to include some of the materials used by these "banned" vehicles, and because this is not in place the companies want to legally cover their asses.

It is astonishing what kinds of crap you can find on the road around here... Cars that look like they are being held together by duct tape, and larger vehicles spewing out the nastiest of black crap... It is my understanding (that is, I've been told) that there are no vehicle emission standards here in Indiana. It seems somewhat contradictory that even though some states are so lax about emission standards that they would be simultaneously progressive with their safety standards.

[badidea]

no comment

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by is not 

Diesel is crap
Who told you that? Why are north-american saying diesel is crap when they don't own a culture of diesel cars engines? If building a diesel engine with the block of petrol engine is all the far american automotive industry went, you really do not own a culture of diesel powered cars.

I agree.
Modern diesel engines (like my best friend's C 320 CDI) are very fast, have loads of torque and are comparatively economical (i. e. for a 231 hp engine, it is very efficient ). They are very quiet, especially when you drive. You can still hear the difference, but it's more of a different sound characteristic. If you're used to rather anemic V8 engines that `sound great', then this is a different type of sound, too.

Originally Posted by is not 

US are different not better
The frontal crash test aims to measure the performance of the car impacting another car of similar mass. There is no capability to determine what would happen if cars of widely different masses impact each other.

You can say something about that: the heavier car has some advantage: it will slow down less than the smaller car (that's Newton's laws at work), so it will feel the effect of an impact at a lesser speed.
There is a second point: these crash tests are designed to simulate a head-on collision. If the point of impact is not where it was designed to be (which happens when a small car collides with trucks, for instance), then its safety cell may buckle as you might not have a crumple zone. Usually it's false, though, to think that larger cars are somehow safer.

[is not]

No, its not arroganance but more accurate to state that the US has safety regulations to keep its citizens safe.

And because that i.e. a 2003 Kia Sedona/Carnival scored 5 out of 5 stars on the NHTSA crash test and an awful 2 of 5 stars on the EuroNCAP crash test. :-P Because European tests are harder than american tests, in the USA test, the clutch pedal went back 22 centimeters, that is a zero on european points, the steering wheel went back 8 centimeters, same points, the dummy lost contact with the airbag and so. Although it scored 3 of 5 stars on EuroNCAP test, it losses one start because of the 2002/2003 new regulations, if the car scores less than 2 points (1.5) at any test , it loses one start. So better for the NHTSA to get busy. Very bad by KIA to publish its NHTSA results in a continent, Europe, where this result has no real value.

If the point of impact is not where it was designed to be (which happens when a small car collides with trucks, for instance)

Right, but which car is secure colliding with trucks? Are you trying to tell me that a bigger car has options against a truck?

No, my diesel point is not the LeMans Audi, and I am an avid F1 fan.

[PB2K]

In the Netherlands we buy Diesels because they are more fuel efficient, have more torque and Diesel is 10c a litre cheaper, fuel injected diesels like TDI are notably very fast (a friends' TDI drove from here to Munich and back with 1 tank, about 1litre to 23km, while driving 180km/h mostly, that is impressive)

The roadtax for diesels however is 3 times as expensive. You need to drive a lot of kilometres to make up for the high roadtax. So most diesels are mainly used as (lease) company cars.

[is not]

fuel injected diesels like TDI are notably very fast

TDIs in particular look very fast because give you a big acceleration in a short momentum. The are very very efficient but not among the fastest diesel turbo.

And they are noisy as hell (to the current standars)

[angelmb]

They are very quiet when you drive at higher speeds.

Fixed

TDIs in particular look very fast because give you a big acceleration in a short momentum. The are very very efficient but not among the fastest diesel turbo.

And they are noisy as hell (to the current standards)

Exactly. TDI gives you a punch instead of a progressive acceleration, but at low r.p.m. the damn thing pushes like a 100 years old human being. The aforementioned french dCi engines are a really good example about delivering a continuous, gentle acceleration.

0-100 km/h acceleration (seconds)
Renault Laguna 2.0 dCi, 8,9
Volkswagen Passat 2.0 TDI, 9,8

80-120 km/h acceleration (seconds)
Renault Megane 2.0 dCi, 6,3
Volkswagen Golf 2.0 TDI DSG, 7,0


Oh noes, the Sebring-LeMans TDI thingy !!, didn't they find any uglier side mirrors!?, that's like making a statement after all, no street Audi has good looking side mirrors. I guess it would be rather popular in Nothredame LOL

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I was wrong about there not being a petrol version of the Smart car obviously, my apologies... AFAIK, the Smart car delay is due to the materials that are used having to be altered to heavier, less efficient materials that the US government deems safer.

My point about the cigarettes and alcohol was that I often grow tired of the government trying to protect us from ourselves. I'm not at all surprised to see the crash tests presented by is not though, if these are accurate.

Why should we trust that these US safety/crash standards are so much better than European ones, and not in place simply to somehow serve the best interests of the politicians who have designed this legislation, or the best interests of American companies (e.g. our steel mills)? I don't actually know this to be the case, but I sure have a hard time taking all of this at face value. Why shouldn't Europeans value safe cars just as we do? They even have the Autobahn highway which warrants relative safety at much higher speeds than Americans can legally drive.

If you built cars to whatever safety standards you wished, you'd have a situation where car A might be built with frontal impact protection between 25cm and 60cm off the road surface and car B might have frontal impact protection only between 50cm and 75cm off the road surface. If these two cars were to impact head on, the discrepancy between their impact protection structures would mean that car B would lose badly, even if it did fine in a wall impact test.

[TETENAL]

YouTube - smart car crash

[MacosNerd]

The question is how much energy from that crash is transferred to the driver. That youtube video's results are what you would expect from a small car. I suspect if my truck got into an accident with one of those smart cars, it would crush it and have much less damage - basic physics

[besson3c]

If our internal organs cannot withstand the blow of a 70mph collision, why are these sorts of tests important?