What's a good mid to late 90's economical hatchback to buy

[GREGL]

Originally Posted by stevz

What is your point? The car spun around when it was hit. It's not like it's a fixed solid object.

So does anything if its not bolted to the ground , however the diff is not going to bend , it will move but takes all the impact . Being the strongest point a car any car hitting it front on is going to fold which they are supposed to do .
It may have been a different story if he got hit straight in the guts , the buzzbox would still be the same outcome but he wouldn't be skiting

[GREGL]

Originally Posted by stevz

But if she was in a newer car she most likely wouldn't have sustained smashed kneecaps and whatever other injuries. She would have come out without a scratch.

Mate there are people out there that just can't afford to go beyond their means and have a later model . Plenty of us have been in that boat and there is no denying plenty still are , and going by your predictions many more to come .

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

I got T boned by an early 90s laser in my old ED that did 80k's right through a red and the entire bonnet/engine bay section had practically disintegrated, it pushed up into the dash which pushed the dash into her and the impact shattered her kneecap. you looked at the car side on and there were no panels left past the windscreen. My car was hit in the diff/wheel and there was hardly any impact, maybe pressed in 2 inches. If my car crumpled like hers the gas tank would've exploded. My car almost did a 720 from the force of the impact. Her panels would've been pressed in around 3-4ft compared to 2 inches.

While you dont state the other drivers survival status but rather allude to one injury only I hightly doubt a laser hit you at 80 km/h. I have no doubt it hit you and that it's crumple zone did what it was supposed to in fact it probably did more than just help them by dissipating the impact force reducing the impact on you the driver of the old Falcon.

A statement from a Swedish study into increased speed impact testing states
’The structures of modern passenger vehicles are designed to maintain integrity up to an impact velocity of about 64 km/h (40 mph). The occupant protection system is likewise designed to efficiently protect the occupant up to an impact velocity of 64km/h’

Reading the rest of the study paper suggests that current automotive engineering is good for survivability up to and around the 64 Km/h range in a non offset 90 degree frontal impact. Hence why the ancap, euncap ,usncap etc run their tests at this speed
I highly doubt the laser was traveling that fast. I would also really like to see the photos of the falcon after said impact as I doubt a 2 inch deflection of a rear arch when impacted by the front of a car some 1.5 meters wide.
If my maths is correct the Laser may have applied a force of circa 22000N against the side of the falcon at 80 Km/h this is more than what a car crusher uses to crush a car.

Why I raise this doubt is there is too much so called anecdotal evidence used to prove false points, exaggeration and outright untruths trying to hide bias.
Lightweight 90’s cars aren’t as safe as modern light cars, but neither are older large cars. But sometimes we have no options but to choose the cheaper older car, we weigh up the options, assess the risk and inform a decision. Biased opinions not fact don’t help the decision making process.

JP

[zilo]

Originally Posted by galaxy xr8

The only expert around here seem's to be you mate, as clearly demonstrated by your post and lack thereof. Here you are comparing a 90's model vehicle to a late model, have you ever thought about the fact that technology throughout the yr's tends to evolve some what.

What's to be said, yes I was involved in the rear end collision and yes I am here today to talk about it and sustained no injury's, neither did my wife that was also involved in two other separate collisions that were also rear ender's , one a old HG Ute and the other a similar style 90's sedan, once again all vehicles written off and no sustained injuries.

But according to you all occupant's should be dead by your standard's observed in your finding's or feeling's toward's those vehicles.

I can tell you now that I would rather be in my little Laser then my old XW if I were to suffer an unfortunate accident or a collision.

Oh and my Laser does have a driver's side airbag, as to your dismay.

If you like to look up crash test result's have a look here then as a 98/99 model Laser as like mine with driver's airbag's faired better then an equivalent yr model Falcon.
http://users.tpg.com.au/users/mpaine/ncaplist.html

So your theory about size and weight does not mean a safer vehicle to be in.

Don't want to start a three way argument...

But you are so far off the mark in your interpretation of both NCAP ratings and mass comparisons that it makes my teeth grind.

Let me enlighten you.

A 3 star 4WD or falcon will absolutely demolish you in your 5 star compact car.

You will die he will live...it's physics, the G forces will smash your internals due to the greater mass reversing your direction when it overcomes your smaller mass.


Also so many repeated comparisons about how well a small car fares in a rear ender...of course they all do...the front of all cars is designed to crumple and take the brunt.

[stevz]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

While you dont state the other drivers survival status but rather allude to one injury only I hightly doubt a laser hit you at 80 km/h. I have no doubt it hit you and that it's crumple zone did what it was supposed to in fact it probably did more than just help them by dissipating the impact force reducing the impact on you the driver of the old Falcon.

A statement from a Swedish study into increased speed impact testing states
’The structures of modern passenger vehicles are designed to maintain integrity up to an impact velocity of about 64 km/h (40 mph). The occupant protection system is likewise designed to efficiently protect the occupant up to an impact velocity of 64km/h’

Reading the rest of the study paper suggests that current automotive engineering is good for survivability up to and around the 64 Km/h range in a non offset 90 degree frontal impact. Hence why the ancap, euncap ,usncap etc run their tests at this speed
I highly doubt the laser was traveling that fast. I would also really like to see the photos of the falcon after said impact as I doubt a 2 inch deflection of a rear arch when impacted by the front of a car some 1.5 meters wide.
If my maths is correct the Laser may have applied a force of circa 22000N against the side of the falcon at 80 Km/h this is more than what a car crusher uses to crush a car.

Why I raise this doubt is there is too much so called anecdotal evidence used to prove false points, exaggeration and outright untruths trying to hide bias.
Lightweight 90’s cars aren’t as safe as modern light cars, but neither are older large cars. But sometimes we have no options but to choose the cheaper older car, we weigh up the options, assess the risk and inform a decision. Biased opinions not fact don’t help the decision making process.

JP

The difference is that Ancap tests are done into a solid immovable object. When the car got t-boned it spun around, which helped to dissipate much of the impact.
If the laser had hit a solid immovable object at 80 km/h the dash would probably be sitting on the drivers seat and the driver wouldn't be here today.

PS. Can you adjust your text size to something you don't need a magnifying glass to read?

[GREGL]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

While you dont state the other drivers survival status but rather allude to one injury only I hightly doubt a laser hit you at 80 km/h. I have no doubt it hit you and that it's crumple zone did what it was supposed to in fact it probably did more than just help them by dissipating the impact force reducing the impact on you the driver of the old Falcon.

A statement from a Swedish study into increased speed impact testing states
’The structures of modern passenger vehicles are designed to maintain integrity up to an impact velocity of about 64 km/h (40 mph). The occupant protection system is likewise designed to efficiently protect the occupant up to an impact velocity of 64km/h’

Reading the rest of the study paper suggests that current automotive engineering is good for survivability up to and around the 64 Km/h range in a non offset 90 degree frontal impact. Hence why the ancap, euncap ,usncap etc run their tests at this speed
I highly doubt the laser was traveling that fast. I would also really like to see the photos of the falcon after said impact as I doubt a 2 inch deflection of a rear arch when impacted by the front of a car some 1.5 meters wide.
If my maths is correct the Laser may have applied a force of circa 22000N against the side of the falcon at 80 Km/h this is more than what a car crusher uses to crush a car.

Why I raise this doubt is there is too much so called anecdotal evidence used to prove false points, exaggeration and outright untruths trying to hide bias.
Lightweight 90’s cars aren’t as safe as modern light cars, but neither are older large cars. But sometimes we have no options but to choose the cheaper older car, we weigh up the options, assess the risk and inform a decision. Biased opinions not fact don’t help the decision making process.

JP

You just ruined some ones xmas , good on you , That's of course if they understood any of it . LOL

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by zilo

A 3 star 4WD or falcon will absolutely demolish you in your 5 star compact car.
.

Some food for thought on that one after some recent reading.
while:
'researchers have not yet devised a reliable method for reporting the effect of size differences on a vehicle's score'.

but:
'Good correlation was found between Euro NCAP test results and real-world injury outcomes... In addition, Euro NCAP crash tests were shown to be highly correlated with serious crash performance, confirming their relevance for evaluating real-world crash performance. Good concordance was found between Euro NCAP and Folksam real-world crash and injury ratings'.

Suggesting that in the real world only cars of similar sizes are hitting one another or the myriad of variables equalise the outcomes in differing mass vehicle collisions to reflect what the virtual and mechanical tests indicate.

My point is that a star rating is a good indicator of your survivability of areal world accident. there will be statistical anomalies where you do die at 20 Km's an hour in a 5 star and don't die at 80 in a no star rated vehicle. But holding onto the belief that an solid old car is safer than one with crumple zones has been proven wrong so many times it cannot be held a s a valid argument. While Im sure you were not arguing we are better off in 4WD's some might see it that way.

JP

[GREGL]

Originally Posted by stevz

The difference is that Ancap tests are done into a solid immovable object. When the car got t-boned it spun around, which helped to dissipate much of the impact.
If the laser had hit a solid immovable object at 80 km/h the dash would probably be sitting on the drivers seat and the driver wouldn't be here today.

PS. Can you adjust your text size to something you don't need a magnifying glass to read?

I reckon if you hit a solid immovable object at 80 kmh in anything you wouldn't be here .

[zilo]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Some food for thought on that one after some recent reading.
while:
'researchers have not yet devised a reliable method for reporting the effect of size differences on a vehicle's score'.

but:
'Good correlation was found between Euro NCAP test results and real-world injury outcomes... In addition, Euro NCAP crash tests were shown to be highly correlated with serious crash performance, confirming their relevance for evaluating real-world crash performance. Good concordance was found between Euro NCAP and Folksam real-world crash and injury ratings'.

Suggesting that in the real world only cars of similar sizes are hitting one another or the myriad of variables equalise the outcomes in differing mass vehicle collisions to reflect what the virtual and mechanical tests indicate.

My point is that a star rating is a good indicator of your survivability of areal world accident. there will be statistical anomalies where you do die at 20 Km's an hour in a 5 star and don't die at 80 in a no star rated vehicle. But holding onto the belief that an solid old car is safer than one with crumple zones has been proven wrong so many times it cannot be held a s a valid argument. While Im sure you were not arguing we are better off in 4WD's some might see it that way.

JP

Of course I agree with most of what you cut and paste, but am a little annoyed that people are led to believe that a 5 star 900kg buzz box is going to fare equally as well as a 5 star 1800kg full sized car.


The essential ingredient is that the NCAP rating compares cars of similar mass and wasn't intended for cross-class comparisons.

To use the number of stars to compare different classes is absurd and a commonly exploited marketing ploy.

Now I ask, what would you rather be sitting in with a prospect of a head on collision at 65km/h ( not 64km/h)

A 4 star Land-cruiser or a 5 star Yaris?

[zilo]

Originally Posted by GREGL

I reckon if you hit a solid immovable object at 80 kmh in anything you wouldn't be here .

Mercedes "S" class occupants have an excellent prospect of survival at that speed.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by stevz

The difference is that Ancap tests are done into a solid immovable object.

no in the offset frontal the object crumples to simulate a crumple zone clearly illustrated in the video on the ancap site
http://www.ancap.com.au/crashtesting
and side impact both vehicles ( car and sled ) are free to spin rotate etc so neither are immovable.
As I said I do not doubt the impact occurred I doubt the speeds claimed and damage inflicted.

PS increase the font size in the originalpost for ya stevz.

JP

[homegrown]

Where still talking about a 2.5k price limit right?

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by zilo

The essential ingredient is that the NCAP rating compares cars of similar mass and wasn't intended for cross-class comparisons.

To use the number of stars to compare different classes is absurd and a commonly exploited marketing ploy.

The second quote I used categorically states that in the real world a 5 star car protects the occupants as expected from the testing despite what it hits, it makes the statement that real world data proves the rating system works.

Now what would I prefer to be in. If im going to hit, forced into an impact with a gun at my head most likely the new larger vehicle. But in the real world Im more likely to be in a single car accident in the tall overweight 4WD and more likely to avoid the impact in the light agile car. All factors to consider when making a decision like what car to purchase.

JP

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by GREGL

Hit in the diff , is that the cast iron thingy that is about 4 inches diameter and weighs about as much as the engine and wouldn't bend if you dropped it from a highrise ? Come on pal be serious , at 80 kmh hitting what is basically a stationary object she came out pretty well for what the car was hitting your strongest point .As for the Fuel tank exploding you would have to be in a very serious crash if any post 70's car did it period .

Her engine and subframe were pushed into the dash...

My diff isn't part of the chassis nor is it welded to the road if it was she would've got butchered. I spun and she didn't and she took most of the shock because my cars of my cars mass/resistance, and obviously the direction of impact helped my car transferred the energy better due to the physics of the accident.

However you don't get the point, if the vehicles were inverted there's no way I'd have my motor pushed into my knees and her car only sustaining 2 inches of damage like you believe. If she was a nissan patrol with a bullbar (pure chassis/no crumple) I would've went flying all over the road and her patrol although taking one hell of an impact would have hardly any visual damage.

You're kidding yourself if you think hatchbacks are just as safe. Mass always wins.

[SantoAU]

Back on topic: the missus once had a mid 80's Barina/Swift that I could not kill, no matter how hard I tried. Ran on virtually nothing, handled like a damn go-kart. Geez it was fun. Was written off by being hit from behind by a speeding EL XR6. No exploding fuel tank, no subcutaneous hematoma, didn't give me cancer and failed to stop the rotation of the solar system. Worst injury was a bit of whiplash and a sore hand where the badly self installed head unit popped out and hit me on impact.

I miss that car, in a weird kind of way

[93EB_SXR6]

On topic: Honestly my advice is don't look past the humble Hyundai Excel. They're cheap, fuel efficient, easy to service, reliable and handle well (factory air con is good too). Also I think they look pretty good.
My father had to really twist my arm to get me to buy mine, I didn't want it at all. Now, after selling it - I want it back!!!
You would easily buy a flawless one for $1500 or less, I actually got mine for $500 just because it was nearly out of rego and needed new brake linings.

Only superior 4 cylinder car I've owned was a 4AGE Corolla (and good luck finding one of those under $2.5K now).

[zilo]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

The second quote I used categorically states that in the real world a 5 star car protects the occupants as expected from the testing despite what it hits, it makes the statement that real world data proves the rating system works.


JP

The source of the second quote is from where?

Do you have a link to the full article?

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by zilo

The source of the second quote is from where?

Do you have a link to the full article?

Both quotes from the same paper. Published by:
Folksam Research and Department for Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Link:
http://www.researchgate.net/publicat...rld_crash_data
you may need to sign up to gain access.

JP

[senna_T]

My 2c - EK Civic, i've had two (years apart, not because one died) and they were both excellent little cars that used minimal fuel, handled well and the build quality was great

[BPXR6T]

I used a 96 holden combo, which is basically a barina as a runabout earlier this year. Good little car. Felt tight and new with over 325,000kms on the clock. I traded it in but didn't want to really let it go.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Both quotes from the same paper. Published by:
Folksam Research and Department for Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Link:
http://www.researchgate.net/publicat...rld_crash_data
you may need to sign up to gain access.

JP

Thanks for that.

I read the abstract and that was enough.

I wonder what they mean by the red text? ...

"ABSTRACT ...Car models were grouped according to the Euro NCAP star rating scores. Folksam risk of injury ratings come from statistical analysis of real-world crashes using police and insurance databases. The paired comparison method using 2-car crashes was used to control for crash speed and the mass differences between cars of different weights were normalized."

Sounds like several "adjustments" to data were applied to achieve a desired result within desired parameters.


I say that that test has nothing to do with comparing a Territory wacking a Barina, or a Landcruiser wacking a Fiesta.

[jpblue1000]

I think there is relevance here, a balanced debate on pros and cons of older vs newer cars especially for the budget conscious. Fact and research is better than exagerated anecdote. it's up to the Original poster to wade through the responses to help form their own opinion. Im not pro big or small car in real world scenarios. In my mind, based on research I have done I have an equal chance in either of them as each has pros and cons.

Originally Posted by zilo

Thanks for that.

I read the abstract and that was enough.

I wonder what they mean by the red text? ...

I read it as a different interpretation but a translation from Swedish to English is always rife with meaning intent difficulties.
However the spirit of the research which is valid here is that when averaged across all collisions of the study the EUANCAP rating 0-5+ stars was a good indicator or real world results. I would surmise that in the real world where we all drive, the reality is our cars should behave as engineered, the words risk, may, could would are applicable as opposed to zero risk,will, must and wont. there is no way of knowing if you may be hit by a Barina or a territory. The reality is in some instances you are hit by something big, sometime you hit something smaller and other times the two cars are equal sized, averaging out the results across all incidents.

The Original poster has a decision to make he has $2,500 dollars at his disposal not $25,000 which limits his options. From his position his leanings appear to be newer small car or older large car. His own personal inputs to his debate are perceived risk, driving history (likelihood of collision), and the ongoing debate about big old vs new small and vice versa.

My real world experience is I knew two people who died in falcons and none that have died in small cars, My daily is a very modified micro car, and Im not dead. Doesn't mean I think that small cars are safer but after half a million Km's or more on avarages it doesnt really matter what star rating you have when its your time its your time.

JP

[Dash_XR]

Originally Posted by muso

I am looking at getting a cheap economical second car 4 cylinder hatch or wagon pref mid to late 1990's and manual. Some are tinny buzz boxes (I had a 1985 Pulsar once...buzz box) and others not so bad.
But I drove a 1996 corolla and was impressed but they are expensive compared to other similar cars. Laser Km or Kn I find to be very impressive but have not driven one they are a 1.8 with 92 kw's I think and have a driver's airbag.

Anyway although economy and practicality are the main points I hate gutless cars so something which is manual and can at least go with the traffic would be good and fun to drive. I've made a short list:

KM or KN Laser 1.8 hatch
N15 Pulsar Hatch
Suzuki swift Hatch (GTi would be fun but too expensive)
Mitsubishi Mirage (a bit expensive in this company)
Lancer CE hatch (a bit boring and buzz box from memory)
Holden Barina
Ford Festiva
Daihatsu Charade (1.3L 4 cylinder not the triple)
Honda Civic Ed or Eg (way above the others in quality but still have Carby no EFI but they look better than anything else here inside and out)
VW Golf 3rd gen (always been a great car but may lack Japanese reliability)


ABS has saved my *** a few times but I don't think any of these have that but my kids will be learning to drive in it so the more safety features the better!

Don't want to spend more than $2500 so my choice is pretty limited.
(Pulsar SSS a bit out of my price range but would be fun with 100 kw)
So far the KM or KN Laser is the best in my opinion.

Any suggestions especially from those who have driven or even owned any of the above would be appreciated

Why no corolla? Cheap and reliable, not much in the way of safety but I don't know if there is really in that price range.

I bought a really run down 99 as a daily and have done nothing but top the oil up once every 3 months for 15k and it's been flawless, if you got a good one and looked after it it'd probably last forever. Think they are 1.8 so got a little bit of go in a manual for what it is too.

450k per $50 tank and has already paid for itself on fuel/accident bills saved from the XR.

[GREGL]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

Her engine and subframe were pushed into the dash...

My diff isn't part of the chassis nor is it welded to the road if it was she would've got butchered. I spun and she didn't and she took most of the shock because my cars of my cars mass/resistance, and obviously the direction of impact helped my car transferred the energy better due to the physics of the accident.

However you don't get the point, if the vehicles were inverted there's no way I'd have my motor pushed into my knees and her car only sustaining 2 inches of damage like you believe. If she was a nissan patrol with a bullbar (pure chassis/no crumple) I would've went flying all over the road and her patrol although taking one hell of an impact would have hardly any visual damage.

You're kidding yourself if you think hatchbacks are just as safe. Mass always wins.

O.k you win , no point worrying about it really , I don't have an early hatchback ( nor a late one ) , never have and never will hopefully . However others do and some like the O.P are contemplating it , only because that's what they can afford to run at present . That is the risk they take , the odds are higher of being killed on a scooter but it doesn't stop people buying them .
By the way , you only spun because you got collected behind the centre point ,if you copped it in the centre or slightly forward of that the force would have been heavier on both cars , but you will never know till you try it ! ( she would still be stuffed though ) .

[93EB_SXR6]

Well, to the big car's credit... I walked away from this with minor injuries.
I'm sure I would've been dead if I had been driving my Hyundai instead.

[Grippy]

Wow, you're very lucky that wasn't in the drivers do, and that you didnt have a passenger in the back!

[93EB_SXR6]

It actually impacted the back of the driver's seat and pushed it forward 10-15cm. I don't know how I wasn't more seriously injured. You're right though, lucky I had no passengers.
(went around a bend and there was debris all over the road, caused me to aquaplane).

[zilo]

Originally Posted by 93EB_SXR6

Well, to the big car's credit... I walked away from this with minor injuries.
I'm sure I would've been dead if I had been driving my Hyundai instead.

image

Definitely would have been dead in anything else.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by zilo

Definitely would have been dead in anything else.

Zilo your unfounded bias shines through. The car hit in rear drivers door and deflected, why would it be any different in anything else as the proximity to driver would be the same. Arguably as a smaller car has less kinetic energy it may dissipate that energy with less deformation. We wont know until the incident is repeated like for like with an alternate car
But:
If we are playing the obscene claim game, I'll claim the accident wouldn't have happened in a hatchback!

JP

[Crazy Dazz]

Look, if your budget is that small, and your heart is set on a 4 cylinder hatch, then Pulsar is (IMHO) the ONLY option. Very good car for their class and era, econcomical and reasonably reliable. Family has had a few.
Don’t get me wrong, Laser, 323, Civic, and Corolla are all much better cars, but for your budget all you’ll get is rubbish and huge repair bills.
Forget any of the Koreans, by the time they are that old, they are rooted.

Some good points though, those cars did lack safety features that became standard in the 00’s.

I JUST (as in picked it up today) bought my (24yr old) Daughter a 2007 Tiiiiiida, so I'm no “Falcons Only” roughneck, but in all seriousness, for a first car for your kids to drive, an EL or AU wagon on LPG is a very good option. They are cheap as chips, they do appear in your price range with LPG already fitted, and with their airbags, ABS, and overall size they are a much safer option.