主题：【原创】想买Ford Explorer，几个问题请教大家 -- dafemren

full size SUV居然会被一个小车撞翻，也很说明问题了。Explorer还发生过在高速上跑直线，跑着跑着就翻的事故，结果是因为被侧风给吹的。SUV的确有爱侧翻的问题，但Explorer是里面更加突出的。不是一个很好的选择。

另，题外话。新型的SUV都重新改变的车高/车宽的比例。让车更加横了一点，据说基本解决了侧翻的问题，控制性和小车差不多。Nissan的Murano是最早如此做的。实践很成功，所以很多SUV都跟进了。

上个月去提MM的Cayenne S，上高速ramp的时候，过弯速度70km/h，控制还是非常好的。

上次看到的一个政府拍卖的。

我这个才要价6千。

IIHS的报告看来EXPLORER的对头撞还行

没有撤撞的报告。

总的安全性看来好于平均值。

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/datatables.aspx?class=55&type=f

其实还真不贵...

去年还考虑过的

可价格还是贵了点儿

基本配置的车就是个架子，啥都没有，要往上加配置，大把大把掏银子好了...

所以呵，一定要狂练修车技能，回头自己给车车做Upgrade，就跟自己升级电脑一样，坚决不让奸商得逞...

不过俺这个人就懒了些

对车子的要求也低些。。。

几年前买车

没有KEYLESS　ENTRY

至今仍然隔三差五的被LD提出来批评

说俺没有发展的眼光

经常找不到车了只好举着遥控一路按过去，听到哪里“嘀”“嘀”地响就是了...

结果有一次走过去一看，一老太太站我车旁边，心惊胆战地瞅着 -- 人老太太趴在我旁边，刚下车就看见我的车自动地“嘀嘀嘀”地叫了起来，吓得她以为不小心碰了车了呢...

最近刚买了个新车，啥都好，就是忽然发现用遥控锁车时没有响声了 -- 这往后要找车可有麻烦...

有了小孩子以后

一手抱着孩子

一手拎着东西

用钥匙开实在是不方便

还得开万完前门开后门

仔细读了那个死亡报告 ZT

http://images.businessweek.com/autos/pdfs/alcohol.pdf

主要三类车car,pickup,SUV,每类车里还分大中小.

04年车祸中死亡31,581,其中car20,443, pickup 5751, SUV 4670.

1.首先是主要车祸类型,可以前撞,侧撞,后撞,其他(主要rollover).

所有死亡人数中,前撞占49%,侧面31%,其他16%.但是每类车的比例

各不相同,car死亡的20443人中: 前撞49%,后撞36%,其他10%;

而SUV死亡的4670人中:前撞43%,后撞22%,其他32%.

这也就是大家说的SUV容易翻车.

但是仔细看这些事故,可以分single-vihicle, Multiple-vehicle.

car死亡的人中,59%是死在Multiple-vihicle中,SUV只有1/3.

而且SUV死在single-vihicle中的人,47%是rollover.

也就是说SUV出事故都是自己一个人开车出事,而且出事就容易翻车.前面SUV

翻车比例高的原因也是因为单车事故中翻车太多.(可能开SUV还是需要专门训练一下).

如果多车相撞中,SUV翻车比例并没有比Car高.

2.死亡人数中,25岁以下,70岁以上明显多. 男的占70% (可能本身开车男的多).

3.下面这个死亡率更重要,就是每100万注册1-3年新车的死亡人数.

总体来看,pickup最差(144),car(113)和SUV(100)差不多.

报告中对司机死亡率单独做了研究: car(76),pickup(106),SUV(64).

每一类车中分大中小,又轻又小的车明显死亡率高.其中SUV和midsize以上的car

司机死亡率相当,大概50-70左右.

如果仔细看司机死亡率的事故类型,在多车事故中,SUV(25)明显低于其他车Car(44)

,pickup(40). 而且大SUV(18)更低,相反小车死亡率就更高.单车事故中SUV(39)就

要高于car(31),而且单车事故翻车死亡率SUV(29),car只有(15).所以SUV的

死亡率主要是单车翻车.

对SUV来说,4WD和2WD没有明显区别,可能有所帮助.

4.再来看看各种事故类型的每百万车死亡率,也是只列了司机的死亡率.在

多车事故中,car(44)前撞侧撞差不多各一半(22/20),SUV(25)

前撞侧撞是(15/8),大的SUV更少.

5.最后还有rollover死亡率,是指各种车祸最后导致翻车死亡的(前面1中是车祸主要

原因).1/3的死亡跟翻车有关.SUV中死的4670人62%(2888)是翻车,而car 只有23%.

仔细看SUV翻车事故,主要是单车翻车死亡(2286),而且大车明显不容易翻车,

结论:

SUV并不是更安全,与midsize以上的car死亡率相当.

但是SUV的死亡率主要是单车事故,而且是单车翻车事故.

Large SUV不但总体死亡率低,而且单车翻车也少.

做个搬运工工作

-------------------------

http://biz.yahoo.com/weekend/leastsafe_1.html

Autos

Least-Safe Cars 2007

Forbes.com

By Dan Lienert

You're at the car dealership, excited to seal the deal on your nice new ride

. You're assessing your options, and several sound sexy: heated cup holders,

GPS navigation system, big alloy wheels.

One option that does not: side airbags.

But in a pinch, they could make a bigger difference than the navigation syst

em, shiny wheels and coffee-warmer combined. The Insurance Institute for Hig

hway Safety (IIHS) rattled the automotive world on Oct. 5 by announcing that

side airbags that protect people's heads are reducing driver deaths in cars

struck on the driver's side by an estimated 37%. So are side airbags the se

at belts of the 21st century?

Seat belts--also humble and un-sexy--were not required by law a few decades

ago, and wearing them was not commonplace. Today, side airbags aren't always

standard--and as the safety bar ratchets ever higher, cars without them are

lagging in safety ratings.

Go to Forbes.com to see seven of today's least-safe cars.

The airbag effect shows in our list of the least-safe new cars on the market

. In crash tests, a car with side airbags can be among the best performers;

take the bags away, and its ratings can fall dramatically.

Case in point: Toyota Motor's Corolla four-door. It's popular, reliable and

a good performer in crash tests--except for models without side airbags. The

n it comes with the lowest possible side-protection ratings from the IIHS, a

nd makes it onto our list.

Also on the roster: Chevrolet's Cobalt four-door, which does better with sid

e airbags, but without them gets some "poor" crash-test ratings; Ford Motor'

s Focus four-door and Mazda's Mazda3 four-door, for which there are no IIHS

crash-test ratings with side airbags; Saturn's Ion four-door, which has poor

ratings with or without optional side airbags; and Suzuki Motor's Aerio and

Forenza four-doors, which have standard airbags but still get poor side cra

sh-test scores.

Many--if not most--new cars come a host of safety features: anti-lock brakes

, which can preserve steering control and reduce stopping distances; tractio

n- and stability-control systems, which increase control and stability on sl

ippery surfaces; and daytime running lights, which help you see better and m

ake you more visible to other drivers. Automakers insert higher-strength ste

el into collision-prone sections. They design seats, head restraints and bum

pers to shield occupants in crashes.

From 1982 until 2005, U.S. driver death rates per million passenger vehicles

registered decreased 51%, according to the IIHS, an independent, nonprofit

organization dedicated to reducing the losses (deaths, injuries and property

damage) from crashes in the U.S. But most of that drop came from frontal cr

ashes, in which driver death rates decreased 53%, due to such factors as fro

ntal airbags, higher seatbelt use and more crash-worthy vehicles.

In contrast, driver death rates in side crashes decreased 42% during that ti

me. And each year, 43,000 Americans still die in auto accidents..

To compile our roster, we looked at three main factors: a car's accident-avo

idance features; results of crash tests, which are conducted in controlled e

nvironments; and real-world data, in the rates of injury claims filed per ve

hicle. (See details of our methodology here.)

We were surprised that the list consisted entirely of small passenger cars,

such as Ford Motor's Focus, and the Saturn Ion. We expected to see at least

one SUV on the roster. But a section on the Highway Loss Data Institute's (H

LDI) Web site explains why the list looks the way it does: small two- and fo

ur-door cars typically have higher death rates and higher-than-average insur

ance injury claims.

Automakers whose cars made the list took issue with it. The main complaints

involved the IIHS' testing procedures, the meaning of a worse-than-average r

ate of injury-claim filings and the fairness of singling out cars with one o

r more bad scores despite multiple good scores in other areas.

"You cannot draw these kinds of conclusions" from the data, a Ford spokesman

said of the Focus.

A Toyota Motor spokesman said that the Corolla four-door has several good cr

ash-test ratings, despite a couple of "poor" IIHS ratings for certain models

. The spokesman also pointed out that the car's injury-claim rate is better

than those of several of its competitors. Ford Motor argued against our incl

usion of its Focus for the same reasons.

Both are true. But the injury-claim rates of the Corolla and Focus are still

"substantially worse than average," according to HLDI--even if other cars h

ave worse scores. And some of the worse-scoring cars, such as Suzuki's Foren

za, are also on the list--though others, such as Kia's Rio and General Motor

s' Chevrolet Aveo four-doors, are not, because the IIHS has not yet issued t

hem crash-test scores. (A caveat: Not every car on the market has a full ros

ter of safety ratings. The IIHS and NHTSA do not crash-test all models, and

crash-protection ratings and injury-claim reports are constantly being updat

ed.)

Both Ford and Toyota insisted that any model without side airbags is bound t

o receive a "poor" IIHS side-impact rating. The rating, Ford argued, is real

ly just a test of side-airbag presence and frontal protection scores are mor

e important. The Toyota spokesman said that only 15% of Corolla buyers get s

ide curtain airbags, because people shopping for this type of car "are extre

mely price-sensitive and are opting for other optional equipment more often

than for side curtain airbags."

Our perspective: Feel free to forego the $655 side airbags in a Corolla. But

know that there is a safety tradeoff.

A General Motors spokesman asserted that HDLI figures have little to do with

vehicle safety. "Those figures pertain to what insurance companies are aske

d to pay for repairs," he said. But HLDI states on its Web site that "injury

losses"--the figures we studied for this piece--summarize the medical, hosp

ital and other expenses incurred by occupants of insured vehicles.

If a car crash involves a trip to the hospital, that's potentially relevant

to the safety of the car involved. But other factors help predict insurance-

claim filings. For example, Ford emphasized that demographics can influence

injury rates--say, if a car is more popular with older drivers, who are more

susceptible to injury, or very young drivers, who may drive faster and have

less experience.

In terms of other comments we received, a Mazda spokesman wrote that the Maz

da3 has a "good" IIHS frontal-impact rating, despite the "poor" side rating

of models tested without side airbags. And, he said, "many Mazda3 models als

o feature dynamic stability control, traction control and anti-lock brakes,

a combination of safety features not available on many other vehicles in its

class."

Finally, Toyota took issue with our criticism of the Corolla's "poor" IIHS r

ear crash-protection rating. He called attention to the fact that the IIHS b

ases its overall rating for rear protection on a two-step evaluation that in

cludes (1) the geometry of the seat and head restraint [a "static" test] and

(2) a "dynamic" test that simulates a rear impact. The spokesman said that

the Corolla's "static" rating is the highest-possible. In fact, the IIHS' We

b site states that the "static" rating of 2006- and 2007-model Corollas is m

erely "acceptable," and that the car's "dynamic" and "overall" ratings are "

poor."

By publication time, Suzuki had not responded to requests for comment.

加拿大Cayenne S是8万起，加几个option，一不留神就11万多了:(

NND，美国工资还高。

ＫＢＢ的市场价来计算，　辛辛苦苦找的ｄｅａｌ亏了。