http://blog.caranddriver.com/the-first-dodge-vipers-ever-built-are-being-crushed-w-video/
From what I read in the article it boils down to a sue happy culture, Chrysler donated the cars to education programs, and two made it out onto the public roads, since the vehicles are pre-production models they do not meet the emissions requirements for a 1992 vehicle, and presumably do not meet any safety standards of that model year. The two that got out were involved in accidents and in today's culture that means "Sue the crap out of the company that let these vehicles be accessable to the public" since to the people suing they are "unsafe death traps that should have never been let loose"
I cannot blame Fiat for wanting them destroyed, they do not want to be sued if any more of these vehicles are let loose on the public roads. Odds are they already have plenty pre-production vipers in storage so these may not be missed.
I wonder if they could have been sold under "show and display" laws (i.e., museums, displays, off public roads, racetracks) which are permitted for imports, so as long as they aren't driven on public roads. Also, had it just been a few more years, the exemption of vehicles 25 years and older might have applied.
It looks like neither will occur, and for nearly pointless reasons. Vipers aren't daily driven, and there's far more 20+ year old vehicles that are much more unsafe due to poor upkeep, normal wear-and-tear, branded titles...so it all seems like more pointless bureaucracy. Although, it's been going on since the 1970s, due to EPA laws; many older pace cars, test models, and prototypes were (and are) destroyed after one year because they do not fit EPA emission, fuel economy, due to increased performance requirements.
Of course, many (but not all) states do not prohibit modifying a vehicle; each is different, but only a bare minimum of safety (lights, seatbelts, signals, brakes, tires) are required for public road use on recent vehicles. Naturally, places without state vehicle inspections have more permissive laws.
Quote from: formulanone on March 07, 2014, 09:42:59 AM
I wonder if they could have been sold under "show and display" laws (i.e., museums, displays, off public roads, racetracks) which are permitted for imports, so as long as they aren't driven on public roads. Also, had it just been a few more years, the exemption of vehicles 25 years and older might have applied.
It looks like neither will occur, and for nearly pointless reasons. Vipers aren't daily driven, and there's far more 20+ year old vehicles that are much more unsafe due to poor upkeep, normal wear-and-tear, branded titles...so it all seems like more pointless bureaucracy. Although, it's been going on since the 1970s, due to EPA laws; many older pace cars, test models, and prototypes were (and are) destroyed after one year because they do not fit EPA emission, fuel economy, due to increased performance requirements.
Of course, many (but not all) states do not prohibit modifying a vehicle; each is different, but only a bare minimum of safety (lights, seatbelts, signals, brakes, tires) are required for public road use on recent vehicles. Naturally, places without state vehicle inspections have more permissive laws.
On a 2014 car you have to legally be equipped with ABS,Traction Control, Airbags, etc.
I guess if they have to be destroyed they could drop them in the Corvette sink hole . . .
:-o
Quote from: SteveG1988 on March 07, 2014, 10:07:34 AM
Quote from: formulanone on March 07, 2014, 09:42:59 AM
I wonder if they could have been sold under "show and display" laws (i.e., museums, displays, off public roads, racetracks) which are permitted for imports, so as long as they aren't driven on public roads. Also, had it just been a few more years, the exemption of vehicles 25 years and older might have applied.
It looks like neither will occur, and for nearly pointless reasons. Vipers aren't daily driven, and there's far more 20+ year old vehicles that are much more unsafe due to poor upkeep, normal wear-and-tear, branded titles...so it all seems like more pointless bureaucracy. Although, it's been going on since the 1970s, due to EPA laws; many older pace cars, test models, and prototypes were (and are) destroyed after one year because they do not fit EPA emission, fuel economy, due to increased performance requirements.
Of course, many (but not all) states do not prohibit modifying a vehicle; each is different, but only a bare minimum of safety (lights, seatbelts, signals, brakes, tires) are required for public road use on recent vehicles. Naturally, places without state vehicle inspections have more permissive laws.
On a 2014 car you have to legally be equipped with ABS,Traction Control, Airbags, etc.
False. New cars have to be sold with these features, but they can be removed aftermarket and the car would still be street legal.
Quote from: corco on March 07, 2014, 11:50:29 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on March 07, 2014, 10:07:34 AM
Quote from: formulanone on March 07, 2014, 09:42:59 AM
I wonder if they could have been sold under "show and display" laws (i.e., museums, displays, off public roads, racetracks) which are permitted for imports, so as long as they aren't driven on public roads. Also, had it just been a few more years, the exemption of vehicles 25 years and older might have applied.
It looks like neither will occur, and for nearly pointless reasons. Vipers aren't daily driven, and there's far more 20+ year old vehicles that are much more unsafe due to poor upkeep, normal wear-and-tear, branded titles...so it all seems like more pointless bureaucracy. Although, it's been going on since the 1970s, due to EPA laws; many older pace cars, test models, and prototypes were (and are) destroyed after one year because they do not fit EPA emission, fuel economy, due to increased performance requirements.
Of course, many (but not all) states do not prohibit modifying a vehicle; each is different, but only a bare minimum of safety (lights, seatbelts, signals, brakes, tires) are required for public road use on recent vehicles. Naturally, places without state vehicle inspections have more permissive laws.
On a 2014 car you have to legally be equipped with ABS,Traction Control, Airbags, etc.
False. New cars have to be sold with these features, but they can be removed aftermarket and the car would still be street legal.
Okay, but it is illegal to MAKE a car with those features missing nowadays.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on March 07, 2014, 12:55:09 PM
Quote from: corco on March 07, 2014, 11:50:29 AM
On a 2014 car you have to legally be equipped with ABS,Traction Control, Airbags, etc.
Okay, but it is illegal to MAKE a car with those features missing nowadays.
Just wondering, is there still an option to make cars with either airbags OR automatic seatbelts? A few cars had auto seatbelts when the option was first mandatory, and most models contained airbags. Today, I can't think of any model without airbags. But...is the option still there?
Quote from: SteveG1988 on March 07, 2014, 12:55:09 PM
Quote from: corco on March 07, 2014, 11:50:29 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on March 07, 2014, 10:07:34 AM
Quote from: formulanone on March 07, 2014, 09:42:59 AM
I wonder if they could have been sold under "show and display" laws (i.e., museums, displays, off public roads, racetracks) which are permitted for imports, so as long as they aren't driven on public roads. Also, had it just been a few more years, the exemption of vehicles 25 years and older might have applied.
It looks like neither will occur, and for nearly pointless reasons. Vipers aren't daily driven, and there's far more 20+ year old vehicles that are much more unsafe due to poor upkeep, normal wear-and-tear, branded titles...so it all seems like more pointless bureaucracy. Although, it's been going on since the 1970s, due to EPA laws; many older pace cars, test models, and prototypes were (and are) destroyed after one year because they do not fit EPA emission, fuel economy, due to increased performance requirements.
Of course, many (but not all) states do not prohibit modifying a vehicle; each is different, but only a bare minimum of safety (lights, seatbelts, signals, brakes, tires) are required for public road use on recent vehicles. Naturally, places without state vehicle inspections have more permissive laws.
On a 2014 car you have to legally be equipped with ABS,Traction Control, Airbags, etc.
False. New cars have to be sold with these features, but they can be removed aftermarket and the car would still be street legal.
Okay, but it is illegal to MAKE a car with those features missing nowadays.
False, only illegal to sell a new car missing those features. You can still legally buy a kit car and assemble it yourself that doesn't have that stuff. Or you could build your own car without that stuff. The feds require airbags, not the states. They enforce it through the interstate commerce clause, which only applies for pre-assembled new cars.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 07, 2014, 01:11:05 PM
Just wondering, is there still an option to make cars with either airbags OR automatic seatbelts? A few cars had auto seatbelts when the option was first mandatory, and most models contained airbags. Today, I can't think of any model without airbags. But...is the option still there?
I don't think so. The original legislation passed in 1984 (and delayed until 1991) required "passive restraints" . The requirement was amended in 1998 to require "dual air bags" specifically.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on March 07, 2014, 12:55:09 PM
Quote from: corco on March 07, 2014, 11:50:29 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on March 07, 2014, 10:07:34 AM
On a 2014 car you have to legally be equipped with ABS,Traction Control, Airbags, etc.
False. New cars have to be sold with these features, but they can be removed aftermarket and the car would still be street legal.
Okay, but it is illegal to MAKE a car with those features missing nowadays.
Perhaps this would vary by state, but states I've lived in that have annual inspections will fail a vehicle if any of the original federally required safety equipment is disabled.
Quote from: corco on March 07, 2014, 02:01:33 PM
False, only illegal to sell a new car missing those features. You can still legally buy a kit car and assemble it yourself that doesn't have that stuff. Or you could build your own car without that stuff.
It's a state-by-state basis; I recall Florida and Nevada are quite liberal on kit cars, whereas some states are less so. Here's the EPA's take (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/imports/kitcar.htm) on them.
Fiat is destroying Chrysler's heritage. Before long the Chrysler and Dodge marques will be history and Fiat will be selling their garbage here as Fiats and Alfas.
Quote from: bugo on March 08, 2014, 02:14:27 AM
Fiat is destroying Chrysler's heritage. Before long the Chrysler and Dodge marques will be history and Fiat will be selling their garbage here as Fiats and Alfas.
What makes modern Fiat vehicles garbage? The Fiat 500 for example is built in a Chrysler factory in Mexico. And remember chrysler has churned out some garbage over the years. Early Neons and their headgasket issues, finnicky wiring systems on most of their early 00s cars, the maintence intensive 2.7L DOHC V6 which will sludge the oil unless you change it religiously, replace the internal water pump, and timing chain more frequently than the manual says to. Yes Fiat has a history of bad design decisions too, but you are letting their pre 2000s image cloud your opinion of them. That is like saying every Hyundai or Kia is garbage due to their early US market crap like the Excel or Festiva. Also Daimler-Benz dumped their crap onto Chrysler, the fact that the Crossfire, Charger, Challenger are all based off older Benz platforms, and also the fact that almost every other vehicle they have except for pickups are based off another company's platform.
Caliber,Compass, Patriot, Avenger, Journey, Sebring, 200 all based off the Mitsubishi Lancer
300,Charger,Challenger, Magnum. Based off the Mercedes-Benz W211 platform from 2002 with bits from older models thrown in.
The only US designed vehicles Chrysler builds are the minivans and pickups
It wasn't the first time it happened, Chrysler had destroyed about 40 of the 50 turbine cars.
We never had any head gasket problems with my sister's '97 Plymouth Neon DOHC sedan. That little bastard was governed at 120 MPH and was pulling strong up to that speed. No telling how fast it would have gone if if hadn't had the speed limiter.
At 120 mph, what's the point of having a speed limiter?
Quote from: vdeane on March 08, 2014, 03:10:13 PM
At 120 mph, what's the point of having a speed limiter?
Maybe so the speedometer will never be inaccurate (if there wasn't, 120 and 160 would both show as 120)?
Quote from: corco on March 07, 2014, 11:50:29 AM
False. New cars have to be sold with these features, but they can be removed aftermarket and the car would still be street legal.
False. While it is legal to drive a car with
malfunctioning safety features, it is illegal to intentionally remove or disable a federally mandated safety feature. This even applies to such trivial features as tire pressure monitoring systems.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title49/html/USCODE-2011-title49-subtitleVI-partA-chap301-subchapII-sec30122.htm
Note that while the law mentions "vehicle repair business" I suppose you could technically say it does not apply if you DIY. However the point is you would be hard pressed to find an aftermarket shop willing to remove or disable airbags, traction control, TPMS, etc. as they would be in violation of federal law.
Quote from: vdeane on March 08, 2014, 03:10:13 PM
At 120 mph, what's the point of having a speed limiter?
Tires were likely speed-rated to 120 mph. My car has a speed limiter at 112 because of its tires.
Speed limiters are mostly used because of the choice of factory tires on the car.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on March 08, 2014, 07:13:44 AM
Caliber,Compass, Patriot, Avenger, Journey, Sebring, 200 all based off the Mitsubishi Lancer
Technically not Lancer. They are based off the Mistu GS platform, which Mitsu intended to use for the next Galant and Endeavor and never did. Daimle rforced Chrysler to use it because it was farther along in development that Chrysler own designs were, and at the time Daimler was still intending to purchase at least a large stake in Mitsu. Current Lancer is also GS-based - there was at one time a plan in place for Chrysler to build the Lancer for Mitsu.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on March 08, 2014, 07:13:44 AM
300,Charger,Challenger, Magnum. Based off the Mercedes-Benz W211 platform from 2002 with bits from older models thrown in.
Not based off the W211 platform, but yes - parts from the Daimler parts bin were used. Suspension was a modified Mercedes E-Class design rendered in lower-cost steel rather than aluminium. Mercedes licensed Chrysler to build the Mercedes 5-speed automatic used in Chrysler vehicles - and Chrysler had to pay Mercedes royalties for it.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on March 08, 2014, 07:13:44 AM
The only US designed vehicles Chrysler builds are the minivans and pickups
And the Grand Cherokee/Durango (although they do share some bits with the Mercedes ML/GL.)
Dart, the new Chrysler 200, and the new Cherokee are all using Fiat's CUSW platform as a base - but the styling and engineering was done by Chrysler. Jeep's new Renegade is using the Fiat SCSS platform - modified many time over by both Fiat and GM since it's inception - but all the styling and engineering was done by Chrysler.
The new Maserati Ghibli uses a good bit of what's to come in the next-generation 300/Charger/Challenger.
The "Neon" head gasket issue was technically the "2.0L/2.4L DOHC head gasket issue" and was purely an issue caused by upper echelon cost-cutting.
Quote from: bugo on March 08, 2014, 02:14:27 AM
Fiat is destroying Chrysler's heritage. Before long the Chrysler and Dodge marques will be history and Fiat will be selling their garbage here as Fiats and Alfas.
Fiat provided the cash to Chrysler to improve their vehicles after years of penny-pinching and cheapening under Daimler and Cerberus. It's already been stated by Fiat that Alfa Romeo's return to the US market cannot happen without the mass-market production and sales capabilities of Chrysler & Dodge. Dodge's current Avenger has ended production, and it's replacement will likely be a Chrysler-led RWD mid-size platform that will also serve Alfa Romeo. Fiat takes the lead on small platforms (up to compact) and Chrysler takes the lead on mid-size and large cars - because that's where their strengths lie.
That said - anything can change at any time.
Back to the topic - you'd be surprised at how many vehicles get crushed by the automakers. I recall seeing photos of a couple of Challenger test cars on a flatbed on their way to be destroyed.
Quote from: mass_citizen on March 08, 2014, 03:33:47 PM
Quote from: corco on March 07, 2014, 11:50:29 AM
False. New cars have to be sold with these features, but they can be removed aftermarket and the car would still be street legal.
False. While it is legal to drive a car with malfunctioning safety features, it is illegal to intentionally remove or disable a federally mandated safety feature. This even applies to such trivial features as tire pressure monitoring systems.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title49/html/USCODE-2011-title49-subtitleVI-partA-chap301-subchapII-sec30122.htm
Note that while the law mentions "vehicle repair business" I suppose you could technically say it does not apply if you DIY. However the point is you would be hard pressed to find an aftermarket shop willing to remove or disable airbags, traction control, TPMS, etc. as they would be in violation of federal law.
Once again, false. It's illegal to sell a car by doing that, not for the person to do it themselves. The feds can't enforce a law like that. Read the text:
"A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative."
That does not include the individual vehicle owner.
Quote from: 1 on March 08, 2014, 03:14:47 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 08, 2014, 03:10:13 PM
At 120 mph, what's the point of having a speed limiter?
Maybe so the speedometer will never be inaccurate (if there wasn't, 120 and 160 would both show as 120)?
I know of nowhere other than the Autobahn where it's legal to drive that fast though. Is it even an issue on US cars?
Quote from: SteveG1988 on March 08, 2014, 07:13:44 AM
What makes modern Fiat vehicles garbage? The Fiat 500 for example is built in a Chrysler factory in Mexico. And remember chrysler has churned out some garbage over the years. Early Neons and their headgasket issues, finnicky wiring systems on most of their early 00s cars, the maintence intensive 2.7L DOHC V6 which will sludge the oil unless you change it religiously, replace the internal water pump, and timing chain more frequently than the manual says to.
Some members of the group are too young to remember the absolutely terrible 1970's Plymouth Volaré and Dodge Aspen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Volare), which almost Chrysler into bankruptcy - then.
How much less would vehicles cost if they didn't have crap like the tire pressure monitoring system on them?
Since I've owned cars, each one has had more and more stuff added to it.
Center-mount brake light.
Driver's side air bag.
Passenger's side air bag.
A whole bunch of electronic stuff like TPMS, traction control, antilock brakes, etc.
I almost wish I could go back to that 79 Olds Cutlass that had none of that stuff on it. I did find someone to straight-pipe the catalytic converter on it, which is something else I'd happily do away with.
Traction control is a giant headache in snow. In the vehicles I've used with it, the most annoying part has been that it comes back on when you start the car, and must be disabled every time.
Quote from: bugo on March 08, 2014, 02:14:27 AM
Fiat is destroying Chrysler's heritage.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 08, 2014, 09:11:05 PM
Some members of the group are too young to remember the absolutely terrible 1970's Plymouth Volaré and Dodge Aspen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Volare), which almost Chrysler into bankruptcy - then.
Read the book
Riding the Roller Coaster by Charles K. Hyde. Basically, every 10-20 years for the company's entire history, Chrysler would be on the verge of bankruptcy. They'd have a big-selling car for a few years and make record profits, then the lineup would stagnate for a several years, sales would plummet, and the company would be in trouble again.
Iacocca (who I respect in many ways) didn't really
save Chrysler; he helmed the company while they scored one more hit (OK, two, the Aries/Reliant and the minivan). By 1990, the company was in trouble again. Then again by 2000... Chrysler is like the alcoholic that can get sober for a day, bring home one good paycheck, then spend the next week passed out on a couch.
Now basically a marketing arm for Fiats with Mopar nameplates, Chrysler is dead for all intents and purposes, and I can't say their fate wasn't entirely deserved.
To say that Chrysler is a marketing arm for Fiats with Mopar nameplates is simply not true. You may as well state that Chrysler was a marketing arm for Mitsubishis and Mercedes' with Mopar nameplates - and that wasn't true either.
Chrysler in the North America markets the Fiat 500 as the Fiat 500 and the Fiat 500L as the Fiat 500L - not as "Fiats with Mopar nameplates."
These are, IMHO, "stopgap" solutions being used to get new product done faster while the next-generation models are being developed. That all takes cash and that's not something FCA has a lot of at this moment in time.
The whole Daimler merger of equals takeover was a farce - Daimler took the rather large amount of cash reserves Chrysler had built up during their success in the late 90's for themselves and stuck it to Chrysler so bad that over half the Auburn Hills HQ was empty and quality took a dive. Today, they are out of room to put new hires.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 08, 2014, 09:39:21 PM
How much less would vehicles cost if they didn't have crap like the tire pressure monitoring system on them?
Since I've owned cars, each one has had more and more stuff added to it.
Center-mount brake light.
Driver's side air bag.
Passenger's side air bag.
A whole bunch of electronic stuff like TPMS, traction control, antilock brakes, etc.
I almost wish I could go back to that 79 Olds Cutlass that had none of that stuff on it. I did find someone to straight-pipe the catalytic converter on it, which is something else I'd happily do away with.
The federal government only requires safety equipment to be installed when it gets cost effective, also known as it saves more lives than not having it and it does not cost a lot to add, for example airbags and automatic seatbelts were both viable versions of a passive restraint. But once airbags came down in price they were the only allowed part
The TPMS does not add to the cost of many cars as well, since you can reuse the ABS sensors for that if the company wants to do it cheaply (Kia/Hyundai on their small cars) since those sensors also detect wheel speed, if one wheel is moving at a different rate than all the others on the vehicle it will setup an alarm but not tell ya the PSI.
The center mount brake light is something that at one time did save lives, but now it is barely helping. but it is so cheap to add that they do not want to get rid of it, since all it requires is a few wires off the brake light circuit a housing a lens and a bulb, since the cars are designed to have it in the first place now it does not add to the cost and it does have the potential to save lives, it just isn't as great as it once was due to the novelty wearing off.
The center mount brake light is now pretty well integrated into the car's design, but in those early 80's models in which it was first introduced, it was ugly as crap and looked like it had been added as an afterthought.
I felt just as safe in that 79 Cutlass that had none of those things as I do in my current vehicle, which has all those add-ons plus side curtain airbags as well.
Quote from: corco on March 08, 2014, 08:53:39 PM
Quote from: mass_citizen on March 08, 2014, 03:33:47 PM
Quote from: corco on March 07, 2014, 11:50:29 AM
False. New cars have to be sold with these features, but they can be removed aftermarket and the car would still be street legal.
False. While it is legal to drive a car with malfunctioning safety features, it is illegal to intentionally remove or disable a federally mandated safety feature. This even applies to such trivial features as tire pressure monitoring systems.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title49/html/USCODE-2011-title49-subtitleVI-partA-chap301-subchapII-sec30122.htm
Note that while the law mentions "vehicle repair business" I suppose you could technically say it does not apply if you DIY. However the point is you would be hard pressed to find an aftermarket shop willing to remove or disable airbags, traction control, TPMS, etc. as they would be in violation of federal law.
The feds can't enforce a law like that.
False. They can and do enforce this law as written.
As I said in my original post, the law restricts repair shops, not the DIY. Try asking a repair shop to disable one of these systems (at least on the up and up, I'm sure you can find a shady one for a fee). I would know because I tried asking a tire shop to disable my TPMS for my winter tires and was informed of this law. The automotive skills to successfully disable many of these systems require knowledge of electrical systems and mechanics. It is prohibitive to do it on your own without the tools or knowledge. In other words, the common driver is stuck with these systems unless they break on their own.
I believe this is common to many laws, rules, and regulations out there (look at our tax code). There are ways around them, and the government knows that, but many times its such a PITA or cost prohibitive that most have no choice but to comply.
A tire shop wouldn't want to disable it, primarily because they couldn't easily modify the engine control module, body control module, or whichever specialized box controls the actual function of the tire pressure warning light. Removing the sensors is one thing; on most recent vehicles, it's just a three-ounce sensor mounted onto the metal valve stem. Plenty of shops can easily discard them (or unwittingly break them).
But the lack of response from those sensors is what will illuminate the tire light in the first place. A firm the specializes in reprogramming ECMs/BCMs/et al would probably be your best bet. The average tire repair shop isn't going to invest in the specific equipment involved in modifying the EEPROM. And if they make a mistake, or someone alters the set-up...the computer's an aluminum paperweight.
Most dealerships won't do it, for legal reasons. It also opens the door to all sorts of litigation from the marque itself, up to and including franchise loss.
agree entirely. Should point out that my follow up request to my dealer also resulted in me being pointed to the federal law regarding modifying safety equipment.
Fiat has really stupid trim level names. Who wants to drive a Dodge Caravan Crew? A Fiat 500 Pop? I also hate the fact that Fiat took the ram's head and crosshair grille from Dodge, not to mention the fact that neither the pickup nor the Viper are Dodges anymore. Fiat doesn't understand the American market, and I predict this version of Chrysler will be the final one. Fiat will phase out Chrysler and Dodge when and if their own marques catch on in the US. Jeep will probably be the only Chrysler make to survive.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 08, 2014, 09:39:21 PMCenter-mount brake light.
While such became mandatory for the 1986 model year; GM did offer such on its Eldorados/Toronados/Rivieras (boat-tail models) during the early 70s.and were intergrated onto the rear deck (between the trunk and rear-window and were flanked on the left & right sides)
Quote from: hbelkins on March 09, 2014, 04:41:36 PM
The center mount brake light is now pretty well integrated into the car's design, but in those early 80's models in which it was first introduced, it was ugly as crap and looked like it had been added as an afterthought.
See above, such was mandated for the 1986 models and later. Any car made before the '86 model year that had such were
aftermarket installations; the fore-mentioned early-70s GM models and the '85 FWD C-bodies (DeVille/Fleetwood/Electra/Ninety-Eight) being the only exceptions.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 08, 2014, 09:39:21 PMDriver's side air bag.
GM first offered such an options on their luxury-sized C-bodies during the mid-70s. Ford's
excuse for moving their horn controls from the steering wheel to the much-hated turn-signal stalk circa 1978-1984 was due to the center hub being reserved for an air-bag (that was ultimately never offered then).
Quote from: hbelkins on March 08, 2014, 09:39:21 PMantilock brakes
Are anti-lock brakes now standard for every vehicle across-the-board? That's news to me. My '07 Mustang (which you've seen) certainly didn't have it. If true, that must've been a recent mandate.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 08, 2014, 09:39:21 PM
I almost wish I could go back to that 79 Olds Cutlass that had none of that stuff on it. I did find someone to straight-pipe the catalytic converter on it, which is something else I'd happily do away with.
While not new nor a '79 model, but here's a '78 model (1st year of that particular style & platform) that has only 16k on it. (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Oldsmobile-Cutlass-Coupe-2-door-1978-Olds-Cutlass-Supreme-G-body-260-V8-Just-turned-16000-mi-/111296831744?forcerrptr=true&hash=item19e9cee100&item=111296831744&pt=US_Cars_Trucks#ht_89wt_1044) if you're interested.
Quote from: Stratuscaster on March 08, 2014, 05:26:01 PMDodge's current Avenger has ended production, and it's replacement will likely be a Chrysler-led RWD mid-size platform that will also serve Alfa Romeo.
During the recent Auto Show in Philly, while the new 2015 Chrysler 200 was on display; there was
nothing shown nor hinted regarding a replacement for the Avenger in the Dodge section (one or two 2014 Avengers were on display on the show floor).
Rumor has it that Fiat is indeed phasing out the Dodge marque within the next few years. Time will tell whether this is true or not.
Back to the actual topic at hand: as others have stated, pre-production vehicles and/or prototypes being destroyed is not a new thing. Heck, Boeing destroyed its 717 prototype just a few years after production of that particular model (production ran from 1999-2006) started.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 12, 2014, 08:45:56 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 08, 2014, 09:39:21 PMantilock brakes
Are anti-lock brakes now standard for every vehicle across-the-board? That's news to me. My '07 Mustang (which you've seen) certainly didn't have it. If true, that must've been a recent mandate.
I think ABS is not required; although traction/stability control is required as of September 2011.
My 2009 car has neither, and I like it that way (although I'm not against ABS). But I own a 128hp car that weighs 2500 pounds, it doesn't need traction control, and ABS comes in the form of proper downshifting. But I could see it being a helpful thing with heavy and/or more powerful machinery.
TPMS is also a requirement, I think 2009 was the cut-off.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 12, 2014, 08:45:56 AM
Back to the actual topic at hand: as others have stated, pre-production vehicles and/or prototypes being destroyed is not a new thing. Heck, Boeing destroyed its 717 prototype just a few years after production of that particular model (production ran from 1999-2006) started.
And in similar vein, it wasn't truly Boeing's design, anyhow.
I don't think it's FIAT/Ferrari out to sock it to Lamborghini (never mind there was probably zero engineering influence on it from the struggling brand which made mid-engined V12 vehicles), but it just sounds like good press.
My '79 Olds had a 260 V8, which meant all of the crappy gas mileage and none of the power of the 305. It knocked and pinged so badly that I had to burn premium gas, and that didn't help the situation all that much. It also had a transmission that failed either three or four times (I've forgotten exactly how many times).
That '79 Cutlass might sound nostalgic today, but remember those late '70s cars were choked with emissions equipment and had driveability issues and were hard to start on cold days. If I'm going to buy an old car, it will be a pre-1970.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 12, 2014, 08:45:56 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 08, 2014, 09:39:21 PMCenter-mount brake light.
While such became mandatory for the 1986 model year; GM did offer such on its Eldorados/Toronados/Rivieras (boat-tail models) during the early 70s.and were intergrated onto the rear deck (between the trunk and rear-window and were flanked on the left & right sides)
Quote from: hbelkins on March 09, 2014, 04:41:36 PM
The center mount brake light is now pretty well integrated into the car's design, but in those early 80's models in which it was first introduced, it was ugly as crap and looked like it had been added as an afterthought.
See above, such was mandated for the 1986 models and later. Any car made before the '86 model year that had such were aftermarket installations; the fore-mentioned early-70s GM models and the '85 FWD C-bodies (DeVille/Fleetwood/Electra/Ninety-Eight) being the only exceptions.
It was indeed 1986. As a kid obsessed with cars (I still am obsessed, just not for the vast majority of cars on the road today) in the mid '80s I remember seeing these in late 1985. Back in those days, you would see '60s cars in regular daily driver service and even a few '50s cars. There were also still cutouts on lots of roads. I feel sorry for the kids on this board who never got to experience that era.
Quote
GM first offered such an options on their luxury-sized C-bodies during the mid-70s. Ford's excuse for moving their horn controls from the steering wheel to the much-hated turn-signal stalk circa 1978-1984 was due to the center hub being reserved for an air-bag (that was ultimately never offered then).
The first car I drove, a 1980 Ford Fairmont station wagon (200 I-6) and my first car when I was 16, a 1980 Mercury Cougar XR7 (302 V8) both had the horn on the stalk. The Cougar also had a small hollow space where the horn would normally go, probably big enough to house a small airbag. I had never heard that was the reason the horn was moved to the stalk, but it makes sense. You get used to the stalk after a few weeks. Oddly enough, the Fairmont didn't have this wheel. The Cougar was the best handling car I have ever driven. Despite what Steve Gum says, cars with solid rear axles can be made to be handlers. The good handling of that car saved my life many times. I took curves way too fast but that old Cougar handled each one of them with grace. Had I had a car with inferior handling, I would have ended up in a ditch.
Here's a view of the interior view of a Cougar with this style wheel. Note the large rectangular shaped area where the horn button would normally be.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi167.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu126%2Fbugo348%2Finterior_zps2c229b1d.jpg&hash=bd29b0acea480196706a0a73e194bcb555afd4bd)
Here's the steering wheel with the cover off. It would have been a tiny airbag.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi167.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu126%2Fbugo348%2Fsteeringwheel_zpsbd061267.jpg&hash=f1fbd220e877ac7c8cbb6513cfab41f3777d461f)
Here's the front cover of the secret compartment.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi167.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu126%2Fbugo348%2Fmiddleofsteeringwheel_zps8803020c.jpg&hash=aac50198b373952501a5cc072c441fc104f6d029)
Quote
Rumor has it that Fiat is indeed phasing out the Dodge marque within the next few years. Time will tell whether this is true or not.
This is an actual rumor? I thought it was just a crazy conspiracy theory that I came up with.
Quote from: bugo on March 12, 2014, 03:26:18 PM
Quote
Rumor has it that Fiat is indeed phasing out the Dodge marque within the next few years. Time will tell whether this is true or not.
This is an actual rumor? I thought it was just a crazy conspiracy theory that I came up with.
As far as I know from Allpar, it's pure speculation, no real facts to it. Allpar does say that the Avenger will have a RWD replacement.
Fiat or not, a small RWD sedan will be a welcome addition to the market.
Quote from: bugo on March 12, 2014, 03:26:18 PMThe first car I drove, a 1980 Ford Fairmont station wagon (200 I-6) and my first car when I was 16, a 1980 Mercury Cougar XR7 (302 V8) both had the horn on the stalk. The Cougar also had a small hollow space where the horn would normally go, probably big enough to house a small airbag. I had never heard that was the reason the horn was moved to the stalk, but it makes sense. You get used to the stalk after a few weeks. Oddly enough, the Fairmont didn't have this wheel.
That 4-spoke wheel (shown on your Cougar) was optional on the Fairmont/Futura/Zephyr/Z-7 for every model year except 1978 (its first year). It was also optional on the '79-'83 Mustang/Capri.
It was standard on all full-size Panther-based Fords/Mercurys from 1979-1989 (horn was moved back to the steering wheel hub for 1985-1989) and Panther-based Lincolns (including the '80-'83 Mark VI) from 1980-1989 (horn was moved back to the steering wheel hub for 1985-1989).
The Fox-based '80-'83 T-Bird/(fore-mentioned) Cougar XR-7, '81-'82 Granada, '83 LTD/Marquis, '82-'83 Continental also had that 4-spoke wheel standard.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 12, 2014, 08:45:56 AM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on March 08, 2014, 05:26:01 PMDodge's current Avenger has ended production, and it's replacement will likely be a Chrysler-led RWD mid-size platform that will also serve Alfa Romeo.
During the recent Auto Show in Philly, while the new 2015 Chrysler 200 was on display; there was nothing shown nor hinted regarding a replacement for the Avenger in the Dodge section (one or two 2014 Avengers were on display on the show floor).
There is no immediate (ie; 2015 model year) replacement for the Avenger. What's out on the lots is what is left. If you want a mid-size sedan from Chrysler Group, it's the new 200 for now (or perhaps a Dart - technically, per the EPA, it's mid-sized, too.)
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 12, 2014, 08:45:56 AM
Rumor has it that Fiat is indeed phasing out the Dodge marque within the next few years. Time will tell whether this is true or not.
Doubtful. Again, the numbers Dodge sells in North America is what will provide the economies of scale for the return of Alfa Romeo.
Quote from: bugo on March 12, 2014, 02:58:57 AM
Fiat has really stupid trim level names. Who wants to drive a Dodge Caravan Crew? A Fiat 500 Pop? I also hate the fact that Fiat took the ram's head and crosshair grille from Dodge, not to mention the fact that neither the pickup nor the Viper are Dodges anymore. Fiat doesn't understand the American market, and I predict this version of Chrysler will be the final one. Fiat will phase out Chrysler and Dodge when and if their own marques catch on in the US. Jeep will probably be the only Chrysler make to survive.
"Crew" was actually intended to be the name of what became Journey. As a trim, Crew was used on both the Grand Caravan and the Durango.
Plenty of folks dislike the new SRT and Ram brands. Hasn't adversely affected sales - Viper sales are up, as are Ram pickup trucks. Sergio Marchionne likes to run the business his way - each brand essentially has it's own P&L to account for - no more hiding poor selling Dodge cars behind the strong selling Ram trucks.
Fiat is just a brand like Chrysler and Dodge, now all operating under FCA - Fiat Chrysler Automobiles. The Chrysler and Dodge brands aren't going away any time soon, IMO.
Quote from: Stratuscaster on March 13, 2014, 11:04:50 PM
Fiat is just a brand like Chrysler and Dodge, now all operating under FCA - Fiat Chrysler Automobiles. The Chrysler and Dodge brands aren't going away any time soon, IMO.
To be frank, the only FCA brand actually in danger of going away would be Lancia. It's been pulled from the UK and Ireland in favor of Chrysler. Dodge gets a lot of use in Mexico as well as the US and Canada.
Quote from: Brandon on March 14, 2014, 11:02:00 AM
To be frank, the only FCA brand actually in danger of going away would be Lancia. It's been pulled from the UK and Ireland in favor of Chrysler. Dodge gets a lot of use in Mexico as well as the US and Canada.
True. Lancia is now Italy-only, and even then it's likely down to one single model.