2015 Nissan Tsuru vs. 2016 Nissan Versa
November 8, 2016 12:56 PM Subscribe
A car-to-car test between a 2015 Nissan Tsuru, the least expensive sedan sold by Nissan in Mexico, and a 2016 Nissan Versa, the least expensive sedan sold by Nissan in the United States. {SLYT}
The Tsuru is based on the old B13 Nissan Sentra platform, dating from 1992 which lacks anti-lock brakes, electronic stability control and airbags. The Mexican government is toughening up car safety laws, and the Tsuru will no longer be sold after this year.
The Tsuru is based on the old B13 Nissan Sentra platform, dating from 1992 which lacks anti-lock brakes, electronic stability control and airbags. The Mexican government is toughening up car safety laws, and the Tsuru will no longer be sold after this year.
I remember when there was this mini backlash against airbags. Never could work out the logic behind that.
posted by wilful at 1:00 PM on November 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by wilful at 1:00 PM on November 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't really understand how, as Nissan, you could ethically justify that.
posted by ChuraChura at 1:01 PM on November 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by ChuraChura at 1:01 PM on November 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
I remember when there was this mini backlash against airbags. Never could work out the logic behind that.
See also the "seatbelts are bad because the safest thing is to be thrown out of the car and clear of the wreck" argument I used to hear as a kid. Once from a teacher.
I don't really understand how, as Nissan, you could ethically justify that.
They don't have to. It has bumpers and seatbelts. If government regulation says it's cool, then cheaper production wins every time. This right here is the libertarian dream where the free market fixes everything.
posted by middleclasstool at 1:04 PM on November 8, 2016 [48 favorites]
See also the "seatbelts are bad because the safest thing is to be thrown out of the car and clear of the wreck" argument I used to hear as a kid. Once from a teacher.
I don't really understand how, as Nissan, you could ethically justify that.
They don't have to. It has bumpers and seatbelts. If government regulation says it's cool, then cheaper production wins every time. This right here is the libertarian dream where the free market fixes everything.
posted by middleclasstool at 1:04 PM on November 8, 2016 [48 favorites]
This car doesn't even have fucking airbags. Watch the video at 0:45.
posted by spikeleemajortomdickandharryconnickjrmints at 1:05 PM on November 8, 2016
posted by spikeleemajortomdickandharryconnickjrmints at 1:05 PM on November 8, 2016
This is why regulations matter.
And why citizens, whom the public service has a duty to serve, are not just consumers, whom business just has a duty to complete a contract with.
posted by bonehead at 1:06 PM on November 8, 2016 [28 favorites]
And why citizens, whom the public service has a duty to serve, are not just consumers, whom business just has a duty to complete a contract with.
posted by bonehead at 1:06 PM on November 8, 2016 [28 favorites]
aw, the one crash test dummy makes little heart shapes with its eyes on impact.
❤◠❤
posted by boo_radley at 1:06 PM on November 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
❤◠❤
posted by boo_radley at 1:06 PM on November 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
Here's an article that goes on to say:
"The demonstration is part of the NCAP’s effort to eliminate “Zero Star” vehicles from Latin America and other regions."
posted by I-baLL at 1:07 PM on November 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
"The demonstration is part of the NCAP’s effort to eliminate “Zero Star” vehicles from Latin America and other regions."
posted by I-baLL at 1:07 PM on November 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
("Zero Star" refers to the safety rating....of zero stars.)
posted by I-baLL at 1:08 PM on November 8, 2016
posted by I-baLL at 1:08 PM on November 8, 2016
I remember when there was this mini backlash against airbags. Never could work out the logic behind that.
My ex-roommate was claiming that airbags were a conspiracy to make profit for car companies and ruin vehicle performance at least as recently as 2012. He would research any potential car purchase to make sure that the airbag was sufficiently easy to remove. I didn't ride in his cars.
posted by sparklemotion at 1:09 PM on November 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
My ex-roommate was claiming that airbags were a conspiracy to make profit for car companies and ruin vehicle performance at least as recently as 2012. He would research any potential car purchase to make sure that the airbag was sufficiently easy to remove. I didn't ride in his cars.
posted by sparklemotion at 1:09 PM on November 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
Here are vids for zero star cars from the Indian market:
http://www.automobilemag.com/news/watch-popular-indian-cars-fail-crash-tests/
Now excuse me while I go to massage my neck from watching these.
posted by I-baLL at 1:09 PM on November 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
http://www.automobilemag.com/news/watch-popular-indian-cars-fail-crash-tests/
Now excuse me while I go to massage my neck from watching these.
posted by I-baLL at 1:09 PM on November 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't really understand how, as Nissan, you could ethically justify that.
The base cost of a Versa is about 50% more than the cost of a Tsuru.
How many cars does Nissan sell at that higher price point in Mexico?
posted by parliboy at 1:10 PM on November 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
The base cost of a Versa is about 50% more than the cost of a Tsuru.
How many cars does Nissan sell at that higher price point in Mexico?
posted by parliboy at 1:10 PM on November 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
That's why you don't let the free market decide what safety regulations should be.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 1:17 PM on November 8, 2016 [28 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 1:17 PM on November 8, 2016 [28 favorites]
GM Has Built Cars With Zero-Star Crash Test Ratings For Over 10 Years
"NCAP criticized GM for having known for over ten years that the Aveo’s body shell becomes unstable and that a crash at 40 mph has a high risk of fatal injuries. GM responded by saying it will invest $5 billion to develop safer cars in emerging markets."
posted by Kabanos at 1:18 PM on November 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
"NCAP criticized GM for having known for over ten years that the Aveo’s body shell becomes unstable and that a crash at 40 mph has a high risk of fatal injuries. GM responded by saying it will invest $5 billion to develop safer cars in emerging markets."
posted by Kabanos at 1:18 PM on November 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Safety costs money. Requiring that cars include additional safety equipment is forcing a choice on poor people: That they have to use their limited funds to purchase that equipment and not on something else that they might prefer, such as more nutritious food or education for their children. Or perhaps it will make the car unaffordable, and they will have to spend additional hours on the bus.
Of course, this is not a simple argument: There are issues of unequal knowledge, of unequal economic endowment, of incomplete knowledge by the carmakers of the actual cost, of market power, and so much more.
But this is a far from simple argument on either side, and simply dismissing it as "obviously wrong" or "the fault of greedy businessmen" is intellectually lazy and condescending to the real people who are forced to make these decisions.
For a thoughtful and nuanced exploration of these issues, see Nobel-winning economist Thomas Schelling's classic essay Economic Reasoning and the Ethics of Policy. A short excerpt, and the whole thing is truly worth reading.
"If you are poorer than I, it is likely that your life is worth less to you in your money than my life is worth to me in mine. You cannot afford to pay as much for anything, including personal safety, as I can, precisely because you are poorer.
We expect the poor to invest less in home or auto safety than the well-to-do, because these goods are purchased at the expense of more urgent necessities. We expect a poor town to spend less on fire protection than a well-to-do town, because the poor town can afford less taxes and needs schools and streets as well as fire engines. But does this mean that a government air-safety program might properly decline to provide you those new runway lights while my airport gets them at government expense?
The economist in me wants to say 'yes.' The policy adviser in me will go only as far as 'maybe' or 'it depends.' It depends on who is ultimately putting up the money, and it depends on what the alternative is if you don't get the lights."
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 1:22 PM on November 8, 2016 [31 favorites]
Of course, this is not a simple argument: There are issues of unequal knowledge, of unequal economic endowment, of incomplete knowledge by the carmakers of the actual cost, of market power, and so much more.
But this is a far from simple argument on either side, and simply dismissing it as "obviously wrong" or "the fault of greedy businessmen" is intellectually lazy and condescending to the real people who are forced to make these decisions.
For a thoughtful and nuanced exploration of these issues, see Nobel-winning economist Thomas Schelling's classic essay Economic Reasoning and the Ethics of Policy. A short excerpt, and the whole thing is truly worth reading.
"If you are poorer than I, it is likely that your life is worth less to you in your money than my life is worth to me in mine. You cannot afford to pay as much for anything, including personal safety, as I can, precisely because you are poorer.
We expect the poor to invest less in home or auto safety than the well-to-do, because these goods are purchased at the expense of more urgent necessities. We expect a poor town to spend less on fire protection than a well-to-do town, because the poor town can afford less taxes and needs schools and streets as well as fire engines. But does this mean that a government air-safety program might properly decline to provide you those new runway lights while my airport gets them at government expense?
The economist in me wants to say 'yes.' The policy adviser in me will go only as far as 'maybe' or 'it depends.' It depends on who is ultimately putting up the money, and it depends on what the alternative is if you don't get the lights."
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 1:22 PM on November 8, 2016 [31 favorites]
I don't really understand how, as Nissan, you could ethically justify that.
$$$
posted by entropicamericana at 1:40 PM on November 8, 2016
$$$
posted by entropicamericana at 1:40 PM on November 8, 2016
Safety costs money. Requiring that cars include additional safety equipment is forcing a choice on poor people...
Another complicating factor is that in a world where X safety feature is optional, X safety feature might be more expensive than necessary because of lack of economies of scale and/or lack of incentive on the part of manufacturers to reduce the cost of X.
Which is why, as said above, the free market shouldn't be deciding minimum safety regulations. But it's not like governments have the easiest decisions to make in this regard either.
In the US, I've been interested in the roll-out of back-up cameras (mainly because I am parallel parking impaired). They've gone from being a luxury, to something that's going to be required in on all light vehicles less than two years from now. In the meantime though, wouldn't call it unethical for manufacturers to continue to offer less safe vehicles without the cameras.
posted by sparklemotion at 1:41 PM on November 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
Another complicating factor is that in a world where X safety feature is optional, X safety feature might be more expensive than necessary because of lack of economies of scale and/or lack of incentive on the part of manufacturers to reduce the cost of X.
Which is why, as said above, the free market shouldn't be deciding minimum safety regulations. But it's not like governments have the easiest decisions to make in this regard either.
In the US, I've been interested in the roll-out of back-up cameras (mainly because I am parallel parking impaired). They've gone from being a luxury, to something that's going to be required in on all light vehicles less than two years from now. In the meantime though, wouldn't call it unethical for manufacturers to continue to offer less safe vehicles without the cameras.
posted by sparklemotion at 1:41 PM on November 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
For a historical comparison, 2009 Chevy Malibu vs 1959 Bel Air Crash Test where the gigantic car from the fifties gets demolished by the much smaller modern car.
posted by octothorpe at 1:43 PM on November 8, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 1:43 PM on November 8, 2016 [10 favorites]
I don't really understand how, as Nissan, you could ethically justify that.
How ethical is it for Nissan to refuse to sell cars that Mexicans can afford? The average Mexican household net-adjusted disposable income per capita is USD 12,806 a year. That's 27% of the average US household income.
posted by GuyZero at 1:44 PM on November 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
How ethical is it for Nissan to refuse to sell cars that Mexicans can afford? The average Mexican household net-adjusted disposable income per capita is USD 12,806 a year. That's 27% of the average US household income.
posted by GuyZero at 1:44 PM on November 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't really understand how, as Nissan, you could ethically justify that.
People are rarely more ethical than they can afford to be. Is it really more ethical to offer goods that people cannot afford to buy?
posted by 2N2222 at 1:44 PM on November 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
On the positive side, Nissan is ending production of the Tsuru in the middle of next year. Which is great, because that model dates back to 1992, before there was a Clinton in the White House.
Nissan also announced today a special commemorative version of the Nissan Tsuru will be sold beginning March 2017, with only 1,000 units available.posted by WhackyparseThis at 1:47 PM on November 8, 2016
I don't really understand how, as Nissan, you could ethically justify that.
That's a very odd thing to say. A car company is not responsible for your safety, nor should they be. Any car can be dangerous. Every car can be improved for safety. So to say it is ethically questionable to sell a car to a market with very little money in it 'because a better product is available' is a weird thing to say. The cars with that extra development are more expensive and the market can't support them - they can offer that better car all they want, but if no-one buys it because they can't afford it, how does that help?
To prevent that in future, lets limit all cars to 25mph, double the crumple zones, double the number of air bags and supply 6 point harnesses, fireproof overalls and crash helmets. And make the company pay for it and sell all the cars at a loss if people can't afford it. How does that make sense?
posted by Brockles at 1:48 PM on November 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
That's a very odd thing to say. A car company is not responsible for your safety, nor should they be. Any car can be dangerous. Every car can be improved for safety. So to say it is ethically questionable to sell a car to a market with very little money in it 'because a better product is available' is a weird thing to say. The cars with that extra development are more expensive and the market can't support them - they can offer that better car all they want, but if no-one buys it because they can't afford it, how does that help?
To prevent that in future, lets limit all cars to 25mph, double the crumple zones, double the number of air bags and supply 6 point harnesses, fireproof overalls and crash helmets. And make the company pay for it and sell all the cars at a loss if people can't afford it. How does that make sense?
posted by Brockles at 1:48 PM on November 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
I don't really understand how, as Nissan, you could ethically justify that.
We just bought a new car. It has auto-braking upon collision detection, which has already saved us from at least one fender bender. It also has adaptive cruise control, which means less chance of running into a car in moderate to heavy highway traffic and less driver fatigue. It has lane departure warning, so that if you do get tired or distracted, you don't drift out of your lane. These are all very nice safety features, but they're not required by law because they're relatively new and because they cost several thousand dollars.
Do you think you can ethically justify selling cars without these new safety features? Obviously, people do. And if you can justify it, where/how do you draw the line?
posted by ethidda at 1:51 PM on November 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
We just bought a new car. It has auto-braking upon collision detection, which has already saved us from at least one fender bender. It also has adaptive cruise control, which means less chance of running into a car in moderate to heavy highway traffic and less driver fatigue. It has lane departure warning, so that if you do get tired or distracted, you don't drift out of your lane. These are all very nice safety features, but they're not required by law because they're relatively new and because they cost several thousand dollars.
Do you think you can ethically justify selling cars without these new safety features? Obviously, people do. And if you can justify it, where/how do you draw the line?
posted by ethidda at 1:51 PM on November 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
I found this video last week and was shocked into abandoning my plan of buying a 25 year old JDM import (which probably would have been a Nissan very much like the Tsuru). I blame the internet for taking away my fun and prolonging my life against my will.
posted by mattamatic at 1:56 PM on November 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by mattamatic at 1:56 PM on November 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
Also, lack of airbags be damned, I am surprised the crumple zone on the Tsuru is so bad. Is a proper engine compartment crumple zone that much more expensive?
posted by GuyZero at 2:01 PM on November 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by GuyZero at 2:01 PM on November 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
We have heard the argument why a an unregulated market will sell the most lethal item it can get away with, which is why we need a body with authority and no profit interest in automobile companies to set minimum safety standards. The case for this isn't different because it's people in foreign countries than it was when auto makers were fighting safety requirements in Europe and North America. Since we can all agree that no one is saying that every Mexican should get a Volvo or nothing if they can't afford a Volvo, we can operate under the assumption that egregiously unsafe cars like this 35 year old Nissan design are what's at issue here.
posted by Space Coyote at 2:02 PM on November 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Space Coyote at 2:02 PM on November 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
But this is a far from simple argument on either side, and simply dismissing it as "obviously wrong" or "the fault of greedy businessmen" is intellectually lazy and condescending to the real people who are forced to make these decisions.
This isn't reflected in most safety regulations. Granted, I'm most familiar with drug safety regulations, but those operate (internationally) from a floor of minimal acceptable safety. I can't think of a regulatory argument that has tried (successfully) to prioritize consumer choice over minimum safety standards in the past 25-30 years. That's not to say that drug companies haven't tried, repeatedly, to skew data to show that the minimum safety bar has been met when it hasn't. But those situations invite prosecution, loss of lucrative production contracts, and indelible bad press.
A car company is not responsible for your safety, nor should they be.
Again, this isn't quite reflected in international regulations, and the long-term efforts to harmonize those regulations. The global regulatory infrastructure, underpinned by standards from OECD, ISO, the UN, et al., makes precisely the opposite argument. That argument makes allowances for economics that differ between countries, but the standards of consumer safety are pretty uniformly stacked toward safety in most global markets.
posted by late afternoon dreaming hotel at 2:04 PM on November 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
This isn't reflected in most safety regulations. Granted, I'm most familiar with drug safety regulations, but those operate (internationally) from a floor of minimal acceptable safety. I can't think of a regulatory argument that has tried (successfully) to prioritize consumer choice over minimum safety standards in the past 25-30 years. That's not to say that drug companies haven't tried, repeatedly, to skew data to show that the minimum safety bar has been met when it hasn't. But those situations invite prosecution, loss of lucrative production contracts, and indelible bad press.
A car company is not responsible for your safety, nor should they be.
Again, this isn't quite reflected in international regulations, and the long-term efforts to harmonize those regulations. The global regulatory infrastructure, underpinned by standards from OECD, ISO, the UN, et al., makes precisely the opposite argument. That argument makes allowances for economics that differ between countries, but the standards of consumer safety are pretty uniformly stacked toward safety in most global markets.
posted by late afternoon dreaming hotel at 2:04 PM on November 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
Again, this isn't quite reflected in international regulations
That is misleading. The car company is responsible for complying with the regulations and standards - your safety is dictated by the regulating body. That is the body that is setting the level of acceptable safety, not the car company.
So no, it doesn't at all make the opposite argument.
posted by Brockles at 2:15 PM on November 8, 2016
That is misleading. The car company is responsible for complying with the regulations and standards - your safety is dictated by the regulating body. That is the body that is setting the level of acceptable safety, not the car company.
So no, it doesn't at all make the opposite argument.
posted by Brockles at 2:15 PM on November 8, 2016
Granted, I'm most familiar with drug safety regulations, but those operate (internationally) from a floor of minimal acceptable safety.
What is "minimal acceptable safety"? The Tsuru met the safety standards of the jurisdictions that it was sold in. After next year, it won't in Mexico, so it won't be sold there.
posted by sparklemotion at 2:26 PM on November 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
What is "minimal acceptable safety"? The Tsuru met the safety standards of the jurisdictions that it was sold in. After next year, it won't in Mexico, so it won't be sold there.
posted by sparklemotion at 2:26 PM on November 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
If you can ethically justify selling motorcycles or motor scooters or mopeds can you justify slightly safer cars? People want to get around, especially in poorer places.
Hell, we don't make people wear helmets (on bikes) or seat belts (in cars) in some places. What about 3 wheelers and 4 wheelers and snowmobiles that people drive 60 miles an hour?
Thank god for Ralph Nader though.
posted by Bee'sWing at 2:37 PM on November 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Hell, we don't make people wear helmets (on bikes) or seat belts (in cars) in some places. What about 3 wheelers and 4 wheelers and snowmobiles that people drive 60 miles an hour?
Thank god for Ralph Nader though.
posted by Bee'sWing at 2:37 PM on November 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Car safety features are like health insurance. Most people take the middle of the road option and gripe about the cost, some know they're prone to medical conditions (which would be the equivalent of knowing you're not the best driver, or living where there are bad drivers), and some people are like...
..fuck it, health insurance? Can't make me buy that! Seatbelts? I'd rather be thrown free of the car! I'm not going to get in a car crash anyway, I'm young and a good driver and everyone in my family's a good driver!
posted by mikeh at 2:39 PM on November 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
..fuck it, health insurance? Can't make me buy that! Seatbelts? I'd rather be thrown free of the car! I'm not going to get in a car crash anyway, I'm young and a good driver and everyone in my family's a good driver!
posted by mikeh at 2:39 PM on November 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
the styling of that Tsuru reminds me of a 1988 Corolla I had back around 1990, which in turns reminds me that I'm glad I never had a wreck in that thing. Of course even in the 1980s Toyotas in the US market touted their crumple zones (but too early for air bags).
posted by randomkeystrike at 2:50 PM on November 8, 2016
posted by randomkeystrike at 2:50 PM on November 8, 2016
and if you think the Nissan comparison is bad...
(edit - just noticed this has already been posted - 1959 Bel Air crash test)
posted by randomkeystrike at 2:52 PM on November 8, 2016
(edit - just noticed this has already been posted - 1959 Bel Air crash test)
posted by randomkeystrike at 2:52 PM on November 8, 2016
"I remember when there was this mini backlash against airbags. Never could work out the logic behind that."
Some of that backlash was because NHTSA wanted airbags to functionally replace seatbelts, not just supplement them. Engineering an airbag to prevent a belted driver from a faceful of dashboard is a lot different from one that has to deploy with enough force, over about a quarter of second, incrementally, to keep a 250lb adult's butt firmly in a seat - without killing them.
posted by klarck at 2:57 PM on November 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Some of that backlash was because NHTSA wanted airbags to functionally replace seatbelts, not just supplement them. Engineering an airbag to prevent a belted driver from a faceful of dashboard is a lot different from one that has to deploy with enough force, over about a quarter of second, incrementally, to keep a 250lb adult's butt firmly in a seat - without killing them.
posted by klarck at 2:57 PM on November 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
I've been thinking a lot lately about the ramifications of universal self driving cars. This post leads me to a new one I hadn't considered before.
Once all vehicles are self-driving, accidents will presumably become exceedingly rare leading to the elimination of the need for these safety features.
No more seat belts, airbags, reinforced passenger compartments and crumple zones. All resulting in reduced cost and weight.
posted by cosmac at 3:00 PM on November 8, 2016
Once all vehicles are self-driving, accidents will presumably become exceedingly rare leading to the elimination of the need for these safety features.
No more seat belts, airbags, reinforced passenger compartments and crumple zones. All resulting in reduced cost and weight.
posted by cosmac at 3:00 PM on November 8, 2016
Engineering an airbag to prevent a belted driver from a faceful of dashboard is a lot different from one that has to deploy with enough force, over about a quarter of second, incrementally, to keep a 250lb adult's butt firmly in a seat - without killing them.
US regulations are still written that airbags need to restrain a non-belted occupant. Which makes air bag design and safety for the *belted* occupants much harder. Air bags are therefore larger, so have to expand faster (more violently) than would be necessary (and would in fact be best) for restraining a belted occupant. I have a friend that is head of a well known auto manufacturer (small volume) and if you even start the discussion about how hard it makes it to keep smart, sane people with belts on safe in a modern car he doesn't stop ranting for hours.
I had an accident (very minor, low speed) in a Minivan, but just enough to trigger the airbags and had serious bruising on my shins from part of the dashboard being pushed into my legs (a sizeable beam structure) by an airbag that is designed to jam my legs into the seat in case I am unbelted because otherwise I'd ride over the steering wheel bag and exit through the windscreen. I'd have been completely fine without that because I had my belt on (of course).
Personally, I'd be inclined to say that belts are mandatory, airbags are compulsory, so if you choose not to protect yourself with the seat belt, it's tough shit if the airbag can't save you instead. Natural selection, as far as I am concerned.
posted by Brockles at 3:26 PM on November 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
US regulations are still written that airbags need to restrain a non-belted occupant. Which makes air bag design and safety for the *belted* occupants much harder. Air bags are therefore larger, so have to expand faster (more violently) than would be necessary (and would in fact be best) for restraining a belted occupant. I have a friend that is head of a well known auto manufacturer (small volume) and if you even start the discussion about how hard it makes it to keep smart, sane people with belts on safe in a modern car he doesn't stop ranting for hours.
I had an accident (very minor, low speed) in a Minivan, but just enough to trigger the airbags and had serious bruising on my shins from part of the dashboard being pushed into my legs (a sizeable beam structure) by an airbag that is designed to jam my legs into the seat in case I am unbelted because otherwise I'd ride over the steering wheel bag and exit through the windscreen. I'd have been completely fine without that because I had my belt on (of course).
Personally, I'd be inclined to say that belts are mandatory, airbags are compulsory, so if you choose not to protect yourself with the seat belt, it's tough shit if the airbag can't save you instead. Natural selection, as far as I am concerned.
posted by Brockles at 3:26 PM on November 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
The market for cars in Mexico is tiny compared to the market for small cars with the growing middle class in India. The vast majority of basic cars sold in India do not have airbags. What's the alternative? Motorcycles. If you price cars at the equivalent (in rupees) of $14,000 each instead of $6,000 to $9,000, yes they can have more advanced safety features, but a lot of people will then not be able to afford cars at all.
posted by thewalrus at 3:26 PM on November 8, 2016
posted by thewalrus at 3:26 PM on November 8, 2016
Nissan is ending production of the Tsuru in the middle of next year.
Because Mexico recently passed new safety regulations.
posted by hat_eater at 3:34 PM on November 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
Because Mexico recently passed new safety regulations.
posted by hat_eater at 3:34 PM on November 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
If the Mexican government has forced Nissan to end production of the Tsuru it presumably means that the economic argument for Mexicans being forced to buy dangerous cars is false. Nissan wasn't selling deathtraps because they're necessary/better than no car at all; it was selling them because they could get away with it, and possibly because it reduced the number of cheap cars substituted for Nissan Versas across the border in the USA.
It will be interesting to see how much Nissan's new "least expensive" car costs. I suspect the price point won't change much.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:47 PM on November 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
It will be interesting to see how much Nissan's new "least expensive" car costs. I suspect the price point won't change much.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:47 PM on November 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
It will be interesting to see how much Nissan's new "least expensive" car costs. I suspect the price point won't change much.
Maybe not for the reasons you think, though. It means Nissan have a market for their 'previous gen' cars, which means that tooling costs and development is already covered by the first gen market, so they can afford to offer markets like Mexico with models that are already paid for, and so the profit margin doesn't need to be so aggressive to cover dev/tooling costs. So it may be that the Mexican market (and similar places) just end up being one generation of crash safety behind, which allows cheaper cars to be sold there anyway.
posted by Brockles at 3:53 PM on November 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Maybe not for the reasons you think, though. It means Nissan have a market for their 'previous gen' cars, which means that tooling costs and development is already covered by the first gen market, so they can afford to offer markets like Mexico with models that are already paid for, and so the profit margin doesn't need to be so aggressive to cover dev/tooling costs. So it may be that the Mexican market (and similar places) just end up being one generation of crash safety behind, which allows cheaper cars to be sold there anyway.
posted by Brockles at 3:53 PM on November 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
One of the reasons I can't look into a nice resto-mod Grand Wagoneer or Studebaker Transtar Crew 4x4 as my Goin' Campin' Ride and Bad Weather Commuter - They're very pretty motorcycles with a tow rating when it comes to safety. I got a family, and there are lunatics with a cell phone in one hand (BLUETOOTH, ASSHOLE) a beer in the other, and juggling a bowl of soup or trying to shave at the same time. On the highway. In heavy traffic.
There used to be a company that offered to retrofit airbags in classic rides, but they're no longer around. If I need to weld in a crash cage and have the fam in five-point harnesses all the way to Santa's Village, well... pass.
That late model Toy Taco or flat-six Scoobie Outie with a new-school ultra-light travel trailer in tow looks a lot better. (Serious, the new ultra-lights are enormous, optioned out the wazoo, and any midsize vehicle with more than four can haul 'em.)
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:06 PM on November 8, 2016
There used to be a company that offered to retrofit airbags in classic rides, but they're no longer around. If I need to weld in a crash cage and have the fam in five-point harnesses all the way to Santa's Village, well... pass.
That late model Toy Taco or flat-six Scoobie Outie with a new-school ultra-light travel trailer in tow looks a lot better. (Serious, the new ultra-lights are enormous, optioned out the wazoo, and any midsize vehicle with more than four can haul 'em.)
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:06 PM on November 8, 2016
If the Mexican government has forced Nissan to end production of the Tsuru it presumably means that the economic argument for Mexicans being forced to buy dangerous cars is false.
I doubt that Mexicans were being "forced" to buy dangerous cars (if there's documentation that no safer cars were sold in the Mexican market, I'd like to see it). But that being said, there's still an economic argument for lower safety standards for cheaper cars.
The Mexican government has changed its safety regulations, meaning that the Mexican government decided that the tradeoffs of cheaper cars for less safety no longer makes sense in Mexico, for the applicable values of "cheaper" and "safety."
Nissan will now likely bust their butts to bring in a Tsuru replacement that isn't that much more expensive than the current model. Could they have done that before? Sure, but why would they if there was nothing forcing their competitors to do that?
I'm willing to bet that the Mexican regulations still do not require all of the safety features that US or Canadian or European regulations require. There are likely economic reasons for that, and it's also likely that manufacturers are exerting pressure on regulators in Mexico and other developing nations to keep the regulations minimal.
If we want to talk about the ethics of regulatory capture, I'd be happy to (though, of first I'd like to see evidence that Nissan has actually exerted pressure in that way). But if there's an ethical failure here, making and selling cars that are legal isn't it.
posted by sparklemotion at 5:21 PM on November 8, 2016
I doubt that Mexicans were being "forced" to buy dangerous cars (if there's documentation that no safer cars were sold in the Mexican market, I'd like to see it). But that being said, there's still an economic argument for lower safety standards for cheaper cars.
The Mexican government has changed its safety regulations, meaning that the Mexican government decided that the tradeoffs of cheaper cars for less safety no longer makes sense in Mexico, for the applicable values of "cheaper" and "safety."
Nissan will now likely bust their butts to bring in a Tsuru replacement that isn't that much more expensive than the current model. Could they have done that before? Sure, but why would they if there was nothing forcing their competitors to do that?
I'm willing to bet that the Mexican regulations still do not require all of the safety features that US or Canadian or European regulations require. There are likely economic reasons for that, and it's also likely that manufacturers are exerting pressure on regulators in Mexico and other developing nations to keep the regulations minimal.
If we want to talk about the ethics of regulatory capture, I'd be happy to (though, of first I'd like to see evidence that Nissan has actually exerted pressure in that way). But if there's an ethical failure here, making and selling cars that are legal isn't it.
posted by sparklemotion at 5:21 PM on November 8, 2016
Or maybe the price of the cheapest car will simply go up in Mexico now that new safety regulations have passed, causing those who no longer can afford to buy a car, to buy a cheap motorcycle or scooter.
posted by unknownmosquito at 6:25 PM on November 8, 2016
posted by unknownmosquito at 6:25 PM on November 8, 2016
Once all vehicles are self-driving, accidents will presumably become exceedingly rare leading to the elimination of the need for these safety features.
No more seat belts, airbags, reinforced passenger compartments and crumple zones. All resulting in reduced cost and weight.--cosmac
Until we have self-driving deer and pedestrians, and the elimination of storms and random events, I doubt we can get rid of the safety features.
posted by eye of newt at 9:09 PM on November 8, 2016
No more seat belts, airbags, reinforced passenger compartments and crumple zones. All resulting in reduced cost and weight.--cosmac
Until we have self-driving deer and pedestrians, and the elimination of storms and random events, I doubt we can get rid of the safety features.
posted by eye of newt at 9:09 PM on November 8, 2016
One of the reasons I can't look into a nice resto-mod Grand Wagoneer or Studebaker Transtar Crew 4x4 as my Goin' Campin' Ride and Bad Weather Commuter - They're very pretty motorcycles with a tow rating when it comes to safety. I got a family, and there are lunatics with a cell phone in one hand (BLUETOOTH, ASSHOLE) a beer in the other, and juggling a bowl of soup or trying to shave at the same time. On the highway. In heavy traffic.
In replacing my TDI, I've come to the same conclusion.
As much as I wanted the mint condition, Griswold family truckster complete with vinyl wood siding and a way, way back seat, I also wanted actual seatbelts.
That and Wagoneers have gone stupid in prices the last couple of years.
What trailers were you considering? Thinking of getting one for next summer's camping excursions.
posted by madajb at 12:03 AM on November 9, 2016
In replacing my TDI, I've come to the same conclusion.
As much as I wanted the mint condition, Griswold family truckster complete with vinyl wood siding and a way, way back seat, I also wanted actual seatbelts.
That and Wagoneers have gone stupid in prices the last couple of years.
What trailers were you considering? Thinking of getting one for next summer's camping excursions.
posted by madajb at 12:03 AM on November 9, 2016
As they say on good old jalopnik, the answer is always "Miata."
posted by spitbull at 4:25 AM on November 9, 2016
posted by spitbull at 4:25 AM on November 9, 2016
Jay Flight SLX looks pretty good...
posted by Slap*Happy at 4:26 AM on November 9, 2016
posted by Slap*Happy at 4:26 AM on November 9, 2016
So it may be that the Mexican market (and similar places) just end up being one generation of crash safety behind, which allows cheaper cars to be sold there anyway.
That's basically how cheap cars are built for the Eastern European market. E.g. the Dacia Logan is based on the Renault Clio II platform from 1998. It has been stripped of some of the features, including some safety features, as a result of which its safety rating is slightly lower than the Clio's: the Clio II got a four star rating, while the Logan only received three stars. But that's still not bad for a car about half as cheap as a current-generation mainstream supermini.
posted by daniel_charms at 4:33 AM on November 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's basically how cheap cars are built for the Eastern European market. E.g. the Dacia Logan is based on the Renault Clio II platform from 1998. It has been stripped of some of the features, including some safety features, as a result of which its safety rating is slightly lower than the Clio's: the Clio II got a four star rating, while the Logan only received three stars. But that's still not bad for a car about half as cheap as a current-generation mainstream supermini.
posted by daniel_charms at 4:33 AM on November 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
@spitbull - Miata Is Always The Answer is the preferred formulation, per the acronym
posted by thedaniel at 8:08 AM on November 9, 2016
posted by thedaniel at 8:08 AM on November 9, 2016
Looking at the Sentra Wikipedia page, I realized our first car was actually the European version of the B13 Sentra, called Nissan Sunny over here (and called the most boring car ever by Top Gear). In addition to the items listed above, our also lacked power steering and the heater knobs were all busted, which meant that each autumn, I had to bust open the center console to fix the temperature knob in the "hot" position with a screw and each spring, remove the screw again. Otherwise, it was a reliable little car, with an engine almost as bulletproof as a Toyota Corolla's and easy to service, so I'm not that surprised people kept buying them and Nissan kept building them.
posted by daniel_charms at 10:34 AM on November 9, 2016
posted by daniel_charms at 10:34 AM on November 9, 2016
Except when the answer should be "minivan". Based on capabilities and usage alone, that's the strictly utilitarian answer to most questions looking for SUVs or pickups.
posted by bonehead at 10:39 AM on November 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by bonehead at 10:39 AM on November 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's probably not going to make sense for every Mexican to get a Volvo, when a 1991 Volvo crashing into a 2004 subcompact (Renault Modus) looks like this. I suspect that once every model on the market is one that was designed after the introduction of crash testing (and with the expectation of being crash-tested), things will be a lot better.
There's a lot more about the design of crash safety in this other video where they crash a 2003 minivan (Renault Espace) into a 1990s-designed SUV (a Land Rover Discovery).
posted by ambrosen at 1:17 PM on November 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
There's a lot more about the design of crash safety in this other video where they crash a 2003 minivan (Renault Espace) into a 1990s-designed SUV (a Land Rover Discovery).
posted by ambrosen at 1:17 PM on November 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
> Except when the answer should be "minivan".
Minivan Is Also The Answer also spells MIATA, so I think Miata is still always the answer.
posted by thedaniel at 2:32 AM on November 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Minivan Is Also The Answer also spells MIATA, so I think Miata is still always the answer.
posted by thedaniel at 2:32 AM on November 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
GuyZero: "Also, lack of airbags be damned, I am surprised the crumple zone on the Tsuru is so bad. Is a proper engine compartment crumple zone that much more expensive?"
It involves new engineering; tests to verify the engineering; and then new dies. Also a new supply chain and changes to the assembly line to accommodate the new parts. And it would be complicated by having to attach to the current passenger cabin and use the current engine/power train package; lighting package; cooling package; and lighting package. The reason these cars are so cheap is the engineering and tooling has already been fully depreciated; any changes can greatly increase cost.
But poor crumple zones are only half the problem. Modern crumple zones attached to the might as well be tin foil occupant cage are still going to collapse the cabin causing massive injuries and might not even be possible with such a weak passenger compartment.
posted by Mitheral at 11:45 AM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
It involves new engineering; tests to verify the engineering; and then new dies. Also a new supply chain and changes to the assembly line to accommodate the new parts. And it would be complicated by having to attach to the current passenger cabin and use the current engine/power train package; lighting package; cooling package; and lighting package. The reason these cars are so cheap is the engineering and tooling has already been fully depreciated; any changes can greatly increase cost.
But poor crumple zones are only half the problem. Modern crumple zones attached to the might as well be tin foil occupant cage are still going to collapse the cabin causing massive injuries and might not even be possible with such a weak passenger compartment.
posted by Mitheral at 11:45 AM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
« Older A stunning string quartet created through... | "Let's Elect the Women" Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by bitteroldman at 12:59 PM on November 8, 2016 [2 favorites]