Flatlander <flatlander47@***.net> wrote in
news8ahi49o760l9j04r1m4fgg2hbdttlh0qu@4ax.com:

> I've got an '87 CRX that has had something break in the headlight
> housing. The left headlight has tilted itself down so that it shines
> about 6' in front of the car. The adjusters, of course, don't work. I
> assume a spring, an attachment in the headlinght housing or some such
> thing has broken or come loose.
>
> Has anyone been into this to know how big a job I'm in for? I'm
> pretty sure I've got to pull the front bumper to get access to the
> housing. Any other advice or things to watch out for?



Does this vehicle have the old-style rectangular sealed beams, or does it
have flush-type aerodynamic lenses?


--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

Tegger <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote in
news:Xns9B5F4EF6228A7tegger@208.90.168.18:

> Flatlander <flatlander47@***.net> wrote in
> news8ahi49o760l9j04r1m4fgg2hbdttlh0qu@4ax.com:
>
>> I've got an '87 CRX that has had something break in the headlight
>> housing. The left headlight has tilted itself down so that it shines
>> about 6' in front of the car. The adjusters, of course, don't work.
>> I assume a spring, an attachment in the headlinght housing or some
>> such thing has broken or come loose.
>>
>> Has anyone been into this to know how big a job I'm in for? I'm
>> pretty sure I've got to pull the front bumper to get access to the
>> housing. Any other advice or things to watch out for?
>
>
>
> Does this vehicle have the old-style rectangular sealed beams, or does
> it have flush-type aerodynamic lenses?
>
>



I just realized I have a service manual for the '88 CRX. It looks like that
car has the same type of flush headlamps as other Hondas of the era.

Your assembly likely has broken adjuster pins, which go into the plastic
backing of the reflector. Impacts cause the pins to break off the
reflector. There's no fix for this except to get a replacement headlamp
from the wreckers.

Why don't you remove the headlamp and have a good look at the pins? You
need to remove the front bumper in order to get at the bottom two bolts of
the headlamp assembly.

--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 12:59:18 +0000 (UTC), Tegger <invalid@invalid.inv>
wrote:

>Tegger <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote in
>news:Xns9B5F4EF6228A7tegger@208.90.168.18:
>
>> Flatlander <flatlander47@***.net> wrote in
>> news8ahi49o760l9j04r1m4fgg2hbdttlh0qu@4ax.com:
>>
>>> I've got an '87 CRX that has had something break in the headlight
>>> housing. The left headlight has tilted itself down so that it shines
>>> about 6' in front of the car. The adjusters, of course, don't work.
>>> I assume a spring, an attachment in the headlinght housing or some
>>> such thing has broken or come loose.
>>>
>>> Has anyone been into this to know how big a job I'm in for? I'm
>>> pretty sure I've got to pull the front bumper to get access to the
>>> housing. Any other advice or things to watch out for?
>>
>>
>>
>> Does this vehicle have the old-style rectangular sealed beams, or does
>> it have flush-type aerodynamic lenses?
>>
>>
>
>
>
>I just realized I have a service manual for the '88 CRX. It looks like that
>car has the same type of flush headlamps as other Hondas of the era.
>
>Your assembly likely has broken adjuster pins, which go into the plastic
>backing of the reflector. Impacts cause the pins to break off the
>reflector. There's no fix for this except to get a replacement headlamp
>from the wreckers.
>
>Why don't you remove the headlamp and have a good look at the pins? You
>need to remove the front bumper in order to get at the bottom two bolts of
>the headlamp assembly.

Now that you mention it, I'm sure you're exactly right about the pins
being broken off. This was the daughter's car for college back in the
'98 time frame. She ran it into the bushes a couple of times in the
snow. I've had trouble getting the headlight beam adjusted high
enough ever since then. The pin probably finally broke off.

So it's to the wreckers on Monday for a replacement. That saves me
some time, as I didn't want to have to tear it apart and then spend a
couple of days messing around looking for parts. Thanks!

 

Thus spake Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> :

>On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:00:12 -0600, Flatlander wrote:
>
>> I've got an '87 CRX that has had something break in the headlight
>> housing. The left headlight has tilted itself down so that it shines
>> about 6' in front of the car. The adjusters, of course, don't work. I
>> assume a spring, an attachment in the headlinght housing or some such
>> thing has broken or come loose.
>>
>> Has anyone been into this to know how big a job I'm in for? I'm pretty
>> sure I've got to pull the front bumper to get access to the housing.
>> Any other advice or things to watch out for?
>
>My advice would be to get rid of that piece of . It's 21 years old
>and not worth fixing any more. Almost certainly not up to safety
>standards either. Take it to the nearest junkyard and see if you can get
>a few bucks for it. If not just give it to them and go get a decent ride.

I've seen some late 80's CRX's doing quite well in the SCCA regional
classes. Yes, a little warmed over, but the rules don't let them do
much in Improved Modified. They also do well in A/X.

 

On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 11:33:36 -0600, Dillon Pyron
<invaliddmpyron@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>Thus spake Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> :
>
>>On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:00:12 -0600, Flatlander wrote:
>>
>>> I've got an '87 CRX that has had something break in the headlight
>>> housing. The left headlight has tilted itself down so that it shines
>>> about 6' in front of the car. The adjusters, of course, don't work. I
>>> assume a spring, an attachment in the headlinght housing or some such
>>> thing has broken or come loose.
>>>
>>> Has anyone been into this to know how big a job I'm in for? I'm pretty
>>> sure I've got to pull the front bumper to get access to the housing.
>>> Any other advice or things to watch out for?
>>
>>My advice would be to get rid of that piece of . It's 21 years old
>>and not worth fixing any more. Almost certainly not up to safety
>>standards either. Take it to the nearest junkyard and see if you can get
>>a few bucks for it. If not just give it to them and go get a decent ride.
>
>I've seen some late 80's CRX's doing quite well in the SCCA regional
>classes. Yes, a little warmed over, but the rules don't let them do
>much in Improved Modified. They also do well in A/X.

This one isn't doing too bad considering the age. It has 149k on it.
Other than scheduled maintenance, the only things I've had to do so
far are replace the struts for the hatch (which need replacing again)
and replace the heater blower. It still isn't using any oil. The
main problems the car has had are things related to having a 20 year
old daughter drive it - like knocking the spoiler off the front end a
couple of times and tearing the CV boots with some "off road" driving.
Now that it's the wife's car, we don't seem to be having those kinds
of issues any more. The car isn't a gem, but it's reliable and
halfway presentable. Being carbureted and an automatic, we're
entering the season where cold starts are once again "interesting".

 

Thus spake Flatlander <flatlander47@***.net> :

>On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 11:33:36 -0600, Dillon Pyron
><invaliddmpyron@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Thus spake Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> :
>>
>>>On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:00:12 -0600, Flatlander wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've got an '87 CRX that has had something break in the headlight
>>>> housing. The left headlight has tilted itself down so that it shines
>>>> about 6' in front of the car. The adjusters, of course, don't work. I
>>>> assume a spring, an attachment in the headlinght housing or some such
>>>> thing has broken or come loose.
>>>>
>>>> Has anyone been into this to know how big a job I'm in for? I'm pretty
>>>> sure I've got to pull the front bumper to get access to the housing.
>>>> Any other advice or things to watch out for?
>>>
>>>My advice would be to get rid of that piece of . It's 21 years old
>>>and not worth fixing any more. Almost certainly not up to safety
>>>standards either. Take it to the nearest junkyard and see if you can get
>>>a few bucks for it. If not just give it to them and go get a decent ride.
>>
>>I've seen some late 80's CRX's doing quite well in the SCCA regional
>>classes. Yes, a little warmed over, but the rules don't let them do
>>much in Improved Modified. They also do well in A/X.
>
>This one isn't doing too bad considering the age. It has 149k on it.
>Other than scheduled maintenance, the only things I've had to do so
>far are replace the struts for the hatch (which need replacing again)
>and replace the heater blower. It still isn't using any oil. The
>main problems the car has had are things related to having a 20 year
>old daughter drive it - like knocking the spoiler off the front end a
>couple of times and tearing the CV boots with some "off road" driving.

Speaking of CV boots, the joints are probably near their EOL. This is
more a function of out and out years rather than wear and tear.

>Now that it's the wife's car, we don't seem to be having those kinds
>of issues any more. The car isn't a gem, but it's reliable and
>halfway presentable. Being carbureted and an automatic, we're
>entering the season where cold starts are once again "interesting".

Ether. It doesn't really make the car start any easier, but it REALLY
makes things "interesting" :-)

 

In article <pan.2008.11.23.04.23.58@moria.lan>,
youmustbejoking@lan.invalid says...
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 04:10:41 +0000, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
> > Mark wrote:
> >> "Dan C" <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote in message
> >> newsan.2008.11.23.01.38.47@moria.lan...
> >>
> >>> On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:00:12 -0600, Flatlander wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I've got an '87 CRX that has had something break in the headlight
> >>>> housing. The left headlight has tilted itself down so that it shines
> >>>> about 6' in front of the car. The adjusters, of course, don't work.
> >>>> I assume a spring, an attachment in the headlinght housing or some
> >>>> such thing has broken or come loose.
> >>>>
> >>>> Has anyone been into this to know how big a job I'm in for? I'm
> >>>> pretty sure I've got to pull the front bumper to get access to the
> >>>> housing. Any other advice or things to watch out for?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> My advice would be to get rid of that piece of . It's 21 years
> >>> old and not worth fixing any more. Almost certainly not up to safety
> >>> standards either. Take it to the nearest junkyard and see if you can
> >>> get a few bucks for it. If not just give it to them and go get a
> >>> decent ride.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> One man's opinion - not worth the time it took to read! Why do you
> >> think that just because the vehicle is 21 years old it is a POS? I
> >> suppose since there have been improvements made since 2005, or 06, or
> >> even 07 they are POS and should be dragged to the scrap heap?
> >
> >
> > Yes, such talk is nonsense. My "newest" is a '83 Civic FE and up to
> > that year, Hondas were "old" school in how they operated. No friggin'
> > "Check Engine" light, no PCV valve, no oxygen sensor... Still gets 40+
> > mpg in mixed driving with an earlier '81 engine.
> >
> > They'll have to pry my cold dead hands off of the steering wheel in
> > order to drag it to the scrap heap!
>
> Which is exactly what the paramedics will do if you ever get in a serious
> accident with that POS.

You've beaten this horse here before. Repeatedly.

I am reminded of something Mary Shafer (at the time, Flying Qualities
Lead Engineer on NASA's SR-71) once wrote:

"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the ***** to
live in the real world."

Dave

 

On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 23:21:04 -0600, Dave Garrett wrote:

>> > They'll have to pry my cold dead hands off of the steering wheel in
>> > order to drag it to the scrap heap!

>> Which is exactly what the paramedics will do if you ever get in a
>> serious accident with that POS.

> I am reminded of something Mary Shafer (at the time, Flying Qualities
> Lead Engineer on NASA's SR-71) once wrote:
>
> "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the ***** to
> live in the real world."

Who's talking about "perfect safety"? I'm talking about things like ABS
and air bags.

Are you saying you *admire* someone who "has the *****" to drive without
them?


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

 

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 05:55:31 +0000, Dan C wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 23:21:04 -0600, Dave Garrett wrote:
>
>>> > They'll have to pry my cold dead hands off of the steering wheel in
>>> > order to drag it to the scrap heap!
>
>>> Which is exactly what the paramedics will do if you ever get in a
>>> serious accident with that POS.
>
>> I am reminded of something Mary Shafer (at the time, Flying Qualities
>> Lead Engineer on NASA's SR-71) once wrote:
>>
>> "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the ***** to
>> live in the real world."
>
> Who's talking about "perfect safety"? I'm talking about things like ABS
> and air bags.

abs is no panacea - it can extend braking distances, just read your owner
manual. air bags? depends on how big you are and how close to the wheel
you sit. and the type of crash you have. air bags don't do squat for the
driver of an exploder when it rolls and the roof collapses.



>
> Are you saying you *admire* someone who "has the *****" to drive without
> them?

go to a junk yard and look at real crashed cars - that'll tell you /way/
more than any hearsay or b.s. you'll read in a press release.

 

Mark wrote:
> "Dan C" <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote in message
> newsan.2008.11.23.01.38.47@moria.lan...
>> On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:00:12 -0600, Flatlander wrote:
>>
>>> I've got an '87 CRX that has had something break in the headlight
>>> housing. The left headlight has tilted itself down so that it shines
>>> about 6' in front of the car. The adjusters, of course, don't work. I
>>> assume a spring, an attachment in the headlinght housing or some such
>>> thing has broken or come loose.
>>>
>>> Has anyone been into this to know how big a job I'm in for? I'm pretty
>>> sure I've got to pull the front bumper to get access to the housing.
>>> Any other advice or things to watch out for?
>>
>> My advice would be to get rid of that piece of . It's 21 years old
>> and not worth fixing any more. Almost certainly not up to safety
>> standards either. Take it to the nearest junkyard and see if you can get
>> a few bucks for it. If not just give it to them and go get a decent
>> ride.
>>
>>
> One man's opinion - not worth the time it took to read! Why do you
> think that just because the vehicle is 21 years old it is a POS? I
> suppose since there have been improvements made since 2005, or 06, or
> even 07 they are POS and should be dragged to the scrap heap?


Don't feed the trolls.


Not many cars newer than about 20 years old that I have much interest in.

 

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:17:01 +0000, jim beam wrote:

>>> "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the ***** to
>>> live in the real world."

>> Who's talking about "perfect safety"? I'm talking about things like
>> ABS and air bags.

> abs is no panacea - it can extend braking distances, just read your
> owner manual.

Maybe. Rarely. All in all, it's a good thing to have, in almost all
cases.

> air bags? depends on how big you are and how close to the wheel you sit.

No, it doesn't.

> and the type of crash you have. air bags don't do squat for the driver
> of an exploder when it rolls and the roof collapses.

We weren't talking about an "exploder". The subject is a Honda CRX. Try
to keep up, if you're gonna jump into a conversation.

>> Are you saying you *admire* someone who "has the *****" to drive
>> without them?

> go to a junk yard and look at real crashed cars - that'll tell you /way/
> more than any hearsay or b.s. you'll read in a press release.

Anyone who argues that ABS or airbags don't include your chances of
survival in a crash is just a fool. If that's what you truly believe,
don't bother replying, as I don't have time to waste on fools.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

 

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:32:41 +0000, Dan C wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:17:01 +0000, jim beam wrote:
>
>>>> "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the *****
>>>> to live in the real world."
>
>>> Who's talking about "perfect safety"? I'm talking about things like
>>> ABS and air bags.
>
>> abs is no panacea - it can extend braking distances, just read your
>> owner manual.
>
> Maybe. Rarely. All in all, it's a good thing to have, in almost all
> cases.

actually, it's a crappy thing to have in mud and snow because in both
cases, locking and plowing can stop you quicker. straight line on ice is
debatable. it's primary purpose is to help the freds who would otherwise
lock wheels and keep them locked when they brake in the rain, skid, and
slowly pirouette across the freeway as they try to break the brake pedal
off hoping it'll make the cars stop faster. if you've ever witnessed
people driving in the rain in los angeles or las vegas, you'll know what i
mean.



>
>> air bags? depends on how big you are and how close to the wheel you
>> sit.
>
> No, it doesn't.

actually, it does.


>
>> and the type of crash you have. air bags don't do squat for the driver
>> of an exploder when it rolls and the roof collapses.
>
> We weren't talking about an "exploder". The subject is a Honda CRX.
> Try to keep up, if you're gonna jump into a conversation.

you made a blanket statement, but it's only applicable to a limited set of
circumstances. front airbags offer no protection from side impact. they
offer no protection from rollover. all they offer is protection from
frontal, and that's assuming the driver would otherwise impact the wheel
due to proximity or restraint problems. in all cases, better protection
would be afforded by the use of a rigid safety cage, five-point harness
and helmet rather than an explosive device.



>
>>> Are you saying you *admire* someone who "has the *****" to drive
>>> without them?
>
>> go to a junk yard and look at real crashed cars - that'll tell you
>> /way/ more than any hearsay or b.s. you'll read in a press release.
>
> Anyone who argues that ABS or airbags don't include your chances of
> survival in a crash is just a fool. If that's what you truly believe,
> don't bother replying, as I don't have time to waste on fools.

dude, i'm not a fool. not only do i have something of an edumacation on
this stuff, i've worked with cars for a long time, both professionally and
as an amateur. and i've surfed junkyards for more than three decades.
i've seen a lot of busted cars, including crx's. if you want to say that
the first gen crx's with the plastic body panels are sketchier than the
gen two's, i'll say sure. but neither vehicle is a slouch in crash
survival that i've seen. for rollover, [if you can ever get it to
rollover, which short of ditching it is pretty near impossible in my
experience], both gens of crx hold up /real/ well. much better than
detroit product of the same era, or even today. for frontal, same again,
great survival of the passenger cell. where they're not so hot is side
impact, but imo, that's something of a debatable benefit. without some
distance in which to deform and thus absorb impact, the body decelerates
against the side impactor pretty much unprotected. and short of making
vehicles as wide as they are long, there's not much to be done about
that. side airbags protect the head, but they don't prevent broken
plevises, legs, etc.

 

Dan C wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:17:01 +0000, jim beam wrote:
>
>>>> "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the ***** to
>>>> live in the real world."
>
>>> Who's talking about "perfect safety"? I'm talking about things like
>>> ABS and air bags.
>
>> abs is no panacea - it can extend braking distances, just read your
>> owner manual.
>
> Maybe. Rarely. All in all, it's a good thing to have, in almost all
> cases.
>
>> air bags? depends on how big you are and how close to the wheel you sit.
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
>> and the type of crash you have. air bags don't do squat for the driver
>> of an exploder when it rolls and the roof collapses.
>
> We weren't talking about an "exploder". The subject is a Honda CRX. Try
> to keep up, if you're gonna jump into a conversation.
>
>>> Are you saying you *admire* someone who "has the *****" to drive
>>> without them?
>
>> go to a junk yard and look at real crashed cars - that'll tell you /way/
>> more than any hearsay or b.s. you'll read in a press release.
>
> Anyone who argues that ABS or airbags don't include your chances of
> survival in a crash is just a fool. If that's what you truly believe,
> don't bother replying, as I don't have time to waste on fools.
>
>

Airbags and ABS are not a bad thing, but having them does not
automatically make a car safe, and lacking them does not automatically
make a car dangerous.

My primary focus is Volvo, the 240 series was made for nearly two
decades and is legendary for safety, despite airbags and ABS being
available only the final 2 or 3 years of production. Much has been
learned in the way of safety and cars in general have improved
dramatically in the last decade or two, particularly small cars, but in
many cases an air bag is a band aide over inferior design.

All that said, there's more to life than safety. Few would argue that
motorcycles are safe, but they're fun, and many of us would rather live
a short but enjoyable life, than a long one spent locked in a padded
sterile bunker where we are "safe".

The best way to survive an accident is to not get in one; drive
sensibly, keep your eye on the road, stay off the phone, drive at a
speed appropriate for the conditions, and keep the car in good
mechanical order. Accidents do happen, and safety equipment will improve
your chances, but nothing can protect you in all cases. Life involves
some risk.

 

Dave Garrett wrote:
> In article <pan.2008.11.23.04.23.58@moria.lan>,
> youmustbejoking@lan.invalid says...
>
>>On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 04:10:41 +0000, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mark wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Dan C" <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>newsan.2008.11.23.01.38.47@moria.lan...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:00:12 -0600, Flatlander wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I've got an '87 CRX that has had something break in the headlight
>>>>>>housing. The left headlight has tilted itself down so that it shines
>>>>>>about 6' in front of the car. The adjusters, of course, don't work.
>>>>>>I assume a spring, an attachment in the headlinght housing or some
>>>>>>such thing has broken or come loose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Has anyone been into this to know how big a job I'm in for? I'm
>>>>>>pretty sure I've got to pull the front bumper to get access to the
>>>>>>housing. Any other advice or things to watch out for?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>My advice would be to get rid of that piece of . It's 21 years
>>>>>old and not worth fixing any more. Almost certainly not up to safety
>>>>>standards either. Take it to the nearest junkyard and see if you can
>>>>>get a few bucks for it. If not just give it to them and go get a
>>>>>decent ride.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>One man's opinion - not worth the time it took to read! Why do you
>>>>think that just because the vehicle is 21 years old it is a POS? I
>>>>suppose since there have been improvements made since 2005, or 06, or
>>>>even 07 they are POS and should be dragged to the scrap heap?
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, such talk is nonsense. My "newest" is a '83 Civic FE and up to
>>>that year, Hondas were "old" school in how they operated. No friggin'
>>>"Check Engine" light, no PCV valve, no oxygen sensor... Still gets 40+
>>>mpg in mixed driving with an earlier '81 engine.
>>>
>>>They'll have to pry my cold dead hands off of the steering wheel in
>>>order to drag it to the scrap heap!
>>
>>Which is exactly what the paramedics will do if you ever get in a serious
>>accident with that POS.
>
>
> You've beaten this horse here before. Repeatedly.
>
> I am reminded of something Mary Shafer (at the time, Flying Qualities
> Lead Engineer on NASA's SR-71) once wrote:
>
> "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the ***** to
> live in the real world."
>
>


Yep, when I look back on life, I somehow survived cars without
seatbelts, the lead paint era, second hand cigarette smoke, etc. All
that this cradle to grave safety first crap is accomplishing is dumbing
down society further not to mention much higher vehicle prices and
reduced fuel efficiency.

And, that good ol' SR-71 leaked fuel like a sieve until reaching
altitude and speed. Still, nothing has been built to be its equal.

Best of all, if push comes to shove, I just drive my reliable ol' 55
Studebaker President State sedan and will gladly take advantage of
someone else's crush zone!

JT

 

James Sweet wrote:

> Dan C wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:17:01 +0000, jim beam wrote:
>>
>>>>> "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the ***** to
>>>>> live in the real world."
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Who's talking about "perfect safety"? I'm talking about things like
>>>> ABS and air bags.
>>
>>
>>
>>> abs is no panacea - it can extend braking distances, just read your
>>> owner manual.
>>
>>
>> Maybe. Rarely. All in all, it's a good thing to have, in almost all
>> cases.
>>
>>> air bags? depends on how big you are and how close to the wheel you
>>> sit.
>>
>>
>> No, it doesn't.
>>
>>> and the type of crash you have. air bags don't do squat for the
>>> driver of an exploder when it rolls and the roof collapses.
>>
>>
>> We weren't talking about an "exploder". The subject is a Honda CRX.
>> Try to keep up, if you're gonna jump into a conversation.
>>
>>>> Are you saying you *admire* someone who "has the *****" to drive
>>>> without them?
>>
>>
>>
>>> go to a junk yard and look at real crashed cars - that'll tell you /way/
>>> more than any hearsay or b.s. you'll read in a press release.
>>
>>
>> Anyone who argues that ABS or airbags don't include your chances of
>> survival in a crash is just a fool. If that's what you truly believe,
>> don't bother replying, as I don't have time to waste on fools.
>>
>>
>
> Airbags and ABS are not a bad thing, but having them does not
> automatically make a car safe, and lacking them does not automatically
> make a car dangerous.
>
> My primary focus is Volvo, the 240 series was made for nearly two
> decades and is legendary for safety, despite airbags and ABS being
> available only the final 2 or 3 years of production. Much has been
> learned in the way of safety and cars in general have improved
> dramatically in the last decade or two, particularly small cars, but in
> many cases an air bag is a band aide over inferior design.
>
> All that said, there's more to life than safety. Few would argue that
> motorcycles are safe, but they're fun, and many of us would rather live
> a short but enjoyable life, than a long one spent locked in a padded
> sterile bunker where we are "safe".
>
> The best way to survive an accident is to not get in one; drive
> sensibly, keep your eye on the road, stay off the phone, drive at a
> speed appropriate for the conditions, and keep the car in good
> mechanical order. Accidents do happen, and safety equipment will improve
> your chances, but nothing can protect you in all cases. Life involves
> some risk.


You make a good point... Defensive driving is more important than ever
considering that the driving public represents dumbed down individuals
who think all this modern gadgetry is gonna save 'em.

And when this stuff starts to go bad, it gets real expensive to repair.
I don't really see a cost vs. benefit advantage in the long run.

But... Let 'em pay those high monthly payments. I'll stick to my paid
for ancient tin...

JT