Speed limits different for different drivers and other thoughts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johntins

The Mustang is a disgrace, and shouldn't be here. It's yet another example of how Dearborn screwed Australia when they closed local production. They could easily have based the Mustang on the Falcon, and enjoyed an ANCAP OF 5.

The Mustang may be selling, but it is extremely low volume, and all it really proves is that there is a market for something different. I would bet Morgan could sell every car they sent here, and in Morgan's world ANCAP is 50 years away. In fact, I reckon people would by a new Moke, if only they could. Personally, I'd love to be able to buy a Cooper S, and by that I most certainly do not mean the travesty that BMW gives us.

---

Aahh, the Mustang,...certainly has its "detractors" on this forum, that's for sure,......I don't own one, but I ain't one of them, but if anyone doesn't like it, I get that too,...there's plenty of cars that I don't like at all, that are admired by others.
I don't think Dearborn screwed us any more than GM, Toyota, Mitsubishi, Nissan etc etc etc, or any other car maker that used to manufacture here,...Ford stayed the course longer than most, didn't they. There's lots of reasons why Holden, Ford etc did what they did which has been covered in depth on this forum.
Before anyone gets carried away with the Ancap rating, one might choose to investigate why, in Aussie terms, how the Aussie rating was determined, and what it actually means, relative to Mustang.
Me?..I'd feel as safe in a Mustang, as any other car.
Many of us drive vehicles that would obviously score an Ancap of zero, but we still drive 'em?
Anyway, check out & see the ins & outs of the Mustang "rating", I'm not excusing it, but IMHO opinion it doesn't make it a bad car, nor does it make it unsafe.
Do I like the Mustang>...Yes, I do, but not in its standard form. I'd be buying the V8, & I'd be getting Herrod to work his magic with the Ford Motorsport stuff He sells,..at least 500KW, brakes, suspension etc, passes ADRS & covered by Ford warranty as long as Herrod does the instal,....at around $90K good value,.....IMHO anyway! Wifey likes Mustang as well,..told her we could have one,....if she sold her RS3,...but that got a big No No, so it ain't gonna happen!
Pickles.
NB: By the way, I don't have any allegiance to any particular brand. My first car was a '48 Mercury, but I've had Holdens, HSVs, Brock & HSV Commodores, Nissans, Mitsubishi, Morris, Austin, AMG Mercedes, wifey currently drives an Audi RS3, & we both enjoy our Defender.

From 2004...

Attachment 125455

One of the biggest problems with the Mustang is they rushed it into production without thorough crash testing. The Euro frontal offset testing highlighted this - did the silly buggers at Ford even crash test it? Both the driver and passenger smacked their heads on the steering wheel and dash respectively as the airbag timing was way off. In the side impact test, the rear passengers head missed the airbag entirely and hit the rear pillar. That means fatalities all round in a survivable accident as the airbags are currently worthless. They need to fine tune the crash testing in the Mustang to bring it up from the current 1970's standards..... I still like the look of them though!

Ford is certainly capable of building vehicles that are crash safe, so why didn't they do that with the Mustang? Maybe they think 'good old boys' are expendable?

Quote:

---

Many of us drive vehicles that would obviously score an Ancap of zero, but we still drive 'em?

---

I also find it bemusing to read the comments on the finer points of NCAP requirements from people that own and drive Defenders and early model Landrovers :)

It's not the car that causes the accidents it's the Drivers in the vast majority of accidents.
You can put a stupid/irresponsible driver in the safest car in the World and that driver will still have the potential/likelihood of killing someone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppabillytea

In Ireland the motorways are 130 and it works very well.

I agree that limiting P platers to below the speed limit is bloody stupid.

I reckon that advisory comities set up to advise on the subject of road rules should be made up of Traffic Management Specialists, Eminent Psychologists and Professional drivers. Doctors and Lawyers should be denied access.

---

I think it's the same 'advisers' that thought it was a good idea to force traffic to slow to 40kph when passing a stationary copper writing out a fine on a freeway. It's almost is if they're trying their hardest to create the framework to maximize their ability to fine you. [bigwhistle]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alfa156Melb

I think it's the same 'advisers' that thought it was a good idea to force traffic to slow to 40kph when passing a stationary copper writing out a fine on a freeway. It's almost is if they're trying their hardest to create the framework to maximize their ability to fine you. [bigwhistle]

---

Forty! That's quick.
It's twenty five in SA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pickles2

Aahh, the Mustang,...certainly has its "detractors" on this forum, that's for sure,......I don't own one, but I ain't one of them, but if anyone doesn't like it, I get that too,...there's plenty of cars that I don't like at all, that are admired by others.
I don't think Dearborn screwed us any more than GM, Toyota, Mitsubishi, Nissan etc etc etc, or any other car maker that used to manufacture here,...Ford stayed the course longer than most, didn't they. There's lots of reasons why Holden, Ford etc did what they did which has been covered in depth on this forum.
Before anyone gets carried away with the Ancap rating, one might choose to investigate why, in Aussie terms, how the Aussie rating was determined, and what it actually means, relative to Mustang.
Me?..I'd feel as safe in a Mustang, as any other car.
Many of us drive vehicles that would obviously score an Ancap of zero, but we still drive 'em?
Anyway, check out & see the ins & outs of the Mustang "rating", I'm not excusing it, but IMHO opinion it doesn't make it a bad car, nor does it make it unsafe.
Do I like the Mustang>...Yes, I do, but not in its standard form. I'd be buying the V8, & I'd be getting Herrod to work his magic with the Ford Motorsport stuff He sells,..at least 500KW, brakes, suspension etc, passes ADRS & covered by Ford warranty as long as Herrod does the instal,....at around $90K good value,.....IMHO anyway! Wifey likes Mustang as well,..told her we could have one,....if she sold her RS3,...but that got a big No No, so it ain't gonna happen!
Pickles.
NB: By the way, I don't have any allegiance to any particular brand. My first car was a '48 Mercury, but I've had Holdens, HSVs, Brock & HSV Commodores, Nissans, Mitsubishi, Morris, Austin, AMG Mercedes, wifey currently drives an Audi RS3, & we both enjoy our Defender.

---

Mate, I'd love a 'stang. But there is no excuse for a mob like Ford to bring a car to market these days with a rating like that. Even Great Wall can do better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

The problem with NCAP is that it places nearly all 'safety' scores on crash survivability or secondary safety. In terms of primary safety, or avoiding the accident in the first place, there are few cars even today that are better, and outstanding for a 1955 design. Consider:-

Dual power (not power assist) braking system, with front/rear braking effort proportioned to load on the axles. Zero brake pedal travel (pressure sensitive), with the pedal below the level of the accelerator, cutting critical reaction time off braking, Inboard front discs. No high pressure hoses except to rear brakes on late models.

Centreline steering geometry, resulting in no loss of control with flat front tyre - in fact can be stopped in a straight line at maximum braking effort from 150kph with one front tyre flat and hands off the wheel.

Full visibility forward with the bonnet up or back with the boot open. Narrow windscreen pillars giving far better forward visibility than anything today.

Standard tyres (Michelin XAS) best available in the seventies, giving exceptional adhesion.

Standard headlight system the best available in the seventies - steering high beam, self levelling low beam, halogen bulbs when this was almost unheard of.

Very low centre of gravity, suspension system with no rubber and chassis alignment parameters to 0.1mm gave excellent handling and extended tyre life.

Even on crash safety, by seventies standards they were way ahead - collapsible front end, safety steering column, fuel tank enclosed inside body structure in front of rear wheels, side intrusion rails, Semicircular plan front bumper tends to deflect quartering collisions from the front. Again, not bad for a 1955 design.

Certainly they had safety deficits by current standards - no airbags, no ABS, relatively poor rollover protection, probably a few others I can't think of. But we were talking about the 1970s.

(Other drawbacks of them, even by 1970s standards, not safety related. - exceptionally long wheelbase coupled with exceptionally good steering lock made it very easy to sideswipe gate posts etc, noisy due to lack of suspension rubber, and frameless door windows; difficult to install decent aircon; upright seating position; 'different'.)

---

John, I agree with every word. André Citroën was an absolute genius. The DS 19 was so far ahead of anything else at the time it beggars belief. One of my treasured memories was a photo my uncle had taken at the Paris show in '55. The thing looked like a spaceship. I think the lines were a little spoilt in the 21, but those 'follow the road' driving lights made up for that.

It even flies!: Vliegende taxi uit Back To The Future staat in Gouda - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trout1105

It's not the car that causes the accidents it's the Drivers in the vast majority of accidents.
You can put a stupid/irresponsible driver in the safest car in the World and that driver will still have the potential/likelihood of killing someone.

---

,just ask Princess Diane [bighmmm]