[oiuygtfrtghyju]

Airbags are of no real use if you are wearing a seatbelt.

Cars have got bigger because everybody wants one of those nice safe SUVs with the special rollover feature.

My 1989 Citroen AX 1.3L diesel used to do >60mpg commuting and a factory tuned one did 90mpg on a run across europe - it weighted 650kg. A VW polo of the same era does about the same.

Of course they didn't have 27 cupholders or 7 speaker DVD surround - they are just cars, limited to transporting 4people at the highway speed limit. They can't climb mountains or make you irresistible to women.

[taitems]

I can't belive no-one has been taken aback by your airbags are useless comment! Side airbags? Curtain airbags? All of these are proven to reduce that chance of brain damage and death in various impacts.

"Research conducted in the USA estimates that head protecting airbags can reduce driver deaths in the event of a side impact crash by close to 40%*."

http://www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au/curtain_airbags.php

[showerst]

Good point that it's not just safety advances making cars heavier...

It still seems strange to me that even hyper-small cars (by modern US standards) like the Mini Cooper or Smart still don't seem to break about 40mpg.

Is this related to the US' aversion to diesel? Or just the fact that all of our cars are comparatively luxury because our standard equipment includes big seats and air conditioning?

[oiuygtfrtghyju]

> hyper-small cars

The new mini isn't hyper small. The original mini cooper had a 2m wheel base and weighed around 600kg. The new 'mini' has a 2.5m wheelbase and weighs twice as much.

Cars tend to put on weight in middle age. The clearest example is VolksWagon. Originally the VW Golf was a small 650kg cheap sub-compact, then as it grew into it's current size they introduced the smaller Polo which was about the size of the previous Golf, then as the Polo grew with each new model year they introduced the Lupo - which was about the size of the original Golf...

Mostly this is economics, as you add more features you can charge more for the car, so every year it gains features (safety or entertainment) - all of which add weight.

Then there was the realization by somebody in the early 90s that you could take a dirt cheap truck chassis, add a cheap minivan body and create a luxury SUV with a 50% profit margin.

Not sure why the US has such an aversion to diesel. You would think that as a man's fuel (after all it's used by trucks and tanks) it would be preferred to the girly fuel you put in scooters.

[ams6110]

The US passenger car market hates diesels because of the absolutely awful "LF9" diesel engines GM put out in the 1980s. They were plagued with problems and poisoned the market for years afterwards. This is far enough in the past that its influence may be waning; the VW TDI sells strongly and is often exempted from sales promotions as a result.

Currently, another roadblock to selling diesels in the US are the draconian emissions requirements by California.

[russell]

Diesel got a very bad rap in the US in the 70's and 80's because some engines were essentially derived from gasoline engines. Also, until recently, the US standards for diesel were very low with high particulate matter in the exhaust. High efficiency European engines wouldnt work with that gunk.

[sliverstorm]

US diesel seems to be pretty bad. (The fuel itself that is) I remember reading something about higher sulfur content than elsewhere in the world.

I also hate diesel cars (I would buy one, but I hate other people in them) because everyone in a diesel around here invariably fills up with french fry grease. I ride bikes, so I'm directly exposed to their stench.