Low End Sedans (under $16k)

majorthomecho · October 2001

As has been discussed, comparing the side impact crash test results between the 2001 Elantra and the 2001 Echo is not an apples to apples comparison because the Elantra has side impact air bags while the Echo does not.

However, comparing the results between a 2000 Elantra and 2001 Echo is an apples to apples comparison because neither one had side impact air bags.

In that comparison, the Elantra scored three stars out of five for protecting the front seat occupants which was the same as the Echo.

If I was going to be a rear seat occupant in either the 2000 Elantra or the 2001 Echo, I would choose the Echo.

The Elantra scored one star out of five while the Echo scored four stars out of five.

But I guess not too many people bought the Elantra so people could ride in the back. ; )

Isn't that the justification you used for the poor showing of the Focus ZX3 in the same test, Backy?

coolguyky7 · October 2001

What car would you be driving if Kia, Hyundai and Daewood didn't exist?

backy · October 2001

If you believe comparing the previous generation of the Elantra, which debuted in late 1995, to the current-generation ECHO is fair, then go right ahead and compare to your heart's content. IMO it is not a fair comparison. With each new generation of cars, automakers are improving crash-worthiness. The Elantra is no exception to this.

I did not "justify" the poor showing of the ZX3 in rear side crash test results. I'll leave that to Ford. I only pointed out that many buyers of the ZX3, a 2-door hatchback, will seldom/never carry rear seat passengers, so for them the rear side crash test results are moot.

Since you have apparently decided not to directly answer my question about which car you would have selected as Edmunds.com's Most Wanted Economy Car, based on safety, but would rather compare the ECHO to the past-generation Elantra, allow me to provide some food for thought:

* As a group, the cars eligible for the Edmunds.com Economy Car Most Wanted award are not stellar performers in the IIHS and NHTSA crash tests. These are small, light, cheap (under $13,000 with destination) cars.

* The ZX3 is the only eligible car that scored a Good in the IIHS crash tests. It also had excellent results for driver and passenger front impact (5's) and front side impact (4) in the NHTSA tests. It showed poorly only on the NHTSA rear side impact test (1).

* No vehicles in this category scored all 5's on the NHTSA tests. No vehicles scored three 5's and one 4. Only one vehicle scored two 5's and two 4's: Elantra GLS ('01 model of course). However, the Elantra scored Poor overall on the IIHS crash tests due to premature air bag deployment and seat track movement problems. It did score a Good on structural integrity.

So, what choice should the Edmunds.com editors have made, based on safety, instead of the Elantra and ZX3?

P.S. Note that the '01 Elantra has a better rating (5) than the ECHO (4) for front impact, passenger side, on the NHTSA tests, and the side air bag on the Elantra does not come into play there because it's a straight-on impact in which the side bags do not deploy. Driver's side ratings for front impact are the same (4). Would you agree that is a fair comparison?

iluvmysephia1 · October 2001

if Kia,Hyundai and Daewoo weren't around at all I'd be real tempted to buy an early 60's Chevy. Either get one close to ready to rock and ride or get one fully restored. I'd love a '63 Chevy Nova SS. Red with wide tires in back and not as wide meats in front and Cragar mags(really there's so many nice wheels made today the wheel picking would be SUPER FUN)all around. If it were that car I wouldn't even mind the shift on the column Chevy installed in that car with the 6 cylinder engine. 3-speed on the column? Or a floor shifter 4-speed tranny and a beefier engine. That's what I would want. I would go with yellow for the exterior color and a black top(if I could score a convertible). If not I'd buy one in deep cherry red. 2-door or 4-door would both be fine. That's probably what I would do if the three from South Korea weren't doing such a sweet job leading the automotive industry right now. Humm...kinda get me to thinkin' about those early Chevy's some more. Or a Ford Falcon of some gumption. I'm a storin' the idea on my back burner for now!

majorthomecho · October 2001

Sorry, I did not intentionally not answer your question about my pick for Most Wanted Economy Car. It slipped my mind until after I had shut off the computer for the night. When I thought of it, I deemed it as something that could wait until this morning.

I don't think that Edmunds made it really clear why they even have the under $13,000 category. To them a low end car is anything under $30,000 and plus they have four categories for cars under $20,000.

If safety were my ONLY consideration, I would bend the Under $13,000 category slightly and get a 2002 Honda Civic DX 2-door with side impact air bags. The MSRP after destination charges is only $13,500.

Now, you may say no fair and I guess you would be right, but FWIW if you bought an Elantra GLS sedan and wanted floor mats (and most people do), the MSRP would be over $13,000. MSRP would be $13,072.

This means that Edmunds left out what most people would consider an important item perhaps so that the Elantra would fit under their self-imposed guideline.

Personally, I think if $30,00 is the diving line between low end and high end cars and you have categories for cars under $20,000 also, I would make the price barrier for economy cars to be $15,000 which is our self-imposed price barrier here on this board.

And Backy, no I don't think that comparing the front impact crash results between the Elantra and the Echo is fair. As we both have stated, they are in different categories and cannot be compared. A fact that I knew about regarding the IIHS test, but I did not make it clear. I was more concerned with someone asking how the Echo did and I wanted to point out that no tests have been done as of yet.

You might be right in not thinking you can compare the 2001 Echo with the 2000 Elantra except for the fact that for all intents and purposes the 2001 Echo is the same as the 2000 Echo. Thus even though there were no crash tests performed on the 2000 Echo, it is reasonable to believe that the test results would be the same between the two cars.

If this is in fact the case, would you have an objection to comparing the 2000 Echo and the 2000 Elantra? This is basically what we are doing when we are comparing the 2001 Echo and the 2000 Elantra.

majorthomecho · October 2001

Half of the selecting people having families or not, whoever voted for the Elantra sedan and the Focus Zx3 did not have safety at the top of their list.

The fact remains that both the Elantra sedan and the Focus ZX3 have failed miserably in certain safety tests.

And if someone who voted for the ZX3 has a wife and kids, it is a safe bet that someone would be riding in the back seat. On Ford's behalf, I must say that they did a recall for this safety reason, but we have no idea on how well they fixed it. For all we know, that one may now be a two. Still pretty bad.

majorthomecho · October 2001

I have made reference to the fact that Edmunds seems to complain a lot about safety when it comes to an Echo.

An example of this is what they say in the Top 10 Most Fuel Efficient Cars article. You have to read between the lines, but they say [paraphrasing here] that instead of an Echo, they would rather have a gently used Protege, Sentra, or Civic. They make reference to these three being larger.

You have to read between the lines because they don't come out and say that these three would be safer than the Echo, but a similar statement about safety was made in one of the reviews about the Echo.

However, the truth is that in side impact crashes, any Echo is as safe as a 2000 Protege (the most recently tested Protege); the Echo is safer for the rear seat occupants in a side impact crash than the 1999 Sentra which is the most recent Sentra tested for side impact crash worthiness (and it is just as safe for the front seat occupants); and the Echo is safer for the rear seat occupants in a side impact crash and as safe for the front seat occupants as a 2000 Honda Civic. A 2001 Civic is safer, but at the time of the writing of the article, the 2001 Civic was not considered a used car.

Yes, those three cars are probably safer in a front impact crash, but there is no telling one way or the other definitively.

What is definite is that Edmunds did not tell the whole story when it comes to the Echo and they mislead people.

majorthomecho · October 2001

I just noticed something when I was reading Edmunds' Top 10 Most Fuel-Efficient Cars. They make reference to the economy sedans at the bottom of the list being close together in fuel economy so they had to use some means to determine their final placement on the list.

What does this have to do with Edmunds' Most Wanted List? Well on the Most Wanted List, an economy car is presumably one with an MSRP of $13,000 or under. However, that is not the same criteria used for determining if a car is an economy sedan for the purposes of the Top 10 list. On that list is the Mazda Protege and it is toward the bottom of the list, thus presumably Edmunds considers it a economy sedan. But it can't be an economy car according to the Most Wanted category because if the $13,000 is a hard ceiling, the cheapest Protege goes about $245 above it.

What makes the Protege an economy sedan on one list and not an economy car on the other?

In case you miss my point, it is that Edmunds uses the word economy selectively.

majorthomecho · October 2001

With Mazda redesigning the 626 and cutting the name down to simply 6, does anyone know if there is any truth to the rumor that the next Mazda Protege will have a similarly shorted name? The Mazda P? ; )

randyt2 · October 2001

What if Edmunds changed a word in that line in the most fuel-efficient cars from "economy" to "fuel-efficient" would you object to that?

I agree with you in that most of the voters in the Most Wanted probably didn't have safety ranked at the top. They probably had styling ranked higher than safety, after all they stated it was guided by passion, not science.

Personally, I don't put a lot of weight into a somewhat 'popularity' type contest (Most Wanted), but that's just me. :~)

majorthomecho · October 2001

I think the substitution of one word for the other is not possible since one is not the synonym of the other.

I agree with you that the editors were guided by their hearts and not their minds.

I had a lot of practical considerations when choosing my car, but that does not mean I did not take into consideration a car's looks. I happen to really like the looks of my Echo.

However, if I disliked the looks of a car, I don't think I would own one despite its many redeeming characteristics.

But I did not have to make that choice because overall, IMHO, the Echo came out ahead.

randyt2 · October 2001

Change not substitution, are we playing semantics here?

Actually I will consider an Echo when I look for my next car, but I personally hope they change the exterior style.

majorthomecho · October 2001

Are we being dense? No, I don't think you can change economy for fuel-efficient and have it mean the same thing.

An economy car is not necessarily the same thing as a fuel-efficient car.

The Prius is a fuel-efficient car, but it is not an economy car, for example.

randyt2 · October 2001

Please read the actual words in my post. I didn't say that the words are the same and I hope I didn't infer it.

My point, of course, is that they could've said that they applied the formula without using the word "economy." They could've used another term or even omitted the word, and still explained what formula they used.

majorthomecho · October 2001

But the fact of the matter is that they did not and we have to deal with what it is that they did do. Don't you agree?

coolguyky7 · October 2001

Same question but what would it be if it were new?

randyt2 · October 2001

I hope I clarified my point. Can you answer my original question with this clarification in mind.

majorthomecho · October 2001

If they had not used the words economy sedans, I would not have pointed out the seeming inconsistency, but the fact is that they did use the words economy sedans.

Thus your question is invalid.

randyt2 · October 2001

Well then taking that into consideration, you really don't have a point but a nitpick.

majorthomecho · October 2001

Another 14 posts and we will have passed the boys in their high end sedans. That is if they stay stuck on the side of the road (not posting). ; )

majorthomecho · October 2001

In my complaints, I can only deal with the reality of the situation. It does no good to play what if and complain or not complain based on that.

Don't you agree or do you complain when the service is good, but there was always that chance it could have been bad?

randyt2 · October 2001

Geez, personally I never have been so sidetracked from an original post that I made. I've got to hand that to you.

Sorry, in a forum like this people are always conjecturing "what if." Although, I can see why you don't want to answer the question forthright.

majorthomecho · October 2001

Sorry for the delay in posting my review of the Rio, but I have been sidetracked.

It has been six days since the test drive and only a few things still stick in my mind about the Rio and most of them are bad. Before I start, I should say that this was a Rio with an automatic transmission.

The acceleration is non-existent and when you do press the car hard, it responds with a very loud noise from the engine. The engine of this new Rio under full power seemed much louder than the engine in my almost ten year old Escort when it is under full power. That is not a good sign.

The interior materials seemed very cheap and not well put together and the doors seemed flimsy. When inside you also had to contend with the noxious odor and the outside noise seemed to intrude into the cabin. The only way to lessen the outside noise was to increase the noise from the engine. Again, not a good sign.

We saw two Rios. One of which had a pinkish purplish cloth and the effect was dizzying. The one we test drove had a tannish cloth and the pattern was not so dizzying.

The only reason I would recommend this car if you ABSOLUTELY only bought new and could only afford this car.

The best thing about this car is the exterior. It is cute, but once you start driving, any warm feelings generated by the cute exterior quickly evaporate.

majorthomecho · October 2001

Randy, would you explain why you feel I don't want to answer your question?

I can't answer the question as you are putting it now and I don't see the point in attempting to do so.

By the way, in a fashion I did attempt to answer what I thought was your original question shortly after you asked it and you objected to my using the word substituting when you said changing. In my mind substituting is a valid substitute for the word changing. ; )

randyt2 · October 2001

Actually your response, or lack thereof, in my mind, has provided me with the answer.

Also, after reading your reviews I find it ironic that you complain that Edmunds is biased.

backy · October 2001

Major, I agree with you that if someone has $13,500 to spend on a new car, they can't find a safer one than a Civic DX 2-dr with side air bags, and I said as much on a previous post. But the editors of Edmunds.com did not have that choice when they selected their Most Wanted Economy Car. They had to set a price bar, and they set it (for whatever reason) at $13,000. And I give them credit for sticking to their guns on the price, unlike some auto mags that do comparos with price bars and then go way over the price bar on some cars. You can complain all you want about how they did not consider safety in their selection, but in fact they did pick the only car in the group with the highest overall IIHS rating and also picked the car with the highest NHTSA ratings in the group. Do you believe that was just coincidence, or perhaps they did consider safety in their decision?

I am still trying to figure out why NHTSA did not test the ECHO with side air bags; it is their policy to test with them whenever they are available on a car. Did you have any trouble finding your ECHO with side air bags?

iluvmysephia1 · October 2001

He hates Korean cars 'cause he knows they're not only better looking than his Echo but they cost less. They also have a better warranty. There's not a snowballs' chance in HELL that you'll ever see him treat a Korean car with the respect they deserve. coolguy-if there were no Korean cars available for my purchasing buck I'd consider a BMW Minicooper(correct my spelling of this if it's painless to you to do so) or a Toyota Celica or a Chrysler PTCruiser. GM's offerings are a joke and Ford's are barely better. I've owned enough Escorts to be considered an Escort expert and I won't go down that road again. They're not bad cars I'm just tired of them. Question for anyone. Is a Daewoo with some life breathed back into them considering producing the U100 wagon/SUV/car crossover mini-thing they had the name-it-and-win-it contest for? Who's visited their website lately?

majorthomecho · October 2001

You claim that I am biased, but that is quite different than showing that someone is biased.

Care to provide evidence of my bias?

FWIW, I wrote an open letter to Edmunds and posted it on the Echo board. A letter that I feel lays out very strong evidence of Edmunds' bias against the Echo and treating it differently than other cars.

I treated the Spectra and the Rio during the test drives no differently than I did other cars.

majorthomecho · October 2001

You claim that "in fact they [Edmunds] did pick the only car in the group with the highest overall IIHS rating."

I am wondering which car you are talking about. I don't think it is the Elantra because it got a poor overall in the IIHS test.

And it can't be the Focus because the Focus the IIHS tested was the Focus sedan and Edmunds picked the Focus hatchback. There are significant structural differences between the two.

It is not like extrapolating that the Nissan Sentra XE which the IIHS did not test would fare just as well as the Nissan Sentra GXE which the IIHS did test. The Sentras are both sedans and basically the same car except for different standard items and the plushness of the interior.

How would I know how hard side impact air bags was to get on my Echo? I don't have side impact air bags on my Echo and I never said I did.

majorthomecho · October 2001

Do you concern yourself with reality or do you post whatever you please?

The reality is that I like the exterior of my Echo and I think it looks better than any Korean model in its class.

Is my sentence in small enough words that you can understand?

Just curious as to how I should have treated the cars in your opinion.

Does that mean I should know their shortcoming beforehand but not drive them in such a matter to see for myself?

Should I not mention the horrible smell present in the Spectra and the Rio?

Should I not mention the EXTREMELY noisy engine in the Rio?

Do you think that the Korean cars are somehow alive and I will hurt their feelings?

Again, I put the Korean cars through the same paces that I do for any car I am test driving. Thus I am showing them proper "respect."

randyt2 · October 2001

There are links to professional reviews here (2 to choose from).

Compare them to mecho's review. And you can check the review on Edmunds. It's obvious, at least to me, which one is the most biased.

majorthomecho · October 2001

I see that the professional reviewers, and understand I am not and have never claimed to be a professional reviewer, used better words and came to different conclusions but that does not prove that I am biased.

I laid out my experiences as they happened. I did not inflate the severity of the smell in the Spectra or the noisiness of the engine in the Rio.

FWIW, the second reviewer (Ms. Mead) did not test drive an automatic Rio like I did. She test drove the Rio with a manual transmission.

randyt2 · October 2001

I just want to put it to reasonable people to judge, not to try to prove it. I posted the links, let the people make up their own minds.

BTW, of course again, I was not pointing to the vocabulary or the detail of the review but to the biased coverage.

coolguyky7 · October 2001

Can you believe that Iluv would drive a Celica? But once you ignore GM, Ford, you really don't have much left. Iluv, yes, the Celica is a very nice car and the GT's value can't be beaten.

backy · October 2001

The IIHS test is focused (no pun intended) on the front of the vehicle, and on the affects on the driver. The structure of the Focus 4-door and 2- door is the same forward of the A-pillar. Even the dashboard is the same. Thus the IIHS test results should apply to the 2-door Focus as well. Of course, the NHSTA's side impact test results would NOT be comparable, because the doors and roof are significantly different.

I find it odd that you would disagree with my comparing the IIHS crash test results of a 2-door Focus to that of the 4-door when you had no problem comparing the side NHSTA crash test results for the 4-door ECHO to that of the 2-door Focus. As you pointed out, there are significant structural differences between the 2-door and 4-door, but these differences are aft of the A-pillar, so they would come into play in the side crash test. So don't you think it is unfair to compare the 4-door ECHO to the 2-door Focus in this regard? In fact, the 2001 ECHO 4-door and 2001 Focus 4-door had identical "star" ratings in the NHSTA tests. Neither car tested had side air bags. The weight difference was about 510 pounds, so we should not compare the frontal tests directly but we can compare the side tests.

My mistake on assuming your ECHO has the optional side air bags. You have written a lot about how Edmunds.com should pay attention to safety when rating cars, and how the ECHO's NHTSA ratings would have undoubtedly been better had they tested it with the side air bags, so I naturally assumed your ECHO has side bags for maximum safety. Another example of what happens when we assume!

majorthomecho · October 2001

Again, you spout pretty words, but offer no proof.

FWIW, I can't give you a link because they don't have a website, but go to a bookstore and find the Consumer Guide Car And Truck Test periodical.

Check out what they say about the Rio. There will be no two ways about it. They agree with me that the automatic is slow.

randyt2 · October 2001

No disrespect intended but did the salesperson ride with you? By a rough estimate how much did the total occupants weigh in your test ride?

majorthomecho · October 2001

I have so many problems with your last post that I don't know where to start.

First, how can you call what you are doing comparing? There are NO IIHS crash test results for the Ford Focus hatchback. You are creating test results out of thin air. And the test results that do exist are for a different body style. As I said before, it is not like extrapolating the results for the Sentra XE by looking at the results for the Sentra GXE. Both of those cars have the same body style at least and are basically the same car under the skin.

And if the structural differences between the two Focus would only come into play in a side impact crash, wouldn't that mean the test results for the two should be the same in the NHTSA frontal impact tests? Have you compared those results? The results of the hatchback and the four-door in the NHTSA test are different. This gives more support to my belief that you cannot say the hatchback would score the same as the four-door in the IIHS test than it does your belief that you can.

Yes, I know the hatchback did better than the four-door in the NHTSA test, but that does not mean it will do better in the IIHS test. Look what happened to the Elantra. It did really well in the NHTSA frontal crash test and it bombed in the IIHS test.

Why do you find it odd that I disagree with your "comparing?" As I said, you are comparing something that is not there. At least when I extrapolated, I was doing so using two cars that are structurally the same.

I have no problem comparing side impact crash results between cars of different body styles because the tests are conducted under the same circumstances and there are test results to compare.

Now, I would object if you tried to compare side impact crash test results between a 2-door Echo and a hatchback Focus or a four-door Focus. This is because there are no such test results for the 2-door Echo.

And about the saying you alluded to at the end of your post, I never believed in it. I think the only person who comes out looking badly is the one making the assumption.

randyt2 · October 2001

It also seems ironic that you want others to look at safety but you didn't check if your car had side-air bags readily available.

majorthomecho · October 2001

No, the sales lady did not go with us just like when my roommate and I took a test drive of the Spectra. The sales lady did not come along, did not ask for ID, did not ask for proof of insurance, and did not even ask our names. Both test drives were just the two of us and I would estimate the weight to be between four hundred to four hundred and fifty pounds.

FWIW, when I first test drove the Echo (in the same town and down the same road as the Rio), the salesman did ride with us and I had two friends with me in the car. I would estimate the weight then to be between seven hundred and eight hundred pounds. The Echo was automatic and even with much more weight it felt like it accelerated better than the Rio.

BTW, I again asked my roommate for her impressions of the Rio. I did not ask any leading questions. I simply asked what she thought about the acceleration and she said it felt slow and did not accelerate like it should. Regarding the smell she said it gave her a headache. And this has not been the first Kia that did so. She and I both got headaches when we sat in the cars at the March auto show.

I figure that the professional reviewers do not complain about the smell because it does burn off after some time and I would suppose that Kia provided the reviewers with cars that did not smell.

majorthomecho · October 2001

You presume that I did not. I did not say whether or not I hadn't checked out that possibility. I simply told Backy that contrary to his presumption, my car did not have side air bags.

The fact is that I checked out the possibility and there were none to be had in the Kansas City area where I live.

To get an Echo equipped with side impact air bags (and ABS which I also wanted at one time) would have required a factory order be placed.

I was told that would require a wait of four to six months and when push came to shove, I decided not to wait.

randyt2 · October 2001

Last paragraph of post #876 seems to ask about side-air bag availability. I guess I don't know what you were saying by the last two sentences of post #879. Were you trying to answer the question posed, or were you making a random side-tracking comment?

majorthomecho · October 2001

I see how things can be misinterpreted. I should have made myself clearer in my response to Backy. I was dealing with the fact that Backy believed I had side air bags which I do not. I did not mean to imply that I had not checked.

Sorry.

FWIW, at least side impact air bags are offered as an option on the Echo. A fact that I do not believe is true on the Rio or Spectra sedan.

randyt2 · October 2001

it still puzzles me, even with your explanation, how you would say

>How would I know how hard side impact air bags was to get on my Echo?<

knowing that you did check out their availability. Logic?

majorthomecho · October 2001

No logic, but an explanation. Today was very hectic and I was rushing to do about fifty million things. I was trying to respond to you, to Backy, and to Iluv and the recent posts from the three of you before I had to leave. I wanted to give each of you separate responses.

I keyed in on Backy's use of the word "your" when I should have looked at the implication of the whole question.

And I suppose you never do that? ; )

randyt2 · October 2001

Not that I would admit to. ;-)

Maybe Backy can go back to his original point, or maybe not.

backy · October 2001

Major, I think you have explained why the NHTSA did not test the ECHO with side air bags--if their experience in shopping at their local dealers was anything like yours. It is frustrating for buyers when valuable, optional safety equipment is hard to find, like side bags on ECHOs and ABS on Elantra GLSes.

You are correct, I should not have used the word "comparing" in my previous post re the 2-door and 4-door, and IIHS tests. I will proofread better in the future. (You were not the only one rushing--my family is yelling at me to get upstairs and join in on the Life game. I get the red car.)

Re your comment,
>>>Yes, I know the hatchback did better than the four-door in the NHTSA test, but that does not mean it will do better in the IIHS test. Look what happened to the Elantra. It did really well in the NHTSA frontal crash test and it bombed in the IIHS test.<<<

Actually, the Elantra did not "bomb" in all areas of the IIHS test. It received a top score in structure/safety cage and chest injury--pretty important areas of safety I think. It did receive a "poor" overall rating, due to problems we've covered here ad nauseum.

To be clear here, the 2-door Focus did better than the 4-door in the front crashes and front side crashes, while the 4-door did better in the rear side crash. So you are right, there is a difference--but it is in favor of the 2-door on the front crashes (and front side crashes)--and the IIHS tests focus on the front. So I take back my statement that the 2-door should perform the same as the 4-door in the IIHS tests, if and when they are conducted. Actually, there is evidence that the 2-door should <i>outperform the 4-door. One factor may be the lower weight of the 2-door, so there is less force hitting the barrier in a frontal collision. This is conjecture of course, but based on some evidence. If you have some evidence to suggest that the 2-door would not fare as well as the 4-door in a frontal offset crash, I'd like to see it.

It still begs the question as to what better choices for safety there are in the under-$13,000 category. You have not yet responded directly to that question, yet you have chided Edmunds.com for making the choices that they did. It is easy to complain, harder to come up with a better answer.

coolguyky7 · October 2001

I saw a fine example of Kia quality tonight. I was sitting in a parked car next to a fairly new Kia Sportage. The front bumper was nicely fitted to the front area of the vehicle where the grille is. However, as the follow the bumper around to the wheels the gap between the vehicle and bumper widens, by double the width of the gap between the bumper and grille area of the vehicle.

backy · October 2001

Did it do this on just one side (i.e. flaw) or both sides (i.e. "feature")?

carleton1 · October 2001

Leave them off. The standard 3 point safety belts in most vehicles provide excellent protection when used correctly.

Low End Sedans (under $16k)

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles