Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I want to start a group of like minded individuals here at C&G for the return of the pillarless hardtop at GM.

Those who want to join in the plea to GM, could put it in their signatures etc.

I need help with the acronym.

H.A.R.D.T.O.P.

Here's a start:

'Hardcore Advocates for the Return of Detroit Tops Only as Pillarless'

Edited by HarleyEarl
Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be a damn fine thing if we could do it. The problem is that only a very small part of the buying public cares.

I would guess if you rounded up all of the people in North America that were really upset about the B-pillar in the Camaro and such they would probably fill a pretty good sized church...and that's a fraction of buyers that GM, Ford, and chrysler will all round down to Zero.

Carnuts buy only a VERY SMALL minority of cars sold.

But if your serious, I am serious. but since on this car thread no one else has bothered to respond, all I can say is...

I have two sawzalls at the house. Which would you prefer, my Porter Cable 120v plug in or my 18v. Dewalt?

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnuts buy only a VERY SMALL minority of cars sold.

True, but we're not talking about not having a post on another ho-hum front wheel drive $h!box sedan for the masses. We're talking about not compromising on features on a vehicle that is marketed specifically towards the very car nuts you speak of.

Link to post
Share on other sites
True, but we're not talking about not having a post on another ho-hum front wheel drive $h!box sedan for the masses. We're talking about not compromising on features on a vehicle that is marketed specifically towards the very car nuts you speak of.

Perfectly said...I nominate you for Head of General Motors.

Who knows, maybe someone somewhere will hear our feeble plea and bring back the sexiest roofline ever invented.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, Assholes! Re-Do Tops, Omitting Pillars!

Crude, but to the point. Which is what these people need because simple, polite requests and heartfelt dialogue doesn't seem to register with them at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey, Assholes! Re-Do Tops, Omitting Pillars!

Crude, but to the point. Which is what these people need because simple, polite requests and heartfelt dialogue doesn't seem to register with them at all.

:rotflmao:

Thing is, people may not realize why a hardtop looks better, but they will notice that it does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm.. seven posts into a thread singing praises about hardtops, and no sign of Silvester. I hope he's OK :unsure::P

Link to post
Share on other sites

being a part of this board, and a part of camaroz28 for many years now... i still dont know what is so special about hard tops... or even how to identify them

if there is anything to be enthusiastic about, it wouldnt just be the carnuts that would buy it... if its different people will buy it...

America needs a new start up car company... and show the big guys how to make and sell cars the public wants...

being GM, and selling a car for everyone, has been very hard to see these days...

Edited by Newbiewar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Harley, you know you're tugging at my heartstrings, right?

If there is ONE thing otehr then RWD that I think

makes a car worthy of restoration despite rust up

to the door handles, it's a hardtop greenhouse.

---

I think a lot more people would appreciate and favor

a hardtop if they only knew WTF it IS!

Most of today's public would not prefer a blackberry

over a regular cell phone at twice the cost if they

thought the only benefit was a plum-metallic case.

:rotflmao:

Thing is, people may not realize why a hardtop looks better, but they will notice that it does.

CARVE THIS INTO WAGONER's FOREHEAD!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
being a part of this board, and a part of camaroz28 for many years now... i still dont know what is so special about hard tops... or even how to identify them

That's sad. And you sell cars!!!!

I'll post a crash-course on the topic tonight, time permitting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's sad. And you sell cars!!!!

I'll post a crash-course on the topic tonight, time permitting.

dont sell cars currently, although wish i could again, damn i loved it...

but im an enthisiast based on 4th gen f-bodys... not anything that has had a hard top like some of my friends classics

Link to post
Share on other sites
Perfectly said...I nominate you for Head of General Motors.

Who knows, maybe someone somewhere will hear our feeble plea and bring back the sexiest roofline ever invented.

I would agree.

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites
I want to start a group of like minded individuals here at C&G for the return of the pillarless hardtop at GM.

Those who want to join in the plea to GM, could put it in their signatures etc.

I need help with the acronym.

H.A.R.D.T.O.P.

Here's a start:

'Hardcore Advocates for the Return of Detroit Tops Only as Pillarless'

Hillbilly Aardvarks Relentlessly Denying The Obvious Priorities

Don't waste your time.

True hardtops have approximately 15 percent higher risk of a non-ejection fatality in a rollover crash than pillared cars of the same size and exposure pattern.

Because of this fact, your friends at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation have implemented standards

that demand (in short) that all new vehicles subject to the standard that the roof structure withstand the force of 2.5 times their unloaded vehicle weight,

without significant headroom intrusion....convertibles are exempt from the rule because if you roll one - you are paralyzed or dead-

B-pillars aren't a f*cking option on a vehicle with an integral roof - GM didn't decide to put them in or leave them out on the Camaro!

There are also new side impact requirements that are unbelievable! Don't get me started. Structure isn't an afterthought or a maybe....

It's absolutely critical to good design! I thought we went through this before -remember?

New cars require lighter bodies and more strength! No more pillarless cars -never ever ....sorry. Next!

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/ruling...NPRM-to-FR.html

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hillbilly Aardvarks Relentlessly Denying The Obvious Priorities

Don't waste your time.

True hardtops have approximately 15 percent higher risk of a non-ejection fatality in a rollover crash than pillared cars of the same size and exposure pattern.

Because of this fact, your friends at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation have implemented standards

that demand (in short) that all new vehicles subject to the standard that the roof structure withstand the force of 2.5 times their unloaded vehicle weight,

without significant headroom intrusion....convertibles are exempt from the rule because if you roll one - you are paralyzed or dead-

B-pillars aren't a f*cking option on a vehicle with an integral roof - GM didn't decide to put them in or leave them out on the Camaro!

There are also new side impact requirements that are unbelievable! Don't get me started. Structure isn't an afterthought or a maybe....

It's absolutely critical to good design! I thought we went through this before -remember?

New cars require lighter bodies and more strength! No more pillarless cars -never ever ....sorry. Next!

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/ruling...NPRM-to-FR.html

Then how come companies like Mercedes can still do it? Sorry, but until I see concrete evidence in black & white that the only reason I'm paying through the nose for such a vehicle (and not really, because a brand new 2009 CLK 350 hardtop coupe can be had starting as low as $47,675 which I GUARANTEE will be around the same price as an American competitor like the Cadillac CTS coupe will start out at) is the fact that an incredible portion of the vehicle's overall cost is associated solely with the fact that the roof has to be made out of some NASA-grade alloy or other such bull$h! to be up to snuff, I'm not buying the argument for a second.

Also, you said earlier that "convertibles are exempt from the rule because if you roll one, you are paralyzed or dead." And? Does that mean that while one acknowledges and assumes the risk of driving a convertible, they could never be expected to do so with a pillarless coupe or sedan? f@#k that! We want the choice!

And your link is broken just like the rest of your argument.

Edited by XP715
Link to post
Share on other sites

It can't be that hard to make an optional hardtop. If you've got a car that is designed as both a coupe and a convertible, then you take the convertible's beefed-up structure, and replace it with the coupe's fixed roof instead of teh heavier folding roof. It'll way more than the pillared coupe but less than the convertible.

And to those who think the convertibles aren't up to snuff:

The C70 received Good marks for front, back, and side impact, and this is with the roof down.

It isn't a question of can they do it, it's a question of whether or not it mkes business sense to spend the extra money to do it, and will more than a few thousand diehard enthusiasts actually, realistically, car at this point?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh, I am so tired of this country's addiction to "safety".

Life isn't safe, not if it's worth a damn.

Mostly, this alleged safety is more illusion than reality anyway. This super-sanitized version of life we have been building just makes me want to heave.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
i still dont know what is so special about hard tops... or even how to identify them

Wasn't there a recent topic/dicussion here on this subject? The reason the "hardtop" was introduced was for those people that liked the open-air driving you get with a convertible but wanted protection from the weather & sun over their head. A hardtop roof gives off the appearance of a metal convertible top; GM's designs, expecially in the early '60s cars, would even offer the look of a true convertible in metal form (see the '61-'62 formal rooflines on Buicks, Oldsmobiles, and Pontiacs for proof). When the windows were closed, there was a small "post" that would appear and that kept the windows on track (see the white Pontiac pic below). With all of the windows open, you have an almost true "open-air" driving experience, and the car looks totally cool to boot.

Here's a little lesson for you in what a hardtop roof looks like on various bodies (2-doors/coupes, 4-doors/sedans, etc):

1957 Chevrolet Bel-Air Sport Sedan:

1957-chevrolet-1.jpg

1961 Pontiac Ventura "Bubbletop" hardtop coupe:

passside.jpg

1962 Buick LeSabre Sport Roof: (note the roof design with convertible-like features)

62_Buick_008.sized.jpg

1957 Oldsmobile Super 88 Fiesta:

57_olds_Spr88_Fiesta_SW-dv_la_05_ptrsn_0

1957_oldsmobile_fiesta_super88_01.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with MightyMouse!!!!

BAN all convertibles immediately.

And any and ALL ragtops, or any car without a B-pillar & steel roof over the

passanger's heads should be deemed obsolete and unregisterable!!!

As a matter of fact even sunroofs and moonroofs should be made illegal!

Let's just cut to the chase and issue everyone a goverment approved Yaris

4dr. for $20,000 or at a $7,000 premium upgrade price give the Camry

option.

MM:

I can not beleive YOU would advocate such filth as the extinction of the

hardtop. I guess we'll be yanking that built up V8 in your "fire engine red"

2-door sedan with frameless doors, CLEARLY you have to admit that

a car with high horsepower/weight ratio is unsafe due to oversteer and

the inherant temptation to blatantly defy the national 55-MPH speed limit.

You can have either an iron-duke or the 229-ci V6 that your car was

designed for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wasn't there a recent topic/dicussion here on this subject?

I personally have posted at LEAST a dozen threads on

the topic in my 3.67 years here on this forum.

Supposedly, according to MANY here I beat the topic

to death, it's not that I have higher standards it's that

I'm unrealistic and dilusional.

God forbid we think outside of the C.Y. 2008 Corporate

Box, although even that's a cop-out as Mercedes, and

a few other luxury/exotic car manufactureres still make

2-door hardtops to this day.

And before one more moron says "the Camaro would

cost $47,000 just like the MB CLK if it had a hardtop

bodystyle" I'd like to remind you to politely STFU since

the B-pillared E-class that the CLK is based on does

NOT show a considerable savings over the CLK, all

equipt. being the same!

Put that in your pipe, go sit in your B-pillared modern

tylenol-box with wheels and smoke it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

THESE UNSAFE DEATH-TRAPS MUST BE MADE ILLEGAL ASAP!!!

- Corvette targa & convertible

- XLR retractible hardtop

- G6 retractable hardtop

- Sky/Solstice

And that is just GM....

How DARE those selfish corporations that deem human

life to be expendable, what wiht not only a blatant

lack of a permenant, fixed B-pillar-ness but also a

complete lack of a steel, fixed, welded roof and

glued in rear side glass*

Thank God we live in a country where the masses allolw

the government to decide what is appropriate and safe.

* helps to aid exit a burning wreck in a post-accident

fuel/electrical fire! Nothing makes for eaesier egress

than a big permenant pane of laminated glass or a

tempered glass that is glued around all edges w/ a 3"

wide rubber-RTV style matterial.

[disgusted, sarcasm]

If it ever comes to that I'd rather be DEAD! <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm with MightyMouse!!!!

BAN all convertibles immediately.

And any and ALL ragtops, or any car without a B-pillar & steel roof over the

passanger's heads should be deemed obsolete and unregisterable!!!

As a matter of fact even sunroofs and moonroofs should be made illegal!

Let's just cut to the chase and issue everyone a goverment approved Yaris

4dr. for $20,000 or at a $7,000 premium upgrade price give the Camry

option.

MM:

I can not beleive YOU would advocate such filth as the extinction of the

hardtop. I guess we'll be yanking that built up V8 in your "fire engine red"

2-door sedan with frameless doors, CLEARLY you have to admit that

a car with high horsepower/weight ratio is unsafe due to oversteer and

the inherant temptation to blatantly defy the national 55-MPH speed limit.

You can have either an iron-duke or the 229-ci V6 that your car was

designed for.

Actually it was never designed for an Iron Duke. Times change. Dont get me wrong I would love a 1975-76 Caprice 4-door hardtop. But as a whole frameless wondows in my experience are much harder to get to seal properly let alone also trying to seal the middle between the 2 windows.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the 229 (chvy-block) 3.8 liter V6 WAS a factory motor for the Malibu,

but way to miss the point entirely.

Times DO change, yes... but not everyone is satisfied with an upright,

stuffy 4-dr. sedan with framed doors, a "peppy" 4-cylinder motor and

an automatic trans....

this is an ETHUSIAST's forum, no...?

Why else would you come here several times a week or day to discuss

cars? I've got higher standars and expectations than many here but I

am willing to be realistic.

And so I say again, I'll gladdly pay the extra $1000, $1500 or whatever

it takes to give me a hardtop, although it should not cost that much of a

premium since the ragtop's side windows, regulators, extra body/frame

reinforcement etc. are 75% of what is required for the "conversion".

Give us the option GM, for once (in the past 30 years) don;t pu$$y out

on a concept-to-production car. :angry:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Newbiewar:

I really am quite ASTONISHED that you have managed

to avoid learning what a hardtop is while belonging to

this forum for as long as you have... Even I will admit

that I go WAY out of my way to give a "routine" public

service announcement on here about the virtues of

owning/driving a hardtop.

As in (pillarless, fixed) hardtop

Check my personal theads, there's several on the topic.

the latest one is the one regarding my wife's Mercedes:

zn57df.jpg

2pt1c1k.jpg

Here's a link,

I sold the '77 Caddy and bought this MB 500SEC for her 2 weeks ago:

http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...=24772&st=0

and I will, asa(realistically)p post a "Hardtop 101" thread...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is veel betta than sqair? :P

Remember the Superbowl ads with the cromagnon

man who invents the wheel, so that beer may be

carried more efficiently & using less effort?

"wheel suck!" :lol:

Edited by Sixty8panther
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is veel betta than sqair? :P

Remember the Superbowl ads with the cromagnon

man who invents the wheel, so that beer may be

carried more efficiently & using less effort?

"wheel suck!" :lol:

Yup, truely one of the great ads of our time. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ugh, I am so tired of this country's addiction to "safety".

Life isn't safe, not if it's worth a damn.

Mostly, this alleged safety is more illusion than reality anyway. This super-sanitized version of life we have been building just makes me want to heave.

Exactly. Why can Harley Davidson make motorcycles that are a million times more likely to kill you if you are hit in the side?

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites
Newbiewar:

I really am quite ASTONISHED that you have managed

to avoid learning what a hardtop is while belonging to

this forum for as long as you have... Even I will admit

that I go WAY out of my way to give a "routine" public

service announcement on here about the virtues of

owning/driving a hardtop.

As in (pillarless, fixed) hardtop

Check my personal theads, there's several on the topic.

the latest one is the one regarding my wife's Mercedes:

zn57df.jpg

2pt1c1k.jpg

Here's a link,

I sold the '77 Caddy and bought this MB 500SEC for her 2 weeks ago:

http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...=24772&st=0

and I will, asa(realistically)p post a "Hardtop 101" thread...

Damn, Sylvester, you and I might not always agree on everything, but that is a fine looking Benz!

(Enter sarcsm mode)

Now just step away from the car. The safety Nazi's are coming to take you away, and mAssachusetts childrens protective services will be taking Sophia because you let her ride in an obviously unsafe car.

(Exit sarcasm mode)

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, Boys, I've got a major leage stupid question...has ANYONE got any real world cost data on what a B-pillarless car would cost to make?

I'm thinking about getting a used RX-8 (going in halves to buy the car with my son). The car has rear suicide doors and essentially NO structure around the passenger compartment other than doors...and yet it passes side crash test safety just fine.

If Mazda, one of my fav. carmakers but a tier 2 Japanese make at best (and part owned by Ford) can do this with a sub 30K car, why can't we have a B-pillarless Camaro?

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites
Damn, Sylvester, you and I might not always agree on everything, but that is a fine looking Benz!

(Enter sarcsm mode)

Now just step away from the car. The safety Nazi's are coming to take you away, and mAssachusetts childrens protective services will be taking Sophia because you let her ride in an obviously unsafe car.

(Exit sarcasm mode)

Chris

Isn't it illegal in Mass. to have kids under age 5 in anything but a minivan, SUV, or Camry ? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm with MightyMouse!!!!

BAN all convertibles immediately.

And any and ALL ragtops, or any car without a B-pillar & steel roof over the

passanger's heads should be deemed obsolete and unregisterable!!!

As a matter of fact even sunroofs and moonroofs should be made illegal!

Let's just cut to the chase and issue everyone a goverment approved Yaris

4dr. for $20,000 or at a $7,000 premium upgrade price give the Camry

option.

MM:

I can not beleive YOU would advocate such filth as the extinction of the

hardtop. I guess we'll be yanking that built up V8 in your "fire engine red"

2-door sedan with frameless doors, CLEARLY you have to admit that

a car with high horsepower/weight ratio is unsafe due to oversteer and

the inherant temptation to blatantly defy the national 55-MPH speed limit.

You can have either an iron-duke or the 229-ci V6 that your car was

designed for.

I'm a huge convertible fan. I not only get rid of B pillars, I get rid of C pillars too!

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm a huge convertible fan. I not only get rid of B pillars, I get rid of C pillars too!

Chris

I love convertibles, but have yet to own one. Sooner or later I'll have one. I love driving convertibles w/ the top up and windows down...like a hardtop. I've also driven them top down w/ windows up (useful on a freeway so I can still hear the stereo).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't it illegal in Mass. to have kids under age 5 in anything but a minivan, SUV, or Camry ? :)

You have entered the Matrix, and Sixty Eights brain is out for reprograming. He will be back spitting up jell-o on himself and driving a Camry shortly.

Seriously, a family I knew that I used to park my 66 Stang' next to at car shows had a 51 Dodge. They took a lot of crap from some family members for letting their grandchildren ride in such an old an obivously "unsafe" car.

People just kill me with their stupidity.

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites
I love convertibles, but have yet to own one. Sooner or later I'll have one. I love driving convertibles w/ the top up and windows down...like a hardtop. I've also driven them top down w/ windows up (useful on a freeway so I can still hear the stereo).

After my grandmother died, my grandfather dated a woman that had a full sized (about 1970) Buick convertible.

My grandfather bought a matching car (actually hers was gold and my grandfathers was yellow, IIRC)

Some of the happiest moments of my boyhood were spent cruising around in those cars.

NOTHING beats a ragtop.

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites
A family I knew that I used to park my 66 Stang' next to at car shows had a 51 Dodge. They took a lot of crap from some family members for letting their grandchildren ride in such an old an obivously "unsafe" car.

My father's daily driver in the summertime, which I spent a large amount of my childhood riding in, was a 1952 Chevrolet half-ton pickup: an all-steel truck with an all-steel interior that had not one ounce of padding inside it except the seat, flat non-tempered glass, a non-collapsible steering column, no seatbelts, and even a non-vented fuel tank INSIDE THE CAB right behind the seat. The doors didn't automatically lock when it was put into gear, and it didn't have any sensors in the rear bumper to tell us when we were too close to something. It also had four-wheel drum brakes, no power steering, no crumple zones, no traction control, no airbags, no daytime running lights, no ABS, no AWD, and no other safety features that make people's vaginas hurt if they're not present in a new vehicle. And guess what: I lived to tell about it! Through some incredible twist of fate, I was able to escape death each and every time my father so irresponsibly and negligently transported me in that awful deathtrap of a truck! I must be the only one!

Oh wait, no I'm not. People drove "unsafe" vehicles for the first eighty or ninety years they existed, and it would appear as though there are plenty of them left to tell the tale. If anything, I would argue that modern vehicles are as unsafe as older ones, just in different ways: new vehicles have all but removed the human element from driving, meaning people are being conditioned to not pay attention to the way their car behaves, or even to their surroundings. People are driving off the roads and wondering why their goddamn navigation systems didn't tell them to turn! One would think that with more refined and sophisticated equipment, people would be better drivers than ever, but it seems to be moving in the completely opposite direction. I can't wait until one of those self-parking Lexuses (Lexii?) parks itself on the sidewalk on top of somebody's child so maybe THEN people will realize that they should stop conveniencing themselves into obsolescence and ask for a REAL car that combines REAL safety with REAL control and we can finally set aside all the unnecessary gimmicky bull&#036;h&#33;.

Okay...... back on topic: GM, please please PLEASE give us the OPTION of making choice models that are geared specifically towards enthusiasts like the Camaro a hardtop. We're not idiots and we understand that we will never see pillarless versions of any of your mass consumption products, but seriously, you need to stop compromising on what was otherwise perfection.

Link to post
Share on other sites

XP has said it all right there....

without dropping thirteen F***-bombs for frustration like I would have. :P

And yes, I agree... the fact that Harley Davidsons & plasti-clad

crotch rockets are littering the roads more than ever now is

someting of an oxymoron since hardtops are unsafe!?

Stupid is as stupid DOES.

I think we NEED hardtops, to help people, regular Americans fall in

love with the automobile again! Even a four door hardtop should

not be out of the question when the majority of the forum, myself

included, were ALL for that Chrysler 300 ragtop concept going into

production, ultra-limited as it may have been....

There's a conversion company making DTS convertibles as e speak.

And as far as all this "weather sealing inadeqacy" blah-blah, BLAH....

ONCE AGAIN! For the love of god, read thi8s and THINK about the

words instead of just chewing over the given consonants & vowels

and then saying something silly/irrelevant AGAIN:

ALL your arguments are slightyl-valid and APPLY X10 to convertibles.

Every single convertible car, be it an exotic Ferrari costing $250,000

or more, or an as tested MSRP $24,500 Mazda Miata, has those same

issues.... have you never read an article about a convertible roadtest

where they mention the "car wash test" or "thunderstorm test"???

And guess what?

People who buy those convertible cars, those

"leaky, noisy, ragtop deathtraps" LOVE them to death.... becasue they

are enthusiasts, not soccer moms who only care about the number of

cupholders & the color of their vehicle.

{takes breath, blood pressure starts to lower...}

Link to post
Share on other sites
My father's daily driver in the summertime, which I spent a large amount of my childhood riding in, was a 1952 Chevrolet half-ton pickup: an all-steel truck with an all-steel interior that had not one ounce of padding inside it except the seat, flat non-tempered glass, a non-collapsible steering column, no seatbelts, and even a non-vented fuel tank INSIDE THE CAB right behind the seat. The doors didn't automatically lock when it was put into gear, and it didn't have any sensors in the rear bumper to tell us when we were too close to something. It also had four-wheel drum brakes, no power steering, no crumple zones, no traction control, no airbags, no daytime running lights, no ABS, no AWD, and no other safety features that make people's vaginas hurt if they're not present in a new vehicle. And guess what: I lived to tell about it! Through some incredible twist of fate, I was able to escape death each and every time my father so irresponsibly and negligently transported me in that awful deathtrap of a truck! I must be the only one!

Oh wait, no I'm not. People drove "unsafe" vehicles for the first eighty or ninety years they existed, and it would appear as though there are plenty of them left to tell the tale. If anything, I would argue that modern vehicles are as unsafe as older ones, just in different ways: new vehicles have all but removed the human element from driving, meaning people are being conditioned to not pay attention to the way their car behaves, or even to their surroundings. People are driving off the roads and wondering why their goddamn navigation systems didn't tell them to turn! One would think that with more refined and sophisticated equipment, people would be better drivers than ever, but it seems to be moving in the completely opposite direction. I can't wait until one of those self-parking Lexuses (Lexii?) parks itself on the sidewalk on top of somebody's child so maybe THEN people will realize that they should stop conveniencing themselves into obsolescence and ask for a REAL car that combines REAL safety with REAL control and we can finally set aside all the unnecessary gimmicky bull&#036;h&#33;.

Okay...... back on topic: GM, please please PLEASE give us the OPTION of making choice models that are geared specifically towards enthusiasts like the Camaro a hardtop. We're not idiots and we understand that we will never see pillarless versions of any of your mass consumption products, but seriously, you need to stop compromising on what was otherwise perfection.

I don't think I could possibly agree more.

Great post!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back when the Camaro concept was the only thing to go on, and numerous threads twisted into a sedan vs hardtop discussion.... I asked pointedly for hard data RE hardtop construction cost. No one had even ballpark figures to offer.

The entire hardtop issue (well-responded to by more than 1 in this thread, but esp XP-715) is exactly like the HP issue- who needs 400, 500 or more HP? Cars that go 180-200 MPH in a land that doesn't allow more than 65 in severely-limited areas? For what, in the eyes of the Safety Nazis?

The cost of hardtop has to be negligable, and regardless- those that want it will pay for it.

The safety issue is moot, because there are far more dangerous vehicles to ride in, that are perfectly legal.

The fact remains, offering the Camaro as one (and perhaps later, a few others) would be an excellent segment exclusive with only positive image results for GM. So bring it, already.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And then the question, why does anything matter in a car?

Why does anything stylistically matter?

For some it's just a converyance. Boring boxes of blandness and banality.

For me and others, we want something more. Something artful. Something that stirs us.

I'm a civilized human being. We've moved beyond the primitive I don't want a camrade car.

I don't want my cars planned by a central government committee.

So, does a pillarless hardtop matter? Of course it does.

Sometimes you have to show people what they are missing.

Art is like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My father's daily driver in the summertime, which I spent a large amount of my childhood riding in, was a 1952 Chevrolet half-ton pickup: an all-steel truck with an all-steel interior that had not one ounce of padding inside it except the seat, flat non-tempered glass, a non-collapsible steering column, no seatbelts, and even a non-vented fuel tank INSIDE THE CAB right behind the seat. The doors didn't automatically lock when it was put into gear, and it didn't have any sensors in the rear bumper to tell us when we were too close to something. It also had four-wheel drum brakes, no power steering, no crumple zones, no traction control, no airbags, no daytime running lights, no ABS, no AWD, and no other safety features that make people's vaginas hurt if they're not present in a new vehicle. And guess what: I lived to tell about it! Through some incredible twist of fate, I was able to escape death each and every time my father so irresponsibly and negligently transported me in that awful deathtrap of a truck! I must be the only one!

Oh wait, no I'm not. People drove "unsafe" vehicles for the first eighty or ninety years they existed, and it would appear as though there are plenty of them left to tell the tale. If anything, I would argue that modern vehicles are as unsafe as older ones, just in different ways: new vehicles have all but removed the human element from driving, meaning people are being conditioned to not pay attention to the way their car behaves, or even to their surroundings. People are driving off the roads and wondering why their goddamn navigation systems didn't tell them to turn! One would think that with more refined and sophisticated equipment, people would be better drivers than ever, but it seems to be moving in the completely opposite direction. I can't wait until one of those self-parking Lexuses (Lexii?) parks itself on the sidewalk on top of somebody's child so maybe THEN people will realize that they should stop conveniencing themselves into obsolescence and ask for a REAL car that combines REAL safety with REAL control and we can finally set aside all the unnecessary gimmicky bull&#036;h&#33;.

Okay...... back on topic: GM, please please PLEASE give us the OPTION of making choice models that are geared specifically towards enthusiasts like the Camaro a hardtop. We're not idiots and we understand that we will never see pillarless versions of any of your mass consumption products, but seriously, you need to stop compromising on what was otherwise perfection.

You have all made your point clear.... very clear. You do have the OPTION to sawzall your b-pillars out on your camaro if you want....

I'm sure there will be SEMA Camaros w/o them. Needing to withstand a 10,000 lb load on it's roof- GM made the right call.

Who wants a weaker roof that costs much more to develop and validate so that it will pass the Federal tests? Doesn't make sense.

NHTSA Regulates [strangulates] the design process to an insane degree....vision, safety, strength, mpg.....every damn thing.

I wish I could take you to work and show you what it's like.... what we are up against...

The latest big Fed deal now is to design for Pedpro...... Pedestrian protection regulations -extremely light and crushable front ends hooray!

half the car is a crumple zone to protect the dumbass that walks in front of your car while jaywalking

Sorry about the link -besides its 9 million pages of egghead babble anyway that would put you to sleep quick.

I got an eyefull of the red RS production Camaro today up close from every angle...I still want one but FYI the rr qtr glass with

interior trim makes the window opening smaller than a hand....the billar with trim is HUGE....! sorry dudes

I don't think of anyone being a hillbilly or aardvark -jus trying to be funnystupid

Please don't hold your breathe for the big return of the pillarless coupes just enjoy the old ones.

IMG_2445.jpg

IMG_2450.jpg

Edited by mightymouse
Link to post
Share on other sites

I got thinking more about the art of the automobile.

We've become so used to them that we're overlooking something.

The automobile is the public art of our times.

They represent us as a culture.

Our canvas is our car.

So when someone dismisses an artful thing such as a pillarless hardtop, they

are missing the point.

I like my cars or trucks to transcend their practical purpose.

We at C&G are constantly sweating visual details on every vehicle we discuss.

We are ultimately discussing the art of the automobile.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Harley:

Thanks for standing up and making your voice heard on a topic that was

considered beatern to death by me here in the past few months.

Check out this thread when you have a sec.:

http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...c=23945&hl=

One of my favorite pieces of artwork of a hardtop:

http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...c=24168&hl=

More eye-candy & some funny/amusing reading material:

http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...c=17128&hl=

http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...ic=4135&hl=

HUH :blink: Look who responded to this trivia question:

http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...ic=4932&hl=

More C&G insight on people's refusal to think outside the box:

http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...ic=3867&hl=

---- enjoy

Link to post
Share on other sites
I love convertibles, but have yet to own one. Sooner or later I'll have one. I love driving convertibles w/ the top up and windows down...like a hardtop. I've also driven them top down w/ windows up (useful on a freeway so I can still hear the stereo).

That would be one of the reasons I'd like to buy a G6 Convertible! Many I see on the roads are driven exactly that way - the top is up but all four windows are down. I think people would like that feature - and just think of how many people have never ridden in a car like that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Newbiewar:

I really am quite ASTONISHED that you have managed

to avoid learning what a hardtop is while belonging to

this forum for as long as you have... Even I will admit

that I go WAY out of my way to give a "routine" public

service announcement on here about the virtues of

owning/driving a hardtop.

As in (pillarless, fixed) hardtop

Check my personal theads, there's several on the topic.

the latest one is the one regarding my wife's Mercedes:

zn57df.jpg

2pt1c1k.jpg

Here's a link,

I sold the '77 Caddy and bought this MB 500SEC for her 2 weeks ago:

http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...=24772&st=0

and I will, asa(realistically)p post a "Hardtop 101" thread...

its just that i havent ever figured out what is so special about it... i guess open air feeling is good? not my cup of tea, dont really like convertables... but i do like the uncluttered roof line.

the major thing that confused me was when lutz said the camaro wouldnt be a hardtop, in that thread, you guys complained and complained... but i saw no difference from the concept to the production model... i was perplexed

Link to post
Share on other sites

What the heck are you smokin' Newb.? :P

The concept, has nothing for a b-pillar... from the windshield to the C-pillar it's

just two pieces of glass and a thin, rubber piece of weather-strip where they

meet, where in a sedan there would be a post.

The production car retains frameless door glass but has a PERMANENT, thick,

plastic-clad B-pillar and the rear glass does NOT roll down. Instead it's glued

into place around all edges, from the 1/4 panel, to the B & C pillars & roofrail.

How can you NOT see the differance? I'm perplexed!?!?

Balthy: It's quite a happy coincedance to see your new

sig. for the 1st time in THIS thread. That '59 Pontiac

screams "sex, leaded high octane & Rock & Roll"

If you can't have bullets for tail lights like a '59 Caddy,

and you don't want to look like you're a bat-out-of-hell

with anger issues like a '59 Buick you can always look

like you've got two rocket-ships on your rear quarters,

or if you preffer, a couple stinger missles ready to blow

that Mig-21 into a heap of smoldering, twisted metal!

1959sled2.jpg

I want me a '59 Poncho someday! :wub:

Link to post
Share on other sites

5th gen. Camaro Concept, with all fourr windows down... no side glass

at all, no B-pillar, just clean lines like a naked volleyball player with

large natrual breast-esses. :wub:

2006camaro.jpg

0608_z%202006_chevrolet_camaro_concept%2

0602_naias_02%202009_chevrolet_camaro_co

O7%20CAMARO%20CONCEPT.jpg

bk_camaro_newandold.jpg

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

And the much less cool PRODUCTION Camaro... saddly, a thick, ugly

B-pillar ruins the greenhouse completely! :yuck:

smrpy0.jpg

camarosmall.jpg

189d1207695645-photos-2010-camaro-nurbur

2010-camaro-test-mule.jpg

camaropro1ak7.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is what u mean?

10004205zw.jpg

hrmm i guess your right, never paid any attention to that, i figured the hard top refered to the actual sheetmetal covering the rear hatch/window.

hrmm that was a good autoshow... good concept

Link to post
Share on other sites
XP has said it all right there....

without dropping thirteen F***-bombs for frustration like I would have. :P

And yes, I agree... the fact that Harley Davidsons & plasti-clad

crotch rockets are littering the roads more than ever now is

someting of an oxymoron since hardtops are unsafe!?

Stupid is as stupid DOES.

I think we NEED hardtops, to help people, regular Americans fall in

love with the automobile again! Even a four door hardtop should

not be out of the question when the majority of the forum, myself

included, were ALL for that Chrysler 300 ragtop concept going into

production, ultra-limited as it may have been....

There's a conversion company making DTS convertibles as e speak.

And as far as all this "weather sealing inadeqacy" blah-blah, BLAH....

ONCE AGAIN! For the love of god, read thi8s and THINK about the

words instead of just chewing over the given consonants & vowels

and then saying something silly/irrelevant AGAIN:

ALL your arguments are slightyl-valid and APPLY X10 to convertibles.

Every single convertible car, be it an exotic Ferrari costing $250,000

or more, or an as tested MSRP $24,500 Mazda Miata, has those same

issues.... have you never read an article about a convertible roadtest

where they mention the "car wash test" or "thunderstorm test"???

And guess what?

People who buy those convertible cars, those

"leaky, noisy, ragtop deathtraps" LOVE them to death.... becasue they

are enthusiasts, not soccer moms who only care about the number of

cupholders & the color of their vehicle.

{takes breath, blood pressure starts to lower...}

I know we don't always agree, but this is why I come here and this is why I love about 85% of your posts here. this is written by a man who loves automobiles.

I am ALL FOR hardtops, I just don't want it to be the only criteria we use in evaluating a car. Alfa Romeo has built beautiful cars both with and without B-pillars, IMHO.

And one of the coolest cars running around my old hometown in Indiana was a SS396 69 Chevelle 300, the base model with the post...just like there is a really cool Post W-30 (gold, white top) 70 442 running around Springfield Ohio.

Also, as I've said before, I really like Tri-5 Chevy's as post cars, because that was what was drag raced and road raced and ran in NASCAR back in the day.

All I want is to be able to love-get excited about-both hardtop and non-hardtop cars. Sometimes I feel like "B" pillar is almost the lone issue in deciding an automotive design...

But not just yes but HELL YES, GM build us a hardtop Camaro NOW!

And +1 to people falling in love with cars again.

Chris

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites
There's no denying that pillarless > b-pillar.

I can see a 4-door hardtop being impracticle for today, but you could do a 2door, especially if you've got a convertible version already.

Depends on the car...we don't really know where automotive design will take us over the next 15 years, and I could see an upscale 4 door hardtop go into production.

Next CTS or 300, anyone?

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites
5th gen. Camaro Concept, with all fourr windows down... no side glass

at all, no B-pillar, just clean lines like a naked volleyball player with

large natrual breast-esses. :wub:

2006camaro.jpg

0608_z%202006_chevrolet_camaro_concept%2

0602_naias_02%202009_chevrolet_camaro_co

O7%20CAMARO%20CONCEPT.jpg

bk_camaro_newandold.jpg

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

And the much less cool PRODUCTION Camaro... saddly, a thick, ugly

B-pillar ruins the greenhouse completely! :yuck:

smrpy0.jpg

camarosmall.jpg

189d1207695645-photos-2010-camaro-nurbur

2010-camaro-test-mule.jpg

camaropro1ak7.jpg

The Camaro is hot, can we get the nude photos of the vollyball player next?

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no debate.

A pillarless hardtop is car sex.

End of discussion.

Agreed. Love the look. Love the air ripping thru the cabin....

I am really happy GM decided to build the roll cage into My New Camaro's body though. Thanks GM!

Body structure and chassis-

The 2010 Camaro is built on GM's global rear-drive architecture, with a strong body structure that enhances safety, quietness and handling.

Designed to protect occupants before, during and after a crash, the Camaro offers a comprehensive system of safety features - starting with

a robust body structure and integral safety cage around the passenger compartment. High-strength steel and ultra high-strength steel are

used in key areas throughout the structure.

"Thanks GM -for having the foresight to build a rollcage into my new hot rod for me. You rule."

It's a good thing because 1/3 of ALL light vehicle fatalities are resultant from rollovers in which the roof structure failed.

1/3 of ALL fatalities. . . Hmmm That is a lot....

The roof crush tests will likely begin in 2010, and cars that you guys are mumbling about w/o pillars will no longer be sold, because of noncompliancy

of rollover regulations. End of story - I don't make this &#036;h&#33; up. There is a reason for everything and I don't need guys who have never designed a damn thing

telling me about how a weak roof that is pretty is BEST. Looks Great -Poor Logic. Poor sales if the feds don't pass it- like none.

First guy to design a thin gauge sheet metal roof structure w/o B-pillars and use finite element analysis to illustrate it can withstand a 10,000 lb load w/o deformation...

will get a big prize. The laws of physics won't allow what you dreamers are going on and on about. I've seen it. I live it every day.

Based on fact- not feelings or opinions

Big diff between weak and strong I choose strong whenever possible.

So again, blame these guys - and the future rule makers... Not GM.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/CrashW...S216Notice.html

These guys too:

http://www.roofcrushresistance.com/

GM did what they had to with the body structure end of story If you don't like it, sawzall yours out.

I'm keeping mine in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i'd be one to test the laws of physics, i hate people telling me its impossible... i wish to be an engeneer at many times of my life...

i know that with enough metal in the right places, a hardtop would provide enough strength, but you might have a top heavy car lol...

steel titanium and alluminum would probably all be needed for such a roof, as they all possess individual strength properties.

likely the exotics and or the high class could afford to have such metals as a frame, although from my understanding racetracks require steel frame, so perhaps it would be self defeating...

i wonder if customers would consider a vehicle if it had structural support in the passanger cabin to allow for a pillarless apperance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
i'd be one to test the laws of physics, i hate people telling me its impossible... i wish to be an engeneer at many times of my life...

i know that with enough metal in the right places, a hardtop would provide enough strength, but you might have a top heavy car lol...

steel titanium and alluminum would probably all be needed for such a roof, as they all possess individual strength properties.

likely the exotics and or the high class could afford to have such metals as a frame, although from my understanding racetracks require steel frame, so perhaps it would be self defeating...

i wonder if customers would consider a vehicle if it had structural support in the passanger cabin to allow for a pillarless apperance.

Exactly ! Logic at work! Maybe nonobtanium metal would work well in this application, I don't know.

2- 1/2 times the weight of a car is a lot.

Hey -I'm just the messenger.. I respect the emotion of a car....I get it. I DO.

Picture028.jpg

The A and C pillars are on steep angle because of styling the cool body....

Those angled pillars act as a HINGE point to bend. The roof need some stiffness as in a~straight pillar~

to stiffen and support the middle of the roof. Imagine 10,000 lbs realistically on a B-pillarless roof.

Imagine how you would support the roof and glass..from deformation?

I just thought I should explain the Reason from my perspective. Everyone else gets the same chance

To say whats up....Thats the reason!

SEMA will showcase the Camaro and I bet there will be a handfull of modified - roof cars!

Maybe you can buy a Foose modified one in Vegas.

Picture028.jpg

Picture006.jpg

Picture030.jpg

Picture024.jpg

IMG_1644.jpg

Now THIS is a B pillar, class......suited for performance applications.

ati.jpg

Edited by mightymouse
Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed. Love the look. Love the air ripping thru the cabin....

I am really happy GM decided to build the roll cage into My New Camaro's body though. Thanks GM!

Body structure and chassis-

The 2010 Camaro is built on GM's global rear-drive architecture, with a strong body structure that enhances safety, quietness and handling.

Designed to protect occupants before, during and after a crash, the Camaro offers a comprehensive system of safety features - starting with

a robust body structure and integral safety cage around the passenger compartment. High-strength steel and ultra high-strength steel are

used in key areas throughout the structure.

"Thanks GM -for having the foresight to build a rollcage into my new hot rod for me. You rule."

It's a good thing because 1/3 of ALL light vehicle fatalities are resultant from rollovers in which the roof structure failed.

1/3 of ALL fatalities. . . Hmmm That is a lot....

The roof crush tests will likely begin in 2010, and cars that you guys are mumbling about w/o pillars will no longer be sold, because of noncompliancy

of rollover regulations. End of story - I don't make this &#036;h&#33; up. There is a reason for everything and I don't need guys who have never designed a damn thing

telling me about how a weak roof that is pretty is BEST. Looks Great -Poor Logic. Poor sales if the feds don't pass it- like none.

First guy to design a thin gauge sheet metal roof structure w/o B-pillars and use finite element analysis to illustrate it can withstand a 10,000 lb load w/o deformation...

will get a big prize. The laws of physics won't allow what you dreamers are going on and on about. I've seen it. I live it every day.

Based on fact- not feelings or opinions

The roof crush on rollover issue is more of an issue with trucks and SUVs, though, most of which have a high center of gravity, are obese, and lack upper body strength--they roll easily

and the weight of the obese lower structure collapses the weak roof structure.

It's less of an issue with hardtops, because of the low CoG, they are less likely to roll. A bigger issue for hardtops (and convertibles) is side impact resistance--without a B-pillar, the doors

and quarter panel are more likely to collapse inward on impact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The roof crush on rollover issue is more of an issue with trucks and SUVs, though, most of which have a high center of gravity, are obese, and lack upper body strength--they roll easily

and the weight of the obese lower structure collapses the weak roof structure.

It's less of an issue with hardtops, because of the low CoG, they are less likely to roll. A bigger issue for hardtops (and convertibles) is side impact resistance--without a B-pillar, the doors

and quarter panel are more likely to collapse inward on impact.

DING Another Winner my friends!!!Computer models led the path to strength.

Both good reasons -you are genious! I'm not a genious.....or are I.....

You know exacly how much a Camaro weighs and....you know it

Link to post
Share on other sites

The question remains, MM, will convertibles 'go away' after 2010 ??

How can they possibly be exempted if saftey is the primary motivator in new roll-over standards ?

2.5x vehicle weight is an awful stiff requirement, too- I can see 1.5 maybe. Good point about pillar angle- it's been patently obvious to me for years that the severly-raked A-pillar is the weak point in modern rooflines. I wonder if greenhouse lines similar to 1930s cars are going to have to return? ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's less of an issue with hardtops, because of the low CoG, they are less likely to roll. A bigger issue for hardtops (and convertibles) is side impact resistance--without a B-pillar, the doors

and quarter panel are more likely to collapse inward on impact.

That's funny, because I recently posted the crash footage for the tests to the C70 convertible hardtop.

Must be the devil's magic that the sides didn't crumple like tinfoil. This was all done with the top down no less.

If the C70 can magically not kill it's occupants, then logic would assume that replacing the heavier folding roof with a fixed one would save weight and even add some strength.

Again, I can see why a 4-door hardtop would be impractical to build...there's a lot more space between the A and C pillars...you would need a lot of reenforcement to make it work, but not so much with a coupe, where teh pillars are much closer together. Look how close the B-pillar is to the C pillar anyway. More importantly, if you've got a convertible version, it's already been beefed up to be stronger...replace the folding top with a fixed roof and there you go...hardtop.

Edited by Dodgefan
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'VE GOT SOME SKETCHES I'm going to post soon...

stay tunned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's funny, because I recently posted the crash footage for the tests to the C70 convertible hardtop.

Must be the devil's magic that the sides didn't crumple like tinfoil. This was all done with the top down no less.

If the C70 can magically not kill it's occupants, then logic would assume that replacing the heavier folding roof with a fixed one would save weight and even add some strength.

Well, it is a Volvo..they have always taken safety seriously, so I'm not surprised. Same with Mercedes.

Edited by moltar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the stupidity in this thread leaves me dumbfounded.....

Let me get this straight, a car that is essentially a MUCH SAFER

& more practical variant of a convertible is to be deemed

UNSAFE and impossible to manufacture, and yet the much less

SAFE and impractical ragtop gets to stay in production....?

Disgusting.

And beforee you ask, NO I do NOT want to erradicate ragtops,

I'll prob, never buy one and they're not my cup of tea post

WWII but I DO SUPPORT al of your RIGHT to own one....

How many of YOU can claim the same anti-hypocracy?

---

MM: Enjoy that V8 under your Malibus hood, because soon

that WILL be considered UNSAFE, excessive and ILLEGAL.

Hope that makes you happy about your complacency.

---

P.S. if the governement does not stay the hell out of

Automotive regulation we really WILL all be driving

"Government issued Camrys" in one sense or the

other... and that my friends is a really &#036;h&#33;ty world to

live in. More & more it seems, if you guys are even

partially right (V8 or RWD or Hardtop doomsayers)

than there are going to be many an antique plate in

my future, what's sad is that with today's technology

we SHOULD have the best of both worlds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, it is a Volvo..they have always taken safety seriously, so I'm not surprised. Same with Mercedes.

Ok, I'll bite....

2008 Chrysler Sebring convetible side impact crash test.

Overall rating: Good

And it diesn't cost an arm anda leg.

Edited by Dodgefan
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, I'll bite....

2008 Chrysler Sebring convetible side impact crash test.

Overall rating: Good

And it diesn't cost an arm anda leg.

Impressive, but not as impressive as the Volvo.

Trying to teach my son Joel about driving...we were sitting at a light last night and it turned green and I shook my head "no."

About a second after I shook my head "no" a semi blasted through the intersection at about 60 m.p.h...he must not have seen his red light at all.

Made an impression on my son!

Side impact wrecks are scary no matter what the car.

And actually Scion and toyota build the cars that have the highest roof crush resistance.

I think both the RX-8 and Scion TC were two of the best cars tested.

But I'd still rather drive an early 60's hard top in some ways.

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites
Some of the stupidity in this thread leaves me dumbfounded.....

Let me get this straight, a car that is essentially a MUCH SAFER

& more practical variant of a convertible is to be deemed

UNSAFE and impossible to manufacture, and yet the much less

SAFE and impractical ragtop gets to stay in production....?

Disgusting.

And beforee you ask, NO I do NOT want to erradicate ragtops,

I'll prob, never buy one and they're not my cup of tea post

WWII but I DO SUPPORT al of your RIGHT to own one....

How many of YOU can claim the same anti-hypocracy?

---

MM: Enjoy that V8 under your Malibus hood, because soon

that WILL be considered UNSAFE, excessive and ILLEGAL.

Hope that makes you happy about your complacency.

---

P.S. if the governement does not stay the hell out of

Automotive regulation we really WILL all be driving

"Government issued Camrys" in one sense or the

other... and that my friends is a really &#036;h&#33;ty world to

live in. More & more it seems, if you guys are even

partially right (V8 or RWD or Hardtop doomsayers)

than there are going to be many an antique plate in

my future, what's sad is that with today's technology

we SHOULD have the best of both worlds.

Dude, like I said I totally support your right to own a hardtop fresh from Dee-Troit.

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites
The question remains, MM, will convertibles 'go away' after 2010 ??

How can they possibly be exempted if saftey is the primary motivator in new roll-over standards ?

2.5x vehicle weight is an awful stiff requirement, too- I can see 1.5 maybe. Good point about pillar angle- it's been patently obvious to me for years that the severly-raked A-pillar is the weak point in modern rooflines. I wonder if greenhouse lines similar to 1930s cars are going to have to return? ;)

We will see..I think these standards are aimed at trucks and SUVs which is where the problem really is..they roll over easily and collapse easily.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Impressive, but not as impressive as the Volvo.

Trying to teach my son Joel about driving...we were sitting at a light last night and it turned green and I shook my head "no."

About a second after I shook my head "no" a semi blasted through the intersection at about 60 m.p.h...he must not have seen his red light at all.

Made an impression on my son!

Side impact wrecks are scary no matter what the car.

And actually Scion and toyota build the cars that have the highest roof crush resistance.

I think both the RX-8 and Scion TC were two of the best cars tested.

But I'd still rather drive an early 60's hard top in some ways.

Chris

It may not be as good but is certainly impressive and survivable. Remember that just a few years ago many cars with pillars couldn't take side impacts nearly that well.

Also, if a semi T-bones your car, truck, or SUV going 60...you're f@#ked no matter what you drive.

Edited by Dodgefan
Link to post
Share on other sites

66Stang:

Excelent point.

There's one thing a '58 Plymouth Belvedere hardtop,

'61 Cadillac hardtop, '68 Firebird hardtop, '71 Riviera

hardtop, '87 MB 300CE hardtop, '95 Miata or an '08

Ford Taurus sedan have in common:

There would ahve been a 99.9% chance of fatality

to all the passangers in your car if that semi. had

struck you at 60MPH.

All done.

Do not pass go, do NOT collect $200, R.I.P.

That's life.

Do I go the extra mile checking my blindspot,

yielding & crossing intersections when driving

my classic cars? HELL YEAH, and THAT is the

ONLY way to decrease your chances of

having a voilent, unexpected car accident,

deadly or otherwise.

And actually Scion and toyota build the cars that have the highest roof crush resistance.

What are you basing that on? One isolated test from the NIHS? :blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites
It may not be as good but is certainly impressive and survivable. Remember that just a few years ago many cars with pillars couldn't take side impacts nearly that well.

Also, if a semi T-bones your car, truck, or SUV going 60...you're f@#ked no matter what you drive.

Exactly!

What we really need is to have a good driver training program for drivers, esp new drivers.

Our local SCCA region teamed up with the Tire Rack to offer a teen safe driving school. They did smart things like bring in a Semi and park cars around it, like the semi was in traffic. They then made all of the teens sit in the drivers seat of the semi so they could make them realize how big the semi's blind spots were.

They brought in a large purple Barney dinosaur, and then detonated the airbags from an old Jeep Cherokee while Barney was unbelted and sitting next to the steering wheel. Barney took a flying trip over one of the light poles in the parking lot...that made an impression too.

Then the parking lot was wetted down and the teens were put in there own cars in an autocross type situation (with orange traffic cones) and a race driving instructor in the passenger seat. It was great fun to watch all of the teen drivers try to keep control of their cars in a diffucult but controlled situation.

It was also really fun to wartch my friend Sue, who is an SCCA rally navoigator and an SCCA G Production racer (she races a Datsun 510). She got teamed up with a boy who had armour-alled the seats in his hand me down late model Mercury Marquis...It was sooo much fun watching Sue and the driver try to "hold on" as the buig merc went through the paces and had all of that body roll. But for its size the big merc did pretty well on the Autocross course.

Mid Ohio has a similar program, under the partial sponsership of Honda.

But I digress...half the problem would be solved by better driver education. Another bog portion would be solved by more serious penalties for drivers that should not be on the road.

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that is an idea I can get behind.

I agree 100% about the unsafe driver being the weakest, & most

dangerous link in even the most unsafe "deathtrap" like a Pinto.

Now gimmie my hardtop GM!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites