Add your comments
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
Please note that gratuitous links to your site are viewed as spam and may result in removed comments.
BREAKING: GM and Chrysler talking about merger
Spy Shots: Nissan 370Z again, with interior shots
2010 Mazda3 unveiled ahead of LA Auto Show
Spy Shots: Nissan 370Z caught undisguised
GM on Corvette ZR1 cancellation rumor: "Not true."
Knight Rider: The Liveblog -- Season 1, Episode 3
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Mazda RX-8 R3, return of the "hummer"
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Chevy Corvette Z06
Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
Paris 2008: Le Day 1 Wrapup
Reader Comments for
Subscribe to this thread(Page 1 of 1)
why not the LS2LS7? @ May 17th 2008 1:41PM
"turquoise 45HP deathtrap"
That's funny and all, but you're perpetuating the stupid myth that SUVs (in this case CUVs) are safer.
VW could just ship this car with an economical 2.0T gas setup here in the US means an econo-Diesel isn't much cheaper to run than a regular gas variant, an econo-gas variant would probably be the same cost to run and cheaper to buy.
Mark @ May 17th 2008 2:22PM
He wasn't insinuating anything. He said that if people are willing to spend $7+ grand on an unsafe econobox for the sake of good gas mileage, then people should be willing to spend more than $30,000 for a diesel CUV. You're putting words in his mouth.
why not the LS2LS7? @ May 17th 2008 3:28PM
You also.
You assume this is safer than a econobox.
It isn't necessarily so.
Will @ May 17th 2008 5:36PM
I don't know, I agree about SUVs not necessarily being safer, but I saw a link to 1993 Metro and I focused on the "1993" and the fact that it was a cheaply built car, not a small car. SUV myths aside, you must agree that in 1993, a Metro was not exactly a showcase for either active or passive safety features.
Big Jim Slade @ May 17th 2008 8:54PM
Just what safety features does a 15 year-old Metro have that are comparable to a Tiguan???
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest the VW would do better in today's crash tests than the little turquoise econobox we speak of...
why not the LS2LS7? @ May 17th 2008 9:55PM
The biggest safety feature it has is it isn't a high CG SUV. It's less likely to roll over, but beyond that, its biggest feature is that it is maneuverable and has good visibility.
It will perform far better on safety when it doesn't get in a wreck than any SUV does in a wreck.
Chris @ May 18th 2008 11:50AM
You need to take a basic physics class. 4000lb CUV with all the modern safety features >>>>>>>>> 2000lb subcompact with zero safety features, rollover or not.
Dan @ May 18th 2008 2:54AM
Actually, light weight stubby minicars like the Metro are less stable than most CUVs and even some body on frame SUVs. Google 'Kimmel Rollover Index'.
Jorge @ May 18th 2008 6:07AM
i don't know about VW whether it is safe but the Geo Metro is horribly built and it is going to be bad no matter what the car hit or get hit by even a light post can do serious damage to the car and the people inside.
Mark @ May 18th 2008 1:28PM
Once again, putting words into my mouth. I assume nothing about the safety of the Tiguan. I was merely saying the author was making a comparison on the basis of cost and made no assumptions whatsoever with the overall safety of the Volkswagen. The subject of the comparison was the consumer's ability to reconcile paying exorbitant sums of money for a fuel efficient vehicle, whether it be $7,000 for an unsafe vehicle, or $30,000 for a diesel CUV. The comment about the Metro being unsafe was merely an ancillary detail.
why not the LS2LS7? @ May 18th 2008 12:56PM
You can't call a car a deathtrap and then say "I didn't mean to imply the car was unsafe".
Chris:
First of all, you are using simple physics to deal with a complex problem. This was the same idiocy that made people think body on frame SUVs should be safe. They're the heaviest of all, right? Second of all, it is morally bankrupt to buy a car as a kinetic energy weapon. We all matter, not just those who can afford to buy more gas.
If a spindly F1 or Indy car can run in to a wall at 130mph and the driver walks away, there is no way to say that you must have an SUV/CUV to be safe on the street at 70.
And the whole idea of a 90s car being a deathtrap implies that the dark ages somehow just ended. Folks, we already had plenty of safety regulations in the 90s, Ralph Nader had already done his bit 20 years before.