From owner-fsj-digest-at-digest.net Thu Jun 12 09:03:23 2003 From: fsj-digest fsj-digest Wednesday, June 11 2003 Volume 01 : Number 1948 Forum for Discussion of Full Sized SJ Series Jeeps Brian Colucci Digest Coordinator Contents: RE: fsj: H2 collision Re: fsj: H2 collision fsj: bigger tires anyone? fsj: H2 collision and Rezerection Update Re: fsj: H2 collision and Rezerection Update Re: fsj: H2 collision/Dodge Truck Frame Problems? FSJ Digest Home Page: http://www.digest.net/jeeps/fsj/ Send submissions to fsj-digest-at-digest.net Send administrative requests to fsj-digest-request-at-digest.net To unsubscribe, include the word unsubscribe by itself in the body of the message, unless you are sending the request from a different address than the one that appears on the list. Include the word help in a message to fsj-digest-request to get a list of other majordomo commands. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 17:46:51 -0400 From: James Isennock Subject: RE: fsj: H2 collision The point of the design of the crumple zones in new cars is to lessen the impact on the passengers. If your vehicle crumples upon impact the crumpling action does two things, 1) serves to dissipate some of the force involved and 2) slows the vehicle down. Think about it for a minute, If you hit a brick wall at 30 MPH in a Tank your body will have to decelerate instantly from 30 MPH to 0 MPH. This force on your body is dissipated by the seatbelts (if your wearing them) or the steering wheel/column if your not. If your in a Geo Metro, the front 4 feet of the Geo crumples upon impact, This increases the time your body has to absorb the force and lessens the amount of force your body absorbs at any one instant by lengthening the deceleration time. As long as the force isn't severe enough to require the actual passenger compartment to crumple you will be much better off in the Geo! Think about Hollywood stuntmen, they leap off of buildings and land on empty boxes (crumple zones) or airbags (airbags) not asphalt! Unless the disparity in bulk between two vehicles is extreme i.e. Wagoneer and Suzuki Sprint I would prefer to be in the crumpling vehicle. However if it was between a Chevy Tahoe and a Wagoneer I would want to be in the Tahoe! Yes this design absolutely increases repair costs but, the statistics have shown a steady decrease in highway fatalities for the last 20 years even as the average vehicle has gotten 1/3 smaller and lighter Why? Crumple zones (and air bags). I drove a Tow Truck for about five years and have seen the results of way to many collisions, trust me crumple zones work!! As to the relative toughness of the two vehicles, well any collision between two objects that heavy is gonna hurt something. Aint no way your not gonna hurt a FSJ if you run into either one of em. If the point of H2 advertising is to say that its indestructible, well its not. If however, that are advertising the fact that you and your family are safe inside a Hummer, well, I for one would want to be riding in the H2 if it was in a head-on between an H2 and an FSJ. I wouldn't want to pay to fix it, but at least I'd be alive to be poor. - -----Original Message----- From: Dan Black [mailto:dan-at-black.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 4:00 PM To: Full Size Jeeps Subject: Re: fsj: H2 collision {- http://129.186.79.84/H2.jpg "Phillips, Scott" said: {- I hate to be the moron to point this out but look at the passanger {- compartments on both vehicles. Looks to me like there was no intrusion {- into the passanger compartments by the drivetrain or front end. Also it {- looks to me as if the doors on both vehicles are able to open almost {- freely (well the passanger side door on the H2 is the exception). I'd {- say that they fulfilled their design creation by dissipating the energy {- of the crash into crumple zones rather than passing it straight to the {- occupants via a super stiff chassis. {- {- So I guess in short - they were built to do that in a front end {- collision. Certainly that's what they were designed to do. It's also what a little Honda is designed to do, as per government regulations... what's your point? ;) _My_ point was that a truly "tough" truck (as the H2 is advertised, supposedly carrying on the Hummer name, a statement I am thus arguing against) would most likely have had less damage to the truck itself (_possibly_ at the expense of the opposing vehicle). That's a major reason many of use have FSJs, and big heavy SUVs in general. The Dodge Ram seems to have less damage -- engine may well have been salvagable on that one. (Might be able to replace body panels and maybe a wheel and/or axle and have a good vehicle again. It would obviously take closer inspection to know.) I would bet a real Hummer would have even less damage than the Ram. I'd also bet/hope our own FSJs would come out closer to the Ram, even against a higher-sitting H2. So my point is the H2s are nuthin' but cheap plastik. "Back in the day", cars were made solid and would often withstand a collision with little or no permanent damage, often just cosmetic. (A story comes to mind of my grandparents hitting a deer in the mountains at ~65mph in a '57 Chevy or the like (a mere _car_!), getting out, popping the dent out by hand, and continuing on. Today, that would be several hundred dollars of plastic pieces replaced.) Not only were the passengers not hurt, but the car was in good shape. Today they make the consumer feel warm and fuzzy by talking about air bags and crumple zones -- cars that are _designed_ to be damaged a certain way to protect the owner. And thus, the consumer is happy to pay $750 for a 15mph impact because of all the crumpled pieces, or another $700 to replace each airbag that deployed. Original message: {- Pic of an H2 after a head-on collision with a Dodge Ram (looks like a {- dually). Check out the damage on each truck... This is some proof (as {- if we needed it) that the H2 is junk; basically just a lot of clutter on {- a very mediocre truck frame, and certainly not worthy of the Hummer {- name. {- {- I am a little disappointed that the Dodge has even that much damage, but {- I don't know how fast they were going, either. And note that the Dodge {- seems to have taken all the impact on one corner, where the H2 took it {- apparently across the entire front. {- {- Certainly nothing salvageable on the H2 in front of the human {- compartment, and likely nothing but small interior pieces in front of {- the rear doors. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - --- Honk if you've never seen an Uzi fired from a car window. - -------------- Dan Black ------------------------- dan-at-black.org - -------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 23:39:06 -0400 From: Mike Polkki Subject: Re: fsj: H2 collision u make perfect sense. I have A Dodge shadow and I feel safe in it. I also have a dodge truck but I feel that it gives u an illusion of safety due to size not engineering. I was hit by a drunk driver in my old sundance a year ago and the car looked horrible but I was perfectly safe. It convinced me to buy another... James Isennock wrote: >The point of the design of the crumple zones in new cars is to lessen the >impact on the passengers. If your vehicle crumples upon impact the crumpling >action does two things, 1) serves to dissipate some of the force involved >and 2) slows the vehicle down. Think about it for a minute, If you hit a >brick wall at 30 MPH in a Tank your body will have to decelerate instantly >from 30 MPH to 0 MPH. This force on your body is dissipated by the seatbelts >(if your wearing them) or the steering wheel/column if your not. If your in >a Geo Metro, the front 4 feet of the Geo crumples upon impact, >This increases the time your body has to absorb the force and lessens the >amount of force your body absorbs at any one instant by lengthening the >deceleration time. As long as the force isn't severe enough to require the >actual passenger compartment to crumple you will be much better off in the >Geo! Think about Hollywood stuntmen, they leap off of buildings and land on >empty boxes (crumple zones) or airbags (airbags) not asphalt! Unless the >disparity in bulk between two vehicles is extreme i.e. Wagoneer and Suzuki >Sprint I would prefer to be in the crumpling vehicle. However if it was >between a Chevy Tahoe and a Wagoneer I would want to be in the Tahoe! Yes >this design absolutely increases repair costs but, the statistics have shown >a steady decrease in highway fatalities for the last 20 years even as the >average vehicle has gotten 1/3 smaller and lighter Why? Crumple zones (and >air bags). I drove a Tow Truck for about five years and have seen the >results of way to many collisions, trust me crumple zones work!! > >As to the relative toughness of the two vehicles, well any collision between >two objects that heavy is gonna hurt something. Aint no way your not gonna >hurt a FSJ if you run into either one of em. If the point of H2 advertising >is to say that its indestructible, well its not. If however, that are >advertising the fact that you and your family are safe inside a Hummer, >well, I for one would want to be riding in the H2 if it was in a head-on >between an H2 and an FSJ. I wouldn't want to pay to fix it, but at least I'd >be alive to be poor. > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Dan Black [mailto:dan-at-black.org] >Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 4:00 PM >To: Full Size Jeeps >Subject: Re: fsj: H2 collision > > >{- http://129.186.79.84/H2.jpg > >"Phillips, Scott" said: >{- I hate to be the moron to point this out but look at the passanger >{- compartments on both vehicles. Looks to me like there was no intrusion >{- into the passanger compartments by the drivetrain or front end. Also it >{- looks to me as if the doors on both vehicles are able to open almost >{- freely (well the passanger side door on the H2 is the exception). I'd >{- say that they fulfilled their design creation by dissipating the energy >{- of the crash into crumple zones rather than passing it straight to the >{- occupants via a super stiff chassis. >{- >{- So I guess in short - they were built to do that in a front end >{- collision. > >Certainly that's what they were designed to do. It's also what a little >Honda is designed to do, as per government regulations... what's your >point? ;) > >_My_ point was that a truly "tough" truck (as the H2 is advertised, >supposedly carrying on the Hummer name, a statement I am thus arguing >against) would most likely have had less damage to the truck itself >(_possibly_ at the expense of the opposing vehicle). That's a major >reason many of use have FSJs, and big heavy SUVs in general. The Dodge >Ram seems to have less damage -- engine may well have been salvagable on >that one. (Might be able to replace body panels and maybe a wheel >and/or axle and have a good vehicle again. It would obviously take >closer inspection to know.) I would bet a real Hummer would have even >less damage than the Ram. I'd also bet/hope our own FSJs would come out >closer to the Ram, even against a higher-sitting H2. So my point is the >H2s are nuthin' but cheap plastik. > >"Back in the day", cars were made solid and would often withstand a >collision with little or no permanent damage, often just cosmetic. (A >story comes to mind of my grandparents hitting a deer in the mountains >at ~65mph in a '57 Chevy or the like (a mere _car_!), getting out, >popping the dent out by hand, and continuing on. Today, that would be >several hundred dollars of plastic pieces replaced.) Not only were the >passengers not hurt, but the car was in good shape. > >Today they make the consumer feel warm and fuzzy by talking about air >bags and crumple zones -- cars that are _designed_ to be damaged a >certain way to protect the owner. And thus, the consumer is happy to >pay $750 for a 15mph impact because of all the crumpled pieces, or >another $700 to replace each airbag that deployed. > > >Original message: >{- Pic of an H2 after a head-on collision with a Dodge Ram (looks like a >{- dually). Check out the damage on each truck... This is some proof (as >{- if we needed it) that the H2 is junk; basically just a lot of clutter on >{- a very mediocre truck frame, and certainly not worthy of the Hummer >{- name. >{- >{- I am a little disappointed that the Dodge has even that much damage, but >{- I don't know how fast they were going, either. And note that the Dodge >{- seems to have taken all the impact on one corner, where the H2 took it >{- apparently across the entire front. >{- >{- Certainly nothing salvageable on the H2 in front of the human >{- compartment, and likely nothing but small interior pieces in front of >{- the rear doors. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >--- > Honk if you've never seen an Uzi fired from a car window. >-------------- Dan Black ------------------------- dan-at-black.org >-------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 22:20:17 -0700 From: "Jim B" Subject: fsj: bigger tires anyone? http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=144850 Jim Blair, Seattle, WA '84 J10 Black Jack, '86 Comanche 4x4 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 07:26:58 -0500 From: "Vince Orr" Subject: fsj: H2 collision and Rezerection Update Or like the time my Rez Runner got rear ended by a Caprice doing close to 40 MPH.... I can prove that FSJ's do crumple under the right circumstances. Probably saved my girls from whiplash. Caprice hit the hitch and punched it in about 2 inches. The bottoms of the frame rails have a small wrinkle now, rear crossmember is bent about 2 inches, and the hitch was ruined. The force of the collision sheared both engine mounts. Rez drove to and from school for 3 days before my daughter complained that it didn't want to go into park.....because the drivetrain was 2 inches from where it was supposed to be....LOL When I put on the new killer 32 rear bumper last year, I had to straighten the frame using my TJ and a log chain....no big tree available.... Has anyone ever encountered a situation where a bad tachometer caused your vehicle not to run? I disconnected the aftermarket tach on Rez and now Rez is zooming up and down the road again.... Wierd... So I guess that means there has just been another Rez-erection...... 'course I get those every time I look in the magazines....at new lift and wheels and tires for Rez and TJ of course..... I took the week off....back to roofing the garage today.......makes puttin Rez's engine in last summer look easy.... - --Vince '81 Wagoneer (Da Rez Runner) ********************************* From: "George B. Milam, IV" > I hear ya Dan. > > I had a lady hit me semi head on in a parking lot going about 10 mph. the > impact curled her Jetta hood up and destroyed her cheap plastic bumper. The > "Moose" (89 Grand Wag) had a little black paint on the bumper and not even a > little ding to be seen. Her bill was 1150.00 and good thing it was her > fault. > > So the reason my GW is called the Moose is that the first time my sister in > law rode in it she said "this thing is like a Moose because if some body > hits you it's them that will be hurtin" > > George Milam > '89 Grand Wagoneer "Moose" > VT > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan Black" > To: "Full Size Jeeps" > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 3:59 PM > Subject: Re: fsj: H2 collision > > > > {- http://129.186.79.84/H2.jpg > > > > "Phillips, Scott" said: > > {- I hate to be the moron to point this out but look at the passanger > > {- compartments on both vehicles. Looks to me like there was no intrusion > > {- into the passanger compartments by the drivetrain or front end. Also > it > > {- looks to me as if the doors on both vehicles are able to open almost > > {- freely (well the passanger side door on the H2 is the exception). I'd > > {- say that they fulfilled their design creation by dissipating the energy > > {- of the crash into crumple zones rather than passing it straight to the > > {- occupants via a super stiff chassis. > > {- > > {- So I guess in short - they were built to do that in a front end > > {- collision. > > > > Certainly that's what they were designed to do. It's also what a little > > Honda is designed to do, as per government regulations... what's your > > point? ;) > > > > _My_ point was that a truly "tough" truck (as the H2 is advertised, > > supposedly carrying on the Hummer name, a statement I am thus arguing > > against) would most likely have had less damage to the truck itself > > (_possibly_ at the expense of the opposing vehicle). That's a major > > reason many of use have FSJs, and big heavy SUVs in general. The Dodge > > Ram seems to have less damage -- engine may well have been salvagable on > > that one. (Might be able to replace body panels and maybe a wheel > > and/or axle and have a good vehicle again. It would obviously take > > closer inspection to know.) I would bet a real Hummer would have even > > less damage than the Ram. I'd also bet/hope our own FSJs would come out > > closer to the Ram, even against a higher-sitting H2. So my point is the > > H2s are nuthin' but cheap plastik. > > > > "Back in the day", cars were made solid and would often withstand a > > collision with little or no permanent damage, often just cosmetic. (A > > story comes to mind of my grandparents hitting a deer in the mountains > > at ~65mph in a '57 Chevy or the like (a mere _car_!), getting out, > > popping the dent out by hand, and continuing on. Today, that would be > > several hundred dollars of plastic pieces replaced.) Not only were the > > passengers not hurt, but the car was in good shape. > > > > Today they make the consumer feel warm and fuzzy by talking about air > > bags and crumple zones -- cars that are _designed_ to be damaged a > > certain way to protect the owner. And thus, the consumer is happy to > > pay $750 for a 15mph impact because of all the crumpled pieces, or > > another $700 to replace each airbag that deployed. > > > > > > Original message: > > {- Pic of an H2 after a head-on collision with a Dodge Ram (looks like a > > {- dually). Check out the damage on each truck... This is some proof (as > > {- if we needed it) that the H2 is junk; basically just a lot of clutter > on > > {- a very mediocre truck frame, and certainly not worthy of the Hummer > > {- name. > > {- > > {- I am a little disappointed that the Dodge has even that much damage, > but > > {- I don't know how fast they were going, either. And note that the Dodge > > {- seems to have taken all the impact on one corner, where the H2 took it > > {- apparently across the entire front. > > {- > > {- Certainly nothing salvageable on the H2 in front of the human > > {- compartment, and likely nothing but small interior pieces in front of > > {- the rear doors. > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Honk if you've never seen an Uzi fired from a car window. > > -------------- Dan Black ------------------------- > dan-at-black.org -------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 08:24:00 CDT From: Dan Black Subject: Re: fsj: H2 collision and Rezerection Update "Vince Orr" said: {- Or like the time my Rez Runner got rear ended by a Caprice doing close to 40 {- MPH.... I can prove that FSJ's do crumple under the right circumstances. {- Probably saved my girls from whiplash. Caprice hit the hitch and punched it {- in about 2 inches. The bottoms of the frame rails have a small wrinkle now, {- rear crossmember is bent about 2 inches, and the hitch was ruined. The {- force of the collision sheared both engine mounts. Rez drove to and from {- school for 3 days before my daughter complained that it didn't want to go {- into park.....because the drivetrain was 2 inches from where it was supposed {- to be....LOL Exactly. All vehicles will crumple; it's only a question of when. I would guess almost any consumer vehicle will crumple before the impact is enough to hurt most passengers. Little cars are going to crumple earlier, so they just figured they'd design them to crumple in a better way to help protect the humans more, and that let them market it under a nifty name to make people think they're safer. I rear-ended a car several years back with my '85 GWag (entirely her fault, and the cop agreed with me; she pulled out in front of me across all four lanes when she should have waited at her stop sign (I had no stop sign) and/or pulled into the closest lane, as the law requires -- all of this on slick roads, so I couldn't slow down fast enough) at around 25-35mph, and though there was probably only a few hundred dollars damage to the rear of her car, her taillight and reflector pieces were all over my bumper. No damage to mine, and she kept complaining to the cop that "his vehicle's just so BIG" like it was my fault because I had the sturdier vehicle. Sheesh, what if I had been driving a Suburban or Excursion? Those are bigger and higher... And a couple years before that, they canceled classes once because of blizzard conditions, so of course some friends and I took the '84 GWag to Des Moines, about 30mi away. Took a downward exit ramp, slowed down carefully and stopped at the bottom of the hill to wait for the light. Rear defrost never worked on any GWag I've had, and we were stopped, so we weren't paying any attention to things behind us. Suddenly we feel a big jolt... we'd been rear-ended by a tow truck pulling a car; they hadn't been able to stop because of the ice. His push-bumper had hit my ball hitch. That's likely what broke both front engine mounts, but didn't figure that out til much later, and was a fairly cheap fix. No other damage to either vehicle, nothing we could see at the time, so he gave me his card and we went on our merry ways without having to deal with any collision reports. We had no headrests in the vehicle, but none of us had any whiplash, stiff joints, or anything -- and I'm guessing he was still going anywhere from 5-15mph when he hit us. Most cars would've crumpled and deployed air bags, which would've been several hundred dollars to repair and replace, but we simply didn't need any of that with the GWag. I hope we're preaching to the choir... I think most of the people on this list love the FSJs because they're sturdy that way, and we've heard many stories more impressive than mine about how a FSJ was likely responsible for saving their humans from death or serious injury, sometimes sacrificing themselves in the process, and sometimes simply being tough and showing little damage. I'm frankly pretty surprised that people are arguing on this list in favor of cars... if you like the cars that much better and/or really believe they're safer, why do you have a FSJ in the first place? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Be a beacon? -- Whistler - -------------- Dan Black ------------------------- dan-at-black.org -------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:38:07 -0700 From: "Mike BALL" Subject: Re: fsj: H2 collision/Dodge Truck Frame Problems? John, Mike,or anyone else who has had Dodge trucks, This is the first time I've ever heard of them having wimpy frames,can anyone else confirm this,and what years had the frame problems,and what happened specifically. I don't have a pickup now,but would consider a Dodge or Ford in the future, so some additional info would help..... I've owned 2 pickups so far, a 1972 Dodge W100 and a 1967 Ford F100 2wd. Never hit anything hard enough with either to notice a weak frame,but the Dodge had a rear cab to frame mount torn out of the cab,and the clutch pedal dropped to the floor when you got the truck twisted up off-road. Don't know if a frame that flexed too much caused these things or just the previous owners thrashing(the truck had been hammered hard before I bought it),but anybody else's experiences would be appreciated.... Thanks! Mike Ball 89GW Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 01:29:27 -0400 From: Mike Polkki Subject: Re: fsj: H2 collision Hey now, That's getting personal ;) I have always driven Dodge Trucks. Im On my 3rd one. It's a 1993 Power Ram The last of the old body styles. But I will admit the frames leave a lot to be desired. On my old 86 Pickup the frame rusted through badly before the body did. and this is in salt country. I guess I shouldn't expect the supporting piece of the vehicle to outlive sheetmetal...... FWIW- My old Wagoneer had very little body left but a solid frame....:) john wrote: > all the articles I've read about the Dodge trucks refer to > "spaghetti" frames... I had an '85 3/4t 4x4... sad... neither > of those vehicles is "solid"... notice how the dually dodge looks > tweaked... I saw a 3/4t pu get tagged by a little ranger in town > and the dodge was tweaked in a major way... like a pretzel... 25 mph... > > john ------------------------------ End of fsj-digest V1 #1948 **************************