By on May 17, 2016

renault kwid

Three versions of a Renault hatchback spectacularly failed their frontal crash tests in India, earning them zero out of five stars, even with an available airbag.

It’s food for thought for the 125,000 Indian buyers who placed orders for the subcompact coffin, but the Renault Kwid isn’t alone in flunking Global NCAP testing in that car-hungry country.

The Maruti Suzuki Celerio, Maruti Suzuki Eeco, Mahindra Scorpio and Hyundai Eon also failed to earn a single star, reports Business Standard.

Airbags aside, the main problem with these cheap vehicles is their lack of a rigid bodyshell. Without that protection, there’s little to stop a vehicle from crumpling all the way to the backseat. Global NCAP said the vehicle bodies were unstable, adding that the driver of each vehicle would suffer life-threatening injuries in a similar crash.

The Indian frontal tests were performed at 40 miles per hour. Imagine a head-on collision between two of these vehicles.

In response to its vehicle pooping the safety bed, Renault India stated it was “committed” to complying with the country’s looming 2017 crash test regulations for new vehicles.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

106 Comments on “Zero Stars: Watch These Indian-Market Cars Prove What Death Traps They Are...”


  • avatar
    jmo

    In their defense most of these buyers are upgrading from a moped so it’s still significantly safer than their former mode of transport.

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    In fact often a scooter with multiple riders.
    So at least the back seat riders are safer in one of these.

    Still the manufacturers should have some sort of moral obligation to provide at least a reasonable level of safety.

    How does the Tata Nano fare in these crash tests?

  • avatar
    operagost

    You’d think that after using only three lugs on each wheel, they might have enough left over for an airbag.

  • avatar
    laserwizard

    If the dealers were to give out balloons, they could be taped to the steering wheel and dashboard for the passenger.

    Was that too mean?

  • avatar
    indi500fan

    Based on videos I’ve seen plus some old episodes when the Ice Road Truckers went to India, do they ever reach speeds sufficient to need any serious crash protection? It seems like constant gridlock.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    “The Indian frontal tests were performed at 40 miles per hour. Imagine a head-on collision between two of these vehicles.”

    Also, imagine a head-on between a Camry and HD at 40 miles per hour.

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      Actually, two of these vehicles crashing head-on would have the exact same impact as one hitting a wall, if they were the same weight.

      Because…physics.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        VoGo,
        I realise this. It will be more or less the same as the crash test. Actually the damage shouldn’t be as bad because if the crash test wall had another nano car against it and another nano car hit it the cushioning effect of both the nano cars would reduce damage.

        What I’m stating the three and a half ton HD or even a nearly three ton full chassis vehicle hitting a one and a half ton vehicle wouldn’t not be pretty. It would in fact be four times as bad.

        So, everytime someone in a Camry/Accord midsize car has a HD approaching remember you are generally in a worse position than the average Indian driver who is driving at 1/3 to 1/2 the speed you are in the US.

        But, then again, infrastructure plays an important role here along with education.

      • 0 avatar
        Ooshley

        Thanks for saying that. I started twitching as soon as read that part of teh article.

      • 0 avatar
        nichjs

        .

  • avatar
    Pch101

    How is this possible when every nation outside of the US and Canada follows the same safety regulations?

    (Oh, now I remember: They don’t.)

    • 0 avatar
      MBella

      Nobody ever claimed that everyone uses the same crash standards. You always claim that a car built to US standards exceeds European standards and therefore is meets European standards. People call you out on it and point out that aspects of crash standards are mutually exclusive.

      I now await your response with a random page of of IIHS tests that you believe somehow back up your point.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “Nobody ever claimed that everyone uses the same crash standards.”

        Er, the Australian idiots who post here love to claim that everyone outside of the US and Canada has the same rules.

        As for US vs EU, the US standards are generally more stringent.

        The US has a roof crush standard for rollover protection. Europe does not have such a standard.

        The US has a 35-mph full frontal barrier crash test, which is the equivalent of a head-on collision of two vehicles traveling at 35 mph. Europe has no such test. (The European front crash standard is similar to the IIHS test.)

        The US side impact test involves a 3,015-pound barrier moving at 38.5 mph. The Euro NCAP test barrier weighs about 900 pounds less and travels more slowly (50 kmh/ about 31 mph).

        US vehicle interiors have to include padding to protect passengers in a crash which is not required in European market cars.

        The US mandates airbags, and those airbags have to be designed to work without seatbelts. The EU does not mandate airbags.

        There are also higher US rear-impact standards that can result in design differences, such as fuel lines in being rerouted in the US-spec cars in order to reduce fire risk.

        So no, the standards are not just different; the US standards are generally more difficult.

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          Total garbage again your drug addled ” brain” cannot grasp the concept that the Indian Cars totally failed the European crash standard. In 2003, a F150 was tested using the same standards and it rated as badly as the Suzuki. It was done by an independent US institute using ADAC standards
          What a mess!
          http://paultan.org/2005/11/08/mini-cooper-vs-ford-f-150-crash-test/
          Still that did not stop Ford selling that death trap in NA and been so for 7years without an update

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            it’s not 2003 anymore, in case calendars stopped working in Australia.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            That generation went for 8 years actually. Except there’s 2 more F-150 gens since those dark days of safety. Now it’s the “top pick”.

            Trucks were mostly overlooked by the safety conscious. They were considered “safe” by their mass/stance, which in many ways is true.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    As I’ve mentioned on this site a couple of years ago, the WHO and World Bank have initiated a program based on NCAP for safer vehicles in developing countries.

    It appears the Latin American countries are implementing NCAP at a faster rate of knots.

    We should also remember the GDP of India, even in comparison to a Latin American country. India doesn’t fare so well.

    Some commenters can sit back and feel superior, but the fact is money is needed to rectify this problem. And these same people in the future when India is developing and implementing changes for the better of their society will whine and cry that India is taking all their jobs.

  • avatar
    bullnuke

    Seeing that the “children” in most of these vehicle, while beat up some, would survive, I hope that there is a good orphanage system in the countries where these vehicles are sold.

  • avatar
    VoGo

    I vote that those who whine about gov’t over-regulation of the auto industry be allowed special permits to buy Renault Kwids for their personal use. Go ahead: enjoy your freedom.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      VoGo – agree. “Moral obligations” were mentioned earlier. A corporation does not have morals. It follows the letter of the law not the intent.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    Here is some information relating to the Indian auto world and it’s future.

    I’d bet within 5 years we will have fuel prices rising, well that’s according from what I can gather after seeing what the IEA considers.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-17/india-s-car-lots-leading-the-way-in-supporting-global-oil-market

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    It’s up to India to compose and enforce meaningful crash regulations.

    It’s up to the mfrs to comply with them.

    It’s up to consumers to shop for safety, if that’s what they want.

    Personally, I view 4 or 5 star crash ratings as ‘nice to have’; it’s not the first thing on my list.

  • avatar
    cwallace

    Huh. On the first video, at 0:56, you get a top view of the Renault right before impact. There are two dents in the roof right across the B pillar, which get a heck of a lot worse once contact with the fixed object takes place.

    Maybe somebody in the lab totally ham-fisted the removal of the ski rack or something, but that looks a little odd…

  • avatar
    Kenmore

    When the highway overpass (“flyover”) in Kolkata collapsed in March I saw several comments from Indian government officials who rather than decry the obvious malfeasance and graft on the part of many (likely themselves, too) simply concluded:

    “Oh, well… id’s deddible bud whad gahn yoo doo? Agt of God.”

    Not a lot of safety consciousness in that there place. Just carry on and make more Indians. And Americans can just console ourselves in the knowledge that we’ll all be long dead before it gets that bad over here.

  • avatar

    When your population is growing so quickly and your country is unsanitary, this is just another “limiting factor”.

    Every duckling doesn’t make it to the pond.

  • avatar
    JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

    Damn. Makes me greatful to drive my Taurus. If anyone is interested, go look up its crash test results (1995 model year). It did very well for its era, and significantly better than any of those above.

  • avatar
    laserwizard

    India is where we were in the 1950’s.

    Just wait until they get so “advanced” that they have Western level of emission controls, safety standards that reach our anal retentive levels, and then 54 mpg CAFE standards because the left thinks you can fiat technology (or force people into vehicles so uncomfortable that they won’t dare drive them).

    Perhaps India is thinking cars like this will solve their birth control issue. Or is that a war on women comment?

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      No, it’s just a stupid comment, equally offensive to men and women.

    • 0 avatar
      TrailerTrash

      Having spent some time in India…I must say I have never experienced anything like it ever since. nd I hope I never do.
      The roads are filled with the madness I never thought could exist. Nothing there is law…merely suggestions.
      There is no such thing as the right side of the road. Nor is there such a thing as having the right of way…you only have what yo can take.
      It is quite literally…madness.
      The ride at night from the airport to downtown New Delhi was a trip though hell.

      No where in America was like this in the 50s….please.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        All poor countries lack law and general order, it’s why they can’t get it together. Everybody is in a clusterf*ck all the time, and productivity becomes awful.

    • 0 avatar
      Frylock350

      @laserwizard,

      CAFE isn’t all bad. I’ve gotten 24mpg out of my V8 5000lbs+ Silverado and I have CAFE to thank for it. Its way better than a regressive gas tax. Of course I have CAFE to blame for the death of my beloved b-body wagon…

  • avatar
    geozinger

    I’m not even remotely trying to defend these cars, but these appear to be small or moderate overlap frontal crash tests at 40 MPH (60 KMH), the typical Euro NCAP speed. Up until recently, many western cars didn’t do all that fantastically in this test, either.

    That said, I think I’d rather take my chances in a GM U-van than one of these Indian-market cars. Yikes!

  • avatar
    Magnusmaster

    And to think that here in Argentina Renault is planning to replace their already awful Clio Mio with this model. They even developed a Captur for emerging countries based on the unsafe Dacia Duster platform, even when their competitors offer global models built with first-world safety standards. Renault is the worst of all non-Chinese manufacturers when it comes to safety in third-world countries, though at least in India everyone is equally bad.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      what generation of Duster? the current one appears to do OK on this test. I was able to drive a 2013 Renault Duster; the car itself was a piece of crap.

      • 0 avatar
        daniel g.

        Hi JimZ the current generation (a restyling actually) of the duster and sandero have a bad evaluation in LatinNCAP. It’s the evidence of the same product and different safety standars, and Renault is the most “expert” in this performance.

        http://www.latinncap.com/movil/es/resultados

        Just por the record: the protocol of evaluation is different from other countries, less demanding.

        Also in recent times they make graphic and other publicity with wrong information about safety evaluation in crash test, they put the euroNCAP 5 star in regional and older versions of their cars. The more recent for Argentina: they take the easy way and sale the duster/oroch without isofix because they homologate both models a few months before the new regulations in the country (and other factories too).
        Is completely stupid make the Kwid and not make more safe simply because in this region (latin america with brasil and argentina the bigger markets) they need a minimum for the next year:
        2 airbags and 4 in a few years
        ABS
        ESC
        IsoFix
        The big problem is: cero star in a crash test is not a problem to sale a car. The market is the only judge of this tipe of actions. Because they gonna produce in Brasil the cost in the market probably by Us$10.000. And no safety and not many safe options only you can choose Ford Ka+ (4 star adult 3 star children nov 2015) and VW Up!(5 stars and 4 star children jan 2014) but both are more expensive (maybe) options.

  • avatar
    mtmmo

    Cue up blowhard comment on lack of government regulation because of “freedom”. Oh look someone beat me to it!

    • 0 avatar
      "scarey"

      Choosing between freedom and safety is a typical straw-man argument. There is no reason to give up our freedom to have safety, or clean water or ANYTHING that is a reasonable desire. The problem is that government always uses FORCE to do what citizens could do voluntarily without force, if a majority was willing to make it happen. And government always goes TOO FAR.
      Government inevitably grows until you get what we have now-
      government of the government, by the government, and for the government.

      • 0 avatar
        Kenmore

        “Government inevitably grows until you get what we have now”

        The safest new cars on the planet?

        I mean, you can’t see out of them anymore but they *are* dramatically better at dealing with the consequences of that.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        “The problem is that government always uses FORCE to do what citizens could do voluntarily without force,”

        absolute horsesh!t. Safety isn’t something anyone would do voluntarily, because safety costs money. If the regulations weren’t there, the companies making less safe cars would win because they’d be substantially cheaper. Those trying to sell on safety would go out of business.

        so stop posting here and get back to fapping over the sticky pages of your copy of Atlas Shrugged.

        • 0 avatar
          "scarey"

          @Jim Z- When your argument is SO weak that you can’t refute my argument with FACTS, you (you know who you are) always resort to censorship, insults, or deflection.
          The fact is that left to their own devices, most people will make the choices that are in their-and their families’ best interests. Like choosing safer cars, safer neighborhoods, and more freedom over less freedom.
          If you don’t like my comments, skip over them.

          • 0 avatar
            TrailerTrash

            Oh come on scary…don’t you remember when the government invented the seatbelt and then the airbag?
            Everything we have safety wise was invented b the government.

            Didn’t Al Gore invent the back up camera?

          • 0 avatar
            PeriSoft

            “left to their own devices, most people will make the choices that are in their-and their families’ best interests.”

            Perhaps. But those choices won’t necessarily even be available. In the 50s in the US it was impossible to choose a vehicle with seat belts or even a freaking padded dashboard because automakers decided that crash safety implied their cars might get into crashes, and refused to do anything that made it look like they thought crashing was a possibility.

            Until the big bad government came in, *there were no options*. Because the ‘market’ decided that safety was too scary.

            Read some discussions of car safety from the 50s and 60s in pop mechanics and science. They’re on Google books for free.

            I can tell you this: As an entrepreneur, I am very glad for strong safety regulation. Without it I would have to choose between going out of business and selling unsafe products.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “scarey” – people tend to do a lot of stupid things.
            How many homes burn down every year in California due to brush fires?
            And they just build them up again.
            How many people live in the low lying areas of Florida/Gulf coast?
            Did Hurricane Katrina cause a mass migration out of the region?

            Your assumptions are also built upon your paradigm. That is your thoughts, values and beliefs are typical of a middle-class reasonably educated male. You just assume that everyone else thinks the same way.

            Now lets look at the USA: Roughly 36% of the USA population is obese. 15% smoke. Excess alcohol consumption is responsible for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20-64 years.

            So please tell me again that people left to their own devices will do what is best for themselves and their families.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            “scarey,” history proves you wrong.

            Ford tried to sell basic safety in 1956 (seat belts, improved crash structures) and got massacred in the market.

            Next to try it: Volvo and Saab a few years later. It got them nowhere.

            Next: Studebaker, in its dying years. No dice.

            Then in 1965 Henry Ford II claimed that the industry would go out of business if forced to add seat belts, crumple zones, and certain other basic safety equipment we take for granted today.

            We got seat belts, responsible for something like an 80% reduction in fatalities, only when the government finally ignored all the fearmongering and mandated them. You might notice the industry is still here.

          • 0 avatar
            Frylock350

            @scarey,

            “The fact is that left to their own devices, most people will make the choices that are in their-and their families’ best interests.”

            No they won’t. People typically do not make good choice in my experience. That said its their freedom to make stupid choices. Its not the governments place to do so. I remember when side impact air bags were developed. They didn’t proliferate until you needed them to get a top safety score. Every car should have had them in the late 90s but it took a decade to make that reality.

            As an aside; does the government actually require certain safety devices or is it just a requirement to get NHTSA’s 5-star stamp?

          • 0 avatar
            TrailerTrash

            Give it up scary…
            the arguments against you are for big gov.
            I guess the adaptive cruise, the collision warning, the back up camera, the side warnings…all of these and more on my MKS were the result of the government FORCED placement.

            NOT!

            No, Ford put them on it. I ked this stuff being there and decided to buy it.
            THAT is the reason. No government program placed these options at my hand.

            I am not saying Big Corp is good…but ALL the research and development of EVERY safety feature WAS designed b a corporation. Perhaps forced into all cars…but the government invented not a single of these safety features.

            It was the desire for a better profit and product that drove the development.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            I don’t think the issue is whether safety features were invented by carmakers or government. These days, it’s the Tier 1 suppliers that are doing a lot of the innovation.

            Look, the US government had a large and critical role in improving auto safety. The fact that deaths from accidents are half what they were 20 years ago, while miles driven is way up, is a huge victory for all of us.

            Without that regulation, some automakers (like Volvo, MB) would certainly continue to make increasingly safe vehicles. But others would not, as they do not today in much of the developing world.

        • 0 avatar
          golden2husky

          ….If the regulations weren’t there, the companies making less safe cars would win because they’d be substantially cheaper. Those trying to sell on safety would go out of business…..

          +1,000. No matter what the “government that fits in a bathtub” idiots spew, there is no way that today’s cars would be as safe and clean as they are now if left to the “market”. Just look at mileage standards until recently. Locked at 27.5 average for years, manufacturers never moved beyond that number. More proof that if it isn’t forced, its not going to happen.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        Er, the government created a star system, which encourages automakers to compete against and outdo each other.

        • 0 avatar
          montecarl

          I just recently discovered that dual air bags were available in certain GM cars in the Seventies but they discontinue the option because of poor sales…

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            True. Back then safety did not sell. But because of mandatory safety equipment and improving safety performance, it is expected today. If those requirements were removed tomorrow, there would no doubt be a significant amount of people who would choose the cheaper car without the equipment – after all most drivers do not experience severe crashes. If the costs (direct and indirect) were fully borne by those who chose not to buy the safety equipment, I’d be fine if somebody chose to buy a car that was designed for cheapness and not safety. But since those costs are borne by society as a whole, it is good government policy to insist on a minimum safety standard.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Blah blah blah blah…

        The truth of the matter is that companies will NOT look out for our safety unless they’re required to. They just won’t. And without regulations in place requiring basic safety standards, the libertarian-god “market regulation” won’t work either – they’ll all just make the same unsafe junk. Why? Because making junk costs less money.

    • 0 avatar
      MBella

      The insurance Institute for highway safety has pushed manufacturers way harder than the government. Automotive crash safety isn’t a good example of the government making cars safe. Private companies are way ahead.

      • 0 avatar

        The IIHS is a load of crap, with the single exception of crash ratings. That bit is good work, but the rest of the IIHS is a doomed romance with the 55 mph speed limit and support for automated enforcement. Sadly the TV news media, which eats up the crash test porn, will also run the IIHS “study” a few months later, which is a typical cherry pick the stats and make up the result first type of propaganda piece.

        I’m glad there are minimum crash standards. I’ve seen folks walk away from things that even in the 60’s in US cars would have been serious injury. My work doing Personal Injury taught me a lot about vehicle dynamics in a collision….

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          You have to keep in mind that the IIHS is essentially a lobbying institution for the insurance companies. It is run for their benefit, not necessarily yours.

          That said, I find the crash test results helpful, although I don’t rely on them exclusively.

          • 0 avatar

            I agree, but what IIHS does is get these “studies” in Law Journals and engineering journals, and attempts to bootstrap the opinion into the more scholarly research. IIHS will then refer to “As published in XX”

  • avatar
    NoGoYo

    That Mahindra crash was spectacular. No wonder they don’t sell those things in America.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    Yep those darn “TRADE BARRIERS” still protecting Detroit again!!!

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      you jest, but IMO the “chicken tax” doesn’t need to exist. the bogeyman of a “flood of imported trucks” is nonexistent, especially since the foreign automakers all build stuff here anyway.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        There’s a premise going around, truck makers want the Chicken tax kept in place, but how much pull does Toyota, Nissan and Honda really have in DC?

        The chicken tax doesn’t need to exist, but the US is efficient and making laws, not rescinding them. Millions would have to be spent on studies, new committees, for a regulation most in DC have no idea exists.

        The 2.5% tax on imported cars to the US also doesn’t need to exist. It also does nothing.

        However, there’s a 22% “chicken tax” on US trucks the EU imposes. A lot of this stuff is just political and posturing. Childish if anything.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          “There’s a premise going around, truck makers want the Chicken tax kept in place, but how much pull does Toyota, Nissan and Honda really have in DC?”

          but why? who is it protecting anymore? the Japanese manufacturers who sell trucks here just build them here. I mean, it also applies to the American companies, which is largely why Ford doesn’t import the Ranger, and does a sidestep with the Transit Connect.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            The tax was a political move against Germany and Europe and obviously silly at this point. I’m not arguing its irrelevance, and it should go away. Japanese compact trucks weren’t even on anyone’s radar in the early ’60s.

            You could say, the compact/midsize pickups of SE Asia are victims of the Chicken tax, so by not having them here, the biggest winners are Toyota, Nissan and Honda, if there’s *ANY* winners. Such imports wouldn’t make a big splash in the US anyway, even if they were able to conform to US safety and emissions standards.

            No doubt Detroit/FCA are victims of the Chicken tax, wanting to more cheaply import their smaller global pickups and vans.

            So if the tax is kept in place for anyone or group, who would that be?

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    It will take more trade and prosperity for India to change. A car is something that many will aspire to especially if you are use to a motor bike to transport your self and your family. Any car with a roof, windows, and doors will do especially if you never owned one. More prosperity and more tragic accidents will cause people to demand change and put the pressure on their government to demand safer vehicles. It will take some time especially with the corruption in the government.

    DM you need to read the current review on this site of the 2016 Ford Edge with its poor fit and finish. If there were no competition Ford, GM, and Chrysler would get by with much worse quality. You are too young to remember the crap that Detroit put out in the 70’s and why the Japanese manufacturers got a foot hold in the US market. Maybe you don’t like competition but it keeps Ford, GM, and Chrysler from pushing any old junk on the market. What is happening in India is the result of little or no safety regulations and a government full of graft and corruption.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Like it or not, the US offers the most sweeping choices of any “car market” in the world, not to mention the best crash safety and cleanest emissions.

      True, foreign competition has forced “Detroit” to improve quality and smaller/efficient car choices, or quit. But at the same time, foreign entries had to improve their crash safety and emissions, or quit.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff S

        DM– Agree Japanese and foreign vehicles are much safer. Competition is good for both foreign and domestic manufacturers and has made safer and more reliable vehicles.

  • avatar
    Geekcarlover

    They are where we were a generation or two ago. Look at the crash tests of Omni/Horizon twins. Or things like the VW vans that were still common enough at the time. Their advancement will be a lot faster because the technology already exists.

  • avatar
    bikegoesbaa

    Pictured: The free market “sorting it out”.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    The Celero looked plenty rigid in the body, just the dash wouldn’t sit still. :)

  • avatar
    Sjalabais

    The Celerio seems almost too rigid, if anything. The roof stays completely intact, even the windshield is hardly shattered. Anyway, there’s not much space to dispell the crash energy.

    What really bothers me though is reading through the comments here. It is incredible how harsh people have become. Lots of aggressive comments, pre-emptive strikes, and name-calling. I know this is the internet, but the car web can do much better. C’mon!

    • 0 avatar
      rpn453

      If I had to run into a wall with any of these vehicles, the Celerio would be the obvious choice to me. For belted occupants, the most important safety component is a passenger compartment that stays intact and prevents the occupants from being crushed. Any serious motor racing requires safety cages for that reason. That is the only one that provided that feature.

      However, for a head-on collision between any two of these vehicles, I’d take the Scorpio. It looks like the heaviest vehicle of the bunch.

  • avatar
    "scarey"

    The fact is that the only legitimate function of the government is to PROTECT its citizens from those who practice or threaten violence, theft, fraud, and abuse by other people, and protect its citizens from attack from other countries. Every other activity of the government is unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, no matter what congress, the president, and (increasingly) black-robed perverts on the federal courts deign to decree.
    Our country will be brought back to reality soon, whether by global or civil war, or by financial collapse.
    Ever wonder why there was no “gay rights movement” in the 30s or 40s ? It was because people were busy surviving- first, the Great Depression, and then World War II.
    To quote Bob Dylan, “It’s a hard rain gonna fall.” .

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      You know this is a car site, right? We really aren’t equipped to address mental health issues.

    • 0 avatar
      bikegoesbaa

      Your position seems entirely practical and relevant both to the topic at hand and to the world that we all actually live in, and in no way the rantings of a narrow-minded person inclined to distill complicated questions down to oversimplified straw men.

      Thank you for your valuable insight.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      They’re increasingly black-robed? I thought they always wore them…

      Isn’t it the job of the courts to decide what is and what isn’t unconstitutional, anyway? Or does “unconstitutional” now mean “something with which I disagree”?

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      …To quote Bob Dylan, “It’s a hard rain gonna fall.” …

      And he also said “The Executioner’s face is always well hidden”…

  • avatar
    zipper69

    Where were we ?

    Oh, yeah…cars, right….

    Anywhoo…I believe these tests are run with empty gas tanks and engines turned off. If that is the case one can only wince at the fiery death awaiting any unfortunate survivor inside these deathtraps.

    Watching the A pillars pushing the roofline back and up was not a pleasant experience…


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • SPPPP: Are we suuuuuuuure this is a crossover? Because if this is a crossover, then I think that makes the old Suzuki...
  • SPPPP: Which of these 3 ideas is more wasteful of time and talent … Sending the NSX technicians home without...
  • -Nate: WEll ; You always wanted a convertible, right ? . -Nate
  • SPPPP: If he had kidnapped a Walmart customer FROM WALMART, then I think so.
  • Lightspeed: The roof at the header is rusting on my 2000 Lexus. It’s really irritating because it’s in a...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States