How SAFE are land yachts from 1990-2010? I normally would not care about safety personally, but perhaps I need a family car. Are these as bad as Cavaliers or Cobalts?
>>28116748if it's literally for your family just buy a modern car. Save your autism for yourself. You're kids deserve safety features even if it's gay.
>>28116771Thats kind of what i was thinking. But i dont need a land yacht for myself. I guess i could buy a 2024 chrysler 300 or lexus ES, they are modern enough but also good land yachts.
>>28116748what is that a century? does that even count as a land yacht?
>>28116779Buick lucerne. It was literally the biggest car they made at the time. So yes, its absolutely a land yacht.
>>28116748Just get a Pilot/Highlander-tier crossover.
>>28116779In my opinion, hardly, fond as I am of Lesabre and Park Avenue, both of which I've owned. Certain Crown Vics, Town Cars, Cadillacs, and Lexus models fit the bill. Some Jaguars, if very rarely. The Ford 500 is very nice, but almost as rare.
>>28116782To be honest, the only reason I wouldn't buy a Lucerne is that the drivetrain is nothing good that of the 3800 II, which has Japanese tier dependability combined with Domestic inexpense of repair.
>>28116771except modern cars are less safe because you can’t see anything and the autobraking features will get you killed (my relative’s car literally slammed on the brakes as she turned across a major road at an intersection because it freaked out over a line or oncoming traffic or something, and stranded her in the middile of the intersection on a green light).
>>28116782A Continental was almost 3 feet longer... That's not even close to a land yacht.
>>28116853this isn’t just anecdotal btw. Tesla’s, for example, implement all modern safety nannies plus selfdriving features and are one of the most accident prone makes on the planet.
>>28116748Land yaghts from 1997-2003 in general are top tier in almost every metric, Cobalts are embarrassing when it comes to their transmissions.
>>28116748The GM H and W body cars are famously safe. They don't get great ratings by modern standards because they lack things like emergency assistive brakes and such, but they have a good strong unibody and good strong door bars and a suspension that directs force away from the front footwells. So long as you don't have severe structural rust or Takata claymore air bags, you'll be fine.A coworker of mine in a 2003 DTS was hit head on by someone in a 2015 Fusion and the person in the Fusion died, but my co-worker just had facial bruising from the airbag and a sprained wrist.
https://www.iihs.org/Truly old-school stuff: heck noThe 90's era stuff: eh2003+ Panthers, newer GM G-bodies and W-bodies: you'll liveChrysler LX cars: modern, but wouldn't get top ratings etchttps://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2018/01/ask-jack-walking-panther/I loved my Panther, and I think you'd walk away from most fender-benders, but getting in a real wreck with a giant modern SUV? Oh fuck.
>>28116854A friend of mine had a '72 Electra, and, if I'm honest, the ride quality of certain early 2000s Cadillacs is a whole lot nicer, though my 2003 Park Avenue comes close. Some Cadillacs made in the early 70s were pretty trash in terms of aesthetic interior detail, but kind of magnificent when came to acceleration of their sheer tonnage. The Pontiac Catalina was a lot more fine, if forgotten now.
>>28116854The wheelbase is what defines it actually, they are all close enough to me. >>28116884>>28116898Hm interesting but conflicting responses. Obviously dont care about "safety technology", just dont want something that will crumple like a tin can when hit with a modern suv. I do want a sedan though... im not really poor or cheap either, im fine with getting a modern large sedan, its just that these older ones look nice and are arguably more reliable. Would like a sedan with an NA engine, can only think of the lexus es and chrysler 300/dodge charger that are recent... Everything else is turbocucked.
>>28116853>>28116855Never had a problem with my modern honda
>>28116927if you want a safe, comfy, powerful na landyacht with everything you would want in a car and nothing you wouldn't, buy a third gen odyssey
>>28116927To be honest, I like the Panther platform a whole lot. Recently a psytrance crusty guy who owns one of such took me home in one of them, while techno music played at low volume and high fidelity, across sprawling scenic fields. During our conversation he mentioned going all the way to St. Louis, but I didn't mention Sint Maarten,
>>28116748first of all picrel is not a land yacht (at least not in america) The real problem would be fuel consumption but they are usually reliable since their engines are pretty understressed.But sadly nowadays driving ANY car with a lower seating position is gonna be much more dangerous because all the cars have become gargantuan with the literal sun as headlights so unless you plan on buying some cuckover or trugg then it won't be much different.But they are still fairly modern cars and safety had improved a lot by the 90s compared to previous decades so i'd say you'll be finehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnXrzwVaeS4
>>28116952>nothing you wouldn'tExcept that it's horribly ugly like all minivans>>28116956Um fascinating stuff>>28116969Yeah performs all right. 90s cars are definitely not death traps like 80s, 70s were. But for example, I view an average 2015 car as perfectly acceptable by 2025 standards. Wonder how far back i could take it.
>>28116976It's a far better looking and better-designed car than whatever completely inspirationless turd of an 00s GM you'll end up buying.
>>28116976I think a lot of 2000s cars would not do too bad in crash tests if they didn't lower the score because they don't have some safety nannies of more modern carshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33bB8BKGz_A
just don't crash bro
>>28116748I own a land yacht that weighs about 3800 pounds, a 2003 Buick Park Avenue with about 31,700 miles on it, and which gets about 30mpg when going 55, 20 when going 90.
>>28117004
>>28116748Pretty mediocre I'd say. Speaking of my 05 Grand Marquis. They're a bit heavy for their tires. 4 disc brakes though. Solid frame. Rear drive. Driver sits in the middle of the car, should be good against front and rear collisions. They're weak against getting T-boned, but careful driving should avoid the possibility of that for the most part. I live with plenty of that in Wisconsin. It's the worst 4-wheeled vehicle I've driven in snow and ice. Slow to stop and can get stuck very easily. I think I'm quite good at snow driving, but I don't have to take nearly as much care with other most vehicles whether FWD minivans or RWD work vans. I'd say it's comparable or worse than a medium sized RWD pickup truck that has nothing in the back when in inclement conditions.If you always have fair weather it's good enough that I wouldn't worry about it.
>>28117056I made my way in my car, across rather a lot of remote country., nuclear energies.
>>28116782My Grand Marquis is over 211 inches long. That's not even close to land yacht
>>28116782>a full foot shorter than a Town CarNo, it's not Anon. >>28117004>rambler.jpg>it's an ambassador ?
>>28117004This
>>28116748Safety for fullsize sedans has been adequate since the early 90's you'll be fineIf you can fucking drive and use a seatbelt a 70's fullsize sedan is enoughLight tuggs are always behind in safety, so for those if you're concerned go for early 00's...Safetyfagging has gone way too far, we unironically need anti-safety laws
>>28116748Apparently the Hyundai Elantra is the safest sedan for this year. Just look shit up, bro. Fucking loser, having a loving family and shit.
>>28119245>Safetyfagging has gone way too far, we unironically need anti-safety lawsThat's MY line, anon. Does anyone have that chart of car crash fatalities from 1960ish to 2010ish? It shows a massive drop from the 70s to the 90s, stagnating afterwards despite the increased safetyfagging. Anyway I'm no expert but it looks like 90s-era safety standards are more than adequate.
