I think that, to a large extent, drivers are more safety-oriented than they were 50 years ago.
1 Like
Check out this statement in the âask someoneâsection posted today -2020nissan-rogue-1603511801/171530.
Apparently some drivers want the built in safety systems to do their thinking and driving for them.
1 Like
I think so too. My 2017 Accord has a camera in the right side mirror that turns on when I turn on the right turn signal. The view is much better than through the side mirror. That has since been replaced with the blind spot monitor and it checks both sides. It seems to work well, especially when backing out of the driveway or a parking spot. Getting out of a parking spot always bothers me. I typically canât see anything to the left or right in my Accord because Iâm usually parked next to a van, tuck, or SUV.
He/she is probably one of the people who say that they donât need ABS because they âknow how to brake on slippery surfacesâ. Yeah, Iâm SURE that those folks are capable of pumping the brake pedal 15 times per secondâŠ
Having larger vehicles block my view is parking lots is the reason I park away from the store and pull through so I donât have to back out. Also the walk does me good .
3 Likes
Yes!
Those are my two prime reasons for parking at the far reaches of parking lots, and trying to find a space that allows me to âpull throughâ.
Iâm always fascinated by the folks who park âbehindâ an empty space, and then back out of that space when it is time to leave. And, before anyone says that they donât want to hit a tire stop barrier, we donât have them in parking lots in this area.
3 Likes
They can also modulate the brakes on individual wheels that are slipping. 
4 Likes
Itâs not like itâs a straitjacket. Once itâs on you donât even know itâs there.
Yes and no. I would wager that the number of accidents while backing up has increased with increased seat/shoulder belt usage. They have made reversing less safeâŠ
Before belts and wrap-around bucket seats, we could turn sideways in the bench seat, facing the passenger door, place our right arm over the bench seat back, and get a really good view out the back. I can still do it in my 1962 Impala.
In both the Impala and my current cars I have developed the habit of not buckling until after Iâve backed out of the drive/parking space. This in spite of having both side mirrors, inside mirror, and a backup camera.
There might be something wrong with your seat belt retractor, because unless youâre stopping very hard or having a wreck, theyâre not supposed to lock you so tight in the seat that you canât turn your upper body.
At any rate, I get a much better view out the back from the backup camera than I ever did looking through the window. It has a wider angle view for backing out of parking spots, and it will also see if a little kid runs behind my bumper, where the angle would be wrong for me to see that by looking out the rear window.
4 Likes
I work in a trauma hospital - theyâre called âdonor-cycles!â
4 Likes
I still easily can turn to check behind while buckled securely in my '07 Camry. I preferred bench seats for their comfort but manage fine seeing around bucket seats despite having a bad neck. Once I got used to the back-up camera I like it and use it but also still do my own visual check.
Our familyâs 1965 Impala had lap belts but no shoulder belts: it may have been a special order since my grandfather bought it for my father when my sisters and I were age 6 and younger (also why it was a 2-door, not 4, so little girls falling asleep in the back seat against the wall werenât leaning against a door).
The 1971 Impala had seat belts, but the lap belts didnât retract: they hung horizontally on hooks above the front doors. So, we had a tendency to just leave them up there. (Same, I think, with the 1970 Impala).
In 1980âs Michigan, when the first seat belt laws came in, there was a promise made that a cop could never pull you over with seatbelts as the primary reason; It could only be charged if there was another violation first. We had been mostly wearing belts, and went to always wearing belts, but itâs still a sore spot that now seatbelts can be a primary reason to pull you over.
AMC never made a nominal 289. In 68 they made a 290 and a 390, from your description, it sounds like the 390.
I said nominal, because some manufacturers list the displacement of their engin less than accurately.
The 396 Chevelle was actually a 402. The early buyerso 64 Pontiac GTOs got cars with 389 badges but were actually delivered with 366 GMC truck engines because the 389s were not ready.
Youâre right, oldtimer. Mine was the 290 cu in (not 289⊠I was thinking of the Mustangs I would beat off the light when I said 289) with four barrel carb and four on the floor.
Not to worry, there are plenty of people that think the Studebaker 289, introduced as a 232 in 1951 was the same engine as a Ford small block. Ford introduced their SB in 1963 while Studebaker was setting speed records on the Bonneville Salt Flats.
The AMCs engine were a good lineup, all sorts of dealer installed performance upgrades available.
Do you have a source for that?
While GMC did use Pontiac V8âs in the late 1950âs, it ended in '59. '60 on GMC used Chevy engines and their own 305 CID V6. GMC did offer a 366 engine in '65 but that was based on the Chevy Big Block not available until 1965.
The Pontiac V8 did not make a 366 CID version of their engine, that I can find, but they did produce the 389 starting in 1959 and sold Bonnevilles with the 389 tri-power in '63 so it seems odd the 389 would not be ready for 1964.
1 Like
BTW, McNamara went to work in the DoD for JFK and quickly the Pentagon decided that their Jeeps were not up to standard and bought Fordâs independent suspension replacement that was much more prone to fall over in a turn.
As I remember the Ford replacement was so unsafe they could not be sold as surplus for on road use.
1 Like
My parents had a 1964 Series 62 Cadillac with a 429 engine. The air cleaner cover was painted with a Rocket 429 identification. I assumed at the time it was actually an Olds engine, but now I find that the 7L Olds engine wasnât available until 1965. It looks like Caddy had the first 7L GM engine. Olds was a year later, Pontiac 3 years later, and Chevy never had a 7L. Apparently Rocket wasnât just an Olds designation.
Chevy had one, the 427, which is exactly 7 liters. And a 454 cid (7.4 liters) a bit later. Caddy boosted that big motor to 500 before they killed it. Chevy later built another 7 liter V8 for a Z06 Corvette model in the mid 2000s.
Ford had 3 different 7 liter V8s as Ford always seemed to do. Chrysler had the 7 Liter Hemi 6.9 liter (413) and 7.3 liter (440 cid) V8s. Lotsa big engines baxk in the 60s and 70s