This is true without a doubt. But then I look at their culture where they are used to living in compact area. Just like with the States how we love big and powerful things and we love to have our room. I also think that the "Big three" are finally starting to realize where the market is going. More people want turbo and superchargers on their cars, but yet make them more efficient. Like for example the motor for the GXP. Its as long as a 6 cylinder, and as wide as a 4 cylinder(I cant remeber exactly but somewhere along these lines, Ill find out for sure when I check out the magazine again tomorrow.). Also its supposed to be at par with these smaller engines for fuel consumption. But I dont know I guess to me doesnt matter wether it foreign or domestic a car is a car, and that this competition will always go on.

As far as which is better in crashes foreign or domestic, it all depends on what you drive. Some will do better than others and vice versa. I think there is alot of general stereotyping and thats there the whole fighting comes from. On a side not sorry to hear about the accidents but at least everyone made it.

If they didn't make it, they wouldn't be posting. lol

As for the Domestic vs Import battle, there are too many reasons to list for this ongoing debate. The fact of the matter is that ALL (with the exception of Yugo) import manufacturers have lemons and cherries. It is our responsibility as consumers to do our research before buying a car. Consumers' Report does some guinea pigging so that we don't have to. We then need to send a message to ALL manufacturers as to what we are willing to accept on the market.

This debate really boils down to personal preference and opinion. Many factors play a role in developing ones preference. I have owned imports (european and asian) and domestics (including Mexican and Canadian--GM, Ford, and maybe even Chrysler have plants all over North America). I prefer Domestic because--even though some "imports" are assembled/built in the U.S./Canada, the money always trickles down to the mother company, and thus the country in which it is located. Yes there is a Toyota of America Company--but it is a subsidiary of Toyota, LTD (Japan).

BTW, Speedguy, one of my favorite vehicles is a Land Cruiser--albeit a 1965-1978 model.

As far as rice, many of you have said it best. Rice is the ridiculous "look at me" things people do to there otherwise mundane, unimpressive, underpowered cars. Rice is not a legitimate modification to the engine for performance reasons--that is called "hot rodding". Ricing has no boundaries. It is performed on domestics, quasi-domestics, and imports. The name "Rice" refers to the stereotypical notion that Asian cars were the first to have said non-performanced based modifications. It also illudes to the fact that many riced-out cars have Kanji decals on them. And we all know that "rice" is a somewhat diragatory term for Japanese or otherwise Asian--referring to a main staple food sourse in Asian countries.

I personnally do not like referring to PEOPLE in a diragatory manor, as I myself wouldn't want to be called "Spic", "Kraut", "Red Skin", or "Dough Boy" (England)--just because of my ethnicity (e.g. Puerto Rican, German, English, Carribean Indian (Tahino), and Cherokee Indian mix...don't ask!) So if I refer to "rice", please understand that I am referring not to an ethnic group, but rather to a form of expression applied to cars by there multi-cultural owners.

BTW, I am not PC, but as you can see, I can't afford to be a bigot. :lol:

That is how I see it.

Re: Why I hate Ricers.
 

You were hit by a Semi what did you expect?

Accidents involving Semis and passenger cars are about 98% plus fatal. I would say you are just damn lucky. Another thing that most people don't know is that Airbags will not deploy in a sideswipe type accident. There needs to be enough longitudal, front to back force, to activate the air bag sensors and in most crashes like that espesialy if you are only going 25 mph there is not enough of it.

I beleive in order for the airbags to deploy, there has to be a 10+m.p.h. change in speed within a fraction of a second. Also even in a front end collision the airbags wont deploy. This of course was when they first came out. If you hit (say a pole) in the right spot in your front bumper the bags wouldnt go off. I dont like airbags anyways, cuz I dont like the fact of something coming at my facec at 150+mph only a couple of inches away, that is of course if it deploys on time.

I am not sure exactly how the second gen airbags work but I can basicly remember how the first gen ones work based off what my master bodyshop buddy told me.

There are two cylinders located in the front of the car near the bumper. In the cylinders is a heavy ball that is locked into the front of the cylinder. The locks are designed to break at a cerain force threshold. This is the same way aircraft are launched off carriers too. There is a pin in the shuttle that holds the plane to the catapult and the pin is designed to sheer off at so many thousands of lbs of pressure. The balls are not effected by transverse, side to side, force at all because of the cylinder so there must be enough longitudial force to break the locks and force the ball to the end of the cylinder. The ball completes a circut when it reaches the end of the cylinder and fires off the airbags.

I know this design is fairly old so I am sure the second gen airbags and probably some of the later first gen ones use a different design.