> The last time I purchased a car was 1993, and the technology has
> changed so much since then I feel like a total "newbie" at this.
It hasn't changed much at all. 1993 cars offered virtually the same
tech available now -- fuel injection, airbags, traction control, ABS,
and I think even stability control were available. Maybe side impact
airbags weren't. GPS wasn't, at least not as factory equipment. Side
impact structural strength is probably better now - notice some cars
having beltlines several inches higher than before, probably to better
meet new side impact safety standards, existing and proposed (even so,
side curtain airbags still help greatly in such crashes, and I wouldn't
buy a car without one).
> I'm not even sure if they had SUVs back then, for example.
They were, but they weren't as nice because the concept of the
city-dweller SUV with only 5" of ground clearance was still relatively
new back then.
> I had a car accident about a year ago, and am still suffering neck
> problems from the whiplash.
> 1. Part of the reason I think I got hurt as bad as I did in my
> accident (rear-ended while stopped at a light) was that my car was so
> lightweight, not enough mass there to absorb the shock. (I was
> driving a Geo Prizm.) So I want a somewhat heavier car this time,
> something that holds up better in an impact.
Your Prizm (a Toyota Corolla with different styling) did OK in
government crash tests but for some reason not as well as the 1980s
version (called the Nova). Actually it probably absorbed shock as well
as a larger vehicle, only because of its lighter weight it had to
absorb more shock, especially in 2-car collisions, where the lighter
object is more likely to be pushed backwards, making the deceleration
greater for it than the heavier object. But that doesn't necessarily
mean you need a heavier car.
How high was your headrest at the time of the accident? Some are
ineffective unless positioned higher than what seems to be proper.
I hope you haven't seen a chiropractor. That's one of the worst things
to do after an accident.
> 2. Due to this neck thing, I also need more headroom, and I need it
> to be easier to get into and out of the car. Along with the extra
> headroom, it would help if the windshield is higher in relation to the
> top of my head. (This all has to do with some limitations on neck
> motion I now have.)
SUVs will give you more headroom, but so will the tall cars now being
made with rooflines about 6" higher than their predecessors. Compare,
for example, the Ford Focus to the Escort it replaced or the present
Corolla to the pre-2003 versions. BTW the hatchback version of the
Corolla is sold as the Pontiac Vibe/Toyota Matrix.
> From what I've read, it seems to me that an SUV or Minivan is the way
> to go, both in terms of more car mass, and in terms of more headroom.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> that are simply heavier than most 4-door sedans? In other words, any
> four-door sedans I should be looking into?
See Consumer Reports, the April auto issue, or the special auto book
(thin book) they publish annually. Many libraries have CR available
free online, and CR always mentions how easy it is to get in and out.
> Q2. Assuming I go the Minivan/SUV route -- I get the sense that
> Minivans tend to be even bigger than SUVs, possibly too big for my
> needs. (I don't have kids or anything.)
Minivans are bigger inside yet lighter than large SUVs, get better
mileage and have more cargo capacity (not just volume but often also
weight). SUVs can be so heavy that some are rated for 500 lbs. less
payload than even station wagons and can be overloaded with just 6
large people.
If you don't need all the space of a minivan, consider a microvan. I
know of only 2 available in the US currently, the overly cute but very
practical Scion Xb and the Mazda 5. The Mazda 5 isn't very micro,
being just 2 feet shorter than a typical minivan. It's also cheaper
and gets about 3 MPG better economy, real life.
> And I hear that both Minivans and SUVs have a higher risk of roll-over
The accident and I believe death rates for SUVs are higher than for
cars, primarily for that reason, but they do better than cars in
2-vehicle collisions. I'd expect minivans to flip less than SUVs
because they're all based on car chassis and have less ground
clearance. Minivans have lower accident and death rates, but that may
be due to their drivers tending to be more careful (Soccer moms don't
drive drunk, at least not while hauling kids). When judging accident
rates, judge not only the vehicles but their typical drivers, which can
greatly skew the rates.