NHTSA: Backup Assist Cameras Required in all New Cars

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

NHTSA: Backup Assist Cameras Required in all New Cars

Subaru Backup Camera 310x

Starting in 2018, every sub-10,000-pound car sold in the United States will need a backup assist camera on-board.

Our glorious overlords at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have decided: Starting in 2018, All new cars sold in the US will need to have "rear visibility technology" included.

Rear visibility tech is fancy talk for backup assist cameras -- the little jobs that currently sit above license plates on luxury and mid-range cars of all shapes and sizes. No longer will that junk in the truck be a luxury for the elite; the proletariat will have their backup cameras, and eat them, too (writer's note: please do not eat cameras of any kind).

From the press release on nhtsa.gov: "Today's final rule requires all vehicles under 10,000 pounds, including buses and trucks, manufactured on or after May 1, 2018, to come equipped with rear visibility technology that expands the field of view to enable the driver of a motor vehicle to detect areas behind the vehicle to reduce death and injury resulting from backover incidents. The field of view must include a 10-foot by 20-foot zone directly behind the vehicle. The system must also meet other requirements including image size, linger time, response time, durability, and deactivation."

In all seriousness, this is a fantastic move. You should never stop honing your driving skills (this goes double for much of the Metropolitan Los Angeles area population), but backing out into busy city streets or kid-loaded suburban wastelands can always be tricky. The more safety features we have access to while driving 3,000-pound combustible death machines, the better.

Permalink

Wouldn't this just make those cars cost more? I say leave it an option like it is now.

The more safety features we have access to while driving 3,000-pound combustible death machines, the better.

"Have access to" is different than "mandated by force". Safety features increase weight, which decreases fuel economy and lessens the ability to brake or steer to avoid a collision. Safety features also add cost, which means that a "cheap car" is farther out of reach for those with limited financial means.

Reverse cameras and sensors are basically standard features anyway, heck my newest car has collision detection which warns me of a potential collision. Not to mention HUD. So yeah reverse camera's and sensors are already on every car.

UNHchabo:

The more safety features we have access to while driving 3,000-pound combustible death machines, the better.

"Have access to" is different than "mandated by force". Safety features increase weight, which decreases fuel economy and lessens the ability to brake or steer to avoid a collision. Safety features also add cost, which means that a "cheap car" is farther out of reach for those with limited financial means.

Its just a wide angle camera the size of bolt wired to an LCD display near the dashboard. I doubt its that expensive to implement. It would be like $200 (a generous $200) on a $15,000 car. Most cars by 2018 will probably have smart displays anyway

Personally, I just wish more towns in the US had better public transportation so I wouldn't have to be in charge of 3,000 pound death machine in the first place

UNHchabo:

"Have access to" is different than "mandated by force". Safety features increase weight, which decreases fuel economy and lessens the ability to brake or steer to avoid a collision. Safety features also add cost, which means that a "cheap car" is farther out of reach for those with limited financial means.

The same can be said about seat belts and airbags, the weight for the cam + screen is negligible on the scale of the car. The real question is cost effectiveness of the safety feature.
Both airbags and seat belts cost little for the large increase in survivability, while I would argue that this backup cam does not really do that. You are moving too slow to really kill somebody while backing up most of the time.
If i had to mandate a luxury car feature it would be one of those blind spot sensors with the lights on the side, cheaper and more likely to save somebody's life while driving in a less than optimal state.

If you need a backup camera you should not be driving a car. You don't even need your center rear view mirror. On the blind spot monitors though, I would imagine they are a nice thing to have and would be much more effective since they would help to avoid high speed collisions. I am constantly annoyed by them though since they use X band radar and set off my detector while going down the road.

I have a small worry that some people will focus too much on the camera display to see on coming traffic coming from the sides. It will probably do more good than bad though.

UNHchabo:

The more safety features we have access to while driving 3,000-pound combustible death machines, the better.

"Have access to" is different than "mandated by force". Safety features increase weight, which decreases fuel economy and lessens the ability to brake or steer to avoid a collision. Safety features also add cost, which means that a "cheap car" is farther out of reach for those with limited financial means.

First off, this is for "new" vehicles, therefore the millions of cars already out there will be fine, and it's not like if you take in your car to get fixed/new parts they will require you to put the camera in there.

and wait..you're going to argue weight and fuel economy of a camera and an LED display...you realize compared to the weight of the car, it is near negligible, right?

By 2018, the cost of this will go WAY down, especially in comparison the rest of the car, and if you're really in the market for a cheap car, you will NOT be buying new, that is utterly stupid to do so when you can buy last years model for a thousand to if not thousands cheaper depending on the vehicle.

As someone who has used one of these before (my dad's minivan downtown, was extra handy in very tight spots with huge trucks around me so I couldn't get looks in my blind spots even turned around.) they are handy as an extra pair of eyes that you can't get from the drivers seat, and unless you aren't using the brake, there is nothing stopping you from still using your other mirrors and your own eyes in the process.

edit:

oh god..was reading some of the comments on a different source, this one had my sides exploding:

"I like the idea of a rear-view camera. With that, if a Kardashian or a Kanye was standing behind my vehicle, I would not miss them when driving in reverse at 90 MPH."

Depending on how effective it is, the added feature might actually end up saving everybody more money (and lives) than the cost of the feature.

Good thing I like older cars anyway. I don't like the idea of a camera anywhere in or on my car.

Um no, no! Geeze wiz, if those little tin plated wanna be god with over inflated egos in government don't get or willing to acknowledge is we don't need their input on how to make cars safer. The best safety device ever invented is already in the car and it is call the driver. Until those idiots put down their make up, cell phones, books, newspapers, razors and whatnots and actually pay attention to the road; nothing added to the car will do anything except make car too expensive to freaking drive.

so we will have to wait 4 mroe years for that, and then 30 more for old cars to be phased out. but at least its moving in the right direction.

Xan Krieger:
Wouldn't this just make those cars cost more? I say leave it an option like it is now.

So does seatbelts. So does unshattering glass. So does airbags.
No, we should not leave it an option.
Safety is more important than costs.

RicoADF:
Reverse cameras and sensors are basically standard features anyway, heck my newest car has collision detection which warns me of a potential collision. Not to mention HUD. So yeah reverse camera's and sensors are already on every car.

sensors is different than cameras. measuring the sitance via infrared (thats what sensors do) is not same as having a cmaera at the back. camera is better in most cases. for example the sensor starts counting falling snow, rain or tall grass around. on the other hand, camera can be smeared by snow as well.
Its not on every car though. far from it.

-Dragmire-:
I have a small worry that some people will focus too much on the camera display to see on coming traffic coming from the sides. It will probably do more good than bad though.

you could make same argument for rear view mirrors, and yet people dont focus on them too much most of the time.

Mik Sunrider:
Um no, no! Geeze wiz, if those little tin plated wanna be god with over inflated egos in government don't get or willing to acknowledge is we don't need their input on how to make cars safer. The best safety device ever invented is already in the car and it is call the driver. Until those idiots put down their make up, cell phones, books, newspapers, razors and whatnots and actually pay attention to the road; nothing added to the car will do anything except make car too expensive to freaking drive.

Less people affording cars means less people on the road which means less crashes.

Bam.

Also, I really question how expensive a camera could possibly be.

Right now 29.00 USD to 218.00 USD without tax (each local has different tax rate as you know) which will go up if it is required ... why? Because it is required; what company wouldn't take advantage of that? Plus you know, insulation cost, re-insulation when the factory screws it up ... recall when the companies try to use bad parts or the slave labor ... er sorry my bag ... I mean those hard working emerging countries makes a boo-boo.

Plus, you are making it easier for idiots to be even bigger idiots. You can never make anything 100% safer, nothing is fool proof because fools are so creative. And that is what this rule change is trying to do, take the responsibility out of the hands of the driver. When you get behind a wheel of a car, you are too insure it is safe to operate, you are too make sure it is clear in the back. Slow down, get off the phone, strap in your kids and take a moment to pay attention to what is going on around you. It isn't that hard. I drive for a living, driving a 30 ton truck 6 days a week and it has been 8 years since my last accident (which was a stupid not paying attention to traffic on my part).

And yes, air bags I hate with a passion, seat belts I wear only because I could lose my job if I am caught without it.

Got to admit, in my "just out of bed" mind, I originially read that as "every under 10,000 car" and was getting confused as to what would happen to the other 95% of cars...

Hopefully this means that manufacturers will start putting them as standard in international markets too, going to take a long time for this to filter down to the used market though.

Why the hell are they making the deadline 2018? Do they really think the car manufacturers are so incompetent that they need FOUR YEARS to add cameras to their car designs?

gmaverick019:
First off, this is for "new" vehicles, therefore the millions of cars already out there will be fine, and it's not like if you take in your car to get fixed/new parts they will require you to put the camera in there.

and wait..you're going to argue weight and fuel economy of a camera and an LED display...you realize compared to the weight of the car, it is near negligible, right?

By 2018, the cost of this will go WAY down, especially in comparison the rest of the car, and if you're really in the market for a cheap car, you will NOT be buying new, that is utterly stupid to do so when you can buy last years model for a thousand to if not thousands cheaper depending on the vehicle.

As someone who has used one of these before (my dad's minivan downtown, was extra handy in very tight spots with huge trucks around me so I couldn't get looks in my blind spots even turned around.) they are handy as an extra pair of eyes that you can't get from the drivers seat, and unless you aren't using the brake, there is nothing stopping you from still using your other mirrors and your own eyes in the process.

If you're trying to improve fuel economy, every ounce matters. When you're trying to lower the cost of a car, every cent matters. If you want to cut down on both, you can remove systems from the car that add weight and cost, like electric motors in seats, backup cameras, stereo systems, air conditioning, non-required airbags (US law only requires dual front airbags), traction control, or 4-wheel-drive. Several of those are obvious if you're trying to reduce the cost of a car, and some are what you have to nickel-and-dime down in order to help turn a $15k car into a $14k car.

If you increase the necessary cost of new cars, fewer people are going to buy new cars, and it's going to drive up the market for used cars. If a 2006 Civic costs $5500 now, but fewer people replacing their 2007 Civic cause new cars are more expensive, then a year from now the 2007 model might only fall to $7000. Used cars being cheap is only made possible by there being used cars on the market in the first place. If nobody bought new, the market would dry up.

I can certainly see a backup camera being useful on a car as big and unwieldy as a minivan, but what about smaller cars like a hatchback, or a Miata? Is it really going to have an effect on the visibility out of those cars, worthy of increasing the price by a few hundred?

I'm somewhat confused...

Don't you guys have these in the states:
image

I don't know... Might be I'm just stupid but

Today's final rule requires all vehicles under 10,000 pounds, including buses and trucks, manufactured on or after May 1, 2018, to come equipped with rear visibility technology that expands the field of view to enable the driver of a motor vehicle to detect areas behind the vehicle to reduce death and injury resulting from backover incidents.

Sounds like the magical technology of rear-view mirrors to me...

But you already have three mirrors showing what is behind you (at least here in the UK) so what are these things really for? If anything I would rather have a camera showing my blind spots for reversing so I can see if any lemmings are about to try and walk into my path.

Roxor:
Why the hell are they making the deadline 2018? Do they really think the car manufacturers are so incompetent that they need FOUR YEARS to add cameras to their car designs?

I don't think its a matter of incompetence (even though car companies can be and are incompetent) , but rather giving the car manufacturers a more than reasonable time length to implement these changes. Infrastructure for building cars & selling them will face a minor but noticeable change if they suddenly have to throw another electrical component into a already complex machine.

Hagi:
I'm somewhat confused...

Don't you guys have these in the states:
image

.

yes, they have.

these are used to watch the movies on the lcd screen mounted on the backseat.

UNHchabo:

The more safety features we have access to while driving 3,000-pound combustible death machines, the better.

"Have access to" is different than "mandated by force". Safety features increase weight, which decreases fuel economy and lessens the ability to brake or steer to avoid a collision. Safety features also add cost, which means that a "cheap car" is farther out of reach for those with limited financial means.

because every car needs a film crew. otherwise we wont get the blockbuster experience on evaluating accident footage.

i think the quarter pound of equipment this all will add wont be noticed.
and it works wonders in russia.

MikeZealous:

Roxor:
Why the hell are they making the deadline 2018? Do they really think the car manufacturers are so incompetent that they need FOUR YEARS to add cameras to their car designs?

I don't think its a matter of incompetence (even though car companies can be and are incompetent) , but rather giving the car manufacturers a more than reasonable time length to implement these changes. Infrastructure for building cars & selling them will face a minor but noticeable change if they suddenly have to throw another electrical component into a already complex machine.

A reasonable amount of time would be six months. A whole year is more than enough. Four years makes it sound like they're doing the bare minimum possible.

Roxor:

MikeZealous:

Roxor:
Why the hell are they making the deadline 2018? Do they really think the car manufacturers are so incompetent that they need FOUR YEARS to add cameras to their car designs?

I don't think its a matter of incompetence (even though car companies can be and are incompetent) , but rather giving the car manufacturers a more than reasonable time length to implement these changes. Infrastructure for building cars & selling them will face a minor but noticeable change if they suddenly have to throw another electrical component into a already complex machine.

A reasonable amount of time would be six months. A whole year is more than enough. Four years makes it sound like they're doing the bare minimum possible.

Six months would be in no way a reasonable amount of time and a whole year would be pushing it. Most the new cars that are going to be released within the next year are either in production or are at least done with testing and waiting for the factories start producing them. Honestly 2 years would be the absolute minimum amount of time that would be reasonable and 4 years is fine if a tad on the long side.

Is it just me who expects this to be an april fools joke?

We were able to deal without these things for a century of driving, why are they necessary now?

UNHchabo:

gmaverick019:
First off, this is for "new" vehicles, therefore the millions of cars already out there will be fine, and it's not like if you take in your car to get fixed/new parts they will require you to put the camera in there.

and wait..you're going to argue weight and fuel economy of a camera and an LED display...you realize compared to the weight of the car, it is near negligible, right?

By 2018, the cost of this will go WAY down, especially in comparison the rest of the car, and if you're really in the market for a cheap car, you will NOT be buying new, that is utterly stupid to do so when you can buy last years model for a thousand to if not thousands cheaper depending on the vehicle.

As someone who has used one of these before (my dad's minivan downtown, was extra handy in very tight spots with huge trucks around me so I couldn't get looks in my blind spots even turned around.) they are handy as an extra pair of eyes that you can't get from the drivers seat, and unless you aren't using the brake, there is nothing stopping you from still using your other mirrors and your own eyes in the process.

If you're trying to improve fuel economy, every ounce matters. When you're trying to lower the cost of a car, every cent matters. If you want to cut down on both, you can remove systems from the car that add weight and cost, like electric motors in seats, backup cameras, stereo systems, air conditioning, non-required airbags (US law only requires dual front airbags), traction control, or 4-wheel-drive. Several of those are obvious if you're trying to reduce the cost of a car, and some are what you have to nickel-and-dime down in order to help turn a $15k car into a $14k car.

that is true, but I think the half pound to pound that the camera is adding is redundant compared to many other systems in the car that can be "cut down for costs".

If you increase the necessary cost of new cars, fewer people are going to buy new cars, and it's going to drive up the market for used cars. If a 2006 Civic costs $5500 now, but fewer people replacing their 2007 Civic cause new cars are more expensive, then a year from now the 2007 model might only fall to $7000. Used cars being cheap is only made possible by there being used cars on the market in the first place. If nobody bought new, the market would dry up.

I can certainly see a backup camera being useful on a car as big and unwieldy as a minivan, but what about smaller cars like a hatchback, or a Miata? Is it really going to have an effect on the visibility out of those cars, worthy of increasing the price by a few hundred?

The used cars will still be cheaper than the new ones though, no? My point isn't a massive price difference, is that there is a cheaper version out there.

A few hundred is a bit of an overstatement, there are do it yourself kits (especially depending on if you already have some sort of screen/monitor in the car) that range from 17 bucks to 1000 bucks depending on if you have the screen or not, and it'll only get cheaper by 2018, especially at mass quantity production.

This is pretty stupid. Those cameras still have major blind spots. I've driven several and you still need to check the mirrors constantly. The manual and on screen prompts even say so. I just know when more people have this gimmick they'll still be hitting things because they're staying at a tv the whole time while the object in question hits the corner of their car. The wide angle lens also distorts the view and idiots won't compensate properly if the need to adjust their trajectory. The only good I've used those cameras for is backing within 2-3 inches of the crap in the garage and hooking up trailers without guesswork or a guide buddy watchin'. How 'bout people know where their damn kids are and not floor it when backing out of parking spaces instead?

It would be better if they made the proximity sensors mandatory, too. People who go off into lala land while backing up might refocus in time to stop if they hear that sonar system going off before they hit something just out of view. This system would be better on the big trucks(straight trucks, buses {Le search shows most weigh over that 10,000 limit}, semis, etc.) that have virtually no rear line of sight and idiots like to drive/walk in front of while the piercing backup alarm is right in their ears.

Oh hey NHTSA, how's that deal with GM going? You know, the one where you should be beating them with their severed arms for letting them kill 13 people and injure dozens because of an ignition switch defect they still haven't completely solved and could have solved a decade ago if they cared more about their customer's safety instead of cheaping out on the price of quality parts.(Now they got electric power steering, powertrain and fire saftey recalls, too) With that, this camera deal, and the overconfident cross-communication system for cars they want to have in every car while ABS is still just an option, I'd just the NHTSA with my saftey as much as a bag of potatoes soaked in ebola virus.

-Dragmire-:
I have a small worry that some people will focus too much on the camera display to see on coming traffic coming from the sides. It will probably do more good than bad though.

They should be wired to only turn on when the trans is shifted into reverse. Just like most stock DVD system's with a driver viewable screen disable the video and just let you listen to the audio for the movie if you shift out of park.(Why the fuck you'd put a DVD player in the dash where only the first three out of seven passengers can see(barely for second the row) and is disabled on the long highway trips is beyond me.)

Ugh, what a waste of money. Crazy me, I have been using all my mirrors and that funky thing my head sit on... what's it called... oh yeah, my neck, to see if something is behind me. Also, if they aren't improved on by then, I daresay they will be completely useless like they are now. My room mate has one in his 2014 Tundra... that is the most useless shit I have ever seen. He hits the yard a lot less than when he just used his mirrors.

It's simply amazing humans have been able to survive as long as they have without all of these amazing safety features.

Edit: Yeah yeah, a little camera won't be expensive, it's true. But that combined with a dashboard display will make it significantly more expensive. I am willing to bet that, in the end, this will raise the price of a car by at least a $1000.

PoolCleaningRobot:
Most cars by 2018 will probably have smart displays anyway

Unfortunately, this is probably true. Pretty much any car will last a minimum of decade, even if driven constantly and badly maintained. 20 or 30 years isn't at all unusual, especially with lower mileage drivers. Personally I've never owned a car less than 5 years old. How many people have a phone or tablet more than three or four years old? How many still use computers over a decade old? The problem with sticking "smart" screens in cars is that they are pretty much guaranteed to be obsolete at least years and quite possibly decades before the rest of the car. A safety feature that consisted of a camera hooked up to a dumb screen and nothing else wouldn't be too much of an issue, but a "smart" screen that is significantly worse than most phones when new and which gets steadily more outdated as time passes is just a terrible idea. And let's be realistic, the latter is what we'll be getting.

UNHchabo:
If you're trying to improve fuel economy, every ounce matters.

While technically true, given the laughable state of American cars compared to the rest of the world, I don't think the weight of a small camera is going to be particularly significant. When you've caught up with the rest of us and have normal family cars that can do 80mpg, then you can start worrying about a few extra grams here and there. Alternatively, given the prevalence of obesity, most people could just eat slightly less and save far more weight than a screen could ever add. If you're racing, then yes, every gram counts. If you're a normal person with a normal car living a normal life, no, it really doesn't.

Kahani:

PoolCleaningRobot:
Most cars by 2018 will probably have smart displays anyway

Unfortunately, this is probably true. Pretty much any car will last a minimum of decade, even if driven constantly and badly maintained. 20 or 30 years isn't at all unusual, especially with lower mileage drivers. Personally I've never owned a car less than 5 years old. How many people have a phone or tablet more than three or four years old? How many still use computers over a decade old? The problem with sticking "smart" screens in cars is that they are pretty much guaranteed to be obsolete at least years and quite possibly decades before the rest of the car. A safety feature that consisted of a camera hooked up to a dumb screen and nothing else wouldn't be too much of an issue, but a "smart" screen that is significantly worse than most phones when new and which gets steadily more outdated as time passes is just a terrible idea. And let's be realistic, the latter is what we'll be getting.

Obselete to do what? All the thing needs to do to be useful is show stats about the car, control music, and get gps. My neighbor has a green led display in her ten year old jeep that states the temperature, which doors are open, compass, etc. it didn't become useless with the invention of small 1080p displays. And if it really does matter, a touch screen less than an inch thick would be the easiest thing to replace. Don't want to replace it? It'll still serve the purpose of a being a backup camera. And FYI, mobile tech may be moving fast now, but I'll slow down eventually. Not that it matters. Most old android devices are a custom ROM away from being fast

Kahani:

While technically true, given the laughable state of American cars compared to the rest of the world, I don't think the weight of a small camera is going to be particularly significant. When you've caught up with the rest of us and have normal family cars that can do 80mpg, then you can start worrying about a few extra grams here and there. Alternatively, given the prevalence of obesity, most people could just eat slightly less and save far more weight than a screen could ever add. If you're racing, then yes, every gram counts. If you're a normal person with a normal car living a normal life, no, it really doesn't.

First off, when comparing gas mileage, you need to use like units. I assume you're using Imperial gallons, which are right around 1.2 US gallons. So your figure of 80mpg gets taken right down to 66.6mpg when using US gallons.

Second, the testing method in the US is very different than the EU's testing method. This is why the Jetta TDI is rated for 45mpg in the US, and 65mpg (54 miles per US gallon) in the EU.

Yes, we tend to buy bigger cars in the US, but it's largely because we don't have the space constraints that Europe does. If you need to drive through cramped city centers all the time, you're more likely to buy a small, maneuverable car. Meanwhile, if you drive on long, open highways all the time (like those found in most of the US), you'll buy a car that's more comfortable, and more capable of carrying you on long journeys across open spaces.

If you think American cars are still terrible (I'll give you that they were for a time), I think you haven't been paying attention. Even just on weight, let's compare the 2012 Ford Fusion V6 Sport to the 2012 Mercedes E350 Sport Sedan. Their sizes are identical to within an inch, and they both have 3.5L V6 engines. The Fusion has a curb weight of 3591 lbs, while the Merc has a curb weight of 3825 lbs. Even if you spring for the AWD system on the Fusion, it's still less, at 3803 lbs.

It's true that a screen likely only weighs a few pounds, but it does add up. If you want to strip weight from a car, chances are you can make a few changes that have a big impact, but eventually you need to get into smaller changes that only make a small impact on their own, but can add up to a substantial difference.

UNHchabo:
It's true that a screen likely only weighs a few pounds

Pounds? CRT days are over. Lots of people carry a 5" 1080p screen in their pocket(on their smart phone), and bendable plastic screens are starting to enter the market(flexible OLED). By 2018 you could probably get a 10" screen for your dashboard that weighs less than an ounce. Heck the wires from the dash screen to the camera will probably weigh more than the screen itself.

Cerebrawl:

Pounds? CRT days are over. Lots of people carry a 5" 1080p screen in their pocket(on their smart phone), and bendable plastic screens are starting to enter the market(flexible OLED). By 2018 you could probably get a 10" screen for your dashboard that weighs less than an ounce. Heck the wires from the dash screen to the camera will probably weigh more than the screen itself.

I was counting the entire assembly, including the mounting hardware and wiring, which I imagine adds up to more than a pound.

Remember that by necessity cars can't use any arbitrary LCD screen; smartphones are designed to stay within a fairly normal range of temperatures, but car screens need to work regardless of whether the car has been sitting in a -20F winter, or with rolled-up windows in the summer, leading to 150+F interior temperatures. They also need to handle G-forces not expected of a smartphone -- running over a pothole shouldn't break it.

Insanity_Incarnate:

Roxor:

MikeZealous:

I don't think its a matter of incompetence (even though car companies can be and are incompetent) , but rather giving the car manufacturers a more than reasonable time length to implement these changes. Infrastructure for building cars & selling them will face a minor but noticeable change if they suddenly have to throw another electrical component into a already complex machine.

A reasonable amount of time would be six months. A whole year is more than enough. Four years makes it sound like they're doing the bare minimum possible.

Six months would be in no way a reasonable amount of time and a whole year would be pushing it. Most the new cars that are going to be released within the next year are either in production or are at least done with testing and waiting for the factories start producing them. Honestly 2 years would be the absolute minimum amount of time that would be reasonable and 4 years is fine if a tad on the long side.

All they have to do is put in a few mouse-clicks to change the design. How can that take two years? Heck, you could probably have one retrofitted to an existing car in an afternoon by someone who knows what they're doing.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here