Seatbelt question...

[Austin]

Just curious, why did they move the seat belt of the GEN III’s to a regular position? In the GEN I’s, the belts were on the doors. In the GEN II’s, they wee located in the middle (Lamborghini style). For the GEN III’s, they’re now in a regular car belt position. Why did DC move them from the middle? IMO, that was a nice touch to the interior of the GEN II’s.

 

[Viper Specialty]

Well...I can tell you just from a design standpoint, the SRT has less room on the top of the body behind the seats, as well as in the center console (sport hoops and center sub)

Also, from a Consumer standpoint... a seatbelt buckle in the @SS every time you get in the car and forget to move it can get quite tiresome...LOL

 

[Austin]

You're right, the SRT center has less room, I just thought it was a cool interior feature. The current belt situation isnt the easiest to deal with either. Hahaha!!

 

[kickinasp]

Gen I cars did not have an airbag, so the Federal Government mandates that the seat belts when not equipped with an airbag are passive. That means they work without having the operator have to latch them. If you keep the belt latched, you can open the door, slide in and close the door with out the belt having to be buckled. Therefore it had to be on the door. Canada did not have this law and that is why the seat belts are in the center like Gen II. Gen II cars have an airbag, therefore its easier to package in the center (structure wise of not having to reinforce the doors) and its common in all applications, so they were located in the center. Gen III cars have airbags, so they could be packaged in either location, Chrysler choose to package them closer to the door as the structure is more ridge and easier to control. So that is the reason, not for athestics but to meet seat belt standards and performance requirements in an accident.