Joined
·
6,623 Posts
Just in case you thought your old car was safer...
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
Joined
·
22 Posts
A definite surprise.
Joined
·
16,460 Posts
No suprise to me at all, I see it every day. 1959 hell, how about even 1969 or 79? Our cars today are MUCH safer. A friggin Honda Civic is safer than a 1965 Impala!
When I started in the autobody business in the late seventies I remember getting cars all the time that were barely hit in the front or the back with buckles up on the roof and doors that wouldn't open. The energy was transfered ALL THE WAY THROUGH the car!
Now, with "energy managment" using crumple zones all the energy from the impact is contained in a few feet of the end of the car. I will get cars in the shop totalled with SEVERE damage up to the rear window, trunk COMPLETELY destroyed and the rear doors open and shut like new! The PASSENGER compartment is UNTOUCHED.
Believe me, I felt guilty when my wife was driving her 1965 Buick Skylark everyday. I feel so much better with her in a late model mini van now.
Brian
When I started in the autobody business in the late seventies I remember getting cars all the time that were barely hit in the front or the back with buckles up on the roof and doors that wouldn't open. The energy was transfered ALL THE WAY THROUGH the car!
Now, with "energy managment" using crumple zones all the energy from the impact is contained in a few feet of the end of the car. I will get cars in the shop totalled with SEVERE damage up to the rear window, trunk COMPLETELY destroyed and the rear doors open and shut like new! The PASSENGER compartment is UNTOUCHED.
Believe me, I felt guilty when my wife was driving her 1965 Buick Skylark everyday. I feel so much better with her in a late model mini van now.
Brian
Joined
·
734 Posts
I'll give you todays cars have superior engineering, but throwing a 50 year old car at a brand new one is not really an "apples to apples" test either.
Who knows what condition the bel-air was really in? Who knows if the car had been hit before and poor repairs done? OR weakening due to rust?
How about throwing the bel-air up against one of these new micro-cars?
Who knows what condition the bel-air was really in? Who knows if the car had been hit before and poor repairs done? OR weakening due to rust?
How about throwing the bel-air up against one of these new micro-cars?
We used to have a saying in the Construction business. "They sure don't make them like they used to... Thanks God!"
This was the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, so my guess would be they did'nt use a cut up old rust bucket of a car. I wanted to check the weights of these cars and was shocked, from what I found the 09 weighs in at 3450-3555 and the 59 is 3,570-3,670 I would have thought there would have been a huge weight difference.
This was the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, so my guess would be they did'nt use a cut up old rust bucket of a car. I wanted to check the weights of these cars and was shocked, from what I found the 09 weighs in at 3450-3555 and the 59 is 3,570-3,670 I would have thought there would have been a huge weight difference.
Joined
·
16,460 Posts
Rambo, I have been in the collision industry full time since the week after I got out high-school in 1977. There is nothing to think about, we can over analyze and assume the Chevy was somehow "worn out" and didn't perform in this test because it it but it will all be a waste of our time.
I have seen it, I have seen it personally worked on them personally, I have taken MANY courses in structural repairs. I have seen it, and anybody else in the industry has see the same thing.
Sorry, we can want to believe anything we want but the fact of the matter is todays cars are MUCH safer than yesterdays, PERIOD.
Brian
I have seen it, I have seen it personally worked on them personally, I have taken MANY courses in structural repairs. I have seen it, and anybody else in the industry has see the same thing.
Sorry, we can want to believe anything we want but the fact of the matter is todays cars are MUCH safer than yesterdays, PERIOD.
Brian
Joined
·
16,460 Posts
Here is an example I posted a while ago on the subject.
http://www.hotrodders.com/forum/54-chevy-came-into-shop-today-132875.html
Brian
http://www.hotrodders.com/forum/54-chevy-came-into-shop-today-132875.html
Brian
i have seen the old cars wrecked too.i know the newer cars are safer.theres no doubt about it.but i do hate to see an old one tore up just to make a point.them old steel dashes have hurt alot of folks just because the driver hit the brakes.they didnt have seat belts back then either.
Rambo_The_Dog said:I'll give you todays cars have superior engineering, but throwing a 50 year old car at a brand new one is not really an "apples to apples" test either.
Who knows what condition the bel-air was really in? Who knows if the car had been hit before and poor repairs done? OR weakening due to rust?
How about throwing the bel-air up against one of these new micro-cars?
60,000 mile 6cyl/pg car.
Babied most of it's life
The testing people paid $8500 for it
more on the car here-----read the whole thread----the fuzzy dice are still in the crash car.
http://www.chevytalk.org/fusionbb/showtopic.php?tid/225636/tp/1/
Go past the the smashed up 55 and the red 59 and there is another link to the car.
Keep in mind---the A pillar design in no way can help absorb energy into the roof like a "real" A pillar can.
also---being a 6cyl car, there is nothing but AIR 4" either side of center of the car----nothing there to slow oncoming missles down
Joined
·
6,623 Posts
I was pretty surprised to see the steering wheel "spear" the dummy...OUCH! :drunk:
Joined
·
1,173 Posts
I guess I'm missing the point here - - a head-on is some bad #^@% no matter what you are driving - - - and YES technology has come a long ways - - - but Classic/Antique Car insurance is still cheaper than any other
GM didn't go to the collapsible steering column until 67. The 59 was a front steer car with the box right out at the front of the frame. First thing to get shoved back in an accident like this. The video shows the reason they went to the collapsible and why my 41 will have a collapsible shaft.4 Jaw Chuck said:
I do agree the new cars are better designed and safer but the new one had a nice cushy air bag not all the nice painted steel to bounce off of.
Still I would have thought the 59 would have been a little better but they dont have too much steel out there and with an X frame there is nothing near the rocker to strengthen up the outside of the car.
Remember when you were doing good to get 100K miles out of your car now if they dont go 150+ with little too no upkeep people think there junk. Heck the 94 Kia (dont kill me it was free) my daughter drove till she got her new Cobalt last month had 175K on it and still going strong. 18 and bought a brand new car Im going on 40 and have never owned a new car but I'm cheap.
Mike
Still I would have thought the 59 would have been a little better but they dont have too much steel out there and with an X frame there is nothing near the rocker to strengthen up the outside of the car.
Remember when you were doing good to get 100K miles out of your car now if they dont go 150+ with little too no upkeep people think there junk. Heck the 94 Kia (dont kill me it was free) my daughter drove till she got her new Cobalt last month had 175K on it and still going strong. 18 and bought a brand new car Im going on 40 and have never owned a new car but I'm cheap.
Mike
I watched the different videos over and over.
Came to the conclusion that Government Motors is trying to pull a fast one with the help of yet another government run institution. They say IIHS is non-profit...BUT funded by auto insurers. I WANT TO SEE THE UNDER SIDE OF THE BEL AIR.
Remember when Dateline NBC tried to smear the rep of GM's 73-87-91 trucks?
Prop UH GANDA. They say it's to commemorate the 'IIHS' 50 anniversary. Suits looking for stripes to wear.
Came to the conclusion that Government Motors is trying to pull a fast one with the help of yet another government run institution. They say IIHS is non-profit...BUT funded by auto insurers. I WANT TO SEE THE UNDER SIDE OF THE BEL AIR.
Remember when Dateline NBC tried to smear the rep of GM's 73-87-91 trucks?
Prop UH GANDA. They say it's to commemorate the 'IIHS' 50 anniversary. Suits looking for stripes to wear.
Joined
·
1,596 Posts
I have no argument. I agree with you 100%,But I will still drive my old car as much as possible because I also believe when God calls there is nothing you can do to stop him. :thumbup:MARTINSR said:
C-10 said:
Another post where opinion is far from the truth.
The GOVERNMENT has NOTHING to do with the IIHS or the HLDI. They ARE independent and they ARE funded by the insurance industry.
If the test had been performed by the NHTSA then you may have a valid point.
http://www.iihs.org/
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/
I love old cars but do not want my son or daughter in one as daily drivers.My daughter was in volved in an accident in her 07 cobalt she was going approx. 60 mph and a Ford F250 pulled directly into her path.No time for brakes or evasion.The cobalt was mangled in the front end but she didn't have any injuries ecxept minor scratches.Crumple zones save your rearend . We learned in circle tracking after the loss of several drivers the problem was the car was to strong and all the forces were being transferred to the drivers killing many.Then every body started building front and rear structures that would collapse out of lighter tubing in the front and rear and the problem pretty much went away.
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
Join the discussion
