Crash testing 1959 vs 2009

And technology has improved cars

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g

No shocker there

Wow. Still impressive to watch how different the effect of the impact is on the two cars.

Sad that they had to crush a cateye for that.

mndsm wrote: Sad that they had to crush a cateye for that.

Judging by the cloud of orange after the crash, it was a rust bucket.

I won't be showing my wife that video since she will likely make me sell off ALL my old cars witnessing that.

This video has been my go to response for "they don't build em like they used to" for a few years now. One of the best videos on youtube!

Toyman01 wrote:

mndsm wrote: Sad that they had to crush a cateye for that.

Judging by the cloud of orange after the crash, it was a rust bucket.

Point taken.

Toyman01 wrote:

mndsm wrote: Sad that they had to crush a cateye for that.

Judging by the cloud of orange after the crash, it was a rust bucket.

It would seem to me that this would impact (no pun intended) how well the classic stands up to the crash.

DrBoost wrote:

Toyman01 wrote:

mndsm wrote: Sad that they had to crush a cateye for that.

Judging by the cloud of orange after the crash, it was a rust bucket.

It would seem to me that this would impact (no pun intended) how well the classic stands up to the crash.

What? They used a weaker car to illustrate their point?!? Nooooooo!

(Not to mention it's an x-fram car, probably the weakest of the classics. Try a 1963 Impala versus a 2013 Impala and then get back to me.)

63 is still an X frame. 65 is perimeter.

Toyman01 wrote: Judging by the cloud of orange after the crash, it was a rust bucket.

When this video came out four years ago, it was determined the car was actually in mint condition - dust seen in the video was mainly 50 years of dirt that had collected inside the frame and body panels. The guy who sold the car to the NHTSA was pretty upset when he found out what they did with it, they didn't tell him they were going to crash test it.

In reply to btp76:

Oops!

stuart in mn wrote:

Toyman01 wrote: Judging by the cloud of orange after the crash, it was a rust bucket.

When this video came out four years ago, it was determined the car was actually in mint condition - dust seen in the video was mainly 50 years of dirt that had collected inside the frame and body panels. The guy who sold the car to the NHTSA was pretty upset when he found out what they did with it, they didn't tell him they were going to crash test it.

Did they write him a cheque? Did it clear at the bank? Its not his concern anymore.

Classic car: Steering column to the face.

Modern car: "Chance of injury to the foot." and looked like maybe whacking his knuckles on the center console.

Yeah. I like modern safety.

In reply to Beer Baron:

I like modern safety, I hate most modern cars. They have no soul.

I'll take my chances as long as they will let me.

No E36 M3 a x frame car is going to be completely obliterated in an offset frontal crash. I'd like to see that done head on, with an engine in the car(I've heard that one didnt), but that wouldn't produce as dramatic of a result.

Kenny_McCormic wrote: No E36 M3 a x frame car is going to be completely obliterated in an offset frontal crash. I'd like to see that done head on, with an engine in the car(I've heard that one didnt), but that wouldn't produce as dramatic of a result.

Except that makes up a very low percentage of car crashes. Most are offset on the drivers side because people fixate on hazards.

As for modern cars having no souls and too much nanny stuff. I really think things hit a good peak of balance right around the turn on the millennium. Manufacturers understood about crumple zones but did not have to have giant pedestrian saving bumpers and super high door sills. ABS became darned-near standard. Air bags become common, but they do not litter the entire interior with a raft of them. Inertial reel seat belts are very good things.

We have made huge strides in improving safety over the past several decades. Really seems like we have picked the low-hanging fruit quite well at this point, and are just making incremental improvements.

My 944 is almost 30 years old. It is head and shoulders above cars 30 years older than it in terms of safety. It lags behind modern cars, but is not eclipsed by them.

In reply to Beer Baron:

I fully agree. Just saying, to prove a point they went and made it look as bad as possible, though not quite rocket motors on gas tanks bad.

I think we really did hit diminishing returns(and get into annoying excessive bullE36 M3) on safety about 1998 MY. Check out all the nasty E110 Corolla wrecks at the pick and pull next time you visit. Things like crashes bad enough the cylinder head was buried in the firewall, yet you could still sit in the thing with feet on the pedals. I helped a friend cut one up that had been hit in the side at 50+, such a hard hit all the tar sound deadening in the car was broken free, driver was walking next day. That's a car with a decent greenhouse, only two bombs, and optional ABS.

This one is a neat one also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBDyeWofcLY

Streetwiseguy wrote: Did they write him a cheque? Did it clear at the bank? Its not his concern anymore.

Of course they could do whatever they wanted with it. That doesn't mean the previous owner can't feel bad about the car being wrecked.

Who cares!!!

I'd rather have that '59 than a fleet of modern shytboxes. One thing about GRM forums, "safety" sure does get overblown around here. If I gave 2 craps about safety, I wouldn't be racing and playing with hot rods in the first place.

Phuck safety!!! Going fast is SUPPOSED to be about the thrill of cheating death!!

Trans_Maro wrote:

+100

Have you seen the Ken Block video?

I shudder to think what would happen to my 280Z in a crash like that...