Crash testing 1959 vs 2009

...or I should say, what would happen to me!

Aeromoto wrote: I'd rather have that '59 than a fleet of modern shytboxes.

Every year produced E36 M3boxes and fun/cool cars. We remember the cool cars from the past because the boring ones have died in unloved obscurity.

Don't want a modern E36 M3box? Buy a modern fun car. Or buy an old cool car if you really want. I like the style of a Miata, Z3, S2000, C5/C6, or CTS-V as much as most everything from the past, and I enjoy the modern reliability and safety of them. If that is not what turns you on, that's fine, but it works well for me and many others.

that video just proves that you don't need to pay attention to what you are doing when you are driving any more because your car will protect you.

I use that video in a training seminar for new claim adjusters. It's the perfect answer for "they don't build them like they used to" comments. Correct, they don't build them like they used to. They build them better. It doesn't matter if it was an x frame, a y frame or a w frame, old cars can't take impacts like a newer one can. I've seen hundreds of examples. Just had one yesterday. Early 70's Chevy pick up. Got destroyed by a newer car.

I agree the newer safety can lead to drivers paying less attention and being more "brave", but I'll still take it.

Aeromoto wrote: 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!!

Can't tell if serious...

I bet this video gives Ralph Nader a chubby

I can't tell if this thread is full of morons or trolls.

Alan Cesar wrote: I can't tell if this thread is full of morons or trolls.

You say that as though the two are mutually exclusive.

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/more-details-about-1959-bel-air-crash-test/

More Details About 1959 Bel Air Crash Test
By CHRISTOPHER JENSEN
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety released on Thursday a video of a crash test between a 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air and a 2009 Malibu to demonstrate how car safety has improved. Not to simplify matters too much, but the Malibu won. And several Wheels readers speculated in comments that the car didn’t contain an engine, which would have affected the test.

Armed with these conspiracy theories, I returned to David Zuby, the senior vice president at the institute’s crash-test center in Virginia. He explained that when the institute went looking for a 1959 Bel Air to crash-test there was one thing the organization didn’t want and some things it did.

“We didn’t want to crash a museum piece,” Mr. Zuby said. “We were not looking for one that had been restored for museum or show quality.” But the vehicle had to have a solid structure, although a little surface rust would be acceptable.

They found what they wanted in Indiana. “The frame was sound and all the body panels were sound,” he said. It had a 3.9-liter 6-cylinder engine and was in driving condition.

The car was bought for about $8,500 and had about 74,000 miles on the odometer, which was broken. It was trucked to the test center in Virginia.

Mr. Zuby said the cloud that shows in the crash video wasn’t rust. “Most of that is road dirt that accumulates in nooks and crannies that you can’t get it,” he said.

Never mind this thread. I fear for the future of humanity after reading just the first couple Youtube comments.

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

Youtube comments make my head hurt...

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.

That's what I had always suspected...

That video makes me sad. What a waste...

I just purchased a 2010 Ford Taurus SHO. The car is rock solid, fun, and does the job I need it to of toting my family around while still being a car I like to drive. It's massive. That's a bit of a downside but it porks it way up the road to the tune of 0-60 in low 5 seconds and handles as well as a 2007 BMW 335i I've driven.

It has modern crash protections in it. Side curtain airbags, dash airbags, wheel airbags. It has solid doors and a solid structure. The downside to this is the door sills are high. The rear window is almost as small as the rear window in my first car, a 1973 Mustang.

You can tell Ford tried to mitigate this with things like parking sensors that go off when a car is passing by the rear of the car in a parking lot. The backup camera that is useful because with that small rear window I won't be able to see anyone under 4 feet tall. It also has a collision warning system so that if someone is stopping suddenly in front of me it goes off and warns me to hit the brakes.

Does all this make me a safe driver? I think so to be honest. I like that if the worst was to ever happen my family they would be safe. I don't like that my visibility is less than what I'm used to but I do approve of the warnings and sensors included in the car. I didn't think I would but I do. In comparison my last turbo Miata project was totalled by being run over by a bucket truck that ran a red light. The Miata was hit in the left front. If that truck had hit that car even 6 inches to a foot further back I wouldn't be here to irritate you guys on a daily basis. Maybe, just maybe, in the Taurus I'd have a chance.

I don't know if some of you remember...but way back when injection was new a lot of folks cried about it being the end of hot rodding your car. We all know how that turned out. This is the same. The sky isn't falling. It's all going to be ok and in fact better than before.

stuart in mn wrote: The guy who sold the car to the NHTSA

He sold it to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), a non-profit funded by insurance companies. Not the government's NHTSA.