2009 vs.1959 crash test

In college in the '80's I had a head on in my '72 MG with a full size Buick.  There doesn't need to be any crash testing done as I can tell you who the winner was.  I think I bounced off the Buick and maybe left a scratch.  The MG was non-existent from the windshield forward, the rear didn't fare much better.  All I remember is the top flying back and mirror going by my head.  Next thing I know I have an IV in my arm and some guy talking to me.  It took the better part of a year and a surgery before I recovered.  Given that a Miata is roughly the same size, I pretty sure my injuries would have been significantly less. 

I suppose I don't see the need to have done a test against a '59 and '09.  There shouldn't be any comparison, especially when people didn't even consider safety as much of a priority. 

In reply to racerdave600 :

I like to show the video to my uniformed friends when they get wound up “I’d rather have a full frame under me blah blah blah...”

Pretty much why either Nissan or the Federales pulled the Tsuru sp? from sale/production a year or two ago.  How much success would you have reverse engineering a street car to hold up better in an accident.  Fender/unibody trumpets?  Seam welding?  Road cage?  Or just drive on Sunday when everyone seems to go slower? 

joey48442 said:

In reply to racerdave600 :

I like to show the video to my uniformed friends when they get wound up “I’d rather have a full frame under me blah blah blah...”

Look up the 59 Impala chassis. X frame isn't a marketing moniker, it's actually the shape of the frame itself. Not a full frame in the traditional sense.

It doesn't matter if the frame is an X, a V, or a squiggly line with smiley faces.  Old cars have ZERO safety by comparison to anything built in the past 15 years.  Hence why as much as I love some older cars, I would never own one.  Just not worth the risk to me. 

I use the Impala video a lot too, to combat the "they sure don't build them like they used to" comments.  The answer to that is "You're right...they don't...the old cars were death traps."

Speaking of crash safety, as much as tractor trailers have obvious advantages in a typical frontal collision, they are the last place I'd ever want to be in a rollover.  The cabs are nothing but fiberglass, they are not subject to safety standards from the government like cars are.  When they roll, the results are amazingly ugly.

I'll bet you won't set foot in a Cessna. 

The paint on the roof of a lot 3rd gen f-bodies is cracked. I've sussed out that this is probably from the roof flexing over the life of the car.  With this knowledge I choose to ignore what happens if something hits my GTA while I'm in it. 

Fueled by Caffeine said:

digging this up

 

 

 

 

 

The difference from 1998 to 2015 is startling!

I was in a collision in a '98 Corolla.  Actually the only crash I've been in.

Audi completely took the front of the car off, basically ended at the firewall.   Wrenched my back, and it's amazing how much seat belts will stretch.

In reply to Appleseed :

That's why Cirrus exists.

That smashed ae101 is still a better car than most, even in its current state. 

Yeah, car crashes are violent. I also fully admit it's part of why three years ago we replaced my wife's 2000 Civic Si with a 2014 model. 

I ride a motorcycle. 

I ride and I fly a light plane. My end will be violent.

Appleseed said:

I ride and I fly a light plane. My end will be violent.

Better that than lying in a bed crapping in a diaper and not remembering my name.

I'm pretty impressed by how much better the new car protected the passenger compartment!  

I'm not impressed to see that Toyota didn't have airbags in 98, though.

Some misinformation in here...  

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety did the crash, not National Highway Traffic Safety. (insurance industry paid, not the government) Plus it was a Bel Air, not an Impala. 

I have actually seen the 59 Bel Air in question, its still in the lobby at IIHS.    NOT RUSTY.  Also, to stem off the other one I hear a lot, the engine was NOT removed.  Yup, it did that poorly.  (somewhere I might have pictures I took of it)

https://www.youtube.com/embed/joMK1WZjP7g

Think about it, in the last 20 years we have seen a radical jump in materials, as well as computer aided design. Cars have been getting heavier, but only a bit larger.  That weight has been going somewhere and that is heavier structure with better design. Crumple zones are finely engineered these days and I dont even need to start on the state of airbag technology.

These days we have multi-stage airbags, knee protection airbags, side impact bags, rollover bags. We also have seat-belt pretensioners, yup, theres a small explosive device in your seatbelt that cinches it down during a crash. (crashed a newer vehicle and the seatbelt wont retract after? thats why!).   You also have redesigned head restraints that reduce neck injuries, with some being active where they deploy forward in a crash to protect your neck.

On top of that, new vehicles have Event Data Recorders (AKA Crash Data Recorders) contained within the occupant restraint controller. Crashes can be looked at and give data pre and post crash to determine the vehicle state and the forces enacted upon the car, so real world crashes can be analyzed to determine just why someone was injured.   (dont fret, you have to sign a release or a police agency has to flex a warrant or something to have that read)

To answer another question...  

https://www.youtube.com/embed/TEbmPsukEHI

https://www.youtube.com/embed/PVTI4tXHGYE

Fastest one there was 38mph...

A few years ago a co-worker was going on about how big and "safe" his mid eighties G-body was compared to modern cars.  I showed him the tale of the tape between his "full size American" and my mid size German.  My car was more powerful, safer, heavier, more spacious, economical, and quieter. 

Ironically about a month later he locked up the brakes on a wet road and slid into the back of a Jetta.  No ABS, no control, ruined the rear bumper of the VW and destroyed the front of his American iron.

i would like to think that the 59 bel-air was some old test car that was never a 'production car' and didnt have a VIN and was unable to ever be registered. We had several cars like that in my high school/college auto classes. They were donated to the school by the manufactures since they were done being tested with and since you couldnt register them they were either to be crushed or donated as a learning tool (which would eventually be crushed at a later date). The car probably sat around in some dusty corner until someone at chevy said "why dont we crash that into one of our newer models and show how good the new stuff is?"

Atleast that's what i'd like to think. I really hope they didnt just go out and buy a cherry 59 bel-air just to destroy it.

In reply to edizzle89 :

Wasn't that cherry. Did you see the rust cloud come out of it? That car had a considerable amount of rust.

As I mentioned back on the first page the '59 was not a rusty car, what you see is 50 years of dirt and dust flying out from underneath.  Also, they purchased the car from a private owner, it really was a creampuff.  The guy who sold it to them was not happy when he found out what they did with it.

edizzle89 said:

i would like to think that the 59 bel-air was some old test car that was never a 'production car' and didnt have a VIN and was unable to ever be registered. We had several cars like that in my high school/college auto classes. They were donated to the school by the manufactures since they were done being tested with and since you couldnt register them they were either to be crushed or donated as a learning tool (which would eventually be crushed at a later date). The car probably sat around in some dusty corner until someone at chevy said "why dont we crash that into one of our newer models and show how good the new stuff is?"

Atleast that's what i'd like to think. I really hope they didnt just go out and buy a cherry 59 bel-air just to destroy it.

Spoke to the engineers at IIHS, they did just go out and buy it, but through a buying service. Seller was an enthusiast who was on a forum.  He didnt know where it was going and recognized the car in the video as they even left his fuzzy dice on the mirror.  

Again, seen the car, touched the car.  That's dirt, not rust.  Need to look through some old photos. 

But did you see that cloud of rust fly out from under it.