crash ratings for our old wagons

yeah I hear ya the X frame wasnt the best but the 2009 cut through the 59 like it was paper.

 

Unless a sinkhole opens up under your bedroom floor like the poor sap in Florida recently.

 

When we start worrying when driving our older cars it's time to park them and call the senior van to town.
My late model Dodge truck with plastic front bumper cost $1500 to replace when I bumped a Palm tree stump at about 5 MPH.
I've hit things with many 50's chrome bumpers at much faster and only scuffed the dust or made a scratch.
If we are really worried we will put on our make-up and comb our hair before leaving home, call our friends before or after, buy a car with a Wonderbar radio, stop watching DVD's, lighting cigarettes, and all those other "non driving' motions.
Or buy a new SUV like I hear advertised that thinks for us and does everything except make the high payments.

This is not legal in NW Florida.Unless a sinkhole opens up under your bedroom floor like the poor sap in Florida recently.

 

I agree. The X frame gave zero protection in a side impact and zero protection in an offset front end collision as shown in the video. Even in those days, most cars had frame rails that ran front to back or a stronger uni-body construction. Chevrolet didn't add front to back frame rails to the x-frame until 65. I think the crash results would have been different if a Ford or Mopar had been tested rather than a 59 Chevy. However, without collapsable steering column as became the standard by 1967, the results for the driver may have been the same.

 

my 74 Buick Electra Limited 4dr hardtop has only lapbelts....... because it has ACRS (twin airbags)
THANKS GM!?!?!?

crash tests into the solid block of concrete only simulates a car running into an exact duplicate of its self at the same speed. Thats has the fiero was rated the safest car GM made at the time.
Whats the chances of a fiero hitting another head on as opposed to a suburban or an F150? i wanna be in the suburban or F150.

 

My land yacht Torino has all the "crumple zones" it needs. The car I'm hitting *IS* my crumple zone!

 

This video has been discussed at length here and elsewhere.

All versions of this video avoid showing how much damage the 2009 really sustained and put all of the focus on how poorly the 1959 faired.
The truth is that both cars are totally devastated (although the driver of the 2008 has better protection). If a flimsy 1959 X frame rustbucket with only an I6 under the hood can cause that much damage by hitting the 2009 with not much more than empty fender, how well is it going to manage getting hit by something much more substantial? It reflects poorly on the 2009.

 

Here's one with a 92 Volvo and a 06 Renault, but if I was worried about crashing my car, I'd stay in bed too. We don't have sink holes up north....Yet.

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

 

the 59 also had 50 years of rust in it !
now if they could find a mint original one..
.well...lets make it a 60...they werent as pretty

anyhow...so to all the ney sayers...i pose this question !

If i put airbags and 4 point harnesses in my 66 Country Squire..(after the frames fixed that is)

would the NEW cars still be safer??...hmm?

If the NEW cars are so 'strong'....then why does nobody DERBY them?

...and for the record...Id daily any of my 60's wagons... before I bought a new car based on their safety claims !.....(and Im not just being stubborn)...Im in my 50's....I just dont buy it

 

Walk through an old time salvage yard. Snizzle, too bad you didn't go through Minaker's in Milford before they closed. Take a look at the wrecks in there. It is quite illuminating to see just how well some of the old cars did in real world crashes. I remember seeing a 79 Thunderbird in Minaker's. According to the worker, it had crashed into a concrete bridge abutment at 80 km/h, or 50 mph. The front bumper was pushed back about 3 feet. The base of the windscreen was pushed back about 1 inch, and the glass was not broken. It was a survived crash! Fords, at least, had crumple zones quite early on. I know our 72 Dodge Dart had guard beams in the doors. My 78 and 79 Thunderbirds had heavy gauge C channel beams in the doors with pockets on the A and B pillars to catch them and prevent intrusion. In terms of structure, the 70s and 80s cars could be very good indeed. It is the lack of ABS and air bags that scares some people. For me, the thought of a computer deciding I can't have brakes scares me no end. That is how I lost my 89 Grand Marquis. The guy behind had ABS computer failure. ABS and no brakes does not stop a van too well. My trailer hitch, however, did!

 

The whole idea about vehicles designed for crash safety is to save the occupants by 'sacrificing' the vehicle around them - absorbing the impact forces. In a pre-'65 vehicle (approx.) you have virtually no built-in crush zones. In fact, a lot of the car bodies and frames are actually so stiff as to transfer that energy to the occupants.

So - are you safer in a big, older vehicle vs. a perhaps smaller modern vehicle with side-impact protection, air bags, etc.? In a word - no. Drive accordingly.

Marshall

 

give me old pinky any day as we see to many people in little cars in car park accidents going to hospital with injuries before they go on a road or highway. my family all drive late model full size cars as fuel economy/purchase price is not as important as when it comes to your well being or loss of lively hood

 

To the original OP, tell your friend he don't know as much as he thinks. Though some of the old cars may not have the safety advantages as the newer ones, they had weight to their advantage (many of them) and starting around 1967, may safety features (the most important basic ones) started getting added into cars. Things like seatbelts, energy absorbing steering columns, padded dash boards, etc all started getting put into cars and I have seen older cars with crush zones. Mercedes started added them in the late 1950s. Then we all know about the GM cars with optional airbags in the 1974-76 range.

I would say that your '88 Buick wagon would be safe not just because weight, it has the basic safety features and if you look at cars like the Caprice sedans of the 80s with good ratings, they appear to have got good crash test scores (for full-frontal crashes).

Jaunty - thanks for sharing that link! I used to have it a long time ago. I also use to have printed version of the NHTSA crash tests for older cars.

Some of those ratings can be confusing about how some models get a good score, while others much like them get a bad one. That is like the 1990-95 Town Car received a 5-star for the driver, but the 1996-97 Town Car received a 4-star for the driver and its the exact same car, even the seatbelts are the same. How did an '83 T-bird get a lower rating then the '84? Exact same car.

Then you wonder, how did a 1979 Chevette get a 4-star rating, then a 1984 get a 1-star? I think sometimes its due to seatbelt design changes, which may be the case on these, but looks like they went the wrong way. lol.

Notice that a 1984 Celebrity wagon got a 5-star rating.

Interesting, a 1984 Town Car only received a 2-star for driver, 3-star for passenger. Back in 1985, my grandmother and her best friend had a head-on collision in a new 1984 Town Car. Neither wearing seatbelts, they were going about 45 mph and both walked away (though with many cuts/bruises) and to this day my grandmother suffers with back pain.

Todays crash NHTSA tests are more strict than they were before. A 5-star rating in 1985, may be like a 3-star rating today.

Questionable, but still interesting to see.

 

I'll agree a bit with your friend and also what KK says. I've seen older crash test footage where the seats inside are flying around inside the car and with a lot of occupant intrusion. The front of the car might hold up great, but a lot of that energy not absorbed in those "stupid" crumple zones gets transferred to the passengers inside. I know everybody here likes the good old days and what not, but would you rather your car survive the crash or you?

All that said I don't live in fear of driving an old(er) car. Drive defensively and be aware of your surroundings.

 

This popped up as a similar video, crash testing - they destroy what WAS a very nice early 90s Mercedes wagon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8eXlJKR5gk