Did some early '60s wagons have a problem with exaust being sucked into the cabin?

Airbags. Maybe if they started making cars out of metal again, instead of plastic, we would not need a small explosion to go off in front of our face in an accident.

 

It was the only way they could clone a typical Politician's response to a legal attack!

 

Please people! I love old cars and I never complained about not having full seatbelts in my 65 Imperial, neither I used the seperate shoulder belt in my 68 Chevelle as it was too much work and the police didn't know it was up there anyway. It was just a risk I was prepared to take (although back then more unconsiously then now).

BUT..... you are all intelligent guys and a lot with technical backgrounds that understand the basics of dynamics and forces, you can't be really serious if you are stating that seatbelts and airbags don't improve safety and decrease the chance and severity of injury in case of an accident. It is of course absolutely not true that for every story that tells about a life saved by seatbelts, there is a contra story. The so called plastic cars here depicted as less save, hence needing airbags to protect the occupants, are in reality far more save, even without airbags, then our steel bricks. Please don't tell me that the sight of a crumbled new car shows your case, because exactly this crumbling instead of the rigid behaviour of our beloved classics makes the world of difference to the chance of injuries or even death.
The only advantage that we have is weight. In a head on collision, the shear weight of our car forces the other car to take up the energy. It seems like our car has nothing and the other is fully destroyed, but this is only caused by the extra weight and rigidity of our own vehicle, even increasing the chance of injury and possible death in the other vehicle!

Of course, a lot of us drive far less in our classics and often more carefull, decreasing the chance on an accident as far as we have any control over that. But a comparison purely based on an accident with the same energy impact, our chance of survival and even more of our other occupants is of course far less then that of driving a new car.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist....

 

not me...cept in the race cars

however did our ancestors ever survive eh?...

if i'd been wearig a seat belt when i flipped 2 of my cars...i wouldnt be typing now

I drive a classic daily...our laws here as stated...in short...(if it didnt come with it ....it doesnt have to have them)...but if you put them in...then you must!!
Senri... Un biased studies that have been done...prove that seat belts have a 50% 'save' ratio !
and that 'new cars' require more safety gadgets. Due to the structural designs.
Senri..you know I luv ya...I mean no disrespect.

 

I can only say that the two collisions I've been in I was better off having my seatbelt on.
Thankfully, both times I was driving a vehicle borrowed from my father, not my wagon. I actually did him a favor with his Chevy Celebrity, and insurance totaled it out for more than he bought it for.

OTOH, when my brother was a teenager, his Porsche 914 was t-boned and the driver's door was crushed in so far that it broke the steering column. NOT wearing his seatbelt saved him, as he just got knocked into the passenger seat. He walked away with bruises and a glass fragment in his eye. The paramedic on the scene said he was one lucky bastard to not have been seatbelted.

 

...in my thunks..
....too many strangers telling us whats good for us..
..I think we should all be intitled to be stupid by our own decisions..:banghead3:.

Senri...i take back all i said...and i'll just stick to my above statement

 

Air deflector and Crash test.

I don't have any doubt this exhaust problem was the reason they invented the air deflector on the rear of the roof.
Notice it directs the fresh over the roof air towards the rear window.
If anyone tests this theory I'm certainly interested.

Regarding crashing our heavy cars into newer cars.
The weight of our old cars are more than our front end can withstand.
Here is a very interesting crash test on YouTube.
1959 Chevy VS. 2009 Chevy [CRASH TEST]

 

I'm glad they used a '59 sedan instead of a wagon. That would've broken my heart!

 

This is heart breaking!!!! I would have given that '59 Chevy a good home!

No doubt though a driver in a '59 Chevy in such a headon collisio would be in bad shape- shattered skull, broken neck, crushed ribs....

 

Rev, I understand your point and I actually agree in principle. Just because we have chosen to live in a social society means that we everybody is helped in case of problems (in theory anyway). If you get an accident, you will be helped in the hospital but somebody has to pay. This just means we have to have some restriction on the risks people take, to minimize costs, as the society has to pay for them in the end. We all complain when our health insurance goes up again, but also want the freedom to take risks when we want. There is a contradiction in that, and to find a balance is difficult.

By the way, I thought the visual damage difference would be higher in the collision video, in favour of the Bel-Air.

 

The only way that a comparison like that could be 'fairly' depicted....would be if the 59 was also brand new....using a car that was probably on a scrap truck when they found it...is truly unfair...and does not prove a dam thing !!!
.....well....not to me anyhoo......

....run the Malibu into a NEW Hyundai(or whatever)....should be about the same carnage...just less dust..

 

Notice the ammount of rust that is dispelled from the '59 during the collision....

 

I saw that too! This seems kind of unfair that they used a car that was that rusty. But then again, it would make chevy look bad if that 59 destroyed the malibu.

 

That crash test was discussed a few months ago when it was first released.
Not exactly a fair comparison.

The Malibu has FWD, so its engine and transaxle have their mass distributed across the entire front end. The 59 Bel Air was an L6 engine, not a V8 so its mass only occupied less than 1/3 of the the front end.

When you look at the overhead view, you see that the Malibu struck mostly empty fender and did not receive any of the mass of the L6 engine as the cars began to deflect away from each other.


The seatbelt/airbag vs. no seatbelt is a given. The Bel Air driver is screwed. That is not the issue in question.

To make a valid comparison of the structural durability of these cars, the impact would have to be perfectly centered so that both cars impact their mass into each other equally. The Bel Air should also have the V8. (The off center impact did simulate a very common head on scenerio where one vehicle strays across the center line of the road.)

They did not show any in-depth analysis of the aftermath, but you can tell that both cars suffered massive damage. I think they intentionally did not want you to get a good look at that. Considering that the Malibu really only got hit by bumper, fender and supension, I'd have to say that the Bel Air gave the Malibu a whooping and went down swinging.
Care to venture a guess as to which car has any hope of being repaired?

 

Wow, this thread went all over the board.

As for fumes in the rear area of a wagon. My '77 Country Squire had a roof rack with a air foil on it and I never had any problems with the fumes. Now on my '78 Country Squire (same body style), it dose not have a rack or air foil, I can smell the fumes a lot more. The rack and air foil are going on my '78 as soon as it warms up.