Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
... and I made the statement then that you cant judge all 1959 cars by this one test. Just like out of all of the cars they tested in 1996... some performed this poorly, while some had outstanding scores in 1996.
It saddens me that they happened to pick a 1959 car that did poorly.... I doubt that all 1959 cars would have performed like this. However, there is still no doubt that the newest cars have a host of safety features not offered in 1959.
Had the 59 Impala had performed as well structurally as the 10 Malibu, would we have even heard about this little experiment?
As technology progresses, so do safety features, naturally. DUH Big shock there!
Cars were built better back in the day, and with better materials. You cant go back to the 40s and find cheap, squeaky plastic interiors and plastic bumpers on cars.
... and I made the statement then that you cant judge all 1959 cars by this one test. Just like out of all of the cars they tested in 1996... some performed this poorly, while some had outstanding scores in 1996.
It saddens me that they happened to pick a 1959 car that did poorly.... I doubt that all 1959 cars would have performed like this. However, there is still no doubt that the newest cars have a host of safety features not offered in 1959.
Had the 59 Impala had performed as well structurally as the 10 Malibu, would we have even heard about this little experiment?
I wondered about the structural integrity of the frame underneath the '59 Bel Air. Was it a museum quality car that had never seen moisture, or was it a used vehicle they purchased for the test and years of corrosion and rust had rotted out the frame?
Of course the IIHS is going to want to toot their own horn.
Well few modern cars will survive a modern accident, but the passengers will.
Course with old cars you can tell your grand children their grand dad was killed in that car, you get it when you graduate.
... and I made the statement then that you cant judge all 1959 cars by this one test. Just like out of all of the cars they tested in 1996... some performed this poorly, while some had outstanding scores in 1996.
It saddens me that they happened to pick a 1959 car that did poorly.... I doubt that all 1959 cars would have performed like this. However, there is still no doubt that the newest cars have a host of safety features not offered in 1959.
Had the 59 Impala had performed as well structurally as the 10 Malibu, would we have even heard about this little experiment?
I believe that most all cars from 50 years back wouldhave performed this poorly.
You really believe that our manufacturing processes have NOT improved in five decades?
So, all this stuff like trucks with hydroformed steel frame rails and whatever technology goes into unibodies is useless?
If any '59 model did do that well and did consistently well, heads would be rolling!
Or at least there should be mass riots if people are paying good money to have automakers reinvent the wheel and Fail at it.
If my grandfather leaves his '73 Pontiac Lemans in the will for me and I get 400 cubes of tire peeling fun, sweet, but I'm not expecting it to hold up in a crash against anything similar in size like I would my '03 F150.
May be, but who knows... they have not tested other 1950s cars. As mentioned if they had of only tested the 1996 Dodge Neon with a poor crash test, should one think that all 1996 cars tested that poorly? They didnt.
You may be suprised... some 1950s cars (such as even a 1959 Cadillac) may have performed very well structurally. The world may never know.
Speaking of 1970s cars... they had vastly improved since the 1950s... much more interior padding, seat belts, energy absorbing interiors, even crush zones (and airbags on some mid 70s GM models).
I have a 1973 Pontiac myself as a weekend cruiser and I would much rather be in that car than many newer cars I have seen in crashes.
As far as the 1997-2003 Ford F150 goes, you may want to rethink that... you may want to be in your grandpas 1973 Lemans...
As I pointed out in the other thread that was "dissing" the 59 Impala... Here is a 1997-2003 F150 in the same test conducted by IIHS... results are very disturbing... it did no better than the 59 Impala IMO.
Thankfully the 2004 F150 redesign made a huge improvement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlfredB1979
I believe that most all cars from 50 years back wouldhave performed this poorly.
You really believe that our manufacturing processes have NOT improved in five decades?
If any '59 model did do that well and did consistently well, heads would be rolling!
If my grandfather leaves his '73 Pontiac Lemans in the will for me and I get 400 cubes of tire peeling fun, sweet, but I'm not expecting it to hold up in a crash against anything similar in size like I would my '03 F150.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
