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.
It would have been interesting to see that new Chevy crash into something like an early-'60s Chrysler Imperial. Those cars were so strongly built that they were banned from demolition derbies.
P.S. I would much rather own that '59 Chevy than the new Chevy.
The point is Fleet, that with the old cars, there was no shock absorbing sectors, so though the car might stand up (visibly) to a hard impact, the driver and passenger also felt nigh on the full force of that impact. With new cars, that impact force is greatly reduced because of the way the car is structured, not to mention that the passenger compartment is still built very solidly in case of a crash hard enough to get all the way there, and engine now go under the car in a head on, instead of into the passenger compartment.
The survival rate in accidents, compared with the mileage driven now and then speaks for itself.
And yet, Viking, many, many people survived some horrific accidents in '50s and '60s cars.
I am well aware of the safety advances with new cars.
More people survive horrific accidents in modern cars and comparatively, the '50-'60s cars are deathtraps. There's really nothing to even argue here. Modern cars are several times safer than older cars, that some people were lucky, and survived horrific accidents back in the '50s too doesn't prove anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
Too bad the styling went backwards!
Well that's your personal opinion, which is yours to think. You might want to type it the appropriate way though:
The last view, the overhead camera, gives a totally different picture, much less one-sided.
One also has to consider that the '59 might also have a considerable amount of corrosion, metal fatigue, etc., regardless of how 'new' it might look. Characteristics that would not have been present on a new one at that time.
My uncle says he hit a street-car in a 1936 Plymouth, only dented a fender, and knocked the street-car off the tracks. The beautiful post-war British Sunbeam Talbot was described as being "carved out of solid pewter". Rovers, in the 1960s, were made to disintegrate in a crash, but with the passenger compartment intact. I knew a guy who walked away from one, which did everything it was supposed to do.
One also has to consider that the '59 might also have a considerable amount of corrosion, metal fatigue, etc., regardless of how 'new' it might look. Characteristics that would not have been present on a new one at that time.
this is very important. In teh video, you can see rust and dirt flying out of the older car. So we're not comparing a new car vs new car, but new metal vs aged, rusted, weakened old metal. It would be improbable, but a better description of what was better woudl be for the '59 to be brand new, built at the same time as the new car, using the older methods.
the other problem is this, that '59 was apparently completely safe to be in, as it had lasted for 50 years without being in an accident to start with. And the best way to survive and accident, as we all know is to not be in one. With that criteria, obviously all the previous owners were compeltely safe in it, as they never had accidents.
Lastly, and I've brought this up before, less that 3% of drivers each year get into accidents of any sort. Half of those (so about 1.5% of drivers annually) get in an accident severe enough to cause an injury of some sort (and we're talking everything from geting sent to the ICU down to a sprained finger). And less than .001% of drivers (even going back as far as we've kept records) get into fatal accidents.. It's real easy, regardless of year car, to be part of the 97% that aren't in accidents, even if you subscribe to the "you can't avoid them all" train of thought. And even if you can't avoid them, it's still rare to be in the fatal or seriously injured part of that scale. Most accidents are just minor fender benders, even in old cars. being in an old car is NOT a death sentence. And they arne't "deathtraps" any more than any other car, UNLESS you're a crap driver that can't pay attention to what other crap drivers are doing around you.
Mercedes invented and patented crumple zones in 1952. This technology was incorporated in their very early vehicles. By the time they put the first standard airbag in any car, the safety designs had evolved to about where it is today for most other luxury cars and beyond what is available in most other cars. (Volvo hired a MB engineer in the 70's and marketed their safety designs which were really just 10 year old MB technology). My "new" MB 560SEL is the first year to have driver and passenger airbags (1990) and is probably 10 times safer than that new car in the video.
The only thing missing on a 1990 560SEL is side airbags.
everyone knows new cars are many times safer then older cars. Safety was not a consideration for General Motors back then..
There, I fixed it for you.
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.
