semi-O/T -- Old cars safer than new cars?

True, a more rigid car preforms like a crumple zone above a certain speed... but that speed is pretty high. At that point, while the car crumpling absorbs a large percentage of the energy, the energy that it doesnt is still high enough to kill you.

Remember, it's not the impact that kills you. It's the acceleration your body has to endure coming to a sudden stop. When you hit something going 55 mph, you effectively go from 55 to 0 in 1 or 2 feet. If your car doesn't crumple.... that is 1 or 2 inches.

that's about 10x worse.

F=MA. It's pretty simple, really.

 

Before I stripped my'73 Impala down to rebuild it I got in an accident with her. A guy in a 2005 Civic hit me on the passangers side when I went to turn. I was going about 15 he was going 45. The Impy got a new front clip. The civic...well there wasn't a civic left to get anything for. The driver was in pretty bad shape. I just had a head ache from whackin my head on the side glass. I'm glad I was in that old mammoth of a car and not my dad's '97 Ford Aspire I drove to school the day before.

 

This isn't really what your talking about, but in the same spirit.

I wish I could find the link, but just recently a magazine did a comparison of damage repair bills on a few popular cars. They did a low speed hit on each of the four corners and compared the price to repair each. They varied by model from like 2k to 4k to repair the damage.

Just for shits and giggles they rolled out a 1988 Ford escort (older, but not old like we are talking) and two of the corners showed no damage, and the other two were under 200 bucks!

CHAZ

 

Yeah, but tap something w/ one of the bumpers on my ranchero and it's 500$ to get the fucker re-chromed.

 

Right. I think what we're disagreeing on is you're saying that at high enough speeds to crumple old sheetmetal, it won't absorb enough impact to make any difference. That's what I take issue with. Let's just agree to disagree and pray we don't ever have to find out if either of us is right.

 

Well, certainly neither of us has done an exhaustive analysis of the situation.

But say, at normal speeds, a modern car crumples and absorbs 50%, where as an old car absorbs 10%.

So, if we have 100 "energy units" (ha), then in our new car WE only absorb 50 and survive, while in the old car we absorb 90 and die ( say 75 is fatal)

Now, we get into an accident at 2x the speed. New car absorbs 50% and old car - now crumples, and absorbs 50%.

That's great, except we still took 100... and are still dead.

Anyway, it's an interesting subject, and pretty hard to quantify exactly. The car companies have spent a lot of money trying to do so to meet safety standards, and guess what their conclusion was?

 

Sounds to me like ANYONE worried about this issue so much should not even consider or own an Old car.

Go buy a new Volvo and be Done with this cotroversy.

If you are that worried about you & yours, Just dont have anything as unsafe as an Old car.... Or Electrical Appliances older than a couple yaers... Dont ride yer bicycles with out pads,helmet & Spandex... Or Get in a Plane, or ride the Bus or Train.

We are surrounded with UN~SAFE everyday... So maybe we shouldnt do ANYTHING that isnt Perfectly safe , Just sit & wait for Old Age to take us away.

 

If you ever watch an Enduro race, where they race mostly big '70s cars, they have one wreck after another, and most of the time, the car just keeps driving, or maybe changes a tire and pulls a fender out and then keeps going. Once in a while somebody will show up with a newer car like a used late model Crown Victoria cab or cop car. The newer cars usually are destroyed in the first half of the race. Older cars like '70s Camaros and Monte Carlos hit the concrete wall hard and keep going. Even old front wheel drive Eldorados can take a hell of a beating. They started adding extra strength to the doors of American cars back around '69, but even before then, they had pretty beefy steel in the doors compared to what they have now. If most wrecks are between two cars hitting each other, I think a big car from the '70s is probably about the safest thing you could be in. Hopefully the other guy has a softer, more crumply car to absorb some of the impact.

I saw a weird statistic that the insurance companies keep that showed the vehicles that are most likely to kill the occupants of the other vehicle if it gets in a wreck. I think the number one on the list was a full size late '80s Dodge Van.

I think one bad thing about cars from the '60s and earlier is the crappy door latches they used to use. If the car rolls, and the doors come unlatched and fly open easily, then the whole structure of the car goes to hell and the occupants aren't protected very well at all. I think putting bear claw latches in older cars is a really good idea for safety. Adding seat and shoulder belts to older cars really makes sense too. Those are pretty simple things you can do to save you and your passenger's lives.

 

Sounds like it's time for us to call up Mythbusters. Only problem would be finding an old car no one cars about.

 

Old cars may be safer but I always disagree that " an old car will destroy a new car because it's all steel" this is what happend to my brothers truck when a Crown Vic pulled out in front of him. The new car had very minor damage.

 

Yeah,shitty door latches.My friend was driving my 37 Chevy pu,this is a solid truck with stock properly working door latches.He's driving about 30 mph when a deer coming out of the woods rams the door head on like a furry torpedo.Big dent in the door,and rear fender.The door popped open on impact,lucky the driver dind't fall out.

 

The real issue is survivability of passengers, not the car's condition after a wreck. Of course drivers are a factor, but often there's nothing you can do to avoid an accident no matter how careful you drive. In the event of an accident, there's no way you can tell me a an old steel car is going to be safer than a well-engineered modern car. Plus most of our cars were made when the speed limit was 45-55mph while interstate speed limits are 65-75+ now!

 

im with Rusty on this one, and if you add a few modern safety items 4 wheel disc, abs, seat/shoulder belts (as Rusty stated) the older cars can be a lot safer than any new car on the road. all of which i am incorporating into my chopped 49 ford along with an updated front suspension and steering. and i will do what ever it takes to hide those mods or make them look "traditional" so you will have to look really hard to catch them.

 

Technologically, yes new cars are safer. In reality, I wonder if they truly are. I credit the airbags, crumple zones, safety glass, etc. with interfering with the state of our driving skills. Cars stop on a dime, so drivers tailgate a little closer. The better roads, radials and better steering don't require 2 hands on the wheel and a semi-regular input to stay on the road. So drivers use one hand to stear and the other to dial a cell phone, etc.
Have countless lives been saved, absolutely. Are we better off in alot of ways, certainly. Are people, as a whole, worse drivers than at any time in history? You be the judge of that.

 

I may have an old 1935 sedan but it has cop car brakes, cop car steering, cop car tires and a 400 hp engine specially built to help me avoid risky traffic situations............combine that with a three-shaft steering column, good seatbelts and bear claw latches so the doors won't pop open and I think I've made it as safe as I can.

 

>>"Go buy a new Volvo and be Done with this cotroversy."<<

Ironically, I've read many times that the older volvos (240s) are far more safe than the current ones, which aren't much better than most similar sedans.

I have always suspected "crumple zones" were instituted when frames were yanked out in favor of the unibody (those are the cars that had them first). That, and how absurdly packed modern cars are; you HAVE to engineer things to hopefully move a certain way because the driver is inches from a thousand bits of potential shrapnel.

 

Side impact beams can't be that hard to manufacture. Take a look at these two patents and google images 'side impact beams'- looks pretty damn simple. Airbags are a different story because they're special for each vehicle but I guess some system could be worked out.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6357822.html

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7086686.html

 

The old door latchs can be an issue on some cars. I was following a friend in high school who was driving a 50's chevy truck, he trurned left into a gas station, and his brother fell out the pass. door, and I almost ran over him.

 

So what you are saying is that if I drive my 57 into your Hondas' driver's side door and you get T boned, that your gonna be protected by an airbag from 2.5 tonnes of Detroits finest coz its got crumple zones?

Somehow I don't think so.

Go to a wrecking yard and check out the new cars that have been trashed - yeah crumple zones work, unfortunately when they crumple, they take/crumple YOU with it.

I'd rather have an older ride with decent seat belts and brakes fitted, then a new ride with all the crumple zone/bullshit airbag systems fitted to it. Half the crap that is fitted to new cars is used as a marketing tool but the auto manufs, just as it always has been.

Now ABS brakes is a good thing - but then again if you need em, it most likely u were crewing around with a cell phone and not watching the road in the first place.

In a crash at 60mph in an old ride outfitted this way, who's passengers are gonna come off better, the late model's or the old ride's ?

Rat

 

Late 40's and up to mid 70's cars fitted with the above mentioned brakes, belts, door latches etc. are probably pretty safe. But the earlier ones, like the '34 steel roadster I'm building can not be not much safer than a bike. Especially in a side impact.

But it will have disc brakes, modern door latches and seatbelts tow.
And the centre section on the home made Duval screen is strong enought to split a deer...

 

I've been driving since 1964 and in that entire time, the only crash I've ever been in was when the other guy F'ed up and turned in front of me.

I was driving a '57 Chevy and he was in a late '70 something Ford Gran Torino. I was probably doing 40 -45 mph. I took the right front corner of his car square in the center of my grille. Most of the impact was absorbed by front sheet metal of my car as most of his car rode up over that big steel front bumper. The entire front clip acted like a modern car's "crumple zone". The frame bent a little, but the fenders and hood jammed the front door and buckled the cowling at the base of the windshield. The radiator was wrapped around the front of the engine and the even the water pump shaft showed evidence of being pushed in.





There are so many variables in any crash that you just can't ever be sure what might happen. Any change in the angle or speed of this crash, either way, and who knows what might have happened? In this case, the '57 had to come home on a hook, while he was able to drive his tank of a Torino away under it's own power. Neither of us was hurt. (Although I was tempted to beat the crap out of him!) I had belts in my Chevy and always used them.

He made the first mistake by pulling out to turn left across my path. I started to move to my left to avoid the crash and, had he kept going, I would've gone around behind him. No harm, no foul. But then he made his second mistake. When he realized he screwed up he stopped! That left me with without any more options and I tried to go right to go around in front of him. And instead of T-boning his door, I caught his front end.

This is the real bottom line. And I would say not "might" be the best safety feature, but "is" the best.

 

I love it when spectators at car shows express with sentimental fondness, "...boy they don't make em like that any more." I most always say, "Yup. Good thing they don't."

I've seen a couple crash tests at the Ford sled/barrier labs. I've prepped a few of those cars, well shit, dozens of em, in many different ways. The tests go from low impact to 45mph and higher, every different angle, mobile and stationary. It's pretty amazing the 1st time and soon gets a bit passe'. Fuck the cars. The test figures (crash dummies) are amazing. The technology behind them is staggering. I was told one of the newer ones cost over $100K. They use a special coatin on some of it to read the degree of damage to a person and can record the severity of the impact. The steps taken for occupant protection go deeper than most even here realize and would consume far to much bandwidth to explain. One simple example is the wheel/tire "intrusion" on certain models. Last thing I recall is how tire deflators were being tested to eliminate intrusion in a 45-45 impact. That's 45 degrees and 45mph.

Conversely, many decades ago an early Packard hit the side of a steam locomotive. Don't know the speed. It apparently suffered bumper damage but still drove away. The train was stuck and couldn't move. The big ol Packard bent the drive bar on the wheels and a crew had to come and replace it to get the train moving again. And how about the old newsreels of daredevils in the head-on crash of 2 cars getting tossed out of em. Imagine that in today's traffic volumes! As time marched on we had massive 2+ ton luxury barges with gobs of power and speed, almost too big to park or manuver, and drum brakes that would fade out in a matter of a very few seconds. I wonder what Jayne Mansfield thought of car technology in those times? True, anything can happen anytime in any car but the odds are simply better today. And as metalshapes pointed out (paraphrasing) drivers vs what they drive and how.

"Boy, they sure don't make em like that any more." Yeah, good thing...for even more reasons than safety too.

 

Absolutely... they should have to sell them and be forced to drive new safe stuff....

Sell your old shit then...

 

I have an early 1950's police training manual book on investigating traffic accidents.It has 100's of photos of crash scenes,old cars that were new at the time.Every photo of a severe crash has several things in common,busted windshield from the occupants head,The steering column pushed up into the drivers face,and or the doors are open,the mangled body hanging out or in the road.
The advice on good door latches,steering colum improvements and seatbelts makes sense in old vehicles when driven in traffic surrounded by 3 ton PU's and SUV's
I read a recent artice from information gotten from rescue crews.It seems the present Jaws of Life set up is unable to cut through the roof pillars of the newest vehicles cause of thicker better steel used to make the cabin safer.
Every accident is different,no safety feature is 100 percent,crash testing results can be different than real world crashes.But I would think a new vehicle is safer in a serious head on crash or roll over.
But luck can be with you.In 1964 I was a 17 year old driving my father's 61 Falcon station wagon too fast in a turn,the car flipped over at around 40 mph,slid down the road on it's roof then into a ditch.Me and two buddies,no seatbelts walked away with minor scratches.

 

I think it really depends on what accident you are in and how hard it is rather than what you are driving. My sister had a 60 Starliner that got hit by a Honda Accord. The Accord drove away, and the Starliner was almost totalled. For me, if I had to chose what car to be in in an accident with my 2 month old, I would chose my wifes 2000 Volvo over my 51 Chevy.

 

Generally speaking, new cars accelerate, turn, and stop better than old cars. They are quieter, ride smoother, and require less attention while driving than old cars. Doing 80 in a new car is like doing 40 in an old car.

This has made modern drivers less attentive and invested in the act of driving. Today's drivers have too many distractions, such as complicated audio systems, nav systems, food and drink holders, and cell phones and texting. The actual driving has become secondary to being selfishly entertained during the trip.

Additionally, the array of "safety" devices cause a false sense of security, also lessening the driver's care about actual safe driving.

If everybody had to drive a 60's car tomorrow, you'd see a lot more people paying a lot more attention to what they are doing.

 

Well, that does it, I am going to hang old tires all the way around my car like a tug boat,....... or buy a train. (that thing don't have a scratch on it !)

 

So, how many of the newer safety features are only necessary because of the fuel economy that is mandated by the government? If a car has to get better mileage (on more expensive, shittier gas), then it'll probably have less steel, right? So isn't that making the safety features necessary? Then there's the fact that the cars have to be smaller for the smaller minded drivers. Oh, and the fact that they'll give a license to anyone these days. They've completely taken the privilege out of it and people assume it's a right.

Do you guys think it's stupid to have an old daily driver with kids?
If so, what would you suggest doing to it to make it more safe?
Seatbelts are a no-brainer. I'm thinking new glass, steering column, disc if not abs brakes...what else?

 

This is my sisters car last month. A truck crossed the highway into her path and she hit him going 70mph. Everyone walked away except for the driver of the other truck who suffered some broken bones. My best friend had the same thing happen in a new Dodge and he died on the scene. I was in a 1974 Mercury that my friend was driving and she lost control at 70MPH and we hit most everything on both sides of the road for about a quarter of a mile and I was thrown from the car. We all walked away. The point is, some days that Lord will take ya and some days he won't. You can do things to help. Personally, I don't wanna stick my kids in the back of a Gremlin but I'll let them ride in my 79 Lincoln Limo. As rodders, we'll drive just about anything. It's different to put your kids in them though. I like to skydive, but I won't take my two year old. Same deal. Understanding and choosing risk is different than forcing risk on others.

There is a place for both things in the world.

 

If older car safety features were better, why would car manufactures invest countless man hours and money trying to continually improve safety?