They Don't Build Them Like They Used To
- Thread starter SonOfThomp
- Start date
SonOfThomp
Well Known Member
Your selling your antique car because of some phony video on the web??? :?
I was going to ask earlier if any "car guy" would fall for that. I guess I got my answer.
Good luck with your new ride whatever that may be.
A few questions:
Have you watched the video yet?
If so, what makes you think it's phony?
Do you think that safety engineering has progressed in the past 50 years (even if aesthetics have faltered)?
I repeat: I am nothing but a fan of these cars. Every time I see my '61 in the driveway now, it breaks my heart. But sometimes reality bites, and this is one of those times. The cold, hard truth isn't in need of much more clarification than the first two seconds of that video to support it: these cars, as much as we love them and as much as we'd like them to be otherwise, are poorly engineered from a safety standpoint, and therefore death traps. Hell, they weren't even considering safety in the late '50s - I've owned three of them (two '61s and a '60) and not one of them even had seat belts!
I love my car, but I love ME even more, and my family even more than that. I might keep it as a toy, but financially it's not an option currently, I have to get a little $$ out of it and get a safer car (shouldn't be too difficult) because it's my daily driver.
It might be safer just to stay home and hide out in the basement!!!
Do you realize how many people get killed just walking across the street ?
But seriously,,, these cars are pretty dang safe and by adding seat belts even safer then when new.
Yes,,, the new cars have come a long way and have the engineering to make them safer but take a walk through any junkyard that has late model cars and you will see there are even limits on what technology can do and a lot of new cars you would be floored on how they fall apart in a crash!
These tests like that one can be swayed to show what ever they want them to do.
Do you realize how many people get killed just walking across the street ?
But seriously,,, these cars are pretty dang safe and by adding seat belts even safer then when new.
Yes,,, the new cars have come a long way and have the engineering to make them safer but take a walk through any junkyard that has late model cars and you will see there are even limits on what technology can do and a lot of new cars you would be floored on how they fall apart in a crash!
These tests like that one can be swayed to show what ever they want them to do.
Attachments
My $.02--anyone who thinks that a new modern car isn't safer than our beloved oldies is delusional. I drive very defensively, but I live in an area filled with lunatics on 4 wheels. Point in case--I was driving through a green light, not just turned but green for a while, and a women in a Grand Marquis blew through the red going at least 30 mph and took off the front of my '08 daily driver. My 12 yr old was rushed to hospital and luckily only suffered whiplash and some bruises from the shoulder belt. She hit on my side (no air bags deployed) and I was absolutely unscathed. We were coming home from the ice cream shop and normally I would have been driving the Chevelle. My 1st thought was thank god I wasn't driving the Chevelle, and not because I worried about the car but rather knowing my daughter and I wouldn't have been as lucky as we were. And people think I'm kidding when I tell them that around here red lights are just suggestions. I have been hit twice in the last 3 years by red light runners and my wife was hit last year by same. Careful doesn't always help.
Larry..... are you sure you don't live in British Columbia ??
Dave
Dave
I don't have any problem believing that the 09 Impala is safer than the 59. It has a five star crash rating and they've done a lot of work making the newer cars safe. The doors have side beams and they are designed to stay closed in a crash. Also, in a crash the heavier vehicle usually wins. Most of us would assume the 59 is a lot heavier but it might not be. Here's the specs for the 09 Impala...
Horsepower:233 @ 5,600 rpm
Torque:240 @ 4,000 rpm
Transmission:4-spd auto w/OD
Curb Weight:3,649 lbs.
I don't know the curb weight of the 59 but I'm guessing it's about the same.
Even though I accept that a 59 might not be as good in a crash as a 2009 Impala I certainly don't think the 59 is unsafe. Do the same crash with a 2009 Cobalt or some other small car and I might rather be sitting in the 59.
If you want to be 100% safe you'd better stay off the road because even a five star rating won't save you if you have a head on crash with a loaded semi truck.
Horsepower:233 @ 5,600 rpm
Torque:240 @ 4,000 rpm
Transmission:4-spd auto w/OD
Curb Weight:3,649 lbs.
I don't know the curb weight of the 59 but I'm guessing it's about the same.
Even though I accept that a 59 might not be as good in a crash as a 2009 Impala I certainly don't think the 59 is unsafe. Do the same crash with a 2009 Cobalt or some other small car and I might rather be sitting in the 59.
If you want to be 100% safe you'd better stay off the road because even a five star rating won't save you if you have a head on crash with a loaded semi truck.
I’m sure the type of hit will vary results between different vehicles and different circumstances. But I'm still skeptical about this video.
I was a passenger in an old VW bug a long time ago. The car got T-boned on my side. Pushed the car ±15 feet sideways…..the passenger door partially came off its hinges with the impact points being my hip and head. Injuries included not being able to walk too well for quite some time, many lacerations and my nose was broken and split open (basically in half) which, as someone described, gave me that Phantom of the Opera look before I got stitched up. I wasn’t wearing a seat belt. (It wasn’t mandatory then). BUT! the investigating authorities stated that if I was wearing a seat belt …that particular hit…. probably would have killed me.
Many of the older cars have heavier gauge metal and have frames instead of unibody construction. There is a higher degree of vinyl/plastic components in later cars. I think the “shell and skeleton” of the older cars should have some positive bearing on the degree of damage inflicted in comparison to that of a newer car. The 62’ does not have seatbelts but it has more metal to protect me. Do I feel safer in that car compared to my newer, smaller, lighter, seatbelt. airbag, daily driver? Well I would prefer seatbelts in the 62. There are advantages and disadvantages to both cars and as my previous story suggests, it depends on how you get hit….and the vehicles involved. Thankful that I’m living proof.
I was a passenger in an old VW bug a long time ago. The car got T-boned on my side. Pushed the car ±15 feet sideways…..the passenger door partially came off its hinges with the impact points being my hip and head. Injuries included not being able to walk too well for quite some time, many lacerations and my nose was broken and split open (basically in half) which, as someone described, gave me that Phantom of the Opera look before I got stitched up. I wasn’t wearing a seat belt. (It wasn’t mandatory then). BUT! the investigating authorities stated that if I was wearing a seat belt …that particular hit…. probably would have killed me.
Many of the older cars have heavier gauge metal and have frames instead of unibody construction. There is a higher degree of vinyl/plastic components in later cars. I think the “shell and skeleton” of the older cars should have some positive bearing on the degree of damage inflicted in comparison to that of a newer car. The 62’ does not have seatbelts but it has more metal to protect me. Do I feel safer in that car compared to my newer, smaller, lighter, seatbelt. airbag, daily driver? Well I would prefer seatbelts in the 62. There are advantages and disadvantages to both cars and as my previous story suggests, it depends on how you get hit….and the vehicles involved. Thankful that I’m living proof.
SonOfThomp
Well Known Member
The car in the video was a 2009 Malibu, about 3400 lbs. You're right about the '59 - about 3600.
I'm wondering if it wasn't willful ignorance that let me believe that my '61 would be 'safe' if I just put in the racing belts. I just hope I can sell her before she seduces me all over again.
I'm wondering if it wasn't willful ignorance that let me believe that my '61 would be 'safe' if I just put in the racing belts. I just hope I can sell her before she seduces me all over again.
SOT......... I think you're making a mistake selling that car......... It would take a lot more than a vidio that very well could have been staged for me to sell my '61.
Dave
Dave
SOT, I agree with most of the others.
The newer car is generally safer. Most older cars had fewer safety measures. Maybe a F**d or Rambler would be better for you, some had perimeter frames.
But your logic just about eliminates any older "hobby" car, sports cars, motorcycles, quads, most forms of aviation, baseball (100 mph fastballs, remember?), football, most aquatic sports....the list goes on.
I just can't relate to such a sheltered existence. Good luck.
The newer car is generally safer. Most older cars had fewer safety measures. Maybe a F**d or Rambler would be better for you, some had perimeter frames.
But your logic just about eliminates any older "hobby" car, sports cars, motorcycles, quads, most forms of aviation, baseball (100 mph fastballs, remember?), football, most aquatic sports....the list goes on.
I just can't relate to such a sheltered existence. Good luck.
SonOfThomp
Well Known Member
I give up.:
Ha. Sorry about that.
Thing is, unless someone can prove that this test was rigged, the point I took away from this seems moot: 50 years of safety engineering has paid off, resulting in cars that are exponentially safer in the event of a crash. In 1961, with the choices available, my car would have been fine. Now that I have better choices, I feel it is foolish to risk my life (not to mention that of my daughter) unnecessarily. The insinuations about paranoia or cowardice (no one who knows me would take either as anything but a joke) seem indicative of a certain attitude of denial: "I don't like this, so it cannot possibly be true." Unfortunately, nobody has provided any actual information to discredit either the test or the notion that modern cars are safer than our classics. And believe me, I would love it if they did, uncovering evidence that a team of gremlins went in with tiny hacksaws and turned the '59 into a house of cards. Someone, please do.
SonOfThomp
Well Known Member
I'd keep it if I could afford another car right now as my daily driver, but I can't.
I might also daily drive it anyway if I didn't have my 4 year old in it as often as is required. it's not like I suddenly hate the old bird
SOT,
I don't think anyone can tell you that our cars are even close to being as good as a new car. Like I said in an earlier post I think my '07 has 6 air bags.......
I just don't believe that they are as unsafe as we are being told. In my younger days I had a '58 Chevy that was forever running into things, getting run into, sliding into ditches. I think in the 4 years I owned that car I replaced the front end 5 times......... I did some pretty stupid things back then One time I rear ended a Caddy that was sitting at a red light..... I was probably doing 40 MPH and talking to the girl in the back seat..... never even touched the brakes........... nobody ever got hurt in that car.
But I'm not going to say it's better than a new car.........
Dave
I don't think anyone can tell you that our cars are even close to being as good as a new car. Like I said in an earlier post I think my '07 has 6 air bags.......
I just don't believe that they are as unsafe as we are being told. In my younger days I had a '58 Chevy that was forever running into things, getting run into, sliding into ditches. I think in the 4 years I owned that car I replaced the front end 5 times......... I did some pretty stupid things back then One time I rear ended a Caddy that was sitting at a red light..... I was probably doing 40 MPH and talking to the girl in the back seat..... never even touched the brakes........... nobody ever got hurt in that car.
But I'm not going to say it's better than a new car.........
Dave
SOT,,, If and when you get one of these fancy, safer, newer cars be sure you do your home work before you buy.
Not every newer car is safer then the old ones.
I still believe there is something fishy in that test,,,,
I would like to take a peak into the engine compartment of that 59 to see if indeed there is an engine in it.
Not every newer car is safer then the old ones.
I still believe there is something fishy in that test,,,,
I would like to take a peak into the engine compartment of that 59 to see if indeed there is an engine in it.
Ha. Sorry about that.
Thing is, unless someone can prove that this test was rigged, the point I took away from this seems moot: 50 years of safety engineering has paid off, resulting in cars that are exponentially safer in the event of a crash. In 1961, with the choices available, my car would have been fine. Now that I have better choices, I feel it is foolish to risk my life (not to mention that of my daughter) unnecessarily. The insinuations about paranoia or cowardice (no one who knows me would take either as anything but a joke) seem indicative of a certain attitude of denial: "I don't like this, so it cannot possibly be true." Unfortunately, nobody has provided any actual information to discredit either the test or the notion that modern cars are safer than our classics. And believe me, I would love it if they did, uncovering evidence that a team of gremlins went in with tiny hacksaws and turned the '59 into a house of cards. Someone, please do.
That's not the point. The test is rigged in the sense that they carefully and deliberately chose the worst possible impact point to show the most damage. It was not a random hit and proved nothing other than airbags and seatbelts are good. They could do the same thing on the Malibu and totally destroy it with a concentrated hit in just the right spot at the right angle.
There is no argument that the newer cars don't have better safety features, and we pay a lot more for them, but the engineering designs are very different from our old cars in that the old cars were designed with removable front ends to keep production costs down and allow a damaged vehicle to be economically and easily repaired. That's a big reason our old cars are still around. The newer cars are all unibody construction and not very repairable after a good hit. That Malibu would never be repaired.
The most effective safety feature ever is the seat belt. If you can't stay in the seat, there's no way to keep control of the vehicle. My mother was thrown out of a 65 Pontiac wagon after being T-boned by a truckload of illegals. The car rolled over her breaking ribs, legs, ankles, etc. Had she been strapped in, her injuries would have been a lot less serious.
Now I really give up.
SOT,
Sounds like you are willing to sell your 61 and put others in harms way, very honorable being the family man you claim to be, why don't you just send that POS to the crusher and be done with it.
Sounds like you are willing to sell your 61 and put others in harms way, very honorable being the family man you claim to be, why don't you just send that POS to the crusher and be done with it.
SonOfThomp
Well Known Member
Wanna buy a car?
I only make choices for myself. This is, after all, the land of the free. Right?