Not built like they used to.....i think not - Page 2

xy500 · 20-09-2009, 12:59 AM

did the bel air even have an engine in it?

geckoGT · 20-09-2009, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XplosiveR6

You hit something at 80-90km/h and the car still drove?? Haha I don’t think so. People have died in crashes doing much less then that.

.

Have to agree, I have been to many crashes at less speed than that where the car was from the same era and not driveable at the end of it.

Bad Bird · 20-09-2009, 08:49 AM

Rear ender. The car was driveable enough to get it off the road.

cowboy · 20-09-2009, 01:20 PM

I spent years in the SES attending and cutting people out of crashes. One night I attended a head-on at 100kph between an XE and a VN. The VN went throught the XE like it was made of tinfoil. Surprised the crap out of me.

Barry_v · 20-09-2009, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

What about the Smart vs an Original Mini?

I think you missed the point, probably deliberately, so you can feel better about plastics.

ramming 2 cars together only proves that at that angle, at that speed and under those conditions a possible real world result might happain if those two cars were to meet. it doesnt prove that new cars are stronger than old cars, far from it. in any case the belair's cabin although distorted was more or less intact, the fact they chose not to put a seatbelt on the dummy was the main cause of it looking so dramatic. its more an advertisement for seatbelts than anything.

personal experience tells me that the specific attributes of each car have far more to do with accident outcomes than how old they are. a family member rear ended a torana in an EL falcon. the EL came off with barely a scratch and the torana had a severely bent bumper and a crumpled quarter panel which effectively wrote it off. By the same token I had a mercedes CL180 rear end me in my P6 and I had to drive him to hospital because the mercedes was so badly damaged. my car's chrome bumper didnt even have a scratch on it, although the fibreglass corner piece was destroyed.

overall the video wasnt that spectacular, lets crash a hummer into a mini, followed by a '59 tank fairlane into an echo... doesnt prove anything but would be fun to watch!

Green X · 20-09-2009, 03:09 PM

Amazing what crumple zones and impact bracing can do, something the 59 probably didn't have any of.

mrbaxr6t · 20-09-2009, 04:20 PM

many years ago they began marketing a thing called "side intrusion bars" or some such thing, what it was was a length of "I" beam type stuff through the doors from front to back, with the manufacturer stating that it reduces cabin intrusion in a side on collision, and will strengthen the cabin in a frontender rearender from squashing front to rear - from memory this was in the early 90's, and at that time I was being fairly fullon with an XC GS rebuild, and spotted similar looking beams through the doors! from that day I became highly skeptical of what they marketed to me in terms of automotive safety.

For the record the beam inside the door was there in the first place for what appeared to be bracing for the door itself, and the door wouldn't exist at all without it as it wouldn't have the strength to.

irish2 · 20-09-2009, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry_v

I think you missed the point, probably deliberately, so you can feel better about plastics.

the fact they chose not to put a seatbelt on the dummy was the main cause of it looking so dramatic. its more an advertisement for seatbelts than anything.

The bel air only came with front lap seat belts. They were not equipped with lap sash. Most cars did not see recoiling lap sash belts for over a decade later.

Barry_v · 20-09-2009, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irish2

The bel air only came with front lap seat belts. They were not equipped with lap sash. Most cars did not see recoiling lap sash belts for over a decade later.

I am not knowledgable about 50s bel air seatbelt fitment...however, most 1960s falcons did not come equipped with standard seatbelts at all. next time you're at a car show have a look how many dont have them fitted now. when I purchased my '64 falcon I installed seatbelts, its a no brainer.

if you test two cars, one with a seatbelt, one without, the result is very predictable. it doesnt really tell you anything we didnt already know. as I said, the video shows the dangers of not wearing a seatbelt more than anything.

Scott · 20-09-2009, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry_v

as I said, the video shows the dangers of not wearing a seatbelt more than anything.

Couldn't disagree more.

Barry_v · 20-09-2009, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTP006

Couldn't disagree more.

so lets say you and I had a head on collision, me in my p6 with recoil seatbelts, padded dash/steering wheel and collapsible steering column and you with your GT but with no seatbelt on. you think you would still be better off?

Scott · 20-09-2009, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry_v

so lets say you and I had a head on collision, me in my p6 with recoil seatbelts, padded dash/steering wheel and collapsible steering column and you with your GT but with no seatbelt on. you think you would still be better off?

Why wouldn't I have my seatbelt on?

mustang70 · 20-09-2009, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xy500

did the bel air even have an engine in it?

it doesn't appear to does it? You're not the first one to doubt this if you look it up a bit. would make a MASSIVE difference if not present. of course the newer car would be safer but with an engine and transmission missing ....

XR Martin · 20-09-2009, 11:19 PM

Has the 2nd video been posted? The Belair's dash and steering wheel headbutts the driver, seatbelt or not he aint leaving that car with a pulse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d309QCuve7c&feature

If you think how far a dash has to come back to hit you in the head, imagine where the driver's floorpan and firewall is, probably about where your thighs are.

XR Martin · 20-09-2009, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mustang70

it doesn't appear to does it? You're not the first one to doubt this if you look it up a bit. would make a MASSIVE difference if not present. of course the newer car would be safer but with an engine and transmission missing ....

At time 52-54secs you can see the front of the sump (and just see the trans), and at 1:04 you can see the aircleaner assembly leaving the engine bay.

xy500 · 21-09-2009, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

At time 52-54secs you can see the front of the sump (and just see the trans), and at 1:04 you can see the aircleaner assembly leaving the engine bay.

i see what looks somewhat like an aircleaner, no sign of sump or trans where you indicated. There's definitely an exhaust pipe.
I don't see how a big block v8 and gearbox just crumple into nothing in the belair though... looks a bit suss.

XR Martin · 21-09-2009, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xy500

i see what looks somewhat like an aircleaner, no sign of sump or trans where you indicated. There's definitely an exhaust pipe.
I don't see how a big block v8 and gearbox just crumple into nothing in the belair though... looks a bit suss.

It had an I6, not a V8.

outback_ute · 21-09-2009, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry_v

the belair's cabin although distorted was more or less intact

Don't think so, the solid bits of the Malibu nearly reached the B pillar! Arguably this was a worst-case scenario, being an offset crash with an inline 6cyl engine so the engine would have barely been involved, and the reverse angle A pillar being useless in a crash, but the result would not be a lot better in other similar cars. However the offset test is what is used today, and the chassis rails in the '59 would still have come into play.

Even the standard crash test speed was raised from 56 to 64km/h in recent years - cars that did ok with the earlier one would be horrible with the higher speed one.

There a quite a few crash tests between different types of vehicles done by the Fifth Gear tv show that are worth looking at.

mrbaxr6t - the XA & XB doors didn't have intrusion bars. I've seen them on some new car ads also, quite strange really when they have been in cars in this country for 30 years - simply Australia has been ahead of other places in some areas.

XR6 Martin - even with a lap-sash seatbelt you can hit the dash/steering wheel with your head, passenger included. I remember crash test pics from EB/ED era where this was clearly shown (they paint the dash or similar, then marks show on the dummy's heads).

Wally · 21-09-2009, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

Id like to see a FG vs XY crash test.

I'd like to see an FG go head to head with a VE.

flappist · 21-09-2009, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry_v

I am not knowledgable about 50s bel air seatbelt fitment...however, most 1960s falcons did not come equipped with standard seatbelts at all. next time you're at a car show have a look how many dont have them fitted now. when I purchased my '64 falcon I installed seatbelts, its a no brainer.

if you test two cars, one with a seatbelt, one without, the result is very predictable. it doesnt really tell you anything we didnt already know. as I said, the video shows the dangers of not wearing a seatbelt more than anything.

xbgs351 · 21-09-2009, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

I love the 'they don't make em like they used to'. I laugh at this fallacy so hard, as with the '4wds are safer'. ahahha.

This is the VB/VC you're referring to: NOTE IT IS AT 100kmh rather than the usual speed which i don't know what is but is much much much slower.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgjtSilW8yM
And my other car: AU Falcon. I <3 structural integrity and airbags.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjJHZaBDlYU

I think the "They don't make them like they used to" thing started in the eighties when cars like the VB Commodore were introduced. It would be interesting to see how a 80's Commodore would compare to a 70's Kingswood. I do recall seeing a list of safe car in the early 90's and a WB Statesman was pretty high on that list.

Scott · 21-09-2009, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wally

I'd like to see an FG go head to head with a VE.

I think you'd get the same result as if you crashed two FG's or two VEs. I'd be more interested in seeing FG/VE crashed into BA/VZs or even AU/VYs.

Even keener to see some of the Soft Roaders and 4WDs crashed into 5 Star sedans.

flappist · 21-09-2009, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTP006

I think you'd get the same result as if you crashed two FG's or two VEs. I'd be more interested in seeing FG/VE crashed into BA/VZs or even AU/VYs.

Even keener to see some of the Soft Roaders and 4WDs crashed into 5 Star sedans.

Or ALL soft roader and 4WDs crashed into each other and resulting mess used as target practice for the RAAF

Scott · 21-09-2009, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

Or ALL soft roader and 4WDs crashed into each other and resulting mess used as target practice for the RAAF

Ouch... just in the process of buying a Lexus for the wife, you better watch yourself with comments like that

: apparently an XR8 with a tray isn't suitable for her anymore :(

flappist · 21-09-2009, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTP006

Ouch... just in the process of buying a Lexus for the wife, you better watch yourself with comments like that

: apparently an XR8 with a tray isn't suitable for her anymore :(

Well make sure that you block the right lane at 20km/h under the limit, park as close as possible next to ordinary cars in a carpark that you have to back out of regardless of how many empty spaces there are, park as close as possible to driveways out of shopping centres etc so no one can see oncoming traffic, park in the middle of a space that can normally take 2 vehicles, double park outside schools, move to the right lane in an overtaking zone but don't overtake, launch from a traffic light at exactly the same speed as the other lane regardless of how slow or fast it is, overtake in dangerous places then slow down to 10km/h under the limit.......

All this and more will be in the secret appendix of your owners manual in the section "Correct operation of this vehicle on roads".
There used to be a section titled "Correct operation of this vehicle off road" but it was deleted when is was found to be as useful as the "Correct operation of this vehicle on the moon" section as no one actually went there either.

Scott · 21-09-2009, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

Well make sure that you block the right lane at 20km/h under the limit,

lol, we're not QLD'ers yet. Give us another 17 years and we'll have it down pat. Purely functional reason for the purchase that has little to do with it's offroad capabilities or any other pseudo-reason for buying a higher car... her back won't cope well with putting a snot-gobbler in and out of a sedan.

edit - and relevance to this thread is that we looked at other options and went Lexus for the luxoness and 5 Star rating.

flappist · 21-09-2009, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTP006

lol, we're not QLD'ers yet. Give us another 17 years and we'll have it down pat. Purely functional reason for the purchase that has little to do with it's offroad capabilities or any other pseudo-reason for buying a higher car... her back won't cope well with putting a snot-gobbler in and out of a sedan.

While you are there see if you can scam a test drive of the ISF. That is the one Toyota that I would seriously consider buying.......

Fev · 21-09-2009, 02:03 PM

man! that was a nice bel air! always brings a tear to my eye when i see these videos..

never the less i'd much rather drive a modern car daily then practically anything pre 1990.

70s and earlier were death traps. Ever seen what the steering columns can do to you in a head on? Impalement isnt pretty..

Wally · 21-09-2009, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTP006

I think you'd get the same result as if you crashed two FG's or two VEs. I'd be more interested in seeing FG/VE crashed into BA/VZs or even AU/VYs.

Even keener to see some of the Soft Roaders and 4WDs crashed into 5 Star sedans.

Yeah but, yeah but, yeah but, I just wanna see the crash. Don't care about the brand.

Hypothetical, would Henry Gibson drive a soft roader or four wheeler if he was still alive in the Illinois Nazi chapter?

XR Martin · 21-09-2009, 02:44 PM

More info

Quote:

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety released on Thursday a video of a crash test between a 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air and a 2009 Malibu to demonstrate how car safety has improved. Not to simplify matters too much, but the Malibu won. And several Wheels readers speculated in comments that the car didn’t contain an engine, which would have affected the test.

Armed with these conspiracy theories, I returned to David Zuby, the senior vice president at the institute’s crash-test center in Virginia. He explained that when the institute went looking for a 1959 Bel Air to crash-test there was one thing the organization didn’t want and some things it did.

“We didn’t want to crash a museum piece,” Mr. Zuby said. “We were not looking for one that had been restored for museum or show quality.” But the vehicle had to have a solid structure, although a little surface rust would be acceptable.

They found what they wanted in Indiana. “The frame was sound and all the body panels were sound,” he said. It had a 3.9-liter 6-cylinder engine and was in driving condition.

The car was bought for about $8,500 and had about 74,000 miles on the odometer, which was broken. It was trucked to the test center in Virginia.

Mr. Zuby said the cloud that shows in the crash video wasn’t rust. “Most of that is road dirt that accumulates in nooks and crannies that you can’t get it,” he said.