What American cars do you like?

[NAZCA C2]

It seems like there is a lot of American car bashing on this forum. People don't like the Viper because it has an 8.3 liter engine, people don't like the GTO because it's just a Monaro with different badges, people don't like the Ford GT for this reason or that reason. There are a lot of American cars that I don't like either but when an American company does make a good car people try to down-play it for whatever reason. So are there any American cars that you people do like???

My favorite newer American cars.
1. C5/C6 Corvettes
2. New Mustang (not the V6)
3. Mustang Cobra R, any other Mustang Cobra with newer body style and the Mach 1
4. Cadillac CTS-V
5. Pontiac GTO
6. Lincoln LS
7. Shelby Series 1
8. Ford GT
9. Ford Focus (got to include a practical car)
10. Late model Camaros and Firebirds
11. All Saleens
12. All Panozs

[Rockefella]

It seems like there is a lot of American car bashing on this forum. People don't like the Viper because it has an 8.3 liter engine, people don't like the GTO because it's just a Monaro with different badges, people don't like the Ford GT for this reason or that reason. There are a lot of American cars that I don't like either but when an American company does make a good car people try to down-play it for whatever reason. So are there any American cars that you people do like???

My favorite newer American cars.
1. C5/C6 Corvettes
2. New Mustang (not the V6)
3. Mustang Cobra R, any other Mustang Cobra with newer body style and the Mach 1
4. Cadillac CTS-V
5. Pontiac GTO
6. Lincoln LS
7. Shelby Series 1
8. Ford GT
9. Ford Focus (got to include a practical car)
10. Late model Camaros and Firebirds
1, 2/3, 8, European version of 9. I hate American cars.

[Niko_Fx]

I'm sure there's more that I like:

Corvette C3/C5/C6
Ford GT
Panoz Esperante
Mosler MT900
Dodge Viper
Saleen S7
Shelby Series 1 and Cobra

And here's my idea of a sick looking Mustang Cobra:

http://img45.exs.cx/img45/6413/b39xc.jpg

[Quiggs]

Anything with SVT
Ford GT
Corvette
Viper
CTS-V
Anything Saleen
Anything Panoz
Anything Lingenfelter
Anything Roush
GTO
Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Sky (when they're released)
Last gen F-bodies
Last gen Mercury Cougar
Last gen Monte Carlo (only true faults were FWD and no manual)

Niko's Cobra has a fat ass. In a good way. :)

[shr0olvl]

I love alot of the american cars such as the:

Dodge Chargers (old)
All the Camaro's
Firebirds/Transams
GTO's
Chevelle's
Saleen S7
Ford GT
Ford Lightning
SRT-4
Dodge Viper
Corvettes(all)
Mercury Couger
plymouth cuda

oh yea, and theres many more ;)

[Spastik_Roach]

Well I love all the old Coke Bottle cars, but newies..

New Mustang.
New Corvette.
Chrysler 300c.
2003 Seville (Black with chrome wheels, Can you say F.B.I?)
Cad CTS
Cad XLR
Viper SRT-10 Coupe
2006 Ford Fusion (Not the Euro hatchback thing)
Ford Five Hundred
Ford GT
Whole Infiniti range (Well if you can call em American)
Jeep Wrangler and Cherokee
Lincoln LS
Mercury Marauder (That is one MEAN looking machine)
Pontiac Bonneville.
Panoz Esperante and AIV Roadster (Wish it was still made :( )

Thats about it.

[taz_rocks_miami]

American cars I love:

All Vettes
First Generation Camaro (67 - 69)
67 to 72 Chevelles (specially the Chevelle SS 454)
GTO Juge
Hemi and 440 Cudas
Any car with the name Shelby on it
The Saleen S7, both turbo and non turbo
The 2005 S281 and the S281-E
The Ligenfelter Vettes and GTOs
Ford GT
Viper, all versions

And many more :)

[my porsche]

I'm sure there's more that I like:

Corvette C3/C5/C6
Ford GT
Panoz Esperante
Mosler MT900
Dodge Viper
Saleen S7
Shelby Series 1 and Cobra

And here's my idea of a sick looking Mustang Cobra:


wow thats awesome!!! i love fat tires personally, like on a porsche if i get one id have 10" in back and 8" in front, theres just something about wide tires...

[my porsche]

and may i ask what has been done to that mustang? and where you got the pic?

[Coventrysucks]

9. Ford Focus (got to include a practical car)


Sorry, but that's a European car. :)

I would be more of a fan of the C6 if it didn't look so ropey, but that is just IMHO.

I like the GT.

The GTO I wouldn't call an American car, just as I wouldn't class the "Vauxhall" Monaro a British car.

Mosler make some interesting cars.

Generally the "relaxed" attitude of American cars (i.e. big, lazy engined muscle cars) doesn't appeal to me.

I'm more a fan of stripped out road-racers like the 996 GT2, 360 CS, Ariel Atom, TVR etc

[taz_rocks_miami]

Generally the "relaxed" attitude of American cars (i.e. big, lazy engined muscle cars) doesn't appeal to me.

Sounds like you're discribing older and not so old Cadilacs, Lincolns and Oldsmobiles when you use the word "relaxed" Coventry. Take a look at my list and tell me which is "lazy" or "relaxed.":)

[CdocZ]

wooooow.......where to begin. ok, considering what i saw today, this is the list (not in order, just what i decided to type first)
1) black srt-10 roadster
2) shelby gr-1, the one at naias, the chrome looking one
3) saleen s7TT
4) corvette z06
5) the new gto, looks a bit more muscular, less like a sleeper
6) everything else nice and american at the show!

[F1_Master]

Any Viper
'85 Vette and up
Ford GT
Any Saleens
SVT Mustang Cobra R
'05 Stang
Many more nice cars.

Oh yes, the Acura NSX. Still somewhat Japanese, but just a luxorious version of the Honda.

[Spastik_Roach]

5) the new gto, looks a bit more muscular, less like a sleeper

Thats an Australian car ;)

[CdocZ]

Thats an Australian car ;)
sadly yes.......ok, so scratch that. i really wish i wouldnt be the victim of gm a) trying to save money off the major models, and b) wouldnt rush. oh well, many other great american cars :D

[Mdbgtft]

My favorite newer American cars.
1. C5/C6 Corvettes
2. New Mustang (not the V6)
3. Mustang Cobra R, any other Mustang Cobra with newer body style and the Mach 1
4. Cadillac CTS-V
5. Pontiac GTO
6. Lincoln LS
7. Shelby Series 1
8. Ford GT
9. Ford Focus (got to include a practical car)
10. Late model Camaros and Firebirds
11. All Saleens
12. All Panozs
I like all except the Focus :D

[Coventrysucks]

Sounds like you're discribing older and not so old Cadilacs, Lincolns and Oldsmobiles when you use the word "relaxed" Coventry. Take a look at my list and tell me which is "lazy" or "relaxed.":)

No, you mis-read me.

"Relaxed" as in big engines that rely more on torque for performance, rather than the traditional Euro style rev-happy power plants, such as the TVR speed 8 & 6, Ferrari V8s, Porsche's flat 6 etc.

They need working to extract the performance, and it is just something that appeals more to me. :)

[CdocZ]

No, you mis-read me.

"Relaxed" as in big engines that rely more on torque for performance, rather than the traditional Euro style rev-happy power plants, such as the TVR speed 8 & 6, Ferrari V8s, Porsche's flat 6 etc.

They need working to extract the performance, and it is just something that appeals more to me. :)
big engines=coooooool!

[Coventrysucks]

big engines=coooooool!

Saying that isn't going to change my opinion...

[ScionDriver]

Vipers, Saleens, Chrysler 300C, Plymouth Prowler, Ford GT and GT40, Hudsons, Mustangs, Lincolns (30s-60s) umm and some Caddys.

[Fleet 500]

So are there any American cars that you people do like???

I like '50s-'70s Cadillacs and '60s/early '70s muscle cars (like '68-'70 Dodge Chargers, '70 SS Chevelles [396 & 454], Olds 442s, Buick GS 400 and 455, Pontiac GTO/Firebird, Ford Fairlanes and many more).

Also '50s cars and assorted Lincolns and Imperials.

(I love American cars.) :D

[Fleet 500]

big engines=coooooool!
YES!

Incidentally, modern Cadillacs and Lincoln don't rely on torque anymore- the hp rating now is usually more than the torque rating. And their maximum hp is at a much higher rpm than on older Cadillacs and Lincolns. For instance, the hp rating of the 2005 CTS-v tested in the latest (Feb.) issue of Motor Trend, reaches maximum hp at 6,000 rpm. The old 472 from '68/'69 reached maximum hp at only 4,400 (probably one reason why those engines last so long).

[Blitz_]

Mustang.....nuff said.

[Slicks]

YES!

Incidentally, modern Cadillacs and Lincoln don't rely on torque anymore- the hp rating now is usually more than the torque rating. And their maximum hp is at a much higher rpm than on older Cadillacs and Lincolns. For instance, the hp rating of the 2005 CTS-v tested in the latest (Feb.) issue of Motor Trend, reaches maximum hp at 6,000 rpm. The old 472 from '68/'69 reached maximum hp at only 4,400 (probably one reason why those engines last so long).
heh, the CTS-V uses the LS6 from the Z06, not really a caddi engine. Look at the V6 engine in the CTS though, it does rev to 6500RPMs.

[CdocZ]

ok, one thing id like to say about the new z06. i was expecting a cheap 500 horsepower to finally bring the viper down in its own territory (powerful mofo muscle car). i was NOT expecting a 70k price tag!!!! that killed the whole purpose of invading the viper's very well set borders, because now it competes with the viper in price too!!!!!!!! DAAAAAAAAAAMIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! but one thing that really cancels that out. anyone who bashes the shelby gr-1 in my sight.......will not live long. :p

[Rockefella]

ok, one thing id like to say about the new z06. i was expecting a cheap 500 horsepower to finally bring the viper down in its own territory (powerful mofo muscle car). i was NOT expecting a 70k price tag!!!! that killed the whole purpose of invading the viper's very well set borders, because now it competes with the viper in price too!!!!!!!! DAAAAAAAAAAMIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! but one thing that really cancels that out. anyone who bashes the shelby gr-1 in my sight.......will not live long. :p
The shelby gr-1 is a disgrace to the shelby name and should not be sold due to it's awful performance. :)

[Slicks]

ok, one thing id like to say about the new z06. i was expecting a cheap 500 horsepower to finally bring the viper down in its own territory (powerful mofo muscle car). i was NOT expecting a 70k price tag!!!! that killed the whole purpose of invading the viper's very well set borders, because now it competes with the viper in price too!!!!!!!! DAAAAAAAAAAMIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! but one thing that really cancels that out. anyone who bashes the shelby gr-1 in my sight.......will not live long. :p
Price has not yet been confirmed. So it can be 60K, 65K, or 70K, no one knows for sure.

[CdocZ]

as long as it doesnt end up costing nearly 80k or 70k, cause that kills most of its chance as a viper-killer.

[Carmaniac]

My favorites

Cadillac Cien and Sixteen
Ford Mustang 2005
Shelby Cobra
Dodge Magnum
GM Automony Concept
Corvette C6
Dodge Viper RT-10
:D

[RS6]

Anything from the 1920s-1930s.
Ford Mustang (Original)-New ones are awful
Ford Thunderbird (Original)
50s and 60s Corvettes
Dodge Charger (Original)
Dodge Viper
Saleen S7
A few other muscle cars from the 60s
And the new GT, I suppose.

That's about it.

[SlickHolden]

You know the problem with the GTO new one brains most dont have them in GM.

This is what should have happend

Basic GTO or Monaro And the HSV GTO the same way it gets sold in the UK then you got basic sports and high performence. Base $30,000 With Gen3. $49,000 HSV GTO with Gen4.

http://www.southgate.com.au/vz/monarofront.jpghttp://carpoint.ninemsn.com.au/CarContent/Polk/400/7fzgtofd.jpg

[QuattroMan]

ill take #s

1}C5/C6 Corvettes
7} Shelby Series 1
10} Late model Camaros and Firebirds yes!yes!i like! i like!i like! :D

[taz_rocks_miami]

No, you mis-read me.

"Relaxed" as in big engines that rely more on torque for performance, rather than the traditional Euro style rev-happy power plants, such as the TVR speed 8 & 6, Ferrari V8s, Porsche's flat 6 etc.

Ok, my bad :)


They need working to extract the performance, and it is just something that appeals more to me. :)

Doesn't that put more ware and tare on the engine? I respect the fact you prefer high reving engines, I enjoy them too. But It's nice to have a wide torque curve you can use at almost any RPM :)

[my porsche]

Ok, my bad :)



Doesn't that put more ware and tare on the engine? I respect the fact you prefer high reving engines, I enjoy them too. But It's nice to have a wide torque curve you can use at almost any RPM :)

i love high revving engines, the sound is just pure ambrosia :p but seriously, id take a V12 high revving over a turbo V6 6000redline makeing the same power as the v12 anyday

[NAZCA C2]

i love high revving engines, the sound is just pure ambrosia :p but seriously, id take a V12 high revving over a turbo V6 6000redline makeing the same power as the v12 anyday

You and me both. Turbo cars are nice but they got no sound. The Lotus Espirit is probably the best sounding turbo car. One of my favorite sounding cars is the Ferrari F355. Sounds like a race car.

[early93viper]

There are so many american cars I like:
Vipers of course
Stealths (not really American)
Ford GT40
Ford GT
Mustangs
Corvettes
GTOs
Firebirds/Cameros
S7s
Shelby Daytona, Shelby Cobra
etc.
etc.

[RS6]

[QUOTE=early93viper]Ford GT40
QUOTE]

How many times do you people have to be told, the GT40 is not an American car.

I think the Esprit Twin Turbo V8 sounds too much like a four cylinder.

[Slicks]

Ford GT40


How many times do you people have to be told, the GT40 is not an American car.

I think the Esprit Twin Turbo V8 sounds too much like a four cylinder.
Its easy to see how people think the GT40 is an american car, it has a ford badge, and ford is an american company. :rolleyes:
Yeah yeah, it was built in the UK or something, who cares? Nobles are built in South Africa, does that make them not british cars?

[Matra et Alpine]

It was designed in the UK, Slicks, I think that's where the commonality with the Noble sits.

BUT, without Ford US pouring MILLIONS in to the first 3 years fo failry mediocrity we'd never have gotten the ultimate GT40s.

Also in terms of "attitude", it's no doubt an American car. Even the specialist Brit companies of the day weren't building huge stonking engines in the back of (realtively) lightweight GT cars. They were all building GT road cars, which the GT40 coudl never really be taken for real as - even the new one is 'flawed' :(

[crisis]

sadly yes.......ok, so scratch that. i really wish i wouldnt be the victim of gm a) trying to save money off the major models, and b) wouldnt rush. oh well, many other great american cars :D
GM started as a company who bought car manufacturing companies. As such they were not manufacturers themselves. GM now own manufacturing companies all around the world. GM is an American company so are cars built by GM and its subsidiaries "American" cars or are only cars built on US soil "American"? If so what actually defines its American-ness?

[Slicks]

It was designed in the UK, Slicks, I think that's where the commonality with the Noble sits.

BUT, without Ford US pouring MILLIONS in to the first 3 years fo failry mediocrity we'd never have gotten the ultimate GT40s.

Also in terms of "attitude", it's no doubt an American car. Even the specialist Brit companies of the day weren't building huge stonking engines in the back of (realtively) lightweight GT cars. They were all building GT road cars, which the GT40 coudl never really be taken for real as - even the new one is 'flawed' :(
Where was the GT40 actually designed at? That was my point, wasnt it designed here and built in the UK?

[CdocZ]

GM started as a company who bought car manufacturing companies. As such they were not manufacturers themselves. GM now own manufacturing companies all around the world. GM is an American company so are cars built by GM and its subsidiaries "American" cars or are only cars built on US soil "American"? If so what actually defines its American-ness?
good question. i dont really know the specific answer. its kind of like giving the exact definition for a supercar i guess. but......i guess something with a) american style design (whatever the hell that is right now....) and b) american company (not like fords germany division kind of thing, like the american part). sorry that i cant give a very definite answer tho :o

[NAZCA C2]

The GT40 is American, I don't care where it was built. Who pays for it is what matters the most.

[crisis]

good question. i dont really know the specific answer. its kind of like giving the exact definition for a supercar i guess. but......i guess something with a) american style design (whatever the hell that is right now....) and b) american company (not like fords germany division kind of thing, like the american part). sorry that i cant give a very definite answer tho :o
Its the same question in Australia. Is a Commodore an Australian car? US built V8, imported transmissions, Australian built but US designed V6. Most confusing. Its Australian-ness comes from the fact they are rear wheel drive , large sedans. Still the design stems from European Opels. :)

[crisis]

The GT40 is American, I don't care where it was built. Who pays for it is what matters the most.
To you. Hardly definitive though.

[Matra et Alpine]

Where was the GT40 actually designed at? That was my point, wasnt it designed here and built in the UK?
It was a Lola chassis, an improvement on their Mk6
http://www.lolaheritage.com/assets/mk6.jpg
It's neither British nor American, it's a perfect harmony of both.
This usually only gets raised when the American flag gets waved a little too strongly about the GT40. It's roots and succes are British engineering based. It's financial backing is American and the new GT success will be pure American.
As was the norm in the 60s and 70s ( and 80s, 90s, etc ) the Brits are great at the ideas and crap at the manufacturing :) LUCAS :) 'nuff said :)

[CdocZ]

Its the same question in Australia. Is a Commodore an Australian car? US built V8, imported transmissions, Australian built but US designed V6. Most confusing. Its Australian-ness comes from the fact they are rear wheel drive , large sedans. Still the design stems from European Opels. :)
i think ucp needs to have a bunch of discussion threads, to find the average opinion of these things. i mean, how do you really tell wether a car is from a certain country anymore? so many parts come from otherplaces. also, how do you actually define "supercar"?

[Matra et Alpine]

Even when the parts come from a country, the design can be from somewhere else.
is it the design, or the manufacture ?
For tax purposes it's always the manufacture.
We built a whole bunch of our instruments in Australia to take advantage of the local breaks on "Australian made" products :) The boards came from Germany, the metalwork from America and most of the components from Japan and the high-tech components from Scotland. Screw them together in Melbourne and call it Australian :)

Same with cars no doubt - of all flavours. So Britain got lots of new factories when it loked liek wew woudl be IN Europe. Some now moving work into mainstream Europe :(

[CdocZ]

true, but also, what about the engine, cause, like crisis said, alot of australian engines are american imported engines. alot of the exterior design is sometimes done by other places too.

[Spastik_Roach]

Take my mums Toyota Corona for example. Parts made in Japan, but assembled in New Zealand.

What is it? :)

[CdocZ]

that happens alot here too. but what if its japanese designed, assembled in mexico, and shipped to the u.s.?

[crisis]

true, but also, what about the engine, cause, like crisis said, alot of australian engines are american imported engines. alot of the exterior design is sometimes done by other places too.
CDs Blaupunkt, seats Lear Industries made in South Australia, dont know who owns the company (unless its part of Lear as in Jet). Gearboxes, diffs, engine managment, fuel system. It gos for all cars from all countries really.

[SlickHolden]

I think if a car is designed in a country and put together there with parts from around the world then it's still that countrys car.

Like dick smith made dickheads. The tips were german? the sticks something else, the box something else also but it was all put together here, And called Australian owned and made, He made a great point with that it's easy to bullshit the public.

but with the Commodore. We now build the V6, the V8 was to be made here but i read Chev threw a spanner in the works and now it's not worth it with Gen4 around the corner.
the opel insperation for the commodore is just that, Stick them side by side and the cars dont have wheelbase length width height weight cabin size boot size engines tranny's suspensions in common. No matter how much the look is 20-40% there it's never going to be close. The VE GTO U.S made will have more in common with the VE Monaro then the VT had with the Omega. I don't think one car has all it's own made parts anymore. If we said 10 years ago that a commodore would have a BWM Tranny in it's car we would have been arressted for being on something:D

Hey my pc was made by myself i bought all the parts and put them together, They are from overseas but hey it's 100% Aussie Owned and made:D

[DieterCabral]

Well I like the Vette C6, and the new Mustang...

let me explain why is it that Europeans, and Latin Americans ( I live in Mexico) hate American cars... lets take the new 300c.... what do you see when you analyze its design, its engine, and the overall rating of this vehicle... the first thing you can see is that it has BLING BLING written all over it... I know that this whole Kitsch (the art of bad taste) is a hit in the USA... I know you guys love your Escalade EXT with 26'' Giovanna and whatever chrome gizmo you can get into it... prove of this whole culture is "pimp my ride" where the objective is to make the car as physically unattractive as possible… like I said I understand that you guys like this, that you think “hey its cool to have lavender-to-green paintjobs”; however, to rest of the world that has access to Alfa Romeo and in general to all of Pininfarina’s and Giugiaro’s designs we realize that this whole 8.6 litter engine that “only” produces 500 hp is a waste, the 300c is garbage, the Magnum R/T, the Crown Victoria, all of them are in my opinion not worthy of being compared to a M3 or to a Boxter S ( compared trough price range)

Well I respect your opinion if you believe that a Firebird is a fantastic car, but I would ask you to reconsider and think about the “luxurious” interiors of this “car”…

[Slicks]

Well I like the Vette C6, and the new Mustang...

let me explain why is it that Europeans, and Latin Americans ( I live in Mexico) hate American cars... lets take the new 300c.... what do you see when you analyze its design, its engine, and the overall rating of this vehicle... the first thing you can see is that it has BLING BLING written all over it...

To me it looks like a nice luxury crusier, I dont see any "bling."
http://www.fast-autos.net/chrysler/300.html


I know that this whole Kitsch (the art of bad taste) is a hit in the USA... I know you guys love your Escalade EXT with 26'' Giovanna and whatever chrome gizmo you can get into it... prove of this whole culture is "pimp my ride" where the objective is to make the car as physically unattractive as possible… like I said I understand that you guys like this, that you think “hey its cool to have lavender-to-green paintjobs”;

Uhg I hate that so much!



however, to rest of the world that has access to Alfa Romeo and in general to all of Pininfarina’s and Giugiaro’s designs we realize that this whole 8.6 litter engine that “only” produces 500 hp is a waste, the 300c is garbage, the Magnum R/T, the Crown Victoria, all of them are in my opinion not worthy of being compared to a M3 or to a Boxter S ( compared trough price range)

Alfa isnt really anything to brag about... IMO almost all of their designs are really tacky. The only ones that I can think of that I do like are the 2003 8C Competizione Concept, and the 1967 Tipo 33 Stradale.
The whole "8.3L not making enough hp/l" is a ricer argument. Look at things that actually matter, like weight and torque. You know that displacement does not represent size or weight right?
The 300C is a very respectable luxury sedan, the Magnum R/T is a ugly, but supposedly nice wagon, and the Crown Vic is a grandma car, that isnt taken seriously anywhere. And where they being compared to the M3 and Boxster? Both the M3 and Boxster are WAY more expencive...
M3 $47,000USD (with no options)
(2003 when new)Porsche Boxter S $51,000USD
05 300C $32,900USD
Magnum R/T $30,000USD
05 Crown Vic $25,000USD


Well I respect your opinion if you believe that a Firebird is a fantastic car, but I would ask you to reconsider and think about the “luxurious” interiors of this “car”…
Why not compare cars that are in the same price and class? You do realize you just compared a low dollar muslce car to a high dollar luxury sedan, and super high dollar GT? The T/A's interior is fine for what it is, its not supposed to be that luxurious, its a friggen muscle car! Im buying a T/A when I can find the right one, do you think Im buying it for luxury? Hell no, I want a brute, crude muscle car.
look at these nice american interiors
http://www.fast-autos.net/dodge/chargerrt11.jpg
http://www.fast-autos.net/cadillac/ctsv12.jpg
http://www.fast-autos.net/cadillac/xlr16.jpg
http://www.fast-autos.net/cadillac/sts11.jpg (yes, thats real wood)
http://www.fast-autos.net/ford/05mustang35.jpg
http://www.fast-autos.net/buick/velite20.html (real snake skin shifter boot)
http://www.fast-autos.net/pontiac/solstice16.html
And those are are still much cheaper than a Boxster, or M3...

[Fleet 500]

Doesn't that put more ware and tare on the engine? I respect the fact you prefer high reving engines, I enjoy them too. But It's nice to have a wide torque curve you can use at almost any RPM :)

I think so. A high revving engine, on average, is going to wear faster than a low-revving engine. That's one reason why I like '60s and '70s Cadillacs- their slow-revving engines not only produce more than ample torque, but they also last forever!

[fpv_gtho]

I think if a car is designed in a country and put together there with parts from around the world then it's still that countrys car.

Like dick smith made dickheads. The tips were german? the sticks something else, the box something else also but it was all put together here, And called Australian owned and made, He made a great point with that it's easy to bullshit the public.

but with the Commodore. We now build the V6, the V8 was to be made here but i read Chev threw a spanner in the works and now it's not worth it with Gen4 around the corner.
the opel insperation for the commodore is just that, Stick them side by side and the cars dont have wheelbase length width height weight cabin size boot size engines tranny's suspensions in common. No matter how much the look is 20-40% there it's never going to be close. The VE GTO U.S made will have more in common with the VE Monaro then the VT had with the Omega. I don't think one car has all it's own made parts anymore. If we said 10 years ago that a commodore would have a BWM Tranny in it's car we would have been arressted for being on something:D

Hey my pc was made by myself i bought all the parts and put them together, They are from overseas but hey it's 100% Aussie Owned and made:D

I made a thread ages ago actually about some article that was highlighting the local content of the Falcon, Commodore and locally produced Camry's, Avalons and Magna's. The Falcon was clearly ontop with close to 80% local content, the Japanese were around 70%. Holden refused to comment on the Commodore, so that gives you a good indication of how local "Australia's own" is :p

[SlickHolden]

It's a unfair one on them but:p
Engine V8 U.S or really Canada:p V6 U.S Tranny U.S. Thats a big part of the car, If it was done when they had local trannys and home made V8 i'm sure they would have jumped in there. Maybe now they might with the Alloytech in VE ??

[Blitz_]

Hmm so raw power over refinement? i still choose a classic muscle car, eg mustang, charger, over euro trash any day, i can live witout a pish posh interior. I bought the latest model of Motor, read it, it explains how companies such as BMW, try to make driving easier, but end up making things more complicated - e.g the iDrive syste, totally unnessary, and in the end drivers dont get to really use half of the features whacked onto the car.

That is y i still luv my old skool muscle cars, my dads charger, runs 13's all day, reliable as hell, raw power, lacks refinment and that iz what gives it its character, the things that are wrong with it make it so much better than the mercs and beemers that go around town, they even turn thier heads when we zoom by.

[fpv_gtho]

Hmm so raw power over refinement? i still choose a classic muscle car, eg mustang, charger, over euro trash any day, i can live witout a pish posh interior. I bought the latest model of Motor, read it, it explains how companies such as BMW, try to make driving easier, but end up making things more complicated - e.g the iDrive syste, totally unnessary, and in the end drivers dont get to really use half of the features whacked onto the car.

That is y i still luv my old skool muscle cars, my dads charger, runs 13's all day, reliable as hell, raw power, lacks refinment and that iz what gives it its character, the things that are wrong with it make it so much better than the mercs and beemers that go around town, they even turn thier heads when we zoom by.

Well i for one could live without the shit dynamics of any muscle car as i'd want to be able to take it in more than a straight line at any sort of a decent speed.

A decent interior doesnt have to be pish-posh either, it just has to have everything in the right place

[Blitz_]

Any1 read the new Motor, the kia sports version that copies directly off the WRX? i laighed ma ass off when i read that Kia rejected claims of copying deisgns.

[fpv_gtho]

I never thought i'd hear myself saying this..but

This thread isnt about the new Motor Mag :p

[Blitz_]

lol i was just stating something i read, which happened to be quite funny, as well as the TYPHOONS EXPULSION FROM PCOTY!!!

[Fleet 500]

That is y i still luv my old skool muscle cars, my dads charger, runs 13's all day, reliable as hell, raw power, lacks refinment and that iz what gives it its character, the things that are wrong with it make it so much better than the mercs and beemers that go around town, they even turn thier heads when we zoom by.

Yeah, it is amazing how reliable the old muscle cars are even when driven hard.
I wouldn't try to fool anyone- if I bought something like a '69 440 Charger R/T, it would of course be using its ample power every time I drove it. Accelerating through the gears, burning rubber, etc. And I would bet the engine would still be running (without being rebuilt) 10 years in the future.

[SlickHolden]

Hmm so raw power over refinement? i still choose a classic muscle car, eg mustang, charger, over euro trash any day, i can live witout a pish posh interior. I bought the latest model of Motor, read it, it explains how companies such as BMW, try to make driving easier, but end up making things more complicated - e.g the iDrive syste, totally unnessary, and in the end drivers dont get to really use half of the features whacked onto the car.

That is y i still luv my old skool muscle cars, my dads charger, runs 13's all day, reliable as hell, raw power, lacks refinment and that iz what gives it its character, the things that are wrong with it make it so much better than the mercs and beemers that go around town, they even turn thier heads when we zoom by.
My Bro's mate's AU Ghia 5lt Runs a best time of 15.1. And my Bro's car has beat him 95 Ghia. He would do in the 14's with a 6:D

[crisis]

I bought the latest model of Motor, read it, it explains how companies such as BMW, try to make driving easier, but end up making things more complicated - e.g the iDrive syste, totally unnessary, and in the end drivers dont get to really use half of the features whacked onto the car.
BMW have lost the plot in so many ways.



That is y i still luv my old skool muscle cars, my dads charger, runs 13's all day, reliable as hell, raw power, lacks refinment and that iz what gives it its character, the things that are wrong with it make it so much better than the mercs and beemers that go around town, they even turn thier heads when we zoom by.
And sucks down twice the amount of fuel a similalry poweful modern engine would. And would kill you quicker if things went pear shaped. But thats not the point of old cars. It is more about the romanticism and nostalgia which is fair enough.

[CdocZ]

ok, you cant really bash an original muscle car about fuel comsumption. technology wasnt that great back then, i mean, sure there were things with better mileage, but it wasnt anywhere NEAR as varied as it is today (prius vs. enzo)

[crisis]

ok, you cant really bash an original muscle car about fuel comsumption. technology wasnt that great back then, i mean, sure there were things with better mileage, but it wasnt anywhere NEAR as varied as it is today (prius vs. enzo)
And an Enzo probably gets better fuel economy than any muscle car too.

[CdocZ]

yeah, 40 years into the future however, and probably not by much.

[Quiggs]

And an Enzo probably gets better fuel economy than any muscle car too.

An extra 2 gears will do that. What's the final gear ratio in the Enzo? Low 3.xx? Opposed to the 3.94 and 4.11's you'd commonly find in a late 60s Chevelle or Cuda. There's lots of ways to look at it.

[CdocZ]

yeah.....you can also remember that these cars are almost 40 years old now, and were meant to be cheaper in the first place, not to be the most advanced things around. 40 years of technology is a LOT of change!

[Blitz_]

Hahahhaha yer there wasnt a prius 40 years ago, id laugh my ass off seeing a bikie drive 1 though

[fpv_gtho]

An extra 2 gears will do that. What's the final gear ratio in the Enzo? Low 3.xx? Opposed to the 3.94 and 4.11's you'd commonly find in a late 60s Chevelle or Cuda. There's lots of ways to look at it.

Probably pretty similar, low 3's are cruising gears, why would an Enzo focus on cruising

[Quiggs]

The Enzo's 6th gear is .76:1. To get to its claimed top speed of 217, it'd need a decently low final drive. As well as to make the car drivable in everyday situations. I haven't found the exact number yet, but I'd bet it's in the 3.3-3.4 range. Way less than 3.94.

[fpv_gtho]

3.4-3.6 would be my guess, the engine does rev pretty good remember.

[CdocZ]

no one seems to notice what im saying......

[Quiggs]

Well, SC.net has 1-6 but no final. Then I found this site (http://www.supercarstats.com/exotics/ferrari_enzo.php) that has a final drive listed at 3.70, but very different ratios for 1-6 from SC.net. Not sure which to believe, if either. *shrug* It also says the Enzo makes 100hp less than it really does.

[Quiggs]

no one seems to notice what im saying......
I noticed. A lot has changed. Fuel injection, computer controlled timing, the list goes on. All of them have increased economy.

[Fleet 500]

And sucks down twice the amount of fuel a similalry poweful modern engine would. And would kill you quicker if things went pear shaped. But thats not the point of old cars. It is more about the romanticism and nostalgia which is fair enough.
Most owners of '60s muscle cars only drive them on the weekends or something like under 3,000 miles/year. So, overall, they are probably using about the same amount of fuel as someone who drives an econobox to work five days a week 50 miles one-way.

[Fleet 500]

I noticed. A lot has changed. Fuel injection, computer controlled timing, the list goes on. All of them have increased economy.
All of them have also increased diagnosis/repair costs by a huge amount.

[CdocZ]

yeah, cause they old. they can last too much longer. they were amazing.......so amazing.....

[jcp123]

I like the Chrysler 300 Hemi, Dodge Magnum Hemi, and the GTO. Other than that, nothing really excites me. The new F150's OK.

Or if I may, I'd say most any car up to about 1975. Ah, they don't build 'em like that anymore, it's a shame.

[crisis]

Most owners of '60s muscle cars only drive them on the weekends or something like under 3,000 miles/year. So, overall, they are probably using about the same amount of fuel as someone who drives an econobox to work five days a week 50 miles one-way.
Or an LS1 7 days a week. The fact is they are less economical and more temperamental. It doesnt matter what scenario you want to hypothesize.

[jcp123]

Yeah, and I drive my Mustang every day. Works out well, even at 16mpg I could have a Suburban or something that gets the same, but is only half the fun.

My Dad also drives his Mach 1 evey day (or he did before he retired on new years). But he did b!tch and moan about getting 13mpg on a car that only takes high-test, and that only from a 76 station. Gawd we need 93 octane here.

[CdocZ]

Yeah, and I drive my Mustang every day. Works out well, even at 16mpg I could have a Suburban or something that gets the same, but is only half the fun.

My Dad also drives his Mach 1 evey day (or he did before he retired on new years). But he did b!tch and moan about getting 13mpg on a car that only takes high-test, and that only from a 76 station. Gawd we need 93 octane here.
i want a mustang......

[jcp123]

We're lettin all three of em go by this summer...

[Mattg]

I like my dads 03 silverado.Its very dependable :D

[fpv_gtho]

Gawd we need 93 octane here.

Our STANDARD fuel here is 91 and the sell 95/6 and 98. I feel sorry for you guys

[Fleet 500]

Or an LS1 7 days a week. The fact is they are less economical and more temperamental. It doesnt matter what scenario you want to hypothesize.
The fact remains that driving a classic car only 3,000 or 4,000 miles/year is about the same (economically and emissions speaking) as driving a modern car 12,000 or 15,000 miles/year.
BTW, none of my cars are temperamental.

[jcp123]

The fact remains that driving a classic car only 3,000 or 4,000 miles/year is about the same (economically and emissions speaking) as driving a modern car 12,000 or 15,000 miles/year.
BTW, none of my cars are temperamental.

Yes, and keep in mind that the production of said new car also pollutes a lot, and uses quite a few fuel resources. Driving a classic/used car means that the environment has already absorbed that hit, and no new pollution is produced for a new car anymore. So when you factor that in, new cars aren't all that environmentally friendly, after all.

[Karrmann]

hardly like any cause they are cheap pieces of crap that break down every day that are way overpriced.

but I like the Fird Crown Victoris, Five Hundred and Escort.

and also the GMC Jimmy, and all Vectors (Vector being the only good american car company)

and the Chevy Imnpala

[jcp123]

hardly like any cause they are cheap pieces of crap that break down every day that are way overpriced.

but I like the Fird Crown Victoris, Five Hundred and Escort.

and also the GMC Jimmy, and all Vectors (Vector being the only good american car company)

and the Chevy Imnpala

I shouldn't have to say anything anymore about generalizations like that.

[CdocZ]

hardly like any cause they are cheap pieces of crap that break down every day that are way overpriced.

but I like the Fird Crown Victoris, Five Hundred and Escort.

and also the GMC Jimmy, and all Vectors (Vector being the only good american car company)

and the Chevy Imnpala
the ones that break down easily, are the 20k craps. sadly, they make up a huge amount of the american auto industry. that doesnt mean that the rest suck. dodge has some quality sports cars (most arent liked by foreigners, but they are quite popular), same for chrysler, and GM. ford also has alot of nice things. its just most people follow the stereotype, and forget about the quality cars, and yes, if looked at as a whole, american cars are crap, but there are loads of good cars in there. the american version of the monaro is good, high competition for everything in its class, and its a nice quality car. not as quality as a g35, but a g35 isnt meant as much for sport. the 300c is good. the crossfire, while kind of ugly can last awhile. mustangs last along time. same with vettes. and as for cheaper, the dodge magnum is pretty good.
btw, alot of these cars i dont even like, so dont even try to say its american bias. i just hate how the 20k american craps are the things that created the main view in general for american cars.

[crisis]

The fact remains that driving a classic car only 3,000 or 4,000 miles/year is about the same (economically and emissions speaking) as driving a modern car 12,000 or 15,000 miles/year.
BTW, none of my cars are temperamental.
So you they are compromised by the fact that you can only drive them 3 or 4000 mile where you can drive a modern fuel injected LS1 all day every day. Whats the advantage? If I drove my LS1 only 3-4000 miles a year I would be far ahead in economy.

[crisis]

Yes, and keep in mind that the production of said new car also pollutes a lot, and uses quite a few fuel resources. Driving a classic/used car means that the environment has already absorbed that hit, and no new pollution is produced for a new car anymore.
Everyone cant drive old cars.


So when you factor that in, new cars aren't all that environmentally friendly, after all.
When you factor it in it means crap. If you have to build more cars you build them with new technology. If we still built cars like we did in the 70s we couldnt afford them and we would be in a much worse situation pollution wise and fuel usage wise than today.

[jcp123]

You misunderstand; I'm not saying to build new cars with traditional technology. I'm saying that driving a classic or used car means you're not polluting any more than you would by buying a brand new car. That simple. Also, I didn't just include classic, I included used in that category as well, meaning late-model used.

[Matra et Alpine]

Nitrogen compound emissions from older cars are MUCH higher than modern ones.
Continuting to run old cars mean we're making no reduction to the worst pollutant from cars.
There is a crossover where the lower emissions of the new car mean it's total emissions become less than th eolder car. With every mile an older car comes closer to a new car. SOME of the figures quoted in these "footprint" arguments are skewed and assume col energy production to make the cars and a lifetime of 5-10 years for the new car. Change each of these and it's not so clear cut. They also don't take into account that the emissiosn generateed in producing a new car are localised. The pollution from a vehicle is distributed and less controllable and potentially more hazardous to children, plants etc.

[crisis]

You misunderstand; I'm not saying to build new cars with traditional technology. I'm saying that driving a classic or used car means you're not polluting any more than you would by buying a brand new car. That simple. Also, I didn't just include classic, I included used in that category as well, meaning late-model used.
I am sayin gthat there are a finite number of old cars and ever increasing demand from new drivers. The demand has to be met by building something. Therefore my argument. What do we build , old style cars or new ones. It is only part of the question. Old cars are much worse to have an accident in , are much more likely to be involved given similar conditions and more costly to repair given you need to replace metal , which would be more ecologically hazardous to produce than plastic.

[SupraMan22]

Saleen S7 TT
Dodge Viper
Ford GT
Ford Lightining
Corvette C5
Shelby Series 1
Saleen Mustang
Chrysler 300C SRT-8
Mustang Cobra SVT
OOPs..forgot the GTO :)

That's all i can think of really off the top of my head. :o

[jcp123]

I am sayin gthat there are a finite number of old cars and ever increasing demand from new drivers. The demand has to be met by building something. Therefore my argument. What do we build , old style cars or new ones. It is only part of the question. Old cars are much worse to have an accident in , are much more likely to be involved given similar conditions and more costly to repair given you need to replace metal , which would be more ecologically hazardous to produce than plastic.

A lot more dangerous to have an accident in? Gee, don't tell that to my cousin, brother, or uncle. Their cars (a '90-something Fiat, '98 Civic, and '99 Civic) basically got crushed like beercans. They're basically lucky to be alive, they'd probably be dead if they'd been any bigger than they are.

Also, remember the used cars? There's plenty of them out there, plenty of '90, '95 and even '99 and up cars if you're so inclined. Most people skip that. I'm not just saying "old" (actually, classic is a better term. Old has such a negative connotation) cars are what you should look at, used ones are worth a look to.

My point is that while new cars are more ecoligically friendly in some ways, buying used or classic has other advantages. Don't even get me started on resale values, insurance costs, no computer problems, or the ability to do most work easily yourself thus saving money.

That said, I am biased, I'll admit. No way, no how do I have any wish for a new (meaning for me, anything about 1980 and newer) car as my personal transportation. Most of you know it, and even though I'm pissing in the wind, through years of driving these cars I guess I'm just sick and tired of everyone dumping on these cars without so much as a glance at anything other than the fact that it's older than their palm pilot they use. I'm tired of this "if it's new it must be automatically better" thing - and that doesn't just go for cars.

Now that that rant's over, I'll get back to my 33-1/3 rpm records, typewriter, and '68 Mustang :)

[Fleet 500]

So you they are compromised by the fact that you can only drive them 3 or 4000 mile where you can drive a modern fuel injected LS1 all day every day. Whats the advantage? If I drove my LS1 only 3-4000 miles a year I would be far ahead in economy.
It's not really a compromise. I choose to drive them only 3-4,000 miles to keep the mileage down. Also, my drive to work is only 4 miles (one-way) which accounts for the low mileage.
The advantage is I have the choice to drive what I really want to because the cars are not driven many miles per year.

[Quiggs]

A lot more dangerous to have an accident in? Gee, don't tell that to my cousin, brother, or uncle. Their cars (a '90-something Fiat, '98 Civic, and '99 Civic) basically got crushed like beercans. They're basically lucky to be alive, they'd probably be dead if they'd been any bigger than they are.

Newer cars have crumple zones designed to crush under impact. This transfers the energy of the crash through the car, and helps to decellerate the car before the passengers are hit by the effects. Thus lessening the G forces they're subjected to. Ask Mr. Earnhardt about the effects of severe and sudden G forces on the human body.

[Koenigsegg_CC]

Corvette C5/C6
Dodge Viper GTS
Dodge Viper SRT-10
Ford GT
Ford Mustang (Old & New)
Saleen S7

Probably some others I can't think of right now as well

[crisis]

A lot more dangerous to have an accident in? Gee, don't tell that to my cousin, brother, or uncle. Their cars (a '90-something Fiat, '98 Civic, and '99 Civic) basically got crushed like beercans. They're basically lucky to be alive, they'd probably be dead if they'd been any bigger than they are.
They'd probably be dead if they were in an old car. Size for size a new car is safer. A new large car is probably more safe than a new small one. The fact is older cars that were built more ridgidly allowed the occupant to take tyhe force of the impact thus saving much of the car from damage. Newer cars will self destruct in a way that leaves the passenger capsule as the last part to go. Nothing is perfect but it beats ramming your face through the dash board.


Also, remember the used cars? There's plenty of them out there, plenty of '90, '95 and even '99 and up cars if you're so inclined. Most people skip that. I'm not just saying "old" (actually, classic is a better term. Old has such a negative connotation) cars are what you should look at, used ones are worth a look to.Im taking used cars into account. How many people get their licences a year. Deduct the amount of people who stop driving per year and that is the net demand for "a" car. There are a finite number of old/used cars and an ever increasing (exponentially) amount of new drivers looking for a ride.


My point is that while new cars are more ecoligically friendly in some ways, buying used or classic has other advantages. Don't even get me started on resale values, insurance costs, no computer problems, or the ability to do most work easily yourself thus saving money.Older cars have their place. Im not arguing that. I am saying new cars are better in most prctical ways. Depreciation on new cars is heavy. I have never had a computer problem in any car and they aid diagnostics saving time and money at the repairer. Service intervals of new cars far outweigh that of older cars which saves money also. EFI does not need constant tuning like carbies and there are no points to adjust and replace.


That said, I am biased, I'll admit. No way, no how do I have any wish for a new (meaning for me, anything about 1980 and newer) car as my personal transportation. Most of you know it, and even though I'm pissing in the wind, through years of driving these cars I guess I'm just sick and tired of everyone dumping on these cars without so much as a glance at anything other than the fact that it's older than their palm pilot they use. I'm tired of this "if it's new it must be automatically better" thing - and that doesn't just go for cars.

Now that that rant's over, I'll get back to my 33-1/3 rpm records, typewriter, and '68 Mustang :)
Not sure about typewriters but I am quite happy with vinyl and 68 Mustangs. :)

[crisis]

It's not really a compromise. I choose to drive them only 3-4,000 miles to keep the mileage down. Also, my drive to work is only 4 miles (one-way) which accounts for the low mileage.
The advantage is I have the choice to drive what I really want to because the cars are not driven many miles per year.
Thats you. The point of the argument is on an even comparison the new car will come out ahead. Its like saying my el cheapo Nike knock offs are as good as the real thing as long as I dont use them too much. :confused:

[Fleet 500]

Thats you. The point of the argument is on an even comparison the new car will come out ahead. Its like saying my el cheapo Nike knock offs are as good as the real thing as long as I dont use them too much. :confused:
The new car will come out ahead in what? Certainly not styling... they all look the same. I can spot a '69 Charger or '66 Mustang from a mile away. I certainly wouldn't be able to identify a new car (like a Toyota, Nissan or Honda) unless I was close enough to read the nameplate!

And a new car is not ahead when it comes to real steel. The sheet metal on classic cars is about four times thicker than on new cars. That's why (with classic cars) the door won't dent when you lean against it. ;)

[Fleet 500]

They'd probably be dead if they were in an old car. Size for size a new car is safer. A new large car is probably more safe than a new small one. The fact is older cars that were built more ridgidly allowed the occupant to take tyhe force of the impact thus saving much of the car from damage. Newer cars will self destruct in a way that leaves the passenger capsule as the last part to go. Nothing is perfect but it beats ramming your face through the dash board.

Older cars have their place. Im not arguing that. I am saying new cars are better in most prctical ways. Depreciation on new cars is heavy. I have never had a computer problem in any car and they aid diagnostics saving time and money at the repairer. Service intervals of new cars far outweigh that of older cars which saves money also. EFI does not need constant tuning like carbies and there are no points to adjust and replace.


That same ridgidness in a classic car means the passenger capsule is less likely to collapse. All of my Cadillacs, ranging in years from 1969 to 1976, so my face would not hit the dashboard.

I know of several people who had big repair bills because of computer problems. Just the charge for computer diagnosis can be several hundred dollars! That isn't exactly saving money, is it?

Carbs do not need "constant" adjustment. A carb overhaul/rebuild usually lasts about 5 years, maybe even longer. And American cars have had points for about 30 years. Those with points can easily be converted to electronic ignition (at an affordable price). When I bought my '70 Sedan de Ville, it had already been converted to E.I.

[crisis]

The new car will come out ahead in what? Certainly not styling... they all look the same. I can spot a '69 Charger or '66 Mustang from a mile away. I certainly wouldn't be able to identify a new car (like a Toyota, Nissan or Honda) unless I was close enough to read the nameplate!

This is where I started.

"Originally Posted by Blitz_
That is y i still luv my old skool muscle cars, my dads charger, runs 13's all day, reliable as hell, raw power, lacks refinment and that iz what gives it its character, the things that are wrong with it make it so much better than the mercs and beemers that go around town, they even turn thier heads when we zoom by.

I wrote
And sucks down twice the amount of fuel a similalry poweful modern engine would. And would kill you quicker if things went pear shaped. But thats not the point of old cars. It is more about the romanticism and nostalgia which is fair enough."

So As I said, looks and styling are subjective and are up to personal preference. Nothing wrong there. In a practical sense they require more regular maintainence to keep them at their peak and use more fuel if driven the same distance and in the same manner. They are less comfortable , pollute more, handle worse (generally) and are less safe (ie crumple zones, seat belts (inertial reel and pre tensioners), air bags, intrusion bars etc).



And a new car is not ahead when it comes to real steel. The sheet metal on classic cars is about four times thicker than on new cars. That's why (with classic cars) the door won't dent when you lean against it. ;)

Which is a waste of resources and as I mentioned not conducive to life saving in the event of an accident. Granted they are more durable to idiots who want to lean on your car but they should not lean on you precious paintwork anyway :mad: :)

[Coventrysucks]

That same ridgidness in a classic car means the passenger capsule is less likely to collapse.

I don't think you quite grasp the physics of the situation.

In an old car, the rigidity means that your rather rubbish-squidgy organs recieve a vast %age of any impact force.

In a more modern car the passenger cell is still rigid, but the crumple zones absorb much of the energy that would otherwise be making a mess of your innards.

True, there was a period where cars didn't have either the old rigid construction, or the strength of the safety cell, and would crumple to an alarming extent.

You may have a crumpled, written off car, but less injuries. If you seriously consider that less damage to a car than yourself is the better option, there is something wrong with you.



All of my Cadillacs, ranging in years from 1969 to 1976, so my face would not hit the dashboard.

That doesn't make sense.

I agree about the electronics side of things.

On old cars when something goes ary you just beat it into submission with a wrench, but there isn't much you can do when the ECU on your $8,000 2nd hand Merc S-class goes off. Doesn't seem like such a bargain then.

[crisis]

That same ridgidness in a classic car means the passenger capsule is less likely to collapse. All of my Cadillacs, ranging in years from 1969 to 1976, so my face would not hit the dashboard.
I think Coventry covered that.


I know of several people who had big repair bills because of computer problems. Just the charge for computer diagnosis can be several hundred dollars! That isn't exactly saving money, is it?.
Then they got seen off. My brother in law had a service centre and charged a nominal around Aus$50 for a diagnostic. The alternative is spending time in a hit and miss, replace this and that approach. Computer problems are rare in my experience and yes if you have one the coputer is generally replaced and it is not particularly cheap although model dependant.


Carbs do not need "constant" adjustment. A carb overhaul/rebuild usually lasts about 5 years, maybe even longer. And American cars have had points for about 30 years. Those with points can easily be converted to electronic ignition (at an affordable price). When I bought my '70 Sedan de Ville, it had already been converted to E.I.So we are in agreeance on one aspect of old cars that is innefficient, points.
A carby rebuild or overhaul is one thing. Setting and adjusting mixtures is more regular than that if you wan to keep performance at its peak. And talking of the fuel syste we dont have to deal with chokes on cold mornings either, automatic (!) or otherwise.
Im not trying to say old cars are crap. Really . I like them for many reasons, styling, sound etc. But I am arguing the practicality and the tired premise, "they dont make the like they used to" because that is a rose coloured view. In all practical aspects they are inferior but that does not make them irrelevant or "bad".

[Fleet 500]

I wrote
And sucks down twice the amount of fuel a similalry poweful modern engine would.

They are less comfortable

Which is a waste of resources and as I mentioned not conducive to life saving in the event of an accident. Granted they are more durable to idiots who want to lean on your car but they should not lean on you precious paintwork anyway :mad: :)
They suck down about the same amount of fuel as the thousands of the larger-sized SUVs.

"Less comfortable?" Have you seen the plush seats of some of the '60s and '70s luxury cars? Many of them had thick, thick leather. And real big-man room- like about 65" of shoulder room.

It's not a waste of resources if a thick door saves your life. If I see a car heading toward me, aiming right at my front door, I would prefer the metal be thick rather than paper thin. A thin door, of course, is going to be pushed in more than a thick one.

[Fleet 500]

You may have a crumpled, written off car, but less injuries. If you seriously consider that less damage to a car than yourself is the better option, there is something wrong with you.

Actually, both were possible- little or moderate damage to a car and little damage to the owner.
Years ago, my mom was rear-ended by a big semi (of all things). She was driving a 1970 Chevelle, attempting to turn into a supermarket driveway. While she was turning, the semi ran into the car. The left rear end was (obviously) smashed in but not so much as it couldn't be repaired, which it was. My mom, who incredibly did not wear seat belts at the time, only complained of a sore neck. Overall, pretty impressive. Getting smacked into the rear, by a semi, not wearing a seat belt, and only ending up with a sore neck!

[Slicks]

They suck down about the same amount of fuel as the thousands of the larger-sized SUVs.
And its not like you cant stick a modern engine or modern transmission in it. That would greatly increase MPG.


"Less comfortable?" Have you seen the plush seats of some of the '60s and '70s luxury cars? Many of them had thick, thick leather. And real big-man room- like about 65" of shoulder room.
Definetly.
My friends 65 Pontiac LeMans (baby GTO) was super spacious and very comfortable (and its not a luxury car). I could comfortably sit in the passanger foot area. And we had grown adults that fit very well in the back seat (great leg room there too.)

[Matra et Alpine]

It's not a waste of resources if a thick door saves your life. If I see a car heading toward me, aiming right at my front door, I would prefer the metal be thick rather than paper thin. A thin door, of course, is going to be pushed in more than a thick one.
Modern doors and anti-burst locking systems are actually safer than the tons of 14 guage steel inside and out of older ones.
Door strength and safety is one are where the modern cars beat the old ones to a pulp ( figuratively and literally :) )

[The Ferrarist]

2005 Mustang GT
Hummer H2

[Fleet 500]

Modern doors and anti-burst locking systems are actually safer than the tons of 14 guage steel inside and out of older ones.
Door strength and safety is one are where the modern cars beat the old ones to a pulp ( figuratively and literally :) )
I doubt that... modern doors are just too thin to withstand the impact of a 4,000-lb car slamming into them.

[Fleet 500]

[QUOTE=Slicks
Definetly.
My friends 65 Pontiac LeMans (baby GTO) was super spacious and very comfortable (and its not a luxury car). I could comfortably sit in the passanger foot area. And we had grown adults that fit very well in the back seat (great leg room there too.)[/QUOTE]
And they have a huge luggage compartment!

[crisis]

They suck down about the same amount of fuel as the thousands of the larger-sized SUVs.
Agreed, but I wasnt talking about SUVs.

"Less comfortable?" Have you seen the plush seats of some of the '60s and '70s luxury cars? Many of them had thick, thick leather. And real big-man room- like about 65" of shoulder room.
Flat seats with no support. But yes they were plush. I have been in a 80's era Corvette and a Firebird. While I like the cars the interior was crappy in layout , quality ( not the Corvette as it was heavily modified by the owner) and in the area of ergonimics. Again you accept all of this if you want one of these but they do not compare to newer cars generally. Think GTO interior and tell me anything prior to 1985 was as functional and comfortabe. Large modern cars have ample room for most people.


It's not a waste of resources if a thick door saves your life. If I see a car heading toward me, aiming right at my front door, I would prefer the metal be thick rather than paper thin. A thin door, of course, is going to be pushed in more than a thick one.
Thin modern doors had intrusion bars (in Australia anyway) which are designed to absord certain amounts of impact. Heavy steel doors are not designed for the purpose and will crush unpredictably. The skin of the so called thin door may be destroyed but the bar is designed to assist the passengers. Dont forget that some modern cars also add the benifit of side airbags.

[crisis]

Actually, both were possible- little or moderate damage to a car and little damage to the owner.
Years ago, my mom was rear-ended by a big semi (of all things). She was driving a 1970 Chevelle, attempting to turn into a supermarket driveway. While she was turning, the semi ran into the car. The left rear end was (obviously) smashed in but not so much as it couldn't be repaired, which it was. My mom, who incredibly did not wear seat belts at the time, only complained of a sore neck. Overall, pretty impressive. Getting smacked into the rear, by a semi, not wearing a seat belt, and only ending up with a sore neck!
Rear enders do not force your head forward into the dash. The accident you spoke of turned out well (thankfully) but it is not to say a similar sized new car would have faired any worse. The impact of a rear ender on a stationary vehicle is also transferred into forward motion which absorbs much of the impact. Tell your mum to wear her seatbelt. :)

[crisis]

And its not like you cant stick a modern engine or modern transmission in it. That would greatly increase MPG.
Which is exactly one of the reasons newer cars are better in this respect. You are basically saying old cars are better if you put new engines and mechanicals in them. :confused: In that case you will be half way there. You only have to install the safety features and somehow redesign the body with crumple zones and your old car will be as good as a new one. Or buy a new one.


Definetly.
My friends 65 Pontiac LeMans (baby GTO) was super spacious and very comfortable (and its not a luxury car). I could comfortably sit in the passanger foot area. And we had grown adults that fit very well in the back seat (great leg room there too.)
Great. But a truck. What you are talking about is excessive inefficient design. Being able to comfortably sit in a foot well is of questionable value. :rolleyes: You can fit three adults in the back of my Commodore as well. They may not be able to play tennis in there but I bet the rear seat is a lot more comfortable and supportive.

[Slicks]

Which is exactly one of the reasons newer cars are better in this respect. You are basically saying old cars are better if you put new engines and mechanicals in them. :confused: In that case you will be half way there. You only have to install the safety features and somehow redesign the body with crumple zones and your old car will be as good as a new one. Or buy a new one.
I never said that the old cars are better, i was just making a point. A modern transmission alone (just because of the fact that its a 4-6speed rather than a 3 or 2 speed) would help greatly.



Great. But a truck. What you are talking about is excessive inefficient design. Being able to comfortably sit in a foot well is of questionable value. :rolleyes: You can fit three adults in the back of my Commodore as well. They may not be able to play tennis in there but I bet the rear seat is a lot more comfortable and supportive.
Why do you think people buy trucks and SUVs? So much for the "why do people buy SUVs" argument...
Its not inefficient design, its called comfort. Its far more comfortable to streatch your legs out in that than it is in my truck, or really any other car ive been in.
And the rear seat was very comfortable, but not as supportive as a new age seat, but none the less comfortable. It reminded me of a soft sprung bed, cushy and absorbed bumps very well.

[Fleet 500]

Agreed, but I wasnt talking about SUVs.

Thin modern doors had intrusion bars (in Australia anyway) which are designed to absord certain amounts of impact. Heavy steel doors are not designed for the purpose and will crush unpredictably. The skin of the so called thin door may be destroyed but the bar is designed to assist the passengers. Dont forget that some modern cars also add the benifit of side airbags.
Well, with all the SUVs on the road, drinking just as much fuel as classic cars (and more in some instances), maybe you should talk about them.

Those bars have been in American cars for many years. For instance the '70 Barracuda and Challenger had them. Nothing new here.

[crisis]

Well, with all the SUVs on the road, drinking just as much fuel as classic cars (and more in some instances), maybe you should talk about them.
I have in another thread.

Those bars have been in American cars for many years. For instance the '70 Barracuda and Challenger had them. Nothing new here.
Great. It shows that great big heavy doors and general construction does not make cars safe by themselves.

[Fleet 500]

Flat seats with no support. Large modern cars have ample room for most people.

Do you mean "flat" seats like these? :D
(Those are a '76 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham d'Elegance and my '69 Fleetwood Brougham with its thick leather seats.)

Large modern cars may have ample room for most people, but old large cars had even more.

[Fleet 500]

Great. It shows that great big heavy doors and general construction does not make cars safe by themselves.
But the great big heavy doors sure help.
As I've said before, when my mom drove to Hollywood every day to take care of her mother, my dad made sure she was driving a big, safe car ('69 Coupe de Ville) so she would have better protection than a matchbox sized car.

[Fleet 500]

Rear enders do not force your head forward into the dash. The accident you spoke of turned out well (thankfully) but it is not to say a similar sized new car would have faired any worse. The impact of a rear ender on a stationary vehicle is also transferred into forward motion which absorbs much of the impact. Tell your mum to wear her seatbelt. :)
C'mon... if she was in a subcompact chances are she would not have been so lucky. That semi truck most likely would have crushed a small car like an accordian.
Yes, she has been wearing seat belts ever since it was the law.

[crisis]

I never said that the old cars are better, i was just making a point. A modern transmission alone (just because of the fact that its a 4-6speed rather than a 3 or 2 speed) would help greatly..

No . But this thread has been involved in a discussion of the pros and cons of old vs new since I started my comment on this.

"Originally Posted by Blitz_
That is y i still luv my old skool muscle cars, my dads charger, runs 13's all day, reliable as hell, raw power, lacks refinment and that iz what gives it its character, the things that are wrong with it make it so much better than the mercs and beemers that go around town, they even turn thier heads when we zoom by."

I commented that old cars used a lot more fuel. It was countered with different arguements and got onto safety, size etc. So a comment that turns around and admits that some aspects of modern cars are more desirable is a confirmation that new cars advantages are valid.


Why do you think people buy trucks and SUVs? So much for the "why do people buy SUVs" argument....
Fashion, posing, keeping up with your mates, and of course people like me who go camping and touring off road.


Its not inefficient design, its called comfort. .
Its innefficient. You can build a comfortable car efficiently if youwant to. The easy way is to make it huge. The clever way is to make it efficient.


Its far more comfortable to streatch your legs out in that than it is in my truck, or really any other car ive been in.

My Commodore has great leg room in the back , not much less than my Landcruiser but it is a more efficient use of space. It is more comfortable to sit in also owing to the seating position and seats themselves. These are the things that make the difference, not just sheer size.

[crisis]

Do you mean "flat" seats like these? :D
(Those are a '76 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham d'Elegance and my '69 Fleetwood Brougham with its thick leather seats.).
Yep. Padded but I dont think that great on a three hour drive or so.


Large modern cars may have ample room for most people, but old large cars had even more.
But when is more enough?

[crisis]

But the great big heavy doors sure help.
As I've said before, when my mom drove to Hollywood every day to take care of her mother, my dad made sure she was driving a big, safe car ('69 Coupe de Ville) so she would have better protection than a matchbox sized car.
Now your talking about size. Any larger car will generally be safer than a small car of the same vintage and level.

[crisis]

C'mon... if she was in a subcompact chances are she would not have been so lucky. That semi truck most likely would have crushed a small car like an accordian.
Yes, she has been wearing seat belts ever since it was the law.
Again this is size. We have been debating old vs new, not big vs small. Im with you on that.

[Matra et Alpine]

I doubt that... modern doors are just too thin to withstand the impact of a 4,000-lb car slamming into them.
Go into a body shop and ask to see inside the doors.

MODERN doors used shaped metal sections which are torsionally stronger than sheets. They also tie in to the strongest parts of the passenger cell.
Modern cars rely on smarts not bulk and in all things 'smarts' wins.

Go take a look and learn. Go see some comparative side impacts and see how much safer passengers are now. No doors flying open to dump them in the road in the middle of an accident. Chekc out pictures of crashes in the 60s and 70s and see how many times the doors are open. Go look at a modern crash and see how often the rescue teams have to CUT the passengers out because the safety cell has maintined it's integrity.

You're confusing mass and strength :)

[Matra et Alpine]

But the great big heavy doors sure help.
As I've said before, when my mom drove to Hollywood every day to take care of her mother, my dad made sure she was driving a big, safe car ('69 Coupe de Ville) so she would have better protection than a matchbox sized car.
Bet he dug a nuclear shelter in the back garden too :)
Just because we chose to do something doesn't make it better.
It pampers to our mindset and can't then be used as justification in any rational discussion :)

[Fleet 500]

Yep. Padded but I dont think that great on a three hour drive or so.
They are *great* on a three-hour drive! It's just like sitting on a nice, plush couch while driving down the highway.

[Fleet 500]

Now your talking about size. Any larger car will generally be safer than a small car of the same vintage and level.
Not according to Mr. Alpine. ;)

[Fleet 500]

Go take a look and learn. Go see some comparative side impacts and see how much safer passengers are now. No doors flying open to dump them in the road in the middle of an accident.

You're confusing mass and strength :)
If the passengers are wearing seat belts, they won't be dumped in the road.

Thick doors= more strength compared to thin doors.

[Coventrysucks]

If the passengers are wearing seat belts, they won't be dumped in the road.

Thick doors= more strength compared to thin doors.

Sorry, but what a complete crock.

From your very own government's regulations: (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/806314.html)

"In 1980, when 75 percent of the passenger cars on the highway were in compliance with Standard 214, 7800 passenger car occupants were killed in side impact crashes. There would have been 8200 fatalities if the side structure improvements required by Standard 214 had not been made..."

That was 25 years ago -you can be assured that current levels of protection far exceed those.

Modern doors have a thin skin, making them lighter than thicker doors, but using new materials, manufacturing processes and design techniques, such as finite point analysis, the structure of the door is engineered to resist fairly large impact forces.

The doors must not open during a frontal crash at 40mph, must resist a 30mph side impact, and hitting a pole 10" in diameter at 18mph side on.

I'd like to see your classic American car withstand those testing procedures, but they won't.

If they were so good at safety and survivability then surely all cars would use the same "safe" construction, rather than an "inferior" modern one?

[Fleet 500]

From your very own government's regulations: (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/806314.html)

"In 1980, when 75 percent of the passenger cars on the highway were in compliance with Standard 214, 7800 passenger car occupants were killed in side impact crashes. There would have been 8200 fatalities if the side structure improvements required by Standard 214 had not been made..."

I'd like to see your classic American car withstand those testing procedures, but they won't.

If they were so good at safety and survivability then surely all cars would use the same "safe" construction, rather than an "inferior" modern one?
I wonder how many of those accidents were caused by a big semi? No door is going to withstand being struck by one of those at a high speed.

I would say the classic American cars have withstood the test of time. Meaning there have been many accidents involving side impact in which the passengers survived. Yes, there have been deaths, too, but that happens even today.

Thick doors are not made anymore because it's cheaper to make the thin ones and because the heavier doors will mean less mpg. Mpg wasn't a big deal back in the '60s, but for many people it is today (except for the large SUV owners).

[Coventrysucks]

I wonder how many of those accidents were caused by a big semi? No door is going to withstand being struck by one of those at a high speed.

I would say the classic American cars have withstood the test of time. Meaning there have been many accidents involving side impact in which the passengers survived. Yes, there have been deaths, too, but that happens even today.

Thick doors are not made anymore because it's cheaper to make the thin ones and because the heavier doors will mean less mpg. Mpg wasn't a big deal back in the '60s, but for many people it is today (except for the large SUV owners).

You are delusional if you truly believe a car from the 50s 60s or 70s comes even close to a modern car in terms of occupant safety and survivability.

The door skins are thinner and lighter this benefits performance and cost.
The internal structure of the door, which are probably non-existant in classic cars, is what gives the strength and impact resistance.

Stop confusing the two and making yourself look ignorant. It has been pointed out twice already in this thread that it is the internal structure that is the key.

[crisis]

Not according to Mr. Alpine. ;)
Things have to be equal.
Take a small BMW against a large BMW, a small Daewoo aganst a large one etc etc. all of the same vintage.

[crisis]

Sorry, but what a complete crock.

From your very own government's regulations: (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/806314.html)

"In 1980, when 75 percent of the passenger cars on the highway were in compliance with Standard 214, 7800 passenger car occupants were killed in side impact crashes. There would have been 8200 fatalities if the side structure improvements required by Standard 214 had not been made..."

That was 25 years ago -you can be assured that current levels of protection far exceed those.

Modern doors have a thin skin, making them lighter than thicker doors, but using new materials, manufacturing processes and design techniques, such as finite point analysis, the structure of the door is engineered to resist fairly large impact forces.

The doors must not open during a frontal crash at 40mph, must resist a 30mph side impact, and hitting a pole 10" in diameter at 18mph side on.

I'd like to see your classic American car withstand those testing procedures, but they won't.

If they were so good at safety and survivability then surely all cars would use the same "safe" construction, rather than an "inferior" modern one?
A little time and research. Well done.

[Fleet 500]

You are delusional if you truly believe a car from the 50s 60s or 70s comes even close to a modern car in terms of occupant safety and survivability.

The door skins are thinner and lighter this benefits performance and cost.
The internal structure of the door, which are probably non-existant in classic cars, is what gives the strength and impact resistance.

Stop confusing the two and making yourself look ignorant. It has been pointed out twice already in this thread that it is the internal structure that is the key.
Okay, I'll keep driving the classic cars which I consider safe and you can drive whatever you want.

Classic cars ARE structurally sound. That's why, after a collision, most of them can still be driven.

[crisis]

I wonder how many of those accidents were caused by a big semi? No door is going to withstand being struck by one of those at a high speed.)
Wonder away. Better still read the facts presented instead of presuming a outcome you desire to satisfy your personal preference. Coventry presented you with hard evidence. You are arguing one particular hypothetical cisrcumstance. Must we evaluate every possible circumstance so you can find one that stands up to your argument?


I would say the classic American cars have withstood the test of time. Meaning there have been many accidents involving side impact in which the passengers survived. Yes, there have been deaths, too, but that happens even today.
I would say it hasnt. Meaning there have been many accidents involving side impact in which passengers died. Yes people have survived too but that happens even today. :p


Thick doors are not made anymore because it's cheaper to make the thin ones and because the heavier doors will mean less mpg. Mpg wasn't a big deal back in the '60s, but for many people it is today (except for the large SUV owners).
And its a waste of steel and as indicated in the report not relevant as far as safety gos. It is not an efficient use of resources and a better result can be attained by proper design.

[crisis]

Okay, I'll keep driving the classic cars which I consider safe and you can drive whatever you want.

Classic cars ARE structurally sound. That's why, after a collision, most of them can still be driven.
Even if the occupants cant. But again I restate, you , I and anyone are entitled to drive and own them. They have there attractions. They are just no substitute in a practical sense for modern vehichles. And of course practicality is not neccessarily why we own the cars we do speaking from the point of view of a large V8 owner.

[Fleet 500]

And its a waste of steel and as indicated in the report not relevant as far as safety gos. It is not an efficient use of resources and a better result can be attained by proper design.
"A waste of steel." Lol.
When referring to cars built before they had those intrusion bars in the the doors, what would be safer- thick doors or thin doors? Thick doors, of course.

[Fleet 500]

Even if the occupants cant. But again I restate, you , I and anyone are entitled to drive and own them. They have there attractions. They are just no substitute in a practical sense for modern vehichles. And of course practicality is not neccessarily why we own the cars we do speaking from the point of view of a large V8 owner.
Who says the occupants can't?

Yes, you I and anyone else are entitled to drive and own whatever cars we want. And I feel perfectly safe driving my '69, '70 and '76 Cadillacs.

BTW, I guess that white (big) car in the photo would have done better in the collision if it had thin doors, right? :D And thin fenders, bumpers, hood, trunk lid, etc.

[crisis]

"A waste of steel." Lol.
When referring to cars built before they had those intrusion bars in the the doors, what would be safer- thick doors or thin doors? Thick doors, of course.
Of course. Then they designed the cars better and found they were safer with thin doors and intrusion bars designed for the purpose of safety.

[crisis]

Who says the occupants can't?

Yes, you I and anyone else are entitled to drive and own whatever cars we want. And I feel perfectly safe driving my '69, '70 and '76 Cadillacs.

BTW, I guess that white (big) car in the photo would have done better in the collision if it had thin doors, right? :D And thin fenders, bumpers, hood, trunk lid, etc.
Because the white big car hit head on. :confused: The other old big car got owned but depending on the speed of the impact that may have happened anyway. Of course two new , well designed cars may have given both parties an even chance. The picture of course doesnt say who if anyone survived other than the white car for better or worse.

[Coventrysucks]

Okay, I'll keep driving the classic cars which I consider safe and you can drive whatever you want.

Classic cars ARE structurally sound. That's why, after a collision, most of them can still be driven.

The issue is not with the structural soundness, and hence the survivability of the car, but with the survivability of the occupants.

Please demonstrate to me how a car that is perfectly intact and drivable, yet full of corpses can possibly be better than a car that is written off, but has saved the lives of its occupants.

I seriously doubt that if you took a classic and modern car, from any country, not just the USA, and put them into the same collisions the occupants of the classic car would emerge with less injuries even once.


"A waste of steel." Lol.
When referring to cars built before they had those intrusion bars in the the doors, what would be safer- thick doors or thin doors? Thick doors, of course.

A nice way to avoid facing the truth. I thought the comparison was the safety of classics verses modern, not two classic cars with different thickness doors.

The thicker door would add some extra strength, and more protection against penetration, but both of them would be much worse than a modern door.

I cannot understand how you think that more than 50 years of endless crash research and advances in the understanding of both the type of collisions encountered and the way in which materials and structures react to the impact loads can result in a car which is worse than they were 30 - 40 years ago.

In the UK road fatalities have fallen by roughly the same % every year from about 95 fatal accidents per billion vehicle km in 1950 to under 10 fatal accidents per billion vehicle km in 1993

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/stats/1.4.gif

If this is not in the main due to the ever increasing survivability rate of modern vehicles, what other possible explanation is there?

[Fleet 500]

Because the white big car hit head on. :confused: The other old big car got owned but depending on the speed of the impact that may have happened anyway. Of course two new , well designed cars may have given both parties an even chance. The picture of course doesnt say who if anyone survived other than the white car for better or worse.
In that photo, I would rather be in the big car instead of the little one. Wouldn't you?

[crisis]

In that photo, I would rather be in the big car instead of the little one. Wouldn't you?
They look similar except one is crushed. As I said there is no way to know who survived.

[Fleet 500]

The issue is not with the structural soundness, and hence the survivability of the car, but with the survivability of the occupants.

Please demonstrate to me how a car that is perfectly intact and drivable, yet full of corpses can possibly be better than a car that is written off, but has saved the lives of its occupants.

I seriously doubt that if you took a classic and modern car, from any country, not just the USA, and put them into the same collisions the occupants of the classic car would emerge with less injuries even once.

A nice way to avoid facing the truth. I thought the comparison was the safety of classics verses modern, not two classic cars with different thickness doors.

The thicker door would add some extra strength, and more protection against penetration, but both of them would be much worse than a modern door.

I cannot understand how you think that more than 50 years of endless crash research and advances in the understanding of both the type of collisions encountered and the way in which materials and structures react to the impact loads can result in a car which is worse than they were 30 - 40 years ago.

In the UK road fatalities have fallen by roughly the same % every year from about 95 fatal accidents per billion vehicle km in 1950 to under 10 fatal accidents per billion vehicle km in 1993

Why would the intact car be "full of corpses?" If the passengers had seat belts on, the chance of surviving would be very good. Especially since, in the photo I posted, the was no intrusion of the engine or any metal into the passenger compartment.

What "avoiding?" I said a '50s or '60s car is better off with thicker doors than with thinner. And you agreed.

You know, the only way to find out for sure, as you said, would to have two cars, one old and one new, crash into each other.
I do remember something a TV talk show host said (Tom Snyder). He was driving to work one day and saw in accident in which a '57 Chevy ran into a late-model Mercedes at about 10 mph. Because of the "crumple zones" designed in newer cars, the rear of the Mercedes crumpled even at that low speed. The repair estimate (given by the tow trunk driver) was several thousand dollars. The damage to the Chevy? Zero. Repair cost? Zero.

As for the graph you posted, I suppose it takes everything into account- not just how the cars are built and safety devices. For instance, was the speed limit lower in the '90s than in the '60s and '70s? What about total number of drivers and cars on the road?
I will agree, of course, that air bags have saved many lives. I'm just saying that classic cars are very tough as far as accident survivability. Like one muscle car magazine once said, "Sure you could kill yourself in an old car, but you had to wrap that mommy around a lamp post at 120 mph to do it."

[Coventrysucks]

BTW, I guess that white (big) car in the photo would have done better in the collision if it had thin doors, right? :D And thin fenders, bumpers, hood, trunk lid, etc.

Again, I feel this is avoiding the issue.

Both of those cars are going to be old, that isn't from a particularly recent edition of "Car and Driver" or whatever.

I thought the disscussion was about whether a modern car is safer than a classic car, not comparing two classic cars.

In a fairly recent edition of "5th Gear" they crashed two Renault Espaces into each other head on, one from the 1990s, and one brand new model.

The 1990s version had a lot of intrusion into the cabin, which would have resulted in serious injuries for the two front occupants. The airbags didn't even deploy in the 2004 model, as the crumple zones absorbed so much of the impact energy.

Both cars have almost identical thickness panels, yet in the modern version the hidden structure almost certainly saved the life of the driver.

Do you really wish to suggest that with body panels a few mm thicker, the 1990s Espace would have protected its occupants to the same extent as the modern one?

Then you have to consider that the better performance afforded by a modern suspension, handling, braking and tyre set up in an emergency situation will mean that you will be more likely to avoid the impact in the first place.

(Better brakes + tyres allow you to stop faster, better steering and suspension geometry + tyres should allow you to change direction more rapidly, and allow you to do so with less risk of losing control.)

[Fleet 500]

They look similar except one is crushed. As I said there is no way to know who survived.
How can they look "similar" if one is crushed? Lol.
Note the front end on the big car- not much deformation. Note how much of the small car is smashed in.
As I said, I would much rather be in the large car; I guess you wouldn't.

[Fleet 500]

Flat seats with no support. But yes they were plush. I have been in a 80's era Corvette and a Firebird.
I guess this '75 Chrysler Imperial had one of those "flat seats with no support." :rolleyes: This is more comfortable than some living couches I've sat in.

BTW, you would be better off riding in a '60s-era Corvette and Firebird.
Something like a tri-power '67 427 'Vette and '68 Ram Air IV 400 Firebird. :)

[crisis]

Why would the intact car be "full of corpses?" If the passengers had seat belts on, the chance of surviving would be very good. Especially since, in the photo I posted, the was no intrusion of the engine or any metal into the passenger compartment.."
Its not only the intrusion of parts of the car. As stated previoulsy it is the bodys ability to absorb impact that has not been absorbed elsewhere. Basically if a car travelling at 35mph hits an immoveable object and has no crumple zone, the passenger if rigidly restrained would die due to the fact that his brain woudl hit the front of his skull at that speed and be crushed. So the rigidity of the car will count against survivability in many cases. That the white car survived reasonably well points to the fact that theimpact was absorbed elsewhere. In this case mainly be the car hit side on due to the fact it collapsed and was probably carried sideway some distance.


What "avoiding?" I said a '50s or '60s car is better off with thicker doors than with thinner. And you agreed.

You know, the only way to find out for sure, as you said, would to have two cars, one old and one new, crash into each other.
I do remember something a TV talk show host said (Tom Snyder). He was driving to work one day and saw in accident in which a '57 Chevy ran into a late-model Mercedes at about 10 mph. Because of the "crumple zones" designed in newer cars, the rear of the Mercedes crumpled even at that low speed. The repair estimate (given by the tow trunk driver) was several thousand dollars. The damage to the Chevy? Zero. Repair cost? Zero.."
Subjective anecdote. In this case the Merc lost but both occupant survived. No thanks to the Chev which stubbornly refused to sacrifice itslef for the owner. Many thanks to the Merc which took the impact and may have contributer to the fact both occupants didnt have to.


As for the graph you posted, I suppose it takes everything into account- not just how the cars are built and safety devices. For instance, was the speed limit lower in the '90s than in the '60s and '70s? What about total number of drivers and cars on the road?
Per km driven. doesnt not matter how many cars. Dont know about English speed limits. What other things need to be taken into account?


I will agree, of course, that air bags have saved many lives. I'm just saying that classic cars are very tough as far as accident survivability. Like one muscle car magazine once said, "Sure you could kill yourself in an old car, but you had to wrap that mommy around a lamp post at 120 mph to do it."
Sounds like something a muscle car magazine would write.

[crisis]

How can they look "similar" if one is crushed? Lol.
Note the front end on the big car- not much deformation. Note how much of the small car is smashed in.
As I said, I would much rather be in the large car; I guess you wouldn't.
I still cannot see which car was bigger. As I said you dont know who if anyone survived so I dont know what I would rather have been killed in.

[Coventrysucks]

As for the graph you posted, I suppose it takes everything into account- not just how the cars are built and safety devices. For instance, was the speed limit lower in the '90s than in the '60s and '70s? What about total number of drivers and cars on the road?

True there will be some aspect of improvement due to better driver training, better medical responses etc, but I am not convinced that those would account for a more than a small proportion of the reduction.

The speed limit has nothing to do with the drop - since the anti-car Labour government came to power in 1997 there has been a dramatic increase in the number of speed cameras, and many roads are seeing their limits reduced in the interests of "safety". However the relevent departments seem unaware that speed is not the cause of accidents, bad driving is. As less time is spent policing bad driving standards, and more is spent collecting revenue from cameras accident rates are actually increasing.

The changing number of cars is taken into account by recording accidents/ distance travelled. There are more cars being driven longer distances anually than there were in 1950, yet the fatality rate is hugely reduced.

[crisis]

I guess this '75 Chrysler Imperial had one of those "flat seats with no support." :rolleyes: This is more comfortable than some living couches I've sat in.


Certainly looks like a couch Ive sat in. Ill stick to car seats in cars. :)

[fpv_gtho]

Why would the intact car be "full of corpses?" If the passengers had seat belts on, the chance of surviving would be very good. Especially since, in the photo I posted, the was no intrusion of the engine or any metal into the passenger compartment.

Seat belts will do jack shit to protect your neck and organs. Would you rather run into a brick wall, or something alot softer like foam? Thats basically the whole point of new cars being safer. Sure minor crashes may cost several thousand to repair, but at least your alive! Old cars being able to drive away from high speed crashes means jack shit if the drivers too much of a wreck to be able to drive ever again

[SlickHolden]

I remember a lady that had a about 10mph crash, The car was perfect not more then $300 to fix. But when they went to the car she was dead and they couldnt work out why.
So they did test she didnt die of heart failer and there was no sign of body damage at all.
They did a X-Ray and found she broke her neck, She turned her head away and it snapped @ 10mph. Air bag didnt go off wasnt fast enough was a big car to, You wouldnt expect something to kill you go that slow but it happens. My sister told me about this she seen it on some doc somewhere on pay.

[Fleet 500]

Seat belts will do jack shit to protect your neck and organs. Would you rather run into a brick wall, or something alot softer like foam? Thats basically the whole point of new cars being safer. Sure minor crashes may cost several thousand to repair, but at least your alive! Old cars being able to drive away from high speed crashes means jack shit if the drivers too much of a wreck to be able to drive ever again
Really? Seat belts (including shoulder belts) won't protect the neck and other organs? Well then I guess those people who survived those kind of crashes should be dead! We better hurry and tell them they're not supposed to be walking around because they weren't "protected" enough. :D

[Fleet 500]

I remember a lady that had a about 10mph crash, The car was perfect not more then $300 to fix. But when they went to the car she was dead and they couldnt work out why.
So they did test she didnt die of heart failer and there was no sign of body damage at all.
They did a X-Ray and found she broke her neck, She turned her head away and it snapped @ 10mph. Air bag didnt go off wasnt fast enough was a big car to, You wouldnt expect something to kill you go that slow but it happens. My sister told me about this she seen it on some doc somewhere on pay.
That really is odd. Her neck must have just moved or bent just enough to break. That certainly would be considered a freak accident. Like the doctors, I would have guessed heart failure (or stroke).

[Fleet 500]

I still cannot see which car was bigger.
All you have to do is read the caption below the photo. It says, ..."small compact rear ended by a full size car." Obviously, the full sized car is the one on the left. I don't think a small car would have the long right front fender which the car on the left has. ;)

[Fleet 500]

Its not only the intrusion of parts of the car. As stated previoulsy it is the bodys ability to absorb impact that has not been absorbed elsewhere. Basically if a car travelling at 35mph hits an immoveable object and has no crumple zone, the passenger if rigidly restrained would die due to the fact that his brain woudl hit the front of his skull at that speed and be crushed.

Subjective anecdote. In this case the Merc lost but both occupant survived. No thanks to the Chev which stubbornly refused to sacrifice itslef for the owner.

Sounds like something a muscle car magazine would write.
The 35-mph hitting an immoveable object is in theory only. Plenty of people have survived his trees or whatever as much higher speeds.

Yeah, those "stubborn" Chevys! Now I've heard everything; calling a car stubborn! :D

In this cars, those magazine writers were out there doing that. Most of them were former street racers. They had watched many street races and had witnessed accidents. And only with the most severe ones were there deaths- just like they said.

[Fleet 500]

Its not only the intrusion of parts of the car. As stated previoulsy it is the bodys ability to absorb impact that has not been absorbed elsewhere. Basically if a car travelling at 35mph hits an immoveable object and has no crumple zone, the passenger if rigidly restrained would die due to the fact that his brain woudl hit the front of his skull at that speed and be crushed. So the rigidity of the car will count against survivability in many cases. That the white car survived reasonably well points to the fact that theimpact was absorbed elsewhere. In this case mainly be the car hit side on due to the fact it collapsed and was probably carried sideway some distance.

Check out the photo I posted.
The car in the top photo is a '69 Chevy II and the one on the bottom '68 Chevelle. These cars did not have "crumple zones."

The Chevy II hit a concrete bridge (an immoveable object) at about 35 mph. The occupant, wearing a lap-shoulder belt had bruises on both knees! That's a big difference than him dying from brain injury! What was that again about the brain hitting the front of the skull? The driver didn't even suffer a concussion!

The Chevelle sideswiped a metal post at 45 mph and impacted the rear of a parked car. The occupant, again wearing a lap-shoulder belt, was treated at a hospital for a scratch on the jaw and soreness in the fingers of his right hand. Again, a far cry from not only dying, but from major injuries!

I have a feeling you guys no nothing about the safety factor of classic cars! :p

[Fleet 500]

Here are two more accident photos which prove what I've been saying all along:

The top photo, as the notes say, is a '69 Chevelle. It was forced off the roadway by an oncoming car while it was traveling at approximately 40 mph. The driver suffered from a one-inch cut above his right eye, a minor abrasion on the right cheek, a minor bruise on the right elbow, sore shoulder muscles on the left side and minor bruises on both knees.

The bottom photo is a '71 Chevrolet which was struck on the right side by another car traveling 60 mph. The driver of the '71, who was wearing a lap-shoulder belt, received a minor laceration on the forehead requiring four stitches, bruises on the right shin, left knee, and finger of the left hand.

[Fleet 500]

Another one: (It looks like another Chevy.)
The text says this was an unusually severe accident (and it sure looks like it).
It was a single-car collision. It collided head-on with a concrete bridge (another immoveable object). The speed is not given, but going by the damage, it looks like at least 60 mph. The driver not only lived (which shoots down the claim that a collision with anything immoveable over 35 mph would kill any passengers!), but he was not even mortally wounded. He had a fractured jaw, multiple cuts on the neck and jaw, complaints of pain in the chest region, plus dislocation of the right hip and right knee.

It looks like those magazine writers were correct- you could get killed in a '60s American car, but it would mean wrapping it around a pole at 120 mph or something similar.

[Coventrysucks]

Here are two more accident photos which prove what I've been saying all along:

The bottom photo is a '71 Chevrolet which was struck on the right side by another car traveling 60 mph. The driver of the '71, who was wearing a lap-shoulder belt, received a minor laceration on the forehead requiring four stitches, bruises on the right shin, left knee, and finger of the left hand.


Another one: (It looks like another Chevy.)
The text says this was an unusually severe accident (and it sure looks like it).
It was a single-car collision. It collided head-on with a concrete bridge (another immoveable object). The speed is not given, but going by the damage, it looks like at least 60 mph. The driver not only lived (which shoots down the claim that a collision with anything immoveable over 35 mph would kill any passengers!), but he was not even mortally wounded. He had a fractured jaw, multiple cuts on the neck and jaw, complaints of pain in the chest region, plus dislocation of the right hip and right knee.

It looks like those magazine writers were correct- you could get killed in a '60s American car, but it would mean wrapping it around a pole at 120 mph or something similar.

It is clear in the second accident that any passenger on the right would be dead, judging by the ammount of intrusion into the passenger cell.

That level of intrusion onto the passenger space would not have occured in a modern car.

"Which shoots down the claim that a collision with anything immoveable over 35 mph would kill any passengers!"

The fact that the quote accompanies a picture where the caption reads "Note that the right front wheel has been forced back into the rear seat area" is astonishing.

How could the front and rear right passengers have survived that?
How?

In a modern car, with 4/5 NCAP rating, a head on impact at 40mph would have NO intrusion into the passenger space at all!

It astounds me that you think that the potential loss of two passengers can be ignored because the driver escaped with minimal injuries.

[Fleet 500]

It is clear in the second accident that any passenger on the right would be dead, judging by the ammount of intrusion into the passenger cell.

That level of intrusion onto the passenger space would not have occured in a modern car.

"Which shoots down the claim that a collision with anything immoveable over 35 mph would kill any passengers!"

The fact that the quote accompanies a picture where the caption reads "Note that the right front wheel has been forced back into the rear seat area" is astonishing.

How could the front and rear right passengers have survived that?
How?

In a modern car, with 4/5 NCAP rating, a head on impact at 40mph would have NO intrusion into the passenger space at all!

It astounds me that you think that the potential loss of two passengers can be ignored because the driver escaped with minimal injuries.
"None so blind as those who refuse to see."

We will never know if another passenger would have survived because no one was in that part of the car. To say for sure that no one could have survived is in error. Look at those who survived under crushed cars under the 880 highway after the 1989 San Francisco earthquake.

I don't see how, at those speeds, no intrusion would occur in any car.

Those 4/5 NACP ratings don't take real world accidents into consideration. What about a 60 mph. head on impact? Would there be intrusion then? How about an 80 mph. impact? And don't think accidents at those speeds don't happen- they do.

It really astounds me that anyone could make such a ridiculous statement as, "at speeds over 35 mph in a head-on collision with an immoveable object in a classic car, anyone would be killed because the brain would crash into the skull." As the photos I posted show, that is untrue!

[crisis]

All you have to do is read the caption below the photo. It says, ..."small compact rear ended by a full size car." Obviously, the full sized car is the one on the left. I don't think a small car would have the long right front fender which the car on the left has. ;)
My apologies. I did not read the caption and actually thought the wrecked car was hit side on.
All it proves is an old tank will crush a small car. I agree. The point of modern safety vs old school size does not relate to this though. As I said you need to compare like with like. A new large car vs an old large car and the survivabilty of the occupants in each, not what the car looks like after the accident. Better still run an old car into a cement block and a similar sized new car into one and test the occupant safety.

[crisis]

The 35-mph hitting an immoveable object is in theory only. Plenty of people have survived his trees or whatever as much higher speeds..
Because the cars bounce of in one directon or another. The theory behind it is the same as a crumple zone. Energy is absorbed by something other than the occupant. Anyaccident survived by occupants of an old rigid car would have been survived by occupants in a new car. The opposite would not neccessarily be the case.


Yeah, those "stubborn" Chevys! Now I've heard everything; calling a car stubborn! :D ..
I was exercising my poetic licence. :D



In this cars, those magazine writers were out there doing that. Most of them were former street racers. They had watched many street races and had witnessed accidents. And only with the most severe ones were there deaths- just like they said.
Their opinions are biased because of their preference. There anecdotes are meaningless unless they can give exact details about each and every accident they have witnessed. They are not experts on the subject of automotive physics and crash testing. They are Musscle car buffs who have an interest in early US cars.

[crisis]

Really? Seat belts (including shoulder belts) won't protect the neck and other organs? Well then I guess those people who survived those kind of crashes should be dead! We better hurry and tell them they're not supposed to be walking around because they weren't "protected" enough. :D
As pointed out previoulsy seat belts will stop your head hitting a dashboard/steering wheel (airbags help even more). They will help prevent you flying out of a car. Thay hold you fairly firmly in place. The downside is that if the car is not designed to absorb the impact, the very fact that you are held rigidly in place means your internal organs will.

[crisis]

Check out the photo I posted.
The car in the top photo is a '69 Chevy II and the one on the bottom '68 Chevelle. These cars did not have "crumple zones."

The Chevy II hit a concrete bridge (an immoveable object) at about 35 mph. The occupant, wearing a lap-shoulder belt had bruises on both knees! That's a big difference than him dying from brain injury! What was that again about the brain hitting the front of the skull? The driver didn't even suffer a concussion!

The Chevelle sideswiped a metal post at 45 mph and impacted the rear of a parked car. The occupant, again wearing a lap-shoulder belt, was treated at a hospital for a scratch on the jaw and soreness in the fingers of his right hand. Again, a far cry from not only dying, but from major injuries!

I have a feeling you guys no nothing about the safety factor of classic cars! :p
Highlighting individual anecdotes proves nothing.
For example,
Vesna Vulovic, a flight attendant who in 1972 fell 33,000 feet in the tail of an exploded DC-9 jetliner; she landed in snow and lived.
Hermann of the Royal Australian Air Force, blown out of his bomber in 1944 without a parachute. He found himself falling through the night sky amid airplane debris and wildly grabbed a piece of it. It turned out to be not debris at all, but rather a fellow flyer in the process of pulling his ripcord. Joe hung on and, as a courtesy, hit the ground first, breaking the fall of his savior and a mere two ribs of his own.
Nick Alkemade, an RAF tailgunner who jumped from his flaming turret without a parachute and fell 18,000 feet. When he came to and saw stars overhead, he lit a cigarette. He would later describe the fall as "a pleasant experience." Nick's trick: fir trees, underbrush, and snow.

Dont try this at home kids.

The worst accidents can somehow come out with people lucky to be alive. Lucks fine but a little bit of planning and care can help as well. From past experience I would rather not rely on my luck, it aint that good.

Further to that sideswiping again transfers the impact to one side and absords part of the impact.

[Matra et Alpine]

In that photo, I would rather be in the big car instead of the little one. Wouldn't you?
You're confusing and obfuscating the issue Fleet.

What you are showing in the pic is one car running in to the side of another.

IN old and modern cars everyoen woudl chose to be in the one with the fronatl impact.

It has nothing to do with heavy or light doors IN THE PICTUER>

Don't try to take the point off at tangents with irrelvant analysis to try to put forward a poitn of view. It only belittles the position.

You are also just missing the whole point about energy absorption to protect passengers. BIG soldid objecst just trasnfer all the accident energy to the passenger. Deformation absorbs energy and inflicts less stress to passengers. Wearing a set betl in a tank just measn the seat belt cuts trhough your gut. Rather than ONLY finding images and comments to SUPPORT your points, try a slightly wider research on ALL incidents and you'll find more of the real truth. ( I'm going to say "archibald technique" again, cos it DOES work you knwo :) )

[Matra et Alpine]

You know, the only way to find out for sure, as you said, would to have two cars, one old and one new, crash into each other.
Funny, Top Gear DID that with MPVs.

The Espace was top of the class when it first came out on safety ( it's not the same as American MPVs which wre just vans )

The new Espace is top of the class today.

They ran them in to each other at high speed.
The old one was in a sorry state and the driver would have had broken legs and possible head injury.
The new one LOOKED worse, but the passenger cell was COMPLETELY INTACT.

Practical test, if you search you'll find the video on line and it will GIVE YOU THE ASNWER you've just asked for :)

I do remember something a TV talk show host said (Tom Snyder). He was driving to work one day and saw in accident in which a '57 Chevy ran into a late-model Mercedes at about 10 mph. Because of the "crumple zones" designed in newer cars, the rear of the Mercedes crumpled even at that low speed. The repair estimate (given by the tow trunk driver) was several thousand dollars. The damage to the Chevy? Zero. Repair cost? Zero.
Yep that's the drawback of being in a safer car.
Let it be at 30 and see who had whiplash and who didnt'.
You're taking it off on a tangent and not comparing the points people are raising.
ONE example doesn't make a "rule", see coventry's posts on the statistics. They are more useful as anyeon can find a handful of pictures or cases to prove anything. It's the majoruty and the trends that tell the truth :)

As for the graph you posted, I suppose it takes everything into account- not just how the cars are built and safety devices. For instance, was the speed limit lower in the '90s than in the '60s and '70s? What about total number of drivers and cars on the road?
It was don by miles driven so cars, drivers and distance changes over the year are all taken in to account.
You shoudl have seen that for yourself on the graph.
It is a HUGE statistical sample adn by statistics theory YES it takes ALL of the things you'd like it NOT to have into accoun :)

I will agree, of course, that air bags have saved many lives. I'm just saying that classic cars are very tough as far as accident survivability. Like one muscle car magazine once said, "Sure you could kill yourself in an old car, but you had to wrap that mommy around a lamp post at 120 mph to do it."
Outside of the US safety belts have saved more lives by an order of magnitude than air bags. Air bags are for drivers too lazy to wear a safety belt properly :(
Your last comment is a typical view that if the car is more intact it was better for the driver. THAT is NOT the case no matter how often you say it.
The evidence has been presented, the case has been made and confirmed. If it REALLY has to be then go down to Acident and Emergency and talk to some trauma specialists.

ANYONE competing knows what risks they take and how best to protect themselves. You won't find anyone rallying asking for more metal, they ask for better seafty by better design :)

[Matra et Alpine]

I guess this '75 Chrysler Imperial had one of those "flat seats with no support." :rolleyes: This is more comfortable than some living couches I've sat in.

BTW, you would be better off riding in a '60s-era Corvette and Firebird.
Something like a tri-power '67 427 'Vette and '68 Ram Air IV 400 Firebird. :)
hee-hee, I love it when you post a photo that clearly provides the evidence CONTRARY to what you've been saying in other posts.

Nice big "couch" with next to no side support and limitedthigh roll.
So in a side impace you're body will be THROWN sideways at 30mph as the BIG METAL of your vehicle didnt' absorb anything. So now you've just had the seat belt tear through the side of your torso and take out your kidneys, liver and likely spleen. THEN you've hit the door and sustained shoulder injury and head trauma. So you're dead :(

In a forward accident you'll travel forward at 30mp and "submarine" off that nice leather couch UNDER the lap belt which having ridden up has now pushed your intestines UP into your heart and lungs causing them to rupture. So you're dead :(

Yeah, the rescue guys will arrive on the scene and go "wow look, man, the car's almost intact" THEN they'll open the doors and scrape up the pieces and mop up the fluids :(

[Matra et Alpine]

I have a feeling you guys no nothing about the safety factor of classic cars! :p
Actially, Fleet, you're quotes show you know little about accidents OR statistics.

let me give you an example you might quote about air travel :)

A Yugoslavian flight attendant survive a 30,000 foot fall from a plane. YEP, 30,000 FEET. So using your logic, it's OK for planes to have doors that can swing opena or blow up or anything that throughs people out at 30,000 feet because after all we have an example of a persons surviving.

Let me know when you plan to fly, I'll have a word with the pilot and see if we can arrange a test of this theory for you.

Claiming car safety by citing the miraculous survival is irrelevant. The statistics PROVE you wrong adn car design PROVES you wrong.

EDIT: Link to the FACT on the flight attendant. Just in case you chose not to believe my analogy :) http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=43941

PS: On those miraculous escapes, were any of the drivers drunk btw ? It's been shown that the human body actually does a better job of self-absorbing impact when we are drunk :)

[Fleet 500]

hee-hee, I love it when you post a photo that clearly provides the evidence CONTRARY to what you've been saying in other posts.

Nice big "couch" with next to no side support and limitedthigh roll.
So in a side impace you're body will be THROWN sideways at 30mph as the BIG METAL of your vehicle didnt' absorb anything. So now you've just had the seat belt tear through the side of your torso and take out your kidneys, liver and likely spleen. THEN you've hit the door and sustained shoulder injury and head trauma. So you're dead :(

In a forward accident you'll travel forward at 30mp and "submarine" off that nice leather couch UNDER the lap belt which having ridden up has now pushed your intestines UP into your heart and lungs causing them to rupture. So you're dead :(

Yeah, the rescue guys will arrive on the scene and go "wow look, man, the car's almost intact" THEN they'll open the doors and scrape up the pieces and mop up the fluids :(
Even with the most violent of the accidents I posted, there was no mention of seat belts "tearing through the side of the torso." I have no idea why you brought up something that didn't even happen in the accidents I posted!

In every one of those accident photos I posted, if I didn't mention that all survived, I bet you would have guessed that there were deaths in all of them! Just the opposite.

[Matra et Alpine]

Even with the most violent of the accidents I posted, there was no mention of seat belts "tearing through the side of the torso." I have no idea why you brought up something that didn't even happen in the accidents I posted!
Because in the majority of accidents in cars like that at speed THAT is what happens :)
As I said, stop citing "miraculous escapes" and avoiding the REAL figures of ALL the accidents. Hopefully by now you'rve read of the aflight attendant and getting the poitn abotu how far OFF the point your photos are :)
PS: and the comment was on the car with the "ncie seats" which hadn't been IN an accident, so WHY ARE YOU referring to them ?? :)

[Fleet 500]

You're confusing and obfuscating the issue Fleet.

What you are showing in the pic is one car running in to the side of another.

IN old and modern cars everyoen woudl chose to be in the one with the fronatl impact.

It has nothing to do with heavy or light doors IN THE PICTUER>

Don't try to take the point off at tangents with irrelvant analysis to try to put forward a poitn of view. It only belittles the position.

You are also just missing the whole point about energy absorption to protect passengers. BIG soldid objecst just trasnfer all the accident energy to the passenger. Deformation absorbs energy and inflicts less stress to passengers. Wearing a set betl in a tank just measn the seat belt cuts trhough your gut.
You are ignoring the results of those accidents I posted...
They all survived. And, no, the seat belts did not cut through anybody!

[Matra et Alpine]

You are ignoring the results of those accidents I posted...
They all survived. And, no, the seat belts did not cut through anybody!
STOP citing "miraculous escpaes" as evidence and ignoring the FACTUAL STATISTICS which are more representative.
Please it's getting tedious :)

[Fleet 500]

Better still run an old car into a cement block and a similar sized new car into one and test the occupant safety.
That has already been done! Check the last photo I posted. The car ran into a concrete bridge, which is the same thing as a cement block. And the driver survived. That's all I was pointing out- that you can survive a high-speed accident in an old car (even without crumple zones and air bags). It is possible. And I was challenging the claim that anyone would be killed in a head-on collision at 35+ mph with an immoveable object. How many times do I have to say it?

[Fleet 500]

STOP citing "miraculous escpaes" as evidence and ignoring the FACTUAL STATISTICS which are more representative.
Please it's getting tedious :)
Yeah, five "miraculous escapes." Seems like they happened a lot back then!
Incidentally, you called it that; nowhere in the article did they say any of the escapes were "miraculous." All of the drivers were injured, after all.

[Matra et Alpine]

US STATISTICS - In 2003, about 43,220 people died in traffic accidents. In addition to this tragic loss of life, it is estimated that the annual economic cost from vehicle accidents exceeds $230 billion.

Those are facts Fleet, somehow I think that's a little more than 5 accidents.
Cost of your 5 woudl have been about $10K ? Unless you're suggesting that the COST of accident rate has grown by a factor of 23 MILLION in the last 40 years :)

I used the term "miraculous escpaes" because those go against the statistical evidence of what happens ON AVERAGE in accidents. So you picked the edges of the statistical bell curve. BAD USE OF "FACTS" and I was trying to use language to explain it easier than talking about standard deviations and sigmas :)

PLEASE go back and re-read the TRUE story about the flight attendant. JUST because someone survices doens't make it a safe thing. PLEASE, we've tried to explain so you undesrstand better. WHY you dont' accept facts I don't understand.

HELL I drive and comepete in classic cars. The LAST thing I'll defend them on is safety. It doesn't belittle my desire to ride in them. ( But it DOES make me ensure the MGB and the Mini are with FULL roll cages :) You shoudl recognise the same, you dont' have to make it out as if the cars you love have no vices. Safety is one of the worst in old cars to occupants and others. Accept it, grow with it and move on.

[Coventrysucks]

"None so blind as those who refuse to see."

Quite...


We will never know if another passenger would have survived because no one was in that part of the car. To say for sure that no one could have survived is in error. Look at those who survived under crushed cars under the 880 highway after the 1989 San Francisco earthquake.

Yes, you cannot be 100% sure, but if the wheel, and associated structures have been pushed 2m into the cabin, I would think survival would be classed as a complete fluke/ divine intervention.


I don't see how, at those speeds, no intrusion would occur in any car.

Those 4/5 NACP ratings don't take real world accidents into consideration. What about a 60 mph. head on impact? Would there be intrusion then? How about an 80 mph. impact? And don't think accidents at those speeds don't happen- they do.

For your benefit, lets compare pics. At 60mph there would probably be some deformation of the Renault, but at 40mph offset head-on, there is no intrusion to the passenger cell.

I don't think that there will be a hugely significant increase in deformation at 60mph.

I have not, and will not said that all crashes in modern cars are surivable. There comes a point where the impact force will over come the strength of the materials used to construct the safety zone.

Eventually, as composite materials become more widely available, cars will become more and more survivable at higher speeds. Think of all the high speed crashes in motorsport where little or no injury is recieved. The crumple zone of current F1 cars is not much different in size to the sort of thing found in modern cars, but it is designed to absorb huge impacts, with no deformation to the driver cell.

Don't be so naive as to assume I am stupid enough to think no accident happens above 40mph, or that the NCAP crash testing is representatice of the real world.

NCAP testing is only the visible benchmarking of modern designs. During the design and engineering stage, companies will do extensive computer simulations of a wide variety of collisions, which will never be seen by the public.

I am not saying that muscle cars are bad, I am just truly baffled as to how you can even think of comparing the safety of a 30 - 40 year old car against a modern one, let alone reach the conclusion that the older car is better.

[crisis]

That has already been done! Check the last photo I posted. The car ran into a concrete bridge, which is the same thing as a cement block. And the driver survived. That's all I was pointing out- that you can survive a high-speed accident in an old car (even without crumple zones and air bags). It is possible. And I was challenging the claim that anyone would be killed in a head-on collision at 35+ mph with an immoveable object. How many times do I have to say it?
A car and yes it is possible. Just like the people who fell out the planes. Would you prefer that to the traditional style of landing? Your examples are anecdotal from a site whos purpose seems to be to highlight these rarities. I would rather rely on good design than good luck. How many times do I have to say it?

[Fleet 500]

US STATISTICS - In 2003, about 43,220 people died in traffic accidents. In addition to this tragic loss of life, it is estimated that the annual economic cost from vehicle accidents exceeds $230 billion.

I used the term "miraculous escpaes" because those go against the statistical evidence of what happens ON AVERAGE in accidents.
What does that statistic you posted have to do with the fact that all five of those in the photos I posted survived?
Those photos I posted WERE average accidents. The article was not about different or unusual or miraculous accidents. I was about real-life accidents.

[Fleet 500]

For your benefit, lets compare pics. At 60mph there would probably be some deformation of the Renault, but at 40mph offset head-on, there is no intrusion to the passenger cell.

I don't think that there will be a hugely significant increase in deformation at 60mph.

NCAP testing is only the visible benchmarking of modern designs. During the design and engineering stage, companies will do extensive computer simulations of a wide variety of collisions, which will never be seen by the public.
You really should make an equal comparison. The Chevy on the left was, of course, going much faster than the Renault. Very obvious. Maybe the Renaults should not be allowed to go over 40 mph! You can tell that Chevy was going very fast. For that much damage to occur, it had to be well over 70 mph.

[Fleet 500]

A car and yes it is possible. Just like the people who fell out the planes. Would you prefer that to the traditional style of landing? Your examples are anecdotal from a site whos purpose seems to be to highlight these rarities. I would rather rely on good design than good luck. How many times do I have to say it?
Do you really want to try and compare cars and airplanes? Well, I guess that's less painful for you instead of admitting that a 35-mph crash into an immovable object *is* survivable! ;)

[Coventrysucks]

You really should make an equal comparison. The Chevy on the left was, of course, going much faster than the Renault. Very obvious. Maybe the Renaults should not be allowed to go over 40 mph! You can tell that Chevy was going very fast. For that much damage to occur, it had to be well over 70 mph.

So the first time it was "about 60" now as it seems you might be losing it was "well over 70".

There isn't much point in me continuing this discussion since you seem determined not to listen to the facts, and make assumptions about safety from 4 pictures of old cars.

[Fleet 500]

So the first time it was "about 60" now as it seems you might be losing it was "well over 70".

There isn't much point in me continuing this discussion since you seem determined not to listen to the facts, and make assumptions about safety from 4 pictures of old cars.
After anazlying that photo, what would you guess the speed to be?

You're right, I really can't rationally debate any statement that says a 35 mph head on crash will cause a mortal brain injury!

[crisis]

Do you really want to try and compare cars and airplanes? Well, I guess that's less painful for you instead of admitting that a 35-mph crash into an immovable object *is* survivable! ;)
I admit it is survivable in some cases. Just as falling from an aircraft is. My reference to aircraft is not to compare cars and aeroplanes and you know that. It is an analogical comparison of two unlikely but possible outcomes. Just as collisions at 35mph are survivable due to the infinite number of circumstances that contribute to accidents, so is surviving falling from an aircraft. My point again ad nauseum is that new cars are designed to maximise the survivability of the occupants within certain parameters whereas 70s Chevs did not have the same level of safety as part of their design criteria.

[fpv_gtho]

Really? Seat belts (including shoulder belts) won't protect the neck and other organs? Well then I guess those people who survived those kind of crashes should be dead! We better hurry and tell them they're not supposed to be walking around because they weren't "protected" enough. :D

You really are a laugh you know. Maybe you should go out one day after eating a big meal and slam the brakes on ( i mean REALLY slam, lock them up if you can). Then come back and tell us how your stomach and neck felt afterwards. If your necks sore and your feeling queezy, thats great then cause an impact will have alot more stopping force than the cars brakes alone.

[crisis]

After anazlying that photo, what would you guess the speed to be?

You're right, I really can't rationally debate any statement that says a 35 mph head on crash will cause a mortal brain injury!
A 35 mph car crash will not cause a mortal brain injury.
Stopping the brain with the front of your skull in 0-1mtr from 35mph will.

Taken from
California Traumatic Brain Injury Lawyers

Biomechanics of Traumatic Brain Injury

Traumatic brain injury or a closed head injury can occur when the head is subjected to a direct external impact. Likewise, injury can occur when the head is subjected to a sudden acceleration and then is suddenly stopped. A sudden acceleration/deceleration often follows a violent flexion – extension movement of the head. This response is extremely common in rear-end vehicle collisions.

Condensed to its most simplistic, there are three major mechanisms which contribute to traumatic brain injury.
These include: (a) impact of the brain against the skull; (b) shear between layers of the brain; and (c) cavitation.

(a) Brain v.Skull. Depending upon how the impact occurred, be it a rear-end collision or other source, the head starts its movement to the rear while the brain resists, thereby leaving a space at the back of the skull. As this force progresses, a centrifugal force lifts the brain thereby leaving spaces between it. Both inertia and centrifugal force causes the brain to impact against the skull. This impact may cause damage to the brain.


Car Accidents & G-Force

In a car accident, you go from travelling at the same speed as the car (say 60km/hr) to zero speed almost immediately. This puts a huge G force onto your body – which is why so many people are killed in car accidents.
If you’re travelling at 35 km/hr and your head moves 10 cm before it stops, your brain is under a force of 50 G for a split second. That’s a massive force – and even though it’s for a very short time, your brain can suffer serious damage as it gets slammed around in your skull.

Wearing a seatbelt and having an airbag makes life much safer. You still go from 60km/hr to 0km/hr, but the seatbelt and airbag spread the force out over your head and body, instead of hitting one spot really hard.

Cars are also designed to have a ‘crumple zone’ – so the front of the car collapses and takes a lot of the impact, giving your head a bit more time to slow down before coming to a halt. (This only helps if you’re wearing a seatbelt!).


The 50 G mentioned at 1/2 the speed we were discussing would make the average brain weigh 75kg at 35kmh and 150kg at 60kmh (35mph). 150kg should be enough squash most brains. ;)

[Fleet 500]

You really are a laugh you know. Maybe you should go out one day after eating a big meal and slam the brakes on ( i mean REALLY slam, lock them up if you can). Then come back and tell us how your stomach and neck felt afterwards. If your necks sore and your feeling queezy, thats great then cause an impact will have alot more stopping force than the cars brakes alone.
Maybe you should do the same in a modern car; what's your point?

[Fleet 500]

Cars are also designed to have a ‘crumple zone’ – so the front of the car collapses and takes a lot of the impact, giving your head a bit more time to slow down before coming to a halt. (This only helps if you’re wearing a seatbelt!).

There is a saying among some classic car fans... "The other car is my crumple zone." :D

[fpv_gtho]

My point is seatbelts cant be strapped around your organs and neck for one....They only hold your torso. You need to rely on other safety innovations like crumple zones and airbags to decrease the stresses on them, not cars made from an era where "stiffer was better"

[fpv_gtho]

There is a saying among some classic car fans... "The other car is my crumple zone." :D

That really says something about some classic car fans then

[SlickHolden]

I think new cars are made to take as much of the hit to minimize the crash so the driver has more of a chance to walk away from it.

[Matra et Alpine]

What does that statistic you posted have to do with the fact that all five of those in the photos I posted survived?
Those photos I posted WERE average accidents. The article was not about different or unusual or miraculous accidents. I was about real-life accidents.
HOW do you justify them as 'average', Fleet ?
THey are only 5 accidents out of hundresds of thousands per year !!!!

You ( or a wweb site ) calling them average doesn't make them so.

You should do more research before coming back as you are 99.999% wrong at least ( I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and those 5 aren't miraculous and insteat are in the 0.001% of accidents where other factors affected the outcome ) :)

AND don't get me started on how strong a 40 year old car is now that the spot welds are suffering fatique and soem of the box sections are distorted with age and rust has wekened some of the major stress joints :)

[Matra et Alpine]

Maybe you should do the same in a modern car; what's your point?
I tihnk fpv was trying to give a practical example of allowing you to expereience the pain and discomfort of a 0.5g stop.
In the hope that you'll comprehend what your internal organs do in a 35mph collision when they accelerate with 100 TIMES that !!!

[Fleet 500]

HOW do you justify them as 'average', Fleet ?
THey are only 5 accidents out of hundresds of thousands per year !!!!

You ( or a wweb site ) calling them average doesn't make them so.

You should do more research before coming back as you are 99.999% wrong at least ( I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and those 5 aren't miraculous and insteat are in the 0.001% of accidents where other factors affected the outcome ) :)

AND don't get me started on how strong a 40 year old car is now that the spot welds are suffering fatique and soem of the box sections are distorted with age and rust has wekened some of the major stress joints :)
So you really think those were the only accidents in which the driver/passengers escaped alive... I don't think so!

The article is not from a website; it's from a Feb., 1972 issue of Motor Trend. And, again, they were not singled out for any particular reason- they were not pointing out "miraculous escapes." They were just analyzing the type of accidents that happen every year.

I'd rather be in a 40-year-old car with some rust rather than in a 2-year-old car with a lot of plastic!

[Fleet 500]

I tihnk fpv was trying to give a practical example of allowing you to expereience the pain and discomfort of a 0.5g stop.
In the hope that you'll comprehend what your internal organs do in a 35mph collision when they accelerate with 100 TIMES that !!!
If a 35 mph collision (in a classic car) is so "dangerous," then why have thousands of people who have been involved in such collisions (and at even higher speeds) are able to walk away from it?

And stop with "miraculous," or "lucky!" :rolleyes:

[Fleet 500]

That really says something about some classic car fans then
Yes, it does. For one thing, they have better taste in cars. :D

Yeah, how dare classic car owners choose to drive something made with real metal. The nerve of them!

[Fleet 500]

My point is seatbelts cant be strapped around your organs and neck for one....They only hold your torso. You need to rely on other safety innovations like crumple zones and airbags to decrease the stresses on them, not cars made from an era where "stiffer was better"
I already told you... the other car is my crumple zone. ;)

[fpv_gtho]

I already told you... the other car is my crumple zone. ;)

If thats your honest opinion you should be banned from driving IMO as thats completely ludicrous. Even with that opinion a new car is safer as theres 2 crumple zones rather than 1....

[crisis]

There is a saying among some classic car fans... "The other car is my crumple zone." :D
I have thought the same to myself when Im in my Landcruiser. The problem is you have to be sure you are going to hit a newere or smaller car and not a tree or a truck. ;)

[Manik]

the 2 most classic american cars of all time, IMO


1967 Chevrolet Camaro
1966 Ford Mustang Fastback

[Matra et Alpine]

If a 35 mph collision (in a classic car) is so "dangerous," then why have thousands of people who have been involved in such collisions (and at even higher speeds) are able to walk away from it?
erm, you have NO idea of how many accidents they DIDN'T WALK from so your talking rubbish :)

And stop with "miraculous," or "lucky!" :rolleyes:
OK, but will you actually take the time to understand the graphs CoventrySucks presented rather than now discussing something else.

THOSE are facts of ALL accidents, not selectively chosen accidents.

You do realise with a little effort we coudl find 5 images of cars shoiwnth opposite if yours ? That's why you can't be selective when discussing the real world.

You STARTED this nonsense by tryign to refute statistics with individual cases and not bothering to try to learn ANYTHING about all the issues people have raised with you. For ecample you still dont' get the different between a car and a passenger surviving an accident !! OR the concept of absorbing impact to reduce the g-forces and lessening damage. OR that modern doors are actually stronger even though lightweight. Or the million oterh things pointed out refuting your claims and ignored :)

[Fleet 500]

erm, you have NO idea of how many accidents they DIDN'T WALK from so your talking rubbish :)

THOSE are facts of ALL accidents, not selectively chosen accidents.

You do realise with a little effort we coudl find 5 images of cars shoiwnth opposite if yours ? That's why you can't be selective when discussing the real world.

You STARTED this nonsense by tryign to refute statistics with individual cases and not bothering to try to learn ANYTHING about all the issues people have raised with you. For ecample you still dont' get the different between a car and a passenger surviving an accident !! OR the concept of absorbing impact to reduce the g-forces and lessening damage. OR that modern doors are actually stronger even though lightweight. Or the million oterh things pointed out refuting your claims and ignored :)
I'm sure there are many more accidents (with classic cars) that people have walked away from.

The accidents I posted are not "selectively chosen," either. I posted the pics from the article. Okay, you post 5 pics of accidents involving classic cars at 35 mph in which anyone was killed.

I only refuted the ridiculous claim that a 35 mph collision with an immovable object in a classic car is not survivable. That is simply not true.
And if modern doors and stronger, why are they much more damaged in an accident than a classic car's door?

[Fleet 500]

If thats your honest opinion you should be banned from driving IMO as thats completely ludicrous. Even with that opinion a new car is safer as theres 2 crumple zones rather than 1....
There's something even better than a "safe" new car... avoiding accidents in the first place. After all, a car is only as safe as the driver.

[SlickHolden]

I think there is one thing more safer then a driver... GOOD LUCK;) You cant be good luck Your times up your gone be the bets driver in the world but ask Shumacher He always says he would rather be born with luck, then be born rich ;) And thats true.

[fpv_gtho]

Its definately something you cant ignore. Safety benefits aside, most high speed crashes around here usually end in death and the only difference being in a new car seems to make rather than being in an old car is you'd die in hospital rather than on the scene

[Fleet 500]

I think there is one thing more safer then a driver... GOOD LUCK;) You cant be good luck Your times up your gone be the bets driver in the world but ask Shumacher He always says he would rather be born with luck, then be born rich ;) And thats true.
Luck is definitely a factor, too. Just passing driving through a certain place a few minutes before an accident occurs could make a big difference.

[Matra et Alpine]

I'm sure there are many more accidents (with classic cars) that people have walked away from.
You being sure doesn't make it fact in the real world, Sorry to burst the bubble :)

The accidents I posted are not "selectively chosen," either. I posted the pics from the article. Okay, you post 5 pics of accidents involving classic cars at 35 mph in which anyone was killed.
OF COURSE YOU CHOSE THEM SELECTIVELY.
You only looked for pictures of cars showing your point of view.
At least be honest :(

I only refuted the ridiculous claim that a 35 mph collision with an immovable object in a classic car is not survivable. That is simply not true.
And if modern doors and stronger, why are they much more damaged in an accident than a classic car's door?
That may be how you justify as you've redirected the issue into a small point you feel you can justify. The reality of 35mph crashes is EVERYONE survices most of them.
BUT the point where this started out was the ludicrous claim that a classic was safer than a modern car.
You've avoided ALL the points on safety and turned it into a justification of the 5 pictures you've posted.
Let's return to the initial point please.............
Classic cars are NOT safer than modern cars for the occupants.

Go back and read it all again ( wow I think I've said THAT before ).
Your last senetece shows you STILL don't comprehend the difference of the vehicle and the passengers ain an impact adn the role shock abroption makes to survivability. You'd do better to find articels on that than posting pictures of cars schosen to show how much damamge a chuck of metal makes to another chunk of metal :(

So return to your starting premise of classic cars being safer and PROVE IT

[Fleet 500]

You being sure doesn't make it fact in the real world, Sorry to burst the bubble :)

OF COURSE YOU CHOSE THEM SELECTIVELY.
You only looked for pictures of cars showing your point of view.
At least be honest :(

That may be how you justify as you've redirected the issue into a small point you feel you can justify. The reality of 35mph crashes is EVERYONE survices most of them.
BUT the point where this started out was the ludicrous claim that a classic was safer than a modern car.
You've avoided ALL the points on safety and turned it into a justification of the 5 pictures you've posted.
Let's return to the initial point please.............
Classic cars are NOT safer than modern cars for the occupants.

So return to your starting premise of classic cars being safer and PROVE IT
So you think those 5 accident pics I posted are the only ones in which people survived? That is essentially what you're saying!

How would you know I chose those photos "selectively" if you haven't even seen the article. Anyway, it's untrue. I was looking for head on collisions with immovable objects (you know, the ones Crisis claims no one could survive) and side impacts to prove that it is possible to survive those in a classic car.

Sorry, but I'm not about to crash any of my classic Caddys into a modern car to prove it's safer! :D

[crisis]

I was looking for head on collisions with immovable objects (you know, the ones Crisis claims no one could survive) and side impacts to prove that it is possible to survive those in a classic car.

Sorry, but I'm not about to crash any of my classic Caddys into a modern car to prove it's safer! :D
Im sure you are not reffering to this quote as it does not say anything resembling what you claim I stated.

" Basically if a car travelling at 35mph hits an immoveable object and has no crumple zone, the passenger if rigidly restrained would die due to the fact that his brain woudl hit the front of his skull at that speed and be crushed. So the rigidity of the car will count against survivability in many cases."

Even old cars have crumple zones, its just a fact of physics though not a result of good design. It is because all accidents are the result of infinite variable circumstances and contain infinitely variable outcomes that people survive accidents at extreme speeds. F1 crashed for example. What I was trying to explain is that extreme rigidity, the type that transfers all of the force to the human is worse than well designed compartments of a cr that absorb it. Perhaps in my quote I should have added if the passengers head was secured so that it didnt move to be more accurate. The scenario I point out is not an example of an accident but a fact of human physiology. In reality every accident transfers some of the impact in a variety of ways. Tehe benefit of newer well designed cars is that they transfer more than older rigid cars.

[Matra et Alpine]

So you think those 5 accident pics I posted are the only ones in which people survived? That is essentially what you're saying!
NO IT IS NOT !!

You've got your logic screwed up. ( probably explains all those other "debates" we've had )

WHAT I said was that you only showed 5 to support a point of view.
I pointed you back to Convetry's statistics showing you the injury rates.

THAT doesn't say that everyoen dies or that everyone lives. IT says how many people die. That the rate has dropped as new cars have been designed and sold is a reasonable first causal relatioship :)

Maybe you can explain to me how what I've said is "essentially" the premise in that nonsene you posted. Please do, I'd love to see it :) Of course, when you try to explain it you'll see that it is erroneous.

How would you know I chose those photos "selectively" if you haven't even seen the article. Anyway, it's untrue. I was looking for head on collisions with immovable objects (you know, the ones Crisis claims no one could survive) and side impacts to prove that it is possible to survive those in a classic car.
Iin psycholigical terms it's called the "retinal activation system". People find the images and objects they subconsiously expect to see when looking. The best example of that is "red cars". How many did you see today ? Well tomorrow you will see LOTS more because your RAS is activiated :)
Where were you searching ? Frankly I'd have expected the thousands of images from NCAP and all the country test centres to have been at the top fo the search engines :)

Sorry, but I'm not about to crash any of my classic Caddys into a modern car to prove it's safer! :D
It would be a futile exercise - as you couldnt' "prove it".
Again you're missing the point about statistics of accidents. JUST because you DID have a crash and survived it doesn't mean anything.
EVEN if somethign has a probablility of 1 in 10 BILLION then it might just heppen in the next minute. Statistics never can say WHEN or WHO an accident will happen to. it just gives probabilities.
Even if you DID die it woudlnt' "prove" that classic cars are dangerous either.
You are only one sample.
IF you coudl have the accident thousands of times then you woudl suffer greater injuries more often than you woudl in a modern car. THAT is how statistics and probablities works.

[Matra et Alpine]

The benefit of newer well designed cars is that they transfer more than older rigid cars.
I think you meant newer ones ABSORB MORE or that they TRANSFER LESS of the energy ?

[Fleet 500]

NO IT IS NOT !!

You've got your logic screwed up. ( probably explains all those other "debates" we've had )

WHAT I said was that you only showed 5 to support a point of view.
I pointed you back to Convetry's statistics showing you the injury rates.

THAT doesn't say that everyoen dies or that everyone lives. IT says how many people die. That the rate has dropped as new cars have been designed and sold is a reasonable first causal relatioship :)

Maybe you can explain to me how what I've said is "essentially" the premise in that nonsene you posted. Please do, I'd love to see it :) Of course, when you try to explain it you'll see that it is erroneous.

Iin psycholigical terms it's called the "retinal activation system". People find the images and objects they subconsiously expect to see when looking. The best example of that is "red cars". How many did you see today ? Well tomorrow you will see LOTS more because your RAS is activiated :)
Where were you searching ? Frankly I'd have expected the thousands of images from NCAP and all the country test centres to have been at the top fo the search engines :)

It would be a futile exercise - as you couldnt' "prove it".
Again you're missing the point about statistics of accidents. JUST because you DID have a crash and survived it doesn't mean anything.
EVEN if somethign has a probablility of 1 in 10 BILLION then it might just heppen in the next minute. Statistics never can say WHEN or WHO an accident will happen to. it just gives probabilities.
Even if you DID die it woudlnt' "prove" that classic cars are dangerous either.
You are only one sample.
IF you coudl have the accident thousands of times then you woudl suffer greater injuries more often than you woudl in a modern car. THAT is how statistics and probablities works.
Are you for real? :confused: :D

[crisis]

I think you meant newer ones ABSORB MORE or that they TRANSFER LESS of the energy ?
They transfer more energy elsewhere other than the occupant, is what I meant. ;)

[crisis]

Are you for real? :confused: :D
Do you actualy read any of our posts or dont they sink in. Instead of posting pictures of crashed 70 Chevs,address these in a yes or no answer please.
1. do you think 50g is enough to crush a human brain being that it would equate to around 70kg?
2. Would you rather hit your head against a brick wall or against a cardboard between your head and a brick wall.
2. Can you show statistics that demonstrate how cars built bfore the 80s were more surviveable in accidents than those built after the 90s? (statistics must be from government or independant scientific sources, not hot rod mags)

[Fleet 500]

Do you actualy read any of our posts or dont they sink in. Instead of posting pictures of crashed 70 Chevs,address these in a yes or no answer please.
1. do you think 50g is enough to crush a human brain being that it would equate to around 70kg?
2. Would you rather hit your head against a brick wall or against a cardboard between your head and a brick wall.
2. Can you show statistics that demonstrate how cars built before the 80s were more surviveable in accidents than those built after the 90s? (statistics must be from government or independant scientific sources, not hot rod mags)
1. Do you think there is a chance of surviving a head-on collision in a classic car at 60 mph? Yes or no.
2. I'd rather not hit anything with my head- that's why I use my shoulder belt.
3. Can you admit that the classic cars (especially the bigger ones) come out very well in collisions? Finding the stats you want would probably be difficult and be time consuming.

[crisis]

1. Do you think there is a chance of surviving a head-on collision in a classic car at 60 mph? Yes or no.
2. I'd rather not hit anything with my head- that's why I use my shoulder belt.
3. Can you admit that the classic cars (especially the bigger ones) come out very well in collisions? Finding the stats you want would probably be difficult and be time consuming.
I guess your collective answer is no then.

[Fleet 500]

Here are some others with accident experiences. Since I've never been in a high-speed (or even moderate-speed) collision, I can't draw from my experiences.

[Fleet 500]

Another one:

(When he says "Chally," he means Dodge Challenger, btw.)

Interesting... the Lexus. "The rear driver's side wheel pushed into the back seat." That's not supposed to happen! I mean, it has that "safety cell!"

[crisis]

Another one:

(When he says "Chally," he means Dodge Challenger, btw.)

Interesting... the Lexus. "The rear driver's side wheel pushed into the back seat." That's not supposed to happen! I mean, it has that "safety cell!"
What was the name of this scientist again?

[Fleet 500]

What was the name of this scientist again?
Those accident stories were posted on another message board, by two guys who are smart enough to not own a Lexus. ;)

[crisis]

Those accident stories were posted on another message board, by two guys who are smart enough to not own a Lexus. ;)
Their credentials are beyond question.

[Fleet 500]

Their credentials are beyond question.
I know, I know... you won't believe anything (even real life accidents) if it favors American cars! Same old story.

[jcp123]

I also sort of like the Cadillac DeVille. It's FWD (which I frankly dislike to a high degree) but in the manner in which that car's intended to be driven, that doesn't really matter that much. So I can make peace with it.
The Lincoln Town Car is probably the best looking car on the market right now, to me. Period.

Incidentally, I like the big Lexus too.

[Matra et Alpine]

They transfer more energy elsewhere other than the occupant, is what I meant. ;)
ah THAT makes sense.
I clearly needed to stand on my head to understand that one :)

[Matra et Alpine]

Are you for real? :confused: :D
Well it's all factual and suported by statistically valid evidence.

posting 5 pics as "worldwide justification" is the only unreal experience I've seen so far.

What aspect of the statement were you struggling with ???

[Matra et Alpine]

Another one:

(When he says "Chally," he means Dodge Challenger, btw.)

Interesting... the Lexus. "The rear driver's side wheel pushed into the back seat." That's not supposed to happen! I mean, it has that "safety cell!"The laws of physics prevent anyoen from making ANY device capable of withstanding ALL forces.
AGAIN, if something is STATISTICALLY safer then it just means that you are LESS LIKELY to have crush or intrusion. NOBODY has ever said it stops all intrusion. EVEN Abrams M1s can be crushed !!!
Finding handfuls of cases isn't relevant at all.
THAT was the point I thought my little TRUE anecdote of the flight attendant falling from 33,000 feet and surviving was meant to illuminate. Nobody can take from that that it's safe to jump from a plane !!!!
Just as 5 pictures dont' make a car "safer" and one accident doesn't make passenger cells "unsafe" :)

[Matra et Alpine]

Those accident stories were posted on another message board, by two guys who are smart enough to not own a Lexus. ;)
So possibly - as with the 5 picures posted here - they are guilty of finding and publicising cases and ignoring the full weight of evidence.
Sounds just like Karrmann and his (past) anti-Ford tirades - biased and irrelevant :)

[Coventrysucks]

Another one:

(When he says "Chally," he means Dodge Challenger, btw.)

Interesting... the Lexus. "The rear driver's side wheel pushed into the back seat." That's not supposed to happen! I mean, it has that "safety cell!"

I wouldn't trust them to know about how safe modern cars are in comparison to theirs.

The extreme ignorance of the comment about airbags killing people proves their general lack of knowledge on the matter.

Here's one for you.
A few years back a friend's parents cruelly bought him a Hyundai Atoz. Hardly up to Renault levels of crash protection.

http://www.wisebuyers.co.uk/cars/300/Hyundai/atoz_1.jpg

He smacked it into a kerb at 30+mph and flipped it, rolling a couple of times. He didn't even have any cuts or bruises.

Someone else I know swerved to avoid an animal in a Citroen Saxo, again not something I'd reccommend crashing in, hit the bank, rolled it... (it was a country road, so anywhere between 30-60mph) No physical injuries.

Someone else got hit by a foreign "semi" on the motorway (70mph+) as the driver didn't check the blind spot before moving out to overtake. Their early 1990s Ford Fiesta hit the barrier, then was collected by another lorry on its way to the hard shoulder. No physical injuries.

You see, we could pointlessly trade stories like this for ever, providing examples of accidents where people survived, but it doesn't prove anything.

The Citroen Saxo and Ford Fiesta have pretty bad levels of crash protection, 1-2 EuroNCAP stars, but I'm not here to defend them - just pointing out that in the "worst" of modern cars, lacking the sophisticated crash protection that most modern cars are available with, and lacking the strong structure of the classics, are survivable.

Similarly, just because not every single person in an accident in an older car died, doesn't prove that they are "safe", or indeed "safer" than a modern car.

[Fleet 500]

I wouldn't trust them to know about how safe modern cars are in comparison to theirs.

The extreme ignorance of the comment about airbags killing people proves their general lack of knowledge on the matter.

Here's one for you.
A few years back a friend's parents cruelly bought him a Hyundai Atoz. Hardly up to Renault levels of crash protection.

He smacked it into a kerb at 30+mph and flipped it, rolling a couple of times. He didn't even have any cuts or bruises.

Someone else I know swerved to avoid an animal in a Citroen Saxo, again not something I'd reccommend crashing in, hit the bank, rolled it... (it was a country road, so anywhere between 30-60mph) No physical injuries.

Someone else got hit by a foreign "semi" on the motorway (70mph+) as the driver didn't check the blind spot before moving out to overtake. Their early 1990s Ford Fiesta hit the barrier, then was collected by another lorry on its way to the hard shoulder. No physical injuries.

You see, we could pointlessly trade stories like this for ever, providing examples of accidents where people survived, but it doesn't prove anything.

The Citroen Saxo and Ford Fiesta have pretty bad levels of crash protection, 1-2 EuroNCAP stars, but I'm not here to defend them - just pointing out that in the "worst" of modern cars, lacking the sophisticated crash protection that most modern cars are available with, and lacking the strong structure of the classics, are survivable.

Similarly, just because not every single person in an accident in an older car died, doesn't prove that they are "safe",
They probably wouldn't trust you to know about how safe classic cars are, either!

Those examples you posted- I wonder what the results would have been if they had crashed into a '69 Imperial or '75 Lincoln Continental? I, for sure, would rather be in those two cars rather than a Hyundai or Citroen.

Yes, we could trade stories like these forever. However, I think I've proved my point that you can survive some very severe accidents in classic cars (assuming you are properly buckled-up). That was my point in the first place. For some reason, all I heard were things like classic cars- no cumple zone, can't survive a 35 mph (or higher) collision with an immovable object and more garbage like that.

[Fleet 500]

So possibly - as with the 5 picures posted here - they are guilty of finding and publicising cases and ignoring the full weight of evidence.
Sounds just like Karrmann and his (past) anti-Ford tirades - biased and irrelevant :)
Yeah, and if I posted 100 photos similar to the previous ones, you would say, "But that's only 100 pictures!" :D
And if I posted 200 photos similar to the previous ones, you would say, "But that's only 200 pictures!" ;)

[Matra et Alpine]

Yeah, and if I posted 100 photos similar to the previous ones, you would say, "But that's only 100 pictures!" :D
And if I posted 200 photos similar to the previous ones, you would say, "But that's only 200 pictures!" ;)
aha, at last you're starting to understand STATISTICS !!

Untill you posted a statistically valid number of events in a large enough population it's all meaningless.

ie. Coventry's post provided a HUGE sample and a large number of events.

So it actually meant anything. Any other comments are the equivalent of the flight attendant surviving the 33,000 foot fall. I thought that example made it clear enough to grasp :(

[Coventrysucks]

They probably wouldn't trust you to know about how safe classic cars are, either!

Hmmm. True, I'm not an expert on classic cars, but it can be show with statistics:

Road fatalities/ km or mile have fallen constantly since the beginning of cars.

I can see that statistically you are less likely to survive any crash in a classic car than you are in a modern one.

Going from that graph I posted earlier ~8 deaths per bn km = ~3,000 fatalities = 375bn km/ per year

If we use the same fatality rate as in 1950, ~95 deaths per bn km there would be 35,625 deaths on the roads in the UK every year.

Therefore, I can conclude that modern cars are more survivable than cars from 1950.

That is a proper argument, not "Classic cars must be safer than modern cars because airbags kill people", as said in one of your "eyewitness reports" earlier, when there is very little data that proves an airbag will kill a restrained person with the seat correctly adjusted. That is just ignorance.

[Fleet 500]

Actually, there have been instances in which air bags have killed people. I do agree the percentage is low.

You know, with all the statistics you and others have posted, I do not feel any less safe when driving my '69 Fleetwood (5,000 lbs), '70 Sedan de Ville (4,800 lbs) or '76 Limo (6,040 lbs).

Posting fatality rates does take many factors into consideration. For instance, many more people use selt belts today than in 1950. That has made a huge impact on fatalities.

[Coventrysucks]

Actually, there have been instances in which air bags have killed people. I do agree the percentage is low.


restrained person with the seat correctly adjusted

Airbags are an explosive device, that significantly reduce the ammount of damage done to the head and upper thorax in head on collisions, and more recently providing much needed extra protection in side impacts.

If you are sitting in the correct position as recommended in the manual, and properly restrained, there should be no major health risk to the occupants.

People think they know best, and sit how they want, and in the USA don't wear their seat belt because they are "free" to do so (because of this US airbags are bigger, and more explosive than European ones). They ignore the correct procedures and they die.

If you take a knife, and the instructions say "don't stab yourself", and then you stab yourself... same sort of thing, different product.

Airbags are there to reduce injuries, not prevent them totally and leave you 100% unharmed as many people incorrectly believe.

So what, you have airbag burn, but you didn't just break your face on the steering wheel.


Posting fatality rates does take many factors into consideration. For instance, many more people use selt belts today than in 1950. That has made a huge impact on fatalities...

...as do crush cans, crumple zones, door braces, etc, etc.

Modern car with seat belts - safer than classic car without.
Modern car with crumple zones - safer than classic car without
Etc...

[Fleet 500]

...as do crush cans, crumple zones, door braces, etc, etc.

Modern car with seat belts - safer than classic car without.
Modern car with crumple zones - safer than classic car without
Etc...
Door braces have been around for over 30 years. Nothing new there.

As I said, I feel perfectly safe with any of my classic Cadillacs even if they don't have a crumple zone. Actually they do, with those long hoods and rear decks, I could probably have time to tune the radio before an impact affected me. :D

[BIG DOG]

[my Cars Are The Gto (old) And The New Ones
The Gt Ford And The Gt Mustang
And That It For Me

[taz_rocks_miami]

Door braces have been around for over 30 years. Nothing new there.

As I said, I feel perfectly safe with any of my classic Cadillacs even if they don't have a crumple zone. Actually they do, with those long hoods and rear decks, I could probably have time to tune the radio before an impact affected me. :D

Those long hoods and rear decks we not made to absorb the energy of a collision. If sure the car would fare better than you would.

[Fleet 500]

Those long hoods and rear decks we not made to absorb the energy of a collision. If sure the car would fare better than you would.
They may have not been made to absorb energy, but they do to a certain degree. The metal on the classic cars is thick and tough but not that tough. Even the thicker metal of classic cars dents and squashes when they are hit hard enough.

And I'd rather the long hood take the impact instead of me. It reminds me of what one magazine said about the VW Bus- in an accident the impact is absorbed by the passenger's legs.

[fpv_gtho]

And I'd rather the long hood take the impact instead of me.

You say this now - the basic principle behind the safety of modern cars - yet you'd rather be in a classic car in an accident

[Fleet 500]

You say this now - the basic principle behind the safety of modern cars - yet you'd rather be in a classic car in an accident
Are you back again? :rolleyes:

Well, make up YOUR mind... do classic cars have crumple zones or not?
I would say that a 5-foot long hood and 4-foot long rear deck are indeed crumple zones. They will and do "crumple" on impact (if the impact is severe enough; if it's not, then the paint gets chipped while the other- newer- car has crumpled sheet metal).

[kstp917]

C6 Corvette and Viper SRT-10

[fpv_gtho]

Are you back again? :rolleyes:

What is that, a joke? Your humour's as bad as your debating skills


Well, make up YOUR mind... do classic cars have crumple zones or not?
I would say that a 5-foot long hood and 4-foot long rear deck are indeed crumple zones. They will and do "crumple" on impact (if the impact is severe enough; if it's not, then the paint gets chipped while the other- newer- car has crumpled sheet metal).

Depends how you look at it, all cars will crumple and ive never disputed that. Im not the one arguing against public opinion here afterall. I do not believe that classic cars were designed to crumple in the interests of occupant safety though.