Re: They don't make them like they used to...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 168BTHPM</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just looking at the dummies says it all. I don't know that the dude in the 59 would have survived that impact with the steering wheel column. Dude in new car left a nice ink print center of the airbag. I'll take the new car for a head-on crash! </div></div>
I was at this crash test, the driver of the 59 would have been DRT. They actually did this test twice, the first practice run was done on an unrestored car, the second was done on a semi-restored car they bought at the Carlisle swap meet.
I thought the new car would have come out much worse but the energy management built into the structure did exactly what is was supposed to do. The biggest hazard to the driver of the new car would be the hood of the 59 coming through the windshield.
I have been to a bunch of crash tests the IIHS and this one didn't even sound the same as the others. </div></div>
Interesting stuff to hear there!
You know, one interesting thing is that everyone believes the old cars were heavier... by a large margin. From the numbers I looked up, the bel-air only had about 200lbs on the malibu. That's something most people just don't realize; sure, they are larger in size, but the weight isn't that different than they are today. Of course the weight comes in a different form these days (electronics, wiring, insulation and interior parts/pieces vs. frame, heavy gauge body metal, iron drivetrain).
Anyway, it would seem to me that these two cars would represent a good match for what this test is trying to illustrate; cars of similar weight and size separated by over 50 years in technology. Result is a great demonstration of how technology is saving lives despite the impression of cars being less than they used to be.
Lets not even talk about the idea that car manufactures are intentionally producing cars that are more difficult to work on with a shorter life-span to keep repair shops open and new models selling. How about the 30k mile tune-up... that went away how long ago?? The fact is, the owner doesn't really NEED to work on their car unlike 50 years ago. My 2011 Avalanche goes 7500 miles between oil changes, won't need plugs until 100k; hell, all I have to do is keep the fluids topped off and spend 30 minutes at the dealership every 7500 miles for my oil/filter change and tire rotation. And if I DID want to work on it, I have a $150 code reader; there isn't anything I can't do on this truck that I could on 77 F-150 my father had, or my 98 F-150 that this Avalanche replaced.
I could rant on and on about this stuff. People are resistant to change and learning new things- there for they become skeptical about the new things and nostalgic about the old. Try to go buy a 650HP (and not that BS gross HP they used in the 60's) Mustang that will get 20MPG and survive a head-on impact at 75mph... 40 years ago... Won't even mention skid pad performance and 100 to 0 braking performance.
