50 years of engineering
BF Veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,545
From: Tacoma-ish
WTF! that focus pwnd that buick! 
thats funny. think how many times some fool has said something about old solid steel cars and how little death traps like that one would play out. Thansk for proving everyone in my parent's generation wrong IIfHS!
thats funny. think how many times some fool has said something about old solid steel cars and how little death traps like that one would play out. Thansk for proving everyone in my parent's generation wrong IIfHS!
Beginning Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 27
Interesting video. Certainly seems at first look to be proof positive that newer car are safer than old ones. While I don't doubt this is true, I do have doubt whether its as dramatic a difference as this video seems to depict.
Watch the video closely. In several frames, you can see a large beige 'dust' cloud come from under the Bel Air. That's rust.
In the beginning frames, the car looks absolutely pristine, doesn't it? Later frames seem to say otherwise... maybe this car wasn't a well-preserved factory original that GM had kept in a hermetically sealed, climate controlled warehouse someplace? Maybe the restoration wasn't as comprehensive as the exterior suggests, or the frame had more internal rot in it (which would cause significant weakening) than the restorer was able to get rid of?
I'm not saying today's cars are not inherently safer, because thanks to technology, they are. I am saying that there's very little out there that isn't in some way misleading, that someone hasn't doctored up to one extent or another.
Watch the video closely. In several frames, you can see a large beige 'dust' cloud come from under the Bel Air. That's rust.
In the beginning frames, the car looks absolutely pristine, doesn't it? Later frames seem to say otherwise... maybe this car wasn't a well-preserved factory original that GM had kept in a hermetically sealed, climate controlled warehouse someplace? Maybe the restoration wasn't as comprehensive as the exterior suggests, or the frame had more internal rot in it (which would cause significant weakening) than the restorer was able to get rid of?
I'm not saying today's cars are not inherently safer, because thanks to technology, they are. I am saying that there's very little out there that isn't in some way misleading, that someone hasn't doctored up to one extent or another.
BF Veteran
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 4,772
From: Halifax, NS, Canada
This was posted on Autoblog earlier this year.
It was interesting the first time I watched it, although the outcome was expected. We've definitely come a long way! And to think, the Malibu isn't even one of the "safest" vehicles on the road today!
It was interesting the first time I watched it, although the outcome was expected. We've definitely come a long way! And to think, the Malibu isn't even one of the "safest" vehicles on the road today!
Thread Starter
|
BF Veteran
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,209
From: Sudbury, ON, Canada
Interesting video. Certainly seems at first look to be proof positive that newer car are safer than old ones. While I don't doubt this is true, I do have doubt whether its as dramatic a difference as this video seems to depict.
Watch the video closely. In several frames, you can see a large beige 'dust' cloud come from under the Bel Air. That's rust.
In the beginning frames, the car looks absolutely pristine, doesn't it? Later frames seem to say otherwise... maybe this car wasn't a well-preserved factory original that GM had kept in a hermetically sealed, climate controlled warehouse someplace? Maybe the restoration wasn't as comprehensive as the exterior suggests, or the frame had more internal rot in it (which would cause significant weakening) than the restorer was able to get rid of?
I'm not saying today's cars are not inherently safer, because thanks to technology, they are. I am saying that there's very little out there that isn't in some way misleading, that someone hasn't doctored up to one extent or another.
Watch the video closely. In several frames, you can see a large beige 'dust' cloud come from under the Bel Air. That's rust.
In the beginning frames, the car looks absolutely pristine, doesn't it? Later frames seem to say otherwise... maybe this car wasn't a well-preserved factory original that GM had kept in a hermetically sealed, climate controlled warehouse someplace? Maybe the restoration wasn't as comprehensive as the exterior suggests, or the frame had more internal rot in it (which would cause significant weakening) than the restorer was able to get rid of?
I'm not saying today's cars are not inherently safer, because thanks to technology, they are. I am saying that there's very little out there that isn't in some way misleading, that someone hasn't doctored up to one extent or another.
Super Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,183
Love it how after all that, the damage on the malibu stayed infront of the firewall. Amazing how time improves things. I always hear people saying how an old steel car would demolish modern cars. I guess this proves them wrong.
Starting Member
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 221
From:
That Bel Air did not fare so well. That outcome was really surprising.
Oktain convertibles have a more rigid body. Most verts that are uni-bodies have subframes among other things. Modern convertibles have very little flex. I just wouldn’t feel as safe in a rollover of course.
Oktain convertibles have a more rigid body. Most verts that are uni-bodies have subframes among other things. Modern convertibles have very little flex. I just wouldn’t feel as safe in a rollover of course.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
