Progress

[pauldun170]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CU-k..._embedded#t=96

[Adeptus_Minor]

Rather shocking.
I had erroneously assumed that the older 'more metal' cars were stronger.

[101lifts2]

Neat.

I would say a 2009 Malibu wouldn't fair too well against a mid to late 1970s GM vehicle say a 1976 Grand Prix. Those were reinforced tanks. It's amazing how the 09 Malibu pushed its way into the BelAir driver compartment rather easily.

Now run the BelAir into a 2009 Hyundai. The Hyundai may not fair so well.

[Kerry_129]

Yup - unibody structure & crumple-zones FTW.
I think the 'old cars are tougher/safer' myth comes from minor fender-bender accidents where a steel bumper sustains little damage vs. molded w/ styrofoam absorbers.
Also, it doesn't matter how well a 'heavy' car holds up in a crash if the occupants are turned to goo inside due to lack of crumple-zones & high deceleration G's.

Originally Posted by 101lifts2

Now run the BelAir into a 2009 Hyundai. The Hyundai may not fair so well.

You think?

http://www.automotive.com/2009/12/hy...sts/index.html

http://www.automotive.com/2010/12/ch...sts/index.html

(Though it does look like the Sonata has more likelyhood of trauma to legs/pelvis).

[101lifts2]

Originally Posted by Kerry_129

Yup - unibody structure & crumple-zones FTW.
I think the 'old cars are tougher/safer' myth comes from minor fender-bender accidents where a steel bumper sustains little damage vs. molded w/ styrofoam absorbers.
Also, it doesn't matter how well a 'heavy' car holds up in a crash if the occupants are turned to goo inside due to lack of crumple-zones & high deceleration G's.



You think?

http://www.automotive.com/2009/12/hy...sts/index.html

http://www.automotive.com/2010/12/ch...sts/index.html

(Though it does look like the Sonata has more likelyhood of trauma to legs/pelvis).

The Accent? lol

The late 1970s and early 1980s are tanks. I think if you ran a new car against one of those, the older car would cream the new ones. There is no substitue for metal. But...if you run a 1970s car into a fixed wall, then you are correct. You will sustain internal injuries.

Also, side impact standards and airbags have helped greatly to keep occupants in the same location after a crash.

[Kerry_129]

The Cobalt? lol

http://www.carsdirect.com/hyundai/accent/safety

http://www.carsdirect.com/chevrolet/cobalt/safety

Apples to apples, man.


Big 80's (or better yet, 60's) tank cars would crush a modern econobox, yes. But again, whether a car is 'crushed' or not doesn't necessarily mean squat about the occupant protection/safety. Crushing & spreading the impact G's over a bit more time is the point.

[unknownroad]

That poor, poor car!

Keep in mind that despite being 7" wider and more than 17" shorter, the Malibu only weighs 200lb less than the Bel Air. So even aside from design considerations, it's substantially denser than the '59.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by unknownroad

That poor, poor car!

Keep in mind that despite being 7" wider and more than 17" shorter, the Malibu only weighs 200lb less than the Bel Air. So even aside from design considerations, it's substantially denser than the '59.

And has side-impact beams, and probably stouter pillars, firewalls and shock towers. 50 years ago they didn't use CAD to design the sheetmetal for optimal rigidity. Pretty common sense.

[Sean]

But but but but...GM is an evil corporation that doesn't care about crash standards or their customers, only their bottom line and corporate jets!!!!11!!one!

[unknownroad]

Like I said, even aside from design. If you're referring to exterior sheetmetal, it's absolutely not designed for rigidity in most modern cars. All the strength is in the unibody. The sheetmetal is essentially skin.

Of course, on an old body-on-frame sedan, there's almost no structural hard parts more than a foot or so off the ground. It's pretty much all skin. As 101 mentioned, against a heavy unibody car like a '73 Imperial, they'd be pulling pieces of Malibu out of the walls.