Vintage Car Thread - Discussion and Parts Requests

[Stanley Doble]

Somewhere there is a crash test video of a 59 Impala vs a 2009 Impala. At what 35 mph or what ever they tested at, the two cars hit each other and the 59 had its engine put in the back seat. That, blew me away I figured with all that steel it would destroy the new impala. Apparently, it was the other way around. As far as the Smart Cars go, they are not that bad. I talked to one guy who had to destroy one and when they dropped a set of 10K forks from a lift truck on it, they bounced off the roof. They then cut the thing up with a sawzall and went through three metal blades to do it. It will take a hit but not a saw.

Mike

Chevs from 58 to the early sixties are pretty flimsy. I have seen pictures of accidents, taken when these were late model cars. It was common for them to fold in half or even break in two pieces.

Now if they used a 52 Chrysler or DeSoto it would demolish everything. Likewise a step down Hudson (1948 - 54).

 

[jamespowers]

Somewhere there is a crash test video of a 59 Impala vs a 2009 Impala. At what 35 mph or what ever they tested at, the two cars hit each other and the 59 had its engine put in the back seat. That, blew me away I figured with all that steel it would destroy the new impala. Apparently, it was the other way around. As far as the Smart Cars go, they are not that bad. I talked to one guy who had to destroy one and when they dropped a set of 10K forks from a lift truck on it, they bounced off the roof. They then cut the thing up with a sawzall and went through three metal blades to do it. It will take a hit but not a saw.

Mike

That 59 video is a canard because they used a notoriously bad design that year to test. They didn't use a 59 Cadillac against a modern one you notice.
You drive your Smart car---just get really good life insurance. They were that bad between two trucks and they are rated poorly in crash tests as such:
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/small-cars-rate-poorly-in-new-crash-tests/?_r=0

 

[jamespowers]

I hit two deer with my Cadillac car back in November. I didn't feel a thing in the car, and I was going about 60 at the time.

The deer did. How was the venison.

 

[jamespowers]

Chevs from 58 to the early sixties are pretty flimsy. I have seen pictures of accidents, taken when these were late model cars. It was common for them to fold in half or even break in two pieces.

Now if they used a 52 Chrysler or DeSoto it would demolish everything. Likewise a step down Hudson (1948 - 54).

Put the 52 Chrysler against a modern one and see what happens. :rofl:

 

[AtomicEraTom]

I was so mad, I wanted noting to do with what was left of the deer. The Cadillac car is my baby.

The deer did. How was the venison.

 

[jamespowers]

I was so mad, I wanted noting to do with what was left of the deer. The Cadillac car is my baby.

I would be so mad that the deer would have to repay me some way and well, they are tasty.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

I love venison, but I was so fuming mad, all I wanted to do was go home, and I did. The car drove home fine.

I would be so mad that the deer would have to repay me some way and well, they are tasty.

 

[vitanola]

That 59 video is a canard because they used a notoriously bad design that year to test. They didn't use a 59 Cadillac against a modern one you notice.
You drive your Smart car---just get really good life insurance. They were that bad between two trucks and they are rated poorly in crash tests as such:
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/small-cars-rate-poorly-in-new-crash-tests/?_r=0

The '59 Impala had the notoriously weak "X Frame" which crumpled in a crash. IN addition, they used a restored car which appeared to have been somewhat compromised by corrosion and was equipped with a straight six which did not brace the already weak frame as well as did the small block V-8., and designed the crash so that the front corner of the car would crumple. It has been posited that the entire test had the air of a set-up.

Now as far as that Smart Car crushed between two heavy trucks, well we had a similar accident recently in our area where a stopped vehicle was rear ended at high speed by a semi-truck, and was crushed between the striking vehicle and a stopped delivery truck. The victim car crumpled up just as badly as the Smart Car, and the occupants were just as dead. The space between the trucks involved was barely over three feet. The crushed car was a Chevrolet Tahoe.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

All accurate and the X-Frame was a terrible design, no doubt.

The '59 Impala had the notoriously weak "X Frame" which crumpled in a crash. IN addition, they used a restored car which appeared to have been somewhat compromised by corrosion and was equipped with a straight six which did not brace the already weak frame as well as did the small block V-8., and designed the crash so that the front corner of the car would crumple. It has been posited that the entire test had the air of a set-up.

 

[Stanley Doble]

Put the 52 Chrysler against a modern one and see what happens. :rofl:

That is what I meant. The bumper on a 52 Chrysler resembles a section of guard rail and it takes a strong man to lift one. The bumper off a 59 Chev, or the plastic thing off the 09 Chev, could be easily lifted by a ruptured 12 year old.

 

[jamespowers]

The '59 Impala had the notoriously weak "X Frame" which crumpled in a crash. IN addition, they used a restored car which appeared to have been somewhat compromised by corrosion and was equipped with a straight six which did not brace the already weak frame as well as did the small block V-8., and designed the crash so that the front corner of the car would crumple. It has been posited that the entire test had the air of a set-up.

Now as far as that Smart Car crushed between two heavy trucks, well we had a similar accident recently in our area where a stopped vehicle was rear ended at high speed by a semi-truck, and was crushed between the striking vehicle and a stopped delivery truck. The victim car crumpled up just as badly as the Smart Car, and the occupants were just as dead. The space between the trucks involved was barely over three feet. The crushed car was a Chevrolet Tahoe.

At least the Tahoe had three feet left. That Smart Car was less that a foot and you could at least have an open coffin burial with the Tahoe. :rofl:
The Tahoe is a piece of junk to me anyway. They are new cars designed to fold up like a cardboard box and little good it did them.....

 

[jamespowers]

That is what I meant. The bumper on a 52 Chrysler resembles a section of guard rail and it takes a strong man to lift one. The bumper off a 59 Chev, or the plastic thing off the 09 Chev, could be easily lifted by a ruptured 12 year old.

Ruptured 12 year old! :rofl:

 

[vitanola]

At least the Tahoe had three feet left. That Smart Car was less that a foot and you could at least have an open coffin burial with the Tahoe. :rofl:
The Tahoe is a piece of junk to me anyway. They are new cars designed to fold up like a cardboard box and little good it did them.....

A Tahoe? This is a full framed vehicle which weighs about 6,000 lbs fully equipped. I'd never imagine that anyone would ever consider the GMT-400 platform to be "a new car designed to fold up like a cardboard box".

 

[David Conwill]

With apologies to Will Shakespeare: "A Smart Car driver dies of embarrassment a thousand times before his death, but the drivers of classics taste of death but once."

 

[vitanola]

With apologies to Will Shakespeare: "A Smart Car driver dies of embarrassment a thousand times before his death, but the drivers of classics taste of death but once."

And then there is the man who drives a second hand Ford.

 

[vitanola]

He may not have a quarrelsome disposition, but he's always trying to start something.

 

[David Conwill]

And then there is the man who drives a second hand Ford.

He may not have a quarrelsome disposition, but he's always trying to start something.

Haha! I used to have quite the repertoire of Tin Lizzie jokes, but people didn't appreciate them so I've started to forget.

 

[jamespowers]

A Tahoe? This is a full framed vehicle which weighs about 6,000 lbs fully equipped. I'd never imagine that anyone would ever consider the GMT-400 platform to be "a new car designed to fold up like a cardboard box".

What year was it? Anything after 1980 has crumple zones as part of the stupid design. Seeing as how the Tahoe was introduced in 1992, it is crumple zone designed and will fold up like a cardboard box. Compared to the 1972 GMC it IS a cardboard box. lol lol lol In fact, crumple zones were started in 1959 in some makes. Kind of explains part of the 1959 crash test tempest in a teapot.

 

[rjb1]

I really like being around people who know that 58-64 Chevys had X-frames. Not safe maybe, but sure fun to drive... As the Beach Boys said," "She's real fine, my 409 ... my four-speed, dual-quad, Positraction, 409..." Getting rid of my '62 bubble-top 409 ranks as one of the worst decisions of my life.

 

[David Conwill]

Getting rid of my '62 bubble-top 409 ranks as one of the worst decisions of my life.

Oooh, ouch. I built that model as a kid (AMT '62 Bel Air 409 bubbletop), and even back then they were unobtainable.

Sometime let me tell you about how my '68 Camaro almost got a 425 hp / 409.