My Death Trap

[user removed]

I posted a photo on an earlier thread of my Civic VX sitting next to a 1967 Chrysler 300 convertible. You would be surprised at how little difference there was in their size.

I guarantee you if you hit that 300 head on in a VX the Honda would disintegrate. I have worked on wrecked cars since 1969, and what has not been mentioned is the transition to uni bodies in passenger cars.

I have seen late 60s and early seventies Chrysler cars that cut telephone poles in half, and they were repaired.

I have seen a 71 Jeep that rolled over and the damage was $750. All 3 occupants died.

Are cars safer today? Yes, but roads are safer, most traffic today is on multi-lane roads with divided medians. Trees are cleared to allow people to make a mistake and not die. Interiors no longer have the cast pot metal knobs that would punch a hole in your head and kill you. Fuel injection has eliminated hesitation and stalling when you cross a road. There are many factors involved in the reduction in road fatalities that are not related to the increasing number of safety components.

I knew an old body man who passed out drunk at a traffic light. The cops pulled his car into a gas station, parked it and took the keys with them. Came back 4 hours later and gave him the keys to drive home. I doubt you will see that today.

When the Viet Nam war was at its height and 250 body bags were being shipped home every week, there was an attitude among young people than they were going to die anyway so why not live for today like it was the last day of your life. Now the difference between women drivers and men from that era has actually changed completely.

Sure your Yaris should be a better car than Franks old Tempo. My 08 Altima is a better car than your Yaris, and in a wreck you would loose. Whats the point? Frank probably spent less than 5% of what you spent on his Tempo, and it is all he needs to do the job for him.

People here drive Metros and Hondas to get good mileage. They risk greater injury that if they were driving a newer large car, but they also may have some advantages that the larger cars does not have.

I once drove a 63 Valiant convertible over some railroad tracks. The 2 foot rise before the tracks was followed by an 8 foot drop on the other side. I hit the rise at 55 MPH. The car flew for 50 feet in the air and hit hard, with sparks flying out from under the car you could see from the drivers position.

Didn't even knock the front end out of alignment. Your Yaris would be a pile of junk.

There are pluses and minuses to every scenario. Ever drive a car that lost all brakes when a single wheel cylinder failed on a 4 wheel drum brake system. One made before 1967 when dual chamber master cylinders were required by law.

I drove one home using the emergency brakes alone. The pull and twist handle under the dash with 9 inch rear drums only and an automatic transmission.

regards
Mech

[autoteach]

So, lets get back in these beastly machines. damn sissy savers. I am going to work on bringing underground board track racing back (as it is still outlawed due to fear mongering).

Anyway, not quite sure where we are going, darwinism? Are we hoping to reverse Idiocracy? I hope so, I teach and I think that they should survive or die trying (and I mean this, they are just getting dumber). I for one, if driving an older beater, would probably cage it out (thinking spec miata-ish). It will be social bumper cars

[SentraSE-R]

Nothing against those of you driving the econocars of old. Different strokes for different folks. We're not going to change your minds, and v.v. We could shift the discussion to the horrible emissions those dinosaurs spew out, in addition to their being deathtraps. You can rale on about newer cars' costs and weight. Bottom line: I ain't going back, and you ain't going forward. So be it. Enjoy your ride. I'm enjoying mine.

[Frank Lee]

I showed in post 1 that they aren't necessarily deathtraps right?

"Blue" has an airbag, shoulder and lap belts, 5 mph bumpers, and a "4" crash rating with "5" being best. Some death trap.

[dennyt]

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

I guarantee you if you hit that 300 head on in a VX the Honda would disintegrate.

I respectfully disagree, and I have video to back it up:

Crash Test 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air VS. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu (Frontal Offset)

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

I have seen a 71 Jeep that rolled over and the damage was $750. All 3 occupants died.

You're not really selling me on the safety of old cars. Durability, perhaps, but not occupant safety.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by autoteach

So, lets get back in these beastly machines. damn sissy savers. I am going to work on bringing underground board track racing back (as it is still outlawed due to fear mongering).

Anyway, not quite sure where we are going, darwinism? Are we hoping to reverse Idiocracy? I hope so, I teach and I think that they should survive or die trying (and I mean this, they are just getting dumber). I for one, if driving an older beater, would probably cage it out (thinking spec miata-ish). It will be social bumper cars

You'd seriously put a cage in a street car? Darwinism? More like Dramaism.

[autoteach]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

You'd seriously put a cage in a street car? Darwinism? More like Dramaism.

Are you asking if I do or dont want to die at the hands of one of my students piss poor and dangerous driving?

[Frank Lee]

On the board track or on the street?

[04_Sentra]

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

I have seen a 71 Jeep that rolled over and the damage was $750. All 3 occupants died.

Were they wearing seat belts?

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by Clev

In the past 40 years, cars have gotten smaller, lighter and more fuel efficient, roads have gotten worse, more cars are on the road, drivers' training is all but worthless, more semis are on the road and speed limits have increased. During that same period, fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles have gone from over 6 to 1.13. How do you think this was accomplished? It sure as hell isn't because we're better drivers.

Hell, the fatalities per miles traveled has been cut almost in half just since 1990, which was the year of the introduction of the Ford Explorer and the beginning of the massive adoption of SUVs. The fact that we've made enough progress to cut the death rate in half since then despite the increasing widening of the gap between the heaviest and lightest cars on the road should speak to how effective these measures have been.

By the way, who has been saying that cars need to be 3,500 pounds to be safe? You keep trotting that out over and over again, but in a collision, I'll take a 2,311 pound Yaris over your 2,723 pound Tempo any day.

Cars have NOT gotten smaller. Almost without exception, models grow with every successive redesign.

Cars have NOT gotten lighter. IIRC, in that '59 vs '09 Impala crash, the '09 is the HEAVIER car.

BTW, I've had my Tempo on the scale- it's 2470 lbs.

Edit: '59 vs '09 Impala: 3625 lbs "shipping weight" (whatever that is) vs. 3555 curb weight.


Roads have NOT gotten worse. There are more of them and more safety hazards have been mitigated.

Your batting average in that first paragraph ain't too good.

This thing was started by GM bragging about some piddling "weight reduction" on the Cruze- a small car that weighs half a Ton more than mine. Then I said my old 5 passenger car does have good safety features, including air bag- more than adequate in my book- so it is odd to think that if we want better performance including fe performance, we are saddled with an extra 1,000 It was 3500 lbs or so right? Oh- it was 32xx then the engineering miracles took about 200 out. The point wasn't primarily about Tempos, it's primarily about new cars being excessively heavy. Regardless, just about everything sub-compact and up weighs 3000 or more these days.