Packard Forum Index » General

Heck of a way to celebrate a 50th anniversary!!

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5CU-k0XmLUk&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5CU-k0XmLUk&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

"This test was for IIHS's 50th year anniversary in the safety research business!
Congrats on your 50 years guys! May many more come your way!

The dummy in the Malibu suffered only minor leg injuries while the dummy in the Bel Air would have died instantly, this really shows how auto safety has progressed! "

I wonder how much the cheesy X-frame of that 1959 was a contributing factor to the impacted zone. I also wonder how long that old Chebbie had been sitting in a field before they pulled it out and slapped a coat of paint on it to use for this test.

I suspect a Packard V8 with ladder frame and X-member might have fared a bit better.

Put all the seat belts, air bags, and crumple zones you want in these modern uni-body cars, I feel safer in a larger vehicle with a full frame.

Those "Cruciform" frames (shaped more like a couple of Y's like this >--< than an X) were known for lack of side impact protection in particular (back in the day). They're real flexy fliers as they twist about the central back bone. I don't know what GM was thinking when they came up with this abortion. Feh

Give me an X or reinforced ladder frame (especially with boxed cross sections) any day of the week for strength.

The thing about today's cars is that they're designed to sacrifice themselves by absorbing and redirecting impact forces thru the act of self destruction. The concept (which DOES work) results in massive and usually unrepairable damage.

There was a time that automakers designed door latches to spring open so that the occupants could be thrown clear and free of the crash! We've come a long way baby!

Don, et al

Good Video

One Sunday afternoon in July 3 years ago I was driving my Taurus over to the garage where I kept my Packard to pick it up. I was hit at the driver's side B pillar (i.e. right where the driver's seat is) by a 94 Lincoln whose driver was unconscious. He admitted to not haven taken his heart medication the night before. He knows that not taking the medication might make him unconscious. He doesn't remember the accident. His car kept going until it hit a guard rail.

After the car was cut apart, I was taken to the hospital for 4 days, then spent 4 weeks in rehabilitation learning to walk. I was lucky, no operations, "only" a broken pelvis, rib and collapsed lung.

If i was driving the Packard, I wouldn't be writing this now. People at cruise nights are always telling me old cars are safer in accidents than new cars. This is a lie. Cars now are made to protect their occupants in a crash.

At the end of February this year I bought my first new car in my life (my 23rd vehicle) with some of the money from the accident. It is a Ford Fusion. I figured I owed Ford a favor when they were in a little trouble.....

End of story

Regards



John Harley

Glad that you survived! What a terrible accident. A Lincoln Vs. Taurus was a pretty bad match up. The auto safety advances have really allowed alot of people to survive crashes they normally would have died in.


Comparativly, it isn't really fair to compare the '59 chev to the '09 Chev. Maybe a '59 Ford Vs. a '59 Chev would have been more fair.

Here is another crash test from the 70's.
I would prefer to be in the Galaxie/Impala/Ambassador.

The poor fella in the Pinto/Vega/Gremlin didn't have a chance.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/q7wG4uy-Phs&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/q7wG4uy-Phs&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I know there are afew Vega fans on here, so it is quite sad to see this one become a yellow accordion.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Tb_e3tllSfE&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Tb_e3tllSfE&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Interesting how the Pinto/Vega/Gremlins all took a severe nose dive which aligned their respective driver's (dummy's) heads with the front end of the car they struck...ouch. Even the Geo Storm's "driver" didn't fare so well, although there was an air bag, the head went sideways out the window (if it had been closed then it would've surely struck the glass). Hyper-extension of the neck would be the minimal injury there, with a very real chance of a concussion too.

At least the Pinto didn't get rear ended...

Who recalls GM's early airbags of the '74-'75 era? Those cars were equipped only with lap belts, no should belts! If memory serves, the front seat was non-adjustable (at least the fore and aft movement) but the pedals were!

Can you say monocoque? Well, neither can I. It's not even in the spelling dictionary for this website.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monocoque#Automobiles


I hate unibodies whatever they're named, but it's hard to argue about their protective qualities in a crash. Problem is, everything but the passenger compartment is pretty much made to fall off, little by little, in the event of a crash (or in the event of wear and tear, corrosion of any kind, etc.). They're better now, but who can forget those monstrosities like Dodge Darts and Plymouth Dusters, which eventually, even in the absence of major collisions, would start to "dog track" as the front and back subframes started to skew--often just with normal driving. Or the later Novas starting about '75 that would start to sag behind the front wheel wells? There were even a few cases of Dart/Duster models separating completely at the firewall.

Now that couldn't have been safe, either, but it's harder to run "falling apart on the highway" tests than it is to run crash tests.

I've only 2 accident experiences, one I was in and one I had to repair afterwards. My mother's last husband was stopped waiting to make a left turn when someone just plowed into the back of his car at road speed.(about 35-40)
No injuries other than some soreness later on his part and $25 damage to his 1984 Crown vic. A bumper bracket and a bumper. The car that hit him was totaled. That was a fresh off the lot 2004 or 2003 Sable.
The one I was in involved my 73 Buick Lesabre cutting a 96 Corsica in half and sending everything south of the rear door into Summit lake. No injuries to myself or other driver except some soreness later. Corsica=totaled 73 Lesabre had a crushed headlight bezel, chip on bumper and fender eyebrow, and a cracked headlight that still worked on the way home. The other driver had run a red light and was lucky I managed to avoid the doors. Afterwards, she complained about what I did to her car and told me about being hit on the other side at the same intersection a month prior.
I agree that great advances in safety have been made. At the same time great retreats in driver's ed.
I grew up in a house with asbestos shingles and painted with lead based paint. Rode in and drove cars with single system brakes, lap belts or sometimes no seatbelts, no collapsible column, no side marker lights and often no passenger side mirror. These couldn't be all bad since I'm still here.

WOW!

Watching that first video really surprised me. I now wonder if I should start planning a cage in the Clipper? I've got the interior out while working on the floors.

Thanks for posting the vid!

Look at the picture in the FIRST post above. The newer car hit the older car head on but excessively to the left of the older car. THe newer car is much narrower than the older car so the effect is striclty an engineered ILLUSION.

What happens if the little car hits the old 59 chevy DIRECTLY CENTERLINE to CENTERLINE????

Again, what we have here is a bad case of social trend based on fear and grand dillusion and veiled agenda. A bad case of big brother contriveing another synthesis/antithesis plot.

Here are some more. Remeber these: WMD, pet rock, radon, ORson Wells War of the Worlds, spontaneous generation, Theory X manufacturing, Too big to fail, save the seals, feed the world, educate the world, Flu shots that don't work, ....

Too everyone that does not like my questions here's another one:

WHO PAID FOR THE CRASH TEST????? Everyone THink about that one at your next CampFire Girls meeting.