The cars of that era didn't even have any kind of neck support, so the drivers' necks were simply, well, snapped off in the event of a crash, even a moderate one. Note that unlike what many people think, the neck support is not intended for comfort, rest or sleep, nor is it there because it looks good. It's there to make sure the neck is not broken like a twig.
Cool video but they wernt all general motors vehicles. There I seen a couple of 64 plymouths and I believe at the beginning of the vehicle the 2 black cars were about a 1960 plymouth or possible a dodge or chrysler. But cool video. I would drive older vehicles any day over something new
@roossi I think most cars were equipped with seat belts, but it was not mandatory to use them. Also, nobody was worried about the very clear link between smoking and lung or throat cancer in those days.
@MowgliX I know in her it came mandatory only at 80's, but in this car, I don't even see a place where seat belt could go... yep and today they are sure that second hand smoking cam kill you even absolutely no proof what of that :D and also if u smoke weed u will star heroin using...
@roossi They had a kind of seat belts that went around your waist even in the 1950s, but a) nobody used them because it didn't look cool and b) it would still let your face come smashing against the dashboard or crack your head open against the windshield, so that wasn't much of an improvement. And safer cars with deformation zones appeared only in the early 1970s.
@roossi No problem. Oh, and there's more. Modern cars have deformation zones and a steel cage to protect the passenger compartment, i.e. the people inside. They have *seat belt tensioners* that work in conjunction with the air bags, and which will further reduce the impact on the body. So, even a very small modern car will be inherently safer than a big gas-guzzler piece of sheet metal from the 1960s or '70s. All of this *will* usually save your life and prevent injury in the event of a crash.
the problem with the older cars is they didn't have door guard beams.and it looks like the doorlocks were bad too.but they did have heavier guage sheetmatal.
my grampa crashed in a 38 plymoth at 60 mph as a passsenger cause his friend was drunk so they crashed he flew out the rubber/chicken wire roof and broke is back and cracked his skull but he is still alive and moves on his own quite well for 75 year old with no help
in there own time they were not as safe against other cars of the same size & weight but they looked better and ran longer than cars of today and were easy to work on also for all the people talking about that 2010 malibu VS 1959 Bel Air sorry but thats bullshit there is no way that 59 fell apart like that hitting that plastic and aluminium car if the 59 had an engine in it and all the nuts & bolts not taken out it would have been the other way around
@XMSTARSHIP2 Watch that video again the engine is coming through the dashboard. Your ignorance is overwhelming as solid as those old cars were made they were not safe. Ask any auto collision technician those old cars were not designed to save life's in a crash, 1959 was the first year that crash test ratings were enforced in America. So of course the Bel Air is going to do horrible against the new Malibu, There was no R&D into the safety of the vehicles occupants. you're just like amokahi31 dumb
@asianassclown Ignorance is someone that thinks plastic is stronger than steel if you look again at what I wrote you will see that I did say there were not as safe in there time as cars of this time I said if you put a car from that time against a car of this time the old car will drive away I was a tow truck driver IVE SEEN IT but I would not expect a 24 year old troll who only has a youtube account so he can talk shit and call other people names to understand facts of life grow up dipshit
this was when Mercedes offered seatbelts and used doors that didn't pop at an accident since the late 50's. The big three didn't listen to Preston Tucker who offered safety cars in '47.
What people remember fondly about old car crash-worthiness was the ability of those old cars to withstand minor bumps without damage. Thats something worth designing back into todays cars.
@JustAnotherGay96 lol. I am older than you but no – I’m not ‘Middle aged’. Deffo agree with you regarding what cars you grow up with. For me childhood was late 70 /80’s so I tend to have preference for cars of that era. A lot of classic car owners own the same make of car their dad had when they were young. I suspect that is why many classic car drivers feel safe in them – the association of childhood brings a level of security when driving these old cars. It’s a false sense of security though
The cars arent just "falling apart" here. There's just no crumble zones, and thus no absorbtion. There just isnt anywhere for the energy to go, except through the car. It doesnt mean these cars are weak - it just means theyre death traps in accidents.
You have to figure, these are heavy pieces of metal hitting one another. Simple logic would want us pitting a new (not rusted) 50s or 60s car, with good crash rating, against a modern car (same class) with a good crash rating. Then these videos may convince me. My wife had an 04 Ford Escape that was t-boned by an old (80s?) Ford Bronco. The Bronco had almost no damage, drove away, and the Escape had major door and frame damage.
@craze1701 to save u life, here is the y: Old engineers's mind set was as long as the car is in one piece, then its occupants will be too. Thus, the hard, big, bulky metal parts make sense, also look n feel sturdy on minor impacts. However, this allows all forces on impact to directly transfer to occupants, result is death in higher speed as shown in this vid. For modern cars, engineers understood this concept, making cars with crumble zone around a sturdy shell to cushion forces... continue
@craze1701 ... althou, the outside (crumble zone) looks fragile, but its meant to be. That is why ur newer car seems to have more damages than the older one, but the forces was cushioned out (like a helmet), which didn't transfer as much to ur wife. In an older car, the damages is to ur wife, not to the car (like kicking a stone with shoes on). Also, the structural design now is much better with the cockpit, which can with stand the more forces w less materials... tis is too lengthy, look it up
My boyfriend's 1964 Pontiac Perisienne is pretty solid. When his uncle owned it, it was T-boned by a Honda Civic...Honda Civid was liquidated...the Pontiac drove home with little damage. Passanger side was caved in a little bit but that was all. Still runs today.
I don't mean to ramble, but I have to add that the '59 Chevy has the notorious X frame, which is also a C channel which, especially if it's rusted out, has little to no integrity. Wheras my dad's '73 Mercury has a stout frame made of parallel boxed tubing from the factory (like many old cars). The X frame has such weak structure that practically all the force is applied to the fenders, resulting in the poor crash test they had against the '09. There's a reason they picked that car.
Cars back then had strong frame rails but weak everything else -- the fender was as strong as the door frame was as strong as the floor pan etc........ so if you got into an accident that didn't engage the frame rails then you were screwed.
Now they make the passenger compartment the strongest part while the front and rear ends are computer-designed to crumple in a controlled, progressive manner. SMART
Well, the MAIN problem is a side to head on hit, as the passager side door opens up and the people fly out. @__@ Lord save them, oh wait, there ran over by the car that's hitting them. :(
I'm 16 and i've owned 3 cars from the 1950's and my parents have always said I'd be safe in them cause like Karavlaxos said "They're rock solid". Truth is, they're not.. It's scary to drive my Corvair after seeing this XD it doesn't even have seatbelts :P
@lucasorcorey Gas actually isn't that bad. With a tune-up my Corvair can get around 26 MPG. I think it gets 17-20 right now. Old cars are simple and straight forward if you have the know how so they're not that hard to work on.. It's just a matter of having money! I tell ya though.. There is no pleasure in the world like cruising around playing oldies.. I'll never own a new car. :)
@GeekUltra indeed. and i think what we learnd here is that everything about old cars is better except for safety lol. although i do think thee a little safer then smaller 80s and 90s cars
@GeekUltra My father in law has a old 70s ford 390 pick up, it gets about 7-8mpg TOPS. I don't even think the seat belts work anymore, its a beast. Id rather have a 2012 F150 but that's me.
@karavlaxos thank you! i love my 72 chevy but no mater what anyone says i still say its not that safe they didnt know what they know now on protecting pasengers everyone just thinks of the regular fender bender no one thinks about the real crashes
@karavlaxos hey , when I see this video all I see is crumple zones deforming the way they are supposed to, and people who weren't wearing seat belts getting thrown around as does happen... compared to an 80s or 90s lightweight aluminum unibody with no frame, you bet your ass these heavy tanks are safer... They just didn't really standardize the 3 point harness until the late 60's... and people never used them, kids used to sleep in the back seat and some still do ( times change but not much... )
@karavlaxos Yup, why I don't want a older car for a daily driver. While older pony cars like mustang, trans am and camaro are cool cars... If you crash one say bye bye to your life.
@karavlaxos I own classic cars myself. Old cars (in my opinion) look better, are easy to work on, have more character etc.. but I agree are definitely not safer. Trust me though, I know loads of fellow enthusiasts who are besotted with their classics – No matter how you tried - even if you put the proof right before their very eyes, you would never ever be able to convince them.
@potsmoker5000 and you should watch the video more carefully. at the time of the impact a brown dust comes from malibu. which is lots of rust. it wasnt a good condition car.
@amokachi31 hey man i'm not trying to start anything i was just suggesting a video. i know that's all rust, and if you were to get a belair with less or no rust you would get the same results. The new Malibu has crumple zones and a unitized body, were as the Belair is just a fullframe with no crumple zones. I was just making a friendly suggestion to watch a cool video, but if you want to be a jerk about it than i guess that's your own problem.
@amokachi31 You are a fucking moron rust cloud or not that Bel Air would have no chance in a collision with a newer car. that video is to celebrate IIHS 50 years of preforming crash test's, and to show how far the automotive industry has come in safety. You should look more closely at how far your head is up your ass and shut the fuck up.
@asianassclown look at me you son of a bitch. I have got an idea and can tell it without insulting anyone. now who are you to tell me to shut the fuck up. who are you to call me moron. if you are smart enough you should use it and convinse me that old cars are not as solid as they are believed to be. I mean if you had an idea you should do it without insulting anyone.
now if you have a brain work it. and reply me with a clever answer. or just shut the fuck up.
@asianassclown and here is your problem. you just think one thing on any subject. and then you think that its a fact. you begin to think that anyone who believes opposite of what you think, is a subject to kill. just because you are an obsessive person you cant even think that any1 might have a different point of view you begin to insult ppl.
and here is the summary for you. you are just a waste of sperma. I think your father came on a piece of toilet paper and you were born with your own means
@amokachi31 Wow you are really fuckin stupid, this what were going back and forth about is one subject you dumbshit. And what i'm going on about is fact look at the IIHS crash test video, it's made by the same people that crash test and rate your stupid pile of shit VW. you are the biggest waste of time, carbon, and thought. How about you just go kill yourself, or maybe your brain hemorrhaging from reading this will do it for you. go suck on a tailpipe and die you stupid pile of crap. FUCK YOU!
@asianassclown I'm not judging what you say. I'm judging how you say. you are just a keyboard knight hiding behind your monitor. go out and talk to someone the way you talk to me. you will see who will die.
whatever you say, whatever I say, safety improved. but the fact that todays car doesnt make old cars paper cars. this test is manipulated. a rusty car vs brand new one.
and my last sentences are for your good wishes.once again I'm not your mother. if you need to fuck someone else go to her
@amokachi31 wow dude you are such a faggot, who the fuck do you think you are some big high and mighty person. you're a douche bag, such a big douche bag that you have to yell at me and insult my mother. how about you just go die, kill yourself, do it, do it now. what point are you trying to make with this insult slander your spewing from the rancid hole you call a mouth. stop crying over all these things i'm saying you little bitch, oh my look at me i'm hiding behind my computer monitor.
@asianassclown I know you wont stop till I stop. because you are ill minded. probably you are enjoying to hear slander language about your mother. dont cry to me to give you what you begged for. because you started it.
I'm not a high or mighty person. but I know I'm higher than you because you are the lowest person in the world.
@amokachi31 fine your a Turkish cunt, a big stinky Turkish cunt. and you cry alot because you're a big sloppy Vagina, how do you like that you Turkish twat. how about you stop making your mom responses and come up with something that's not a complete waste, you stupid Turkish Bitch.
@asianassclown ok I can understand you why you are so hateful to Turks. I can understand that your mom was left by a Turk and you were born 8 months later . your father can be a douchebag but we-Turks are friendly to everyone. you are in hate of all Turks while you are in search of your own real father. dont do that. pls apply a psychologist. he/she will tell you the same thing.
btw I'm not your father too. I'm very sure. bcs I always use condom fucking old bitches. you dont need to hate me.
@amokachi31 Wow dude that was much better, now can you stop being such a bitch and just shut the fuck up. i have no problem with Turkish people, you just so happen to be Turkish and i think you're a little bitch who has a problem with not accepting that fact that you were wrong about something, and that you responded negatively to a person who just suggested a video to someone else. Why are you such a douche bag? is it because your father used to rape you and make you watch him beat your mom.
@asianassclown its not a trap. just getting tired of writing the same things again and again. I show respect to any1 who shows respect to me. and whoever doesnt show respect finds disrespect double times. if you didnt call moron fagot etc you wld find respect. all that story was about it.
These tests were conducted by UCLA (hence UCLA is stenciled on the sides of the cars), not GM. Many of the cars were retired California Highway Patrol cars.
Whats the point of doing testing again and again without real improvement in the safety?? when the engineers reviewed the tape, really nothing they could do unless ppl were willing to wear seat belts (but obviously wearing seat belt did not mean much more protection either with the technology at that time) - I guess the engineers had to be frustrated.....
jesus chrrrriiiist. You'd wonder why, with all these bodies getting thrown around and crushed, the US only adopted seat belts in...1973?? Behold the power of money (and greedy corporate bastards). Fuck you GM--I want my $2325.00 back.
@cbmtrx The US gov mandated seat belts in 1966. The use of them wasn't really enforced until the 90's. Seatbelts at this time weren't inertia driven, basicaly just a strap with a solid anchor point. I was in a car accident in a 62 T-bird. We hit a brick wall after sliding on ice at about 45mph. No one was wearing their seatbelts (i was laying streched out across the backseat). Everyone walked away with no injury.
@cummins331 I like old cars and trucks and everything but people say there built like tanks then why are they smashing up like pop cans?? especially the crash video of the 1959 Bel Air.
To me it's just amazing how much automotive technology has improved over time. Even though the older cars were heavier it looks to me like they literally fell apart in a collision. Take a look at at the video "Crash test: 1959 Chevy Bel Air" where a Bell Air is pitted against a 2010 Chevy Malibu. It's amazing how much safer new cars are than the older one.
@smallbee1234 And yet every time I watch that what gets me is that the 1959's whole hood/fenders are crushed, leaving nowhere near enough room for the engine in the bay, yet the interior view doesn't show the big, bulky V8 entering the cabin. I've seen a few 50s Chevies, and those engines don't have much room. Honestly, I thought the 2009 would be better than the '59 Chevy, but it's just so obvious to anyone really watching the video that it was rigged. Now I'd like to see it FOR REAL.
Take the collision at 1:45, for example. There is no way in the world that the people in those cars (if wearing seatbelts) were injured severely. It doesn't in any way reflect the '09 vs '59 video. Why is that? And why if supposedly as engineers say, the cars were too stiff and had no crumple zones, did it compact so much when hit by an '09 Chevy that is designed to compact when hit? It goes against their original point.
@jamesandrewjohnson Good point, but I see several things that may help explain this apparent anomalie. First, the Bell Air at the time of the test was likely at least 50+ years older than the Malibu. The vehicles in this video are apparently new a the time of this test. I would say that rusting and structural wear of the Bell Air accounted for the complete destruction.The Malibu on the other hand suffered extreme damage, but per design which would account for a safer passenger compartment.
@smallbee1234 I suppose that would make sense. I'm not against the improvements we've had in safety at all, but old cars get a bad wrap and 3 of my parents vehicles have gotten in serious accidents, totalling the other vehicle 2 out of 3 times but each car continued to run reliably without fail. Those vehicles are a '78 Econoline, '76 Monaco, and '83 Grand Marquis. The Econoline murdered the car it hit... in each case the other driver had ran a red light.
@jamesandrewjohnson Yes, I agree older cars get a bum-rap. In my book, I love the older cars. That is why I own a 1971 Satellite Sebring Plus. The older cars, even when they were new had soul.
@smallbee1234 Nice, I love Satellites! What's it got under the hood? My dad has a '76 Dodge Monaco that used to be a cop car, and that thing is rock solid. In fact, if you don't buy the sturdiness of old cars, watch Blues Brothers! He's also got a '73 Mercury Montego, also very sturdy.
@jamesandrewjohnson It's powered by a slightly modified 318. I dont plan on taking out that engine since I am interested in a numbers-matching vehicle. Sounds like your Dad has some really nice classics. There is perfection in the imperfection of these cars.
is like putting an egg in an iron box. the box is fine but the egg gets crushed. Now we have crumple zones on our cars, the cars are built to total themselves and absorb all the shock to keep the people inside safe. It takes the impact away from the passengers and puts it on the car.
both joester1908 and no1DdC have a point. The cars of the old days were made in such a way that they could be worked by the consumer, a thing they've done away with in an effort to make money through trips to the dealership for repars. Also, the way that cars are built today is very different from the way they are built now. Then the conventional wisdom was, if the car is strong then the people inside will be alright, not realizing that the principal behind their engineering
Almost unbelievable that noone seemed to have thought of belts and headreasts 40 jears ago. I guess all of these crashes shown would have ended deadly to any involved persons...
Wow... but why is GM crash testing 1960 Plymouths in 1968? Almost all the vehicles I saw in the footage are Chryslers and Ford products. Crazy footage though.
cars were a little more safer in a way back then, but they seats, & door-locks were shit. & overall they had no seat-belts plus they seat fly all over the fuckin place.
@TheDarkPhoenix23 Not thankfully. Cars today are all plastic....no real metal on em. The bodies are a metal mixture. Today cars are all computer ran, back then they were all mechanical. You could actually work on them, not take them to a dealer or shop and have to spend a ton A car back then was a piece of art. Now they are plain and boring...sure safer, maybe better gas mileage, but overall cars were tough and quality, now they are cheap Chinese made and over priced...safer though yes
@Joester1908 well said and im 16 and i totally agree with you cars from the 1900s to the early 70's were beautiful works of art made of wood and detroit steel from the backs of hard working americans now everythings plastic and made in china and japan.
@Joester1908 You are wrong. The point is: You had to work on them. Back then cars were way less reliable than today. The build quality was generally lower, resulting in cars already rusting and losing oil in the showrooms. Back then it was mandatory to have tools and a few spare parts with you when you decided to take on a longer journey.
Why do people always wish back the old times without really knowing anything about them?
@no1DdC you do have a point cars were less reliable as in leaks and maybe minor repairs but any car is going to have that. If something major broke on an old car you can figure out whats wrong by what sound it makes by how it runs by what it does. You could pull out stuff rebuild and fix. Now if the same thing went out on a new car you couldnt fix it. You gotta take it to a dealer and have them hook it up to the computer to find it was some sensor for a few hundred dollars
@no1DdC also, yea old cars rusted. Cause it was strong American metal! not fake plastic. Quality was top notch. If you look at an old car their seats are usually double or triple sewed together so they will last. They had metal parts instead of plastic. The leather on my 01 beamer is getting cracked. My uncles daily driver is a 40s Ford and sure its gonna over heat more than new cars, stuff like that but for 70 year old interior its in good shape cause of higher quality. No China made
@no1DdC So youre saying you would rather outsource jobs to other countries, destroy the art of a car, and get back crappy plastic pieces of junk you cant do anything with when they break down all because its more rational? Im not trying tp be rude i just dont understand...
@Joester1908 Did you know that most "Japanese" cars sold in the US are also built in the US by American workers and specifially developed for American customers? Even many German cars you can buy are not actually imported from Germany. Despite that, imported cars also create jobs, just think about the dealership and garage infrastructure. It was the American car companies, which closed down many decades old factories due to mismanagement and the failure to adapt to changing market conditions.
@Joester1908 About that "art of a car" thing of yours: Design changes, so does the common taste. It's a good thing that the style of cars, clothes, movies, music, etc. changes over time. You don't want to be forever stuck in the same period. What do you think the internet would be like, if we had still the same taste and moral ideals as in the 1950s?
Today's cars use more and better steel than in the past. They are stronger, despite not always looking like that. That's the difference.
@no1DdC I do agree that yes styles should, and do change. BUT cars today are plain and boring. Old cars had attention to detail, chrome, 2 and 3 tone paint jobs from the factory, fancy lines down the sides. Sure maybe we wouldnt have those same things today, but now they are stripped down and basic. Hmm maybe the common taste wants plain boring new cars....i sure dont
Videos like this show how important seatbelts are. They can mean the difference between life and death in older cars, much more so than today's cars which surround you in airbags the second you car hits something.
I hit a bus head on in a nissan altima at around 45mph a few years back. The bus pulled out into my path at an intersection as he was waiting to make a left turn. The front of the car compressed, but the passenger compartment was pretty much intact. Because of the airbag and the seatbelt, I was able to walk away. A lot of people died in accidents like mine before they made seatbelts the law and put airbags in. Anti-lock brakes made a big difference also.
FARK it looks like from these videos that the one best invention was seat belts, how many times to u see the occupants head smash through the window, or they fall out of the car, and one time he just about falls underneath the other car that hit him. shyte
Pretty good for Chevys, and unlike today's cars the cab isn't part of the crush zone. I say all these foreign companies today make their cars bad for a reason: buy another one.
I really can't believe how stupid car companies were back then. A lot of them didn't fit seatbelts because they believed that it would make their car look unsafe because it needed them.
If they had seatbelts, more securly fastened seats and doors that didn't fly open I bet fatalaties would be 1/5 of what they were. Those things are not that hard to do, even back then.
@lukerobin01 doors don't just fucking fling open reguardless of what this video was set up for. the same design of a latch and striker is the same for decades
@Trendyrapslut Look at some modern side impact tests. The doors are much more secure. And yes I know doors don't just fling open when going round corners but I think this video shows you that in the event of an accident it's occurs very frequently. How many injuries would have been less severe if the person hadn't fallen out of the car? It's no secret that car companies back then didn't give a toss about safety.
Comment removed
PJCreationz 16 hours ago
The cars of that era didn't even have any kind of neck support, so the drivers' necks were simply, well, snapped off in the event of a crash, even a moderate one. Note that unlike what many people think, the neck support is not intended for comfort, rest or sleep, nor is it there because it looks good. It's there to make sure the neck is not broken like a twig.
MowgliX 19 hours ago
Cool video but they wernt all general motors vehicles. There I seen a couple of 64 plymouths and I believe at the beginning of the vehicle the 2 black cars were about a 1960 plymouth or possible a dodge or chrysler. But cool video. I would drive older vehicles any day over something new
Mopar4Life64 1 day ago
No seatbelts... argh!
ut2k4wikichici 4 days ago
note to self. don't ride in old cars.
jsnyara 1 week ago
so they didnt have seat belts at 60's?!
roossi 1 week ago
@roossi I think most cars were equipped with seat belts, but it was not mandatory to use them. Also, nobody was worried about the very clear link between smoking and lung or throat cancer in those days.
MowgliX 1 day ago
@MowgliX I know in her it came mandatory only at 80's, but in this car, I don't even see a place where seat belt could go... yep and today they are sure that second hand smoking cam kill you even absolutely no proof what of that :D and also if u smoke weed u will star heroin using...
roossi 23 hours ago
@roossi They had a kind of seat belts that went around your waist even in the 1950s, but a) nobody used them because it didn't look cool and b) it would still let your face come smashing against the dashboard or crack your head open against the windshield, so that wasn't much of an improvement. And safer cars with deformation zones appeared only in the early 1970s.
MowgliX 23 hours ago
@MowgliX sorry there's lot of typing errors :S
roossi 23 hours ago
@roossi No problem. Oh, and there's more. Modern cars have deformation zones and a steel cage to protect the passenger compartment, i.e. the people inside. They have *seat belt tensioners* that work in conjunction with the air bags, and which will further reduce the impact on the body. So, even a very small modern car will be inherently safer than a big gas-guzzler piece of sheet metal from the 1960s or '70s. All of this *will* usually save your life and prevent injury in the event of a crash.
MowgliX 22 hours ago
lololo batmobile crash test!!
SuperMrBentley 2 weeks ago
the problem with the older cars is they didn't have door guard beams.and it looks like the doorlocks were bad too.but they did have heavier guage sheetmatal.
rogerbahakel 4 weeks ago
1.33 dummies can open the door WOO...
if it's a real. Hu hu hu ONLY DEATH
M18A88 1 month ago
Old cars were crap!
myphonyaccount 1 month ago
Hit 3 repeatedly.
sobefobik 1 month ago
@sobefobik and we have lift off.
zlee415 1 month ago
my grampa crashed in a 38 plymoth at 60 mph as a passsenger cause his friend was drunk so they crashed he flew out the rubber/chicken wire roof and broke is back and cracked his skull but he is still alive and moves on his own quite well for 75 year old with no help
overcastgabriel 1 month ago
@overcastgabriel
Can't stop laughing at your comment. Not about your Grandfather but about the Car roof
Hahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2moviecritic 1 month ago
So basically everybody died that was in a car accident back then?
sobefobik 2 months ago 8
@sobefobik yes
dustinnop 1 month ago
@sobefobik More or less, yes. They are not around any more, so they are no longer car buyers. :(
MowgliX 1 day ago
0:36 COME AT ME BRO!
Ferrari5746 2 months ago
0:26-0:34 I think that little girl might have a neck injury after that crash...
zonda814 2 months ago in playlist Crash Test
jeeesus.....
Dav123xyz 2 months ago
So in 1968 GM was making '60 Plymouths?
CycolacFan 3 months ago 9
@CycolacFan yes
joedawg112 2 weeks ago
none of the cars in the video are GM
TierodMcslush 3 months ago
in there own time they were not as safe against other cars of the same size & weight but they looked better and ran longer than cars of today and were easy to work on also for all the people talking about that 2010 malibu VS 1959 Bel Air sorry but thats bullshit there is no way that 59 fell apart like that hitting that plastic and aluminium car if the 59 had an engine in it and all the nuts & bolts not taken out it would have been the other way around
XMSTARSHIP2 3 months ago
@XMSTARSHIP2 Watch that video again the engine is coming through the dashboard. Your ignorance is overwhelming as solid as those old cars were made they were not safe. Ask any auto collision technician those old cars were not designed to save life's in a crash, 1959 was the first year that crash test ratings were enforced in America. So of course the Bel Air is going to do horrible against the new Malibu, There was no R&D into the safety of the vehicles occupants. you're just like amokahi31 dumb
asianassclown 2 months ago
@asianassclown Ignorance is someone that thinks plastic is stronger than steel if you look again at what I wrote you will see that I did say there were not as safe in there time as cars of this time I said if you put a car from that time against a car of this time the old car will drive away I was a tow truck driver IVE SEEN IT but I would not expect a 24 year old troll who only has a youtube account so he can talk shit and call other people names to understand facts of life grow up dipshit
XMSTARSHIP2 2 months ago
@XMSTARSHIP2 they use sheet steel you idiot the only plastic they use is on the bumper cover, the malibu has crush zones and the Bel Air does not.
asianassclown 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XMSTARSHIP2 You are so fucking stupid.
asianassclown 2 months ago
DEATH TRAPS
txturtlelytiger 3 months ago
These tests weren't actually GM-run; they were run by UCLA, and used retired California Highway Patrol cruisers.
rdfox76 3 months ago
THE SEAT came out of the car.
CapitanBluebeard 3 months ago
dear santa,
artdude12 3 months ago
seatbelts?
motorway065 3 months ago
this was when Mercedes offered seatbelts and used doors that didn't pop at an accident since the late 50's. The big three didn't listen to Preston Tucker who offered safety cars in '47.
Muhlineks 3 months ago
you could show me 1000 of these videos and id still drive my classic
brooklyntheredone 3 months ago
a lot of thanks for video!!!
VsIFresh 3 months ago
What people remember fondly about old car crash-worthiness was the ability of those old cars to withstand minor bumps without damage. Thats something worth designing back into todays cars.
nolanm6500 3 months ago
Its a wonder I surrvived my childhood. Death was only 3 feet away
forestgreen98 3 months ago
@JustAnotherGay96 lol. I am older than you but no – I’m not ‘Middle aged’. Deffo agree with you regarding what cars you grow up with. For me childhood was late 70 /80’s so I tend to have preference for cars of that era. A lot of classic car owners own the same make of car their dad had when they were young. I suspect that is why many classic car drivers feel safe in them – the association of childhood brings a level of security when driving these old cars. It’s a false sense of security though
bommmmmmmm 3 months ago
1:33 to 1:40. That guy just got run over!
adityajaypal99 4 months ago
The cars arent just "falling apart" here. There's just no crumble zones, and thus no absorbtion. There just isnt anywhere for the energy to go, except through the car. It doesnt mean these cars are weak - it just means theyre death traps in accidents.
DoctorBohr 4 months ago
You have to figure, these are heavy pieces of metal hitting one another. Simple logic would want us pitting a new (not rusted) 50s or 60s car, with good crash rating, against a modern car (same class) with a good crash rating. Then these videos may convince me. My wife had an 04 Ford Escape that was t-boned by an old (80s?) Ford Bronco. The Bronco had almost no damage, drove away, and the Escape had major door and frame damage.
craze1701 4 months ago
@craze1701 to save u life, here is the y: Old engineers's mind set was as long as the car is in one piece, then its occupants will be too. Thus, the hard, big, bulky metal parts make sense, also look n feel sturdy on minor impacts. However, this allows all forces on impact to directly transfer to occupants, result is death in higher speed as shown in this vid. For modern cars, engineers understood this concept, making cars with crumble zone around a sturdy shell to cushion forces... continue
fackyoudude 4 months ago
@craze1701 ... althou, the outside (crumble zone) looks fragile, but its meant to be. That is why ur newer car seems to have more damages than the older one, but the forces was cushioned out (like a helmet), which didn't transfer as much to ur wife. In an older car, the damages is to ur wife, not to the car (like kicking a stone with shoes on). Also, the structural design now is much better with the cockpit, which can with stand the more forces w less materials... tis is too lengthy, look it up
fackyoudude 4 months ago
Anyone else notice no seatbelts? haha
of course not all cars had them then.
boobies1989 4 months ago
Glad they fixed that door opening problem
MmIlahg 4 months ago
My boyfriend's 1964 Pontiac Perisienne is pretty solid. When his uncle owned it, it was T-boned by a Honda Civic...Honda Civid was liquidated...the Pontiac drove home with little damage. Passanger side was caved in a little bit but that was all. Still runs today.
Kai1133557799 4 months ago
I don't mean to ramble, but I have to add that the '59 Chevy has the notorious X frame, which is also a C channel which, especially if it's rusted out, has little to no integrity. Wheras my dad's '73 Mercury has a stout frame made of parallel boxed tubing from the factory (like many old cars). The X frame has such weak structure that practically all the force is applied to the fenders, resulting in the poor crash test they had against the '09. There's a reason they picked that car.
jamesandrewjohnson 4 months ago
jesus have you ever seen so many crash test dummies getting dragged and run over by the text vehicles??
cbmtrx 4 months ago
Cars back then had strong frame rails but weak everything else -- the fender was as strong as the door frame was as strong as the floor pan etc........ so if you got into an accident that didn't engage the frame rails then you were screwed.
Now they make the passenger compartment the strongest part while the front and rear ends are computer-designed to crumple in a controlled, progressive manner. SMART
kz1000ps 5 months ago
Well, the MAIN problem is a side to head on hit, as the passager side door opens up and the people fly out. @__@ Lord save them, oh wait, there ran over by the car that's hitting them. :(
icehorse1010 5 months ago
I don't even understand how you can mention GM when there isn't even ONE GM in then whole film? All Chryslers, and Fords!
Lanche2004 5 months ago
looks like even the dummies died lol
MrBuzzialdrin 5 months ago
I'm 16 and i've owned 3 cars from the 1950's and my parents have always said I'd be safe in them cause like Karavlaxos said "They're rock solid". Truth is, they're not.. It's scary to drive my Corvair after seeing this XD it doesn't even have seatbelts :P
GeekUltra 5 months ago
@GeekUltra you must be lucky to own those. how do you afford gas and maintience to make them daily drivers?
lucasorcorey 5 months ago
@lucasorcorey Gas actually isn't that bad. With a tune-up my Corvair can get around 26 MPG. I think it gets 17-20 right now. Old cars are simple and straight forward if you have the know how so they're not that hard to work on.. It's just a matter of having money! I tell ya though.. There is no pleasure in the world like cruising around playing oldies.. I'll never own a new car. :)
GeekUltra 5 months ago
@GeekUltra indeed. and i think what we learnd here is that everything about old cars is better except for safety lol. although i do think thee a little safer then smaller 80s and 90s cars
lucasorcorey 5 months ago
@GeekUltra My father in law has a old 70s ford 390 pick up, it gets about 7-8mpg TOPS. I don't even think the seat belts work anymore, its a beast. Id rather have a 2012 F150 but that's me.
SuRihtanil 5 months ago
@SuRihtanil haha I'd definitely have to be with you on that one :)
GeekUltra 4 months ago
Intersting
evinrudeboy6601 5 months ago
This is a must for all those who say that the cars of the 50s and 60s where rock solid and considerably better than modern cars.
karavlaxos 5 months ago 23
@karavlaxos thank you! i love my 72 chevy but no mater what anyone says i still say its not that safe they didnt know what they know now on protecting pasengers everyone just thinks of the regular fender bender no one thinks about the real crashes
SuBN01z3RaT 5 months ago
@karavlaxos hey , when I see this video all I see is crumple zones deforming the way they are supposed to, and people who weren't wearing seat belts getting thrown around as does happen... compared to an 80s or 90s lightweight aluminum unibody with no frame, you bet your ass these heavy tanks are safer... They just didn't really standardize the 3 point harness until the late 60's... and people never used them, kids used to sleep in the back seat and some still do ( times change but not much... )
GodlessMartyr666 5 months ago
@karavlaxos Yup, why I don't want a older car for a daily driver. While older pony cars like mustang, trans am and camaro are cool cars... If you crash one say bye bye to your life.
SuRihtanil 5 months ago
@karavlaxos
Still better cars all around
antonisbob 4 months ago
@karavlaxos I own classic cars myself. Old cars (in my opinion) look better, are easy to work on, have more character etc.. but I agree are definitely not safer. Trust me though, I know loads of fellow enthusiasts who are besotted with their classics – No matter how you tried - even if you put the proof right before their very eyes, you would never ever be able to convince them.
bommmmmmmm 4 months ago
@karavlaxos you should check out the 1959 bel air vs 2009 malibu.
potsmoker5000 3 months ago
@potsmoker5000 and you should watch the video more carefully. at the time of the impact a brown dust comes from malibu. which is lots of rust. it wasnt a good condition car.
amokachi31 3 months ago
@amokachi31 hey man i'm not trying to start anything i was just suggesting a video. i know that's all rust, and if you were to get a belair with less or no rust you would get the same results. The new Malibu has crumple zones and a unitized body, were as the Belair is just a fullframe with no crumple zones. I was just making a friendly suggestion to watch a cool video, but if you want to be a jerk about it than i guess that's your own problem.
potsmoker5000 2 months ago
@amokachi31 You are a fucking moron rust cloud or not that Bel Air would have no chance in a collision with a newer car. that video is to celebrate IIHS 50 years of preforming crash test's, and to show how far the automotive industry has come in safety. You should look more closely at how far your head is up your ass and shut the fuck up.
asianassclown 2 months ago
@asianassclown look at me you son of a bitch. I have got an idea and can tell it without insulting anyone. now who are you to tell me to shut the fuck up. who are you to call me moron. if you are smart enough you should use it and convinse me that old cars are not as solid as they are believed to be. I mean if you had an idea you should do it without insulting anyone.
now if you have a brain work it. and reply me with a clever answer. or just shut the fuck up.
amokachi31 2 months ago
@amokachi31 suck a dick
asianassclown 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@asianassclown I'm not your mother. tell her to do it.
amokachi31 2 months ago
@amokachi31 No wonder you're such an idiot you like VW, only pompous morons and stuck up girls like VW garbage.
asianassclown 2 months ago
@asianassclown and here is your problem. you just think one thing on any subject. and then you think that its a fact. you begin to think that anyone who believes opposite of what you think, is a subject to kill. just because you are an obsessive person you cant even think that any1 might have a different point of view you begin to insult ppl.
and here is the summary for you. you are just a waste of sperma. I think your father came on a piece of toilet paper and you were born with your own means
amokachi31 2 months ago
@amokachi31 Wow you are really fuckin stupid, this what were going back and forth about is one subject you dumbshit. And what i'm going on about is fact look at the IIHS crash test video, it's made by the same people that crash test and rate your stupid pile of shit VW. you are the biggest waste of time, carbon, and thought. How about you just go kill yourself, or maybe your brain hemorrhaging from reading this will do it for you. go suck on a tailpipe and die you stupid pile of crap. FUCK YOU!
asianassclown 2 months ago
@asianassclown I'm not judging what you say. I'm judging how you say. you are just a keyboard knight hiding behind your monitor. go out and talk to someone the way you talk to me. you will see who will die.
whatever you say, whatever I say, safety improved. but the fact that todays car doesnt make old cars paper cars. this test is manipulated. a rusty car vs brand new one.
and my last sentences are for your good wishes.once again I'm not your mother. if you need to fuck someone else go to her
amokachi31 2 months ago
@amokachi31 wow dude you are such a faggot, who the fuck do you think you are some big high and mighty person. you're a douche bag, such a big douche bag that you have to yell at me and insult my mother. how about you just go die, kill yourself, do it, do it now. what point are you trying to make with this insult slander your spewing from the rancid hole you call a mouth. stop crying over all these things i'm saying you little bitch, oh my look at me i'm hiding behind my computer monitor.
asianassclown 2 months ago
@asianassclown I know you wont stop till I stop. because you are ill minded. probably you are enjoying to hear slander language about your mother. dont cry to me to give you what you begged for. because you started it.
I'm not a high or mighty person. but I know I'm higher than you because you are the lowest person in the world.
amokachi31 2 months ago
@amokachi31 Wow you are a bitch.
asianassclown 2 months ago
@asianassclown telling you the 3rd time
I AM NOT YOUR MOTHER.
:)
amokachi31 2 months ago
@amokachi31 You're right you're not my mother but you are a turkish bitch.
asianassclown 2 months ago
@asianassclown dont call me a turkish bitch. I'm telling you the 4th time.
I'm not your mother.
and your mother is not Turkish.
amokachi31 2 months ago
@amokachi31 fine your a Turkish cunt, a big stinky Turkish cunt. and you cry alot because you're a big sloppy Vagina, how do you like that you Turkish twat. how about you stop making your mom responses and come up with something that's not a complete waste, you stupid Turkish Bitch.
asianassclown 2 months ago
@asianassclown ok I can understand you why you are so hateful to Turks. I can understand that your mom was left by a Turk and you were born 8 months later . your father can be a douchebag but we-Turks are friendly to everyone. you are in hate of all Turks while you are in search of your own real father. dont do that. pls apply a psychologist. he/she will tell you the same thing.
btw I'm not your father too. I'm very sure. bcs I always use condom fucking old bitches. you dont need to hate me.
amokachi31 2 months ago
@amokachi31 Wow dude that was much better, now can you stop being such a bitch and just shut the fuck up. i have no problem with Turkish people, you just so happen to be Turkish and i think you're a little bitch who has a problem with not accepting that fact that you were wrong about something, and that you responded negatively to a person who just suggested a video to someone else. Why are you such a douche bag? is it because your father used to rape you and make you watch him beat your mom.
asianassclown 2 months ago
@amokachi31 Or is it because you're just a stupid Turkish bitch.
asianassclown 2 months ago
@asianassclown
ok this has gone to a vicious circle. now confess this.
I'm not your mother. and your mother is not a Turk.
amokachi31 2 months ago
@amokachi31 okay, truce. You're not my mother and my mother is not Turkish. (this better not be a trap)
asianassclown 2 months ago
@asianassclown its not a trap. just getting tired of writing the same things again and again. I show respect to any1 who shows respect to me. and whoever doesnt show respect finds disrespect double times. if you didnt call moron fagot etc you wld find respect. all that story was about it.
amokachi31 2 months ago
@amokachi31 Did you watch the turkey video? It's pretty good.
asianassclown 2 months ago
@amokachi31 Big surprise, you are my mom and you're a bitch.
asianassclown 2 months ago
@karavlaxos they look better than modern cars, thats where the romance is. A modern car cant move you visually like a 50's car can.
TierodMcslush 3 months ago 2
@TierodMcslush No, the romance is the power the older cars have.....and the luxury of rear wheel drive!!!
transmissionjimmy69 1 month ago
@transmissionjimmy69 Modern cars have much more power and many have gone back to rear wheel drive. Mid to late 60s cars look cooler, though.
demoskunk 1 month ago
These tests were conducted by UCLA (hence UCLA is stenciled on the sides of the cars), not GM. Many of the cars were retired California Highway Patrol cars.
yonezawa1965 5 months ago
So, General Motors were essentially muderers...Classy.
MikeyRB77 6 months ago
i bet the car at 2:21 got a five star crash test rateing..
wrestlingfan65 6 months ago
67 ford custom 500 my car at 2:21
1978camarolt 6 months ago
are these real cars or plastic remakes?
iilkerr 6 months ago
Whats the point of doing testing again and again without real improvement in the safety?? when the engineers reviewed the tape, really nothing they could do unless ppl were willing to wear seat belts (but obviously wearing seat belt did not mean much more protection either with the technology at that time) - I guess the engineers had to be frustrated.....
siukeung100 6 months ago
They were more... Comprehensive back then.
scaremengaviation 6 months ago
jesus chrrrriiiist. You'd wonder why, with all these bodies getting thrown around and crushed, the US only adopted seat belts in...1973?? Behold the power of money (and greedy corporate bastards). Fuck you GM--I want my $2325.00 back.
cbmtrx 6 months ago
@cbmtrx The US gov mandated seat belts in 1966. The use of them wasn't really enforced until the 90's. Seatbelts at this time weren't inertia driven, basicaly just a strap with a solid anchor point. I was in a car accident in a 62 T-bird. We hit a brick wall after sliding on ice at about 45mph. No one was wearing their seatbelts (i was laying streched out across the backseat). Everyone walked away with no injury.
CamaroAmx 6 months ago
God Almighty, If I ever would have a crash with such an unsafe car, please let me die immediately.
aloisbembel 6 months ago
These crash tests are far better than those today. Not for safety, but for how they're done.
boogioogigoof 6 months ago
If American cars did this bad. Just imagine how the Jap cars did.
Cars back then sucked. Not engine, wise but everything else. Just ask James Dean about that.
TheCottonTop 6 months ago
@TheCottonTop a Rebel without an airbag
w140fan 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
'I don't care if these cars aren't safe- you don't crash a car like this anyways"
OK I'll bite........................just "How" do you crash a car ?
1MtnBoy 6 months ago
I wonder how many dummies died
MaybexIllxLikexYou 7 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
Hello!
My name is Armando and I live in Brazil.
I wonder if you have more old videos of crash test because I really liked that you posted.
Brazilian Greetings!
armando7972 7 months ago
Comment removed
armando7972 7 months ago
Lol.
jlandmark10 7 months ago
In the 60's who needs airbags when u got 5 or 6 inches of steel... like viny said i'd rather die in a classic.
cummins331 7 months ago
@cummins331 I like old cars and trucks and everything but people say there built like tanks then why are they smashing up like pop cans?? especially the crash video of the 1959 Bel Air.
CustomDeluxe1984 6 months ago
I'd rather end up dead in an old car than a vegetable in a new one.
VinylToVideo 7 months ago
I don't care if these cars aren't safe- you don't crash a car like this anyways.
Vaicurious 7 months ago
@Vaicurious What if some other driver crashes into you? It isn´t only you on the streets.
llgnr 6 months ago
@llgnr
"Shit happens."
Vaicurious 6 months ago
1:30
Dummy in Blue Shirt: "Screw this! I'm outta here!"
counterclockwise123 7 months ago 3
0:53...that guy is so fucked
ArmyRescue2 7 months ago
These are NOT REAL crash tests. They have been stages by the newly formed
NHTSA to lobby for more money for their research. The actual footage is staged.
Thunderchicken1997 7 months ago
Yeah, mostly mopars getting trashed here. At least they used a 60 or so Dodge in a bunch of frames to do camera work possibly.
takemeback2 7 months ago
GM BOSS 1: omfg, u are screwd if u crash with our cars
GM BOSS 2: hmm yes, what can we do?
GM BOSS 1: Maybe....no...
GM BOSS 2: what?? Tell me!
Gm Boss 1: I heard....seat belts? maybe it can help the passengers....
GM Boss 2: HA! No! next idea?
Folmannen 7 months ago
To me it's just amazing how much automotive technology has improved over time. Even though the older cars were heavier it looks to me like they literally fell apart in a collision. Take a look at at the video "Crash test: 1959 Chevy Bel Air" where a Bell Air is pitted against a 2010 Chevy Malibu. It's amazing how much safer new cars are than the older one.
smallbee1234 7 months ago 6
@smallbee1234 And yet every time I watch that what gets me is that the 1959's whole hood/fenders are crushed, leaving nowhere near enough room for the engine in the bay, yet the interior view doesn't show the big, bulky V8 entering the cabin. I've seen a few 50s Chevies, and those engines don't have much room. Honestly, I thought the 2009 would be better than the '59 Chevy, but it's just so obvious to anyone really watching the video that it was rigged. Now I'd like to see it FOR REAL.
jamesandrewjohnson 4 months ago
Take the collision at 1:45, for example. There is no way in the world that the people in those cars (if wearing seatbelts) were injured severely. It doesn't in any way reflect the '09 vs '59 video. Why is that? And why if supposedly as engineers say, the cars were too stiff and had no crumple zones, did it compact so much when hit by an '09 Chevy that is designed to compact when hit? It goes against their original point.
jamesandrewjohnson 4 months ago
@jamesandrewjohnson Good point, but I see several things that may help explain this apparent anomalie. First, the Bell Air at the time of the test was likely at least 50+ years older than the Malibu. The vehicles in this video are apparently new a the time of this test. I would say that rusting and structural wear of the Bell Air accounted for the complete destruction.The Malibu on the other hand suffered extreme damage, but per design which would account for a safer passenger compartment.
smallbee1234 4 months ago
@smallbee1234 I suppose that would make sense. I'm not against the improvements we've had in safety at all, but old cars get a bad wrap and 3 of my parents vehicles have gotten in serious accidents, totalling the other vehicle 2 out of 3 times but each car continued to run reliably without fail. Those vehicles are a '78 Econoline, '76 Monaco, and '83 Grand Marquis. The Econoline murdered the car it hit... in each case the other driver had ran a red light.
jamesandrewjohnson 4 months ago
@jamesandrewjohnson Yes, I agree older cars get a bum-rap. In my book, I love the older cars. That is why I own a 1971 Satellite Sebring Plus. The older cars, even when they were new had soul.
smallbee1234 4 months ago
@smallbee1234 Nice, I love Satellites! What's it got under the hood? My dad has a '76 Dodge Monaco that used to be a cop car, and that thing is rock solid. In fact, if you don't buy the sturdiness of old cars, watch Blues Brothers! He's also got a '73 Mercury Montego, also very sturdy.
jamesandrewjohnson 4 months ago
@jamesandrewjohnson It's powered by a slightly modified 318. I dont plan on taking out that engine since I am interested in a numbers-matching vehicle. Sounds like your Dad has some really nice classics. There is perfection in the imperfection of these cars.
smallbee1234 4 months ago
@smallbee1234 no engine in the 59.
pistolierer 4 months ago
is like putting an egg in an iron box. the box is fine but the egg gets crushed. Now we have crumple zones on our cars, the cars are built to total themselves and absorb all the shock to keep the people inside safe. It takes the impact away from the passengers and puts it on the car.
Lowclef 7 months ago
both joester1908 and no1DdC have a point. The cars of the old days were made in such a way that they could be worked by the consumer, a thing they've done away with in an effort to make money through trips to the dealership for repars. Also, the way that cars are built today is very different from the way they are built now. Then the conventional wisdom was, if the car is strong then the people inside will be alright, not realizing that the principal behind their engineering
Lowclef 7 months ago
Almost unbelievable that noone seemed to have thought of belts and headreasts 40 jears ago. I guess all of these crashes shown would have ended deadly to any involved persons...
aviatorsbh 8 months ago
1:32 eff this I'm going GTA diveout style. Oh wait.....shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit
BMAN294 8 months ago 2
Wow... but why is GM crash testing 1960 Plymouths in 1968? Almost all the vehicles I saw in the footage are Chryslers and Ford products. Crazy footage though.
buellhmm 8 months ago
Thanks themparguy thought I was losing my grip lol, boy those doors sure did pop open easily.
caleb6868 8 months ago
PENSABA QUE LOS AUTOS ANTERIORES RESISTIAN MAS UN IMPACTO PERO VEO QUE NO AHORA SALGO DE MI DUDA ARRIBA LA TECNOLOGIA¡¡¡
1000watsrms 8 months ago
and General Motors actually thought this was okay
shinusha 8 months ago
cars were a little more safer in a way back then, but they seats, & door-locks were shit. & overall they had no seat-belts plus they seat fly all over the fuckin place.
grandcreator11 8 months ago
They just don't build 'em like they used to.......thankfully.
TheDarkPhoenix23 8 months ago
@TheDarkPhoenix23 Not thankfully. Cars today are all plastic....no real metal on em. The bodies are a metal mixture. Today cars are all computer ran, back then they were all mechanical. You could actually work on them, not take them to a dealer or shop and have to spend a ton A car back then was a piece of art. Now they are plain and boring...sure safer, maybe better gas mileage, but overall cars were tough and quality, now they are cheap Chinese made and over priced...safer though yes
Joester1908 8 months ago
@Joester1908 well said and im 16 and i totally agree with you cars from the 1900s to the early 70's were beautiful works of art made of wood and detroit steel from the backs of hard working americans now everythings plastic and made in china and japan.
waserman123 8 months ago
@waserman123 Yeah. Im 14 lol the key thing is by hard working Americans not outsourced to foreign countrys to save money
Joester1908 8 months ago
@Joester1908 You are wrong. The point is: You had to work on them. Back then cars were way less reliable than today. The build quality was generally lower, resulting in cars already rusting and losing oil in the showrooms. Back then it was mandatory to have tools and a few spare parts with you when you decided to take on a longer journey.
Why do people always wish back the old times without really knowing anything about them?
no1DdC 8 months ago
@no1DdC you do have a point cars were less reliable as in leaks and maybe minor repairs but any car is going to have that. If something major broke on an old car you can figure out whats wrong by what sound it makes by how it runs by what it does. You could pull out stuff rebuild and fix. Now if the same thing went out on a new car you couldnt fix it. You gotta take it to a dealer and have them hook it up to the computer to find it was some sensor for a few hundred dollars
Joester1908 8 months ago
@no1DdC also, yea old cars rusted. Cause it was strong American metal! not fake plastic. Quality was top notch. If you look at an old car their seats are usually double or triple sewed together so they will last. They had metal parts instead of plastic. The leather on my 01 beamer is getting cracked. My uncles daily driver is a 40s Ford and sure its gonna over heat more than new cars, stuff like that but for 70 year old interior its in good shape cause of higher quality. No China made
Joester1908 8 months ago
@Joester1908 Your comment clearly makes no sense. Nationalism combined with a romanticized view of the past, nothing more.
I prefer a rational view on the world.
no1DdC 8 months ago
@no1DdC So youre saying you would rather outsource jobs to other countries, destroy the art of a car, and get back crappy plastic pieces of junk you cant do anything with when they break down all because its more rational? Im not trying tp be rude i just dont understand...
Joester1908 7 months ago
@Joester1908 Did you know that most "Japanese" cars sold in the US are also built in the US by American workers and specifially developed for American customers? Even many German cars you can buy are not actually imported from Germany. Despite that, imported cars also create jobs, just think about the dealership and garage infrastructure. It was the American car companies, which closed down many decades old factories due to mismanagement and the failure to adapt to changing market conditions.
no1DdC 7 months ago
@Joester1908 About that "art of a car" thing of yours: Design changes, so does the common taste. It's a good thing that the style of cars, clothes, movies, music, etc. changes over time. You don't want to be forever stuck in the same period. What do you think the internet would be like, if we had still the same taste and moral ideals as in the 1950s?
Today's cars use more and better steel than in the past. They are stronger, despite not always looking like that. That's the difference.
no1DdC 7 months ago
@no1DdC I do agree that yes styles should, and do change. BUT cars today are plain and boring. Old cars had attention to detail, chrome, 2 and 3 tone paint jobs from the factory, fancy lines down the sides. Sure maybe we wouldnt have those same things today, but now they are stripped down and basic. Hmm maybe the common taste wants plain boring new cars....i sure dont
Joester1908 7 months ago 2
Videos like this show how important seatbelts are. They can mean the difference between life and death in older cars, much more so than today's cars which surround you in airbags the second you car hits something.
Chrisgottschalk2 8 months ago
I hit a bus head on in a nissan altima at around 45mph a few years back. The bus pulled out into my path at an intersection as he was waiting to make a left turn. The front of the car compressed, but the passenger compartment was pretty much intact. Because of the airbag and the seatbelt, I was able to walk away. A lot of people died in accidents like mine before they made seatbelts the law and put airbags in. Anti-lock brakes made a big difference also.
1965cyclone39 8 months ago
I did'nt know GM made Plymouth Furys.
caleb6868 8 months ago
@caleb6868 I know right? 1960 Plymouth's at the beginning. Most of the cars were Mopars.
themoparguy 8 months ago
These cars would just use modern cars as their crumple zones.
TraditionalChevy 8 months ago
FARK it looks like from these videos that the one best invention was seat belts, how many times to u see the occupants head smash through the window, or they fall out of the car, and one time he just about falls underneath the other car that hit him. shyte
mudkrab 9 months ago
What speed were these at?
xerxes876 9 months ago
If they had the new seatbelts and side airbag the be safer then the new cars
homelifehome 9 months ago
nice cars, but nothing safe.
camilocelio21 9 months ago
i would still rather have my old cars then the shitty new cars
trolljesus 9 months ago
fatal
elvira2262 9 months ago
Pretty good for Chevys, and unlike today's cars the cab isn't part of the crush zone. I say all these foreign companies today make their cars bad for a reason: buy another one.
KNGarver 9 months ago
I really can't believe how stupid car companies were back then. A lot of them didn't fit seatbelts because they believed that it would make their car look unsafe because it needed them.
If they had seatbelts, more securly fastened seats and doors that didn't fly open I bet fatalaties would be 1/5 of what they were. Those things are not that hard to do, even back then.
lukerobin01 9 months ago
@lukerobin01 doors don't just fucking fling open reguardless of what this video was set up for. the same design of a latch and striker is the same for decades
Trendyrapslut 9 months ago
@Trendyrapslut Look at some modern side impact tests. The doors are much more secure. And yes I know doors don't just fling open when going round corners but I think this video shows you that in the event of an accident it's occurs very frequently. How many injuries would have been less severe if the person hadn't fallen out of the car? It's no secret that car companies back then didn't give a toss about safety.
lukerobin01 9 months ago