Bought from old German Grandpa, always Garaged, once a week to church. Grandpa was crying by selling, but it was promised to take a proper care of his black pearl. Oops.
A colleague imported a late 50s Thunderbird from the US a few years back. It had a thin foam panel glued to the dash on the passenger side (and by thin I mean about 3mm thick). This was apparently a factory option for passenger safety, and was intended to cushion the passengers head in the event of a crash. Given that the car didn't have any seatbelts when it was built, I think we can safely say that crash protection in the 50s didn't consist of much more than wearing driving gloves and a stout pair of shoes.
I remember car commercials actually advertised the padded dash as a safety feature, and we believed it. I owned a 1960 Thunderbird and I currently own a 1962 Thunderbird. I have the original build sheet and the car basically has every upgrade, including A/C at $600 and leather seats at about $400. However, they did not purchase the front seatbelts for $40! It has the anchors so you can add aftermarket belts to the front easily but the rear requires some drilling. I am also a member of a Thunderbird club, and old guys in it are convinced that these cars are built like tanks and will destroy anything on the road. I'm getting rid of mine because I just do not like driving it in modern high speed traffic with drum brakes in the front that fade out and are also pretty worthless in the rain.
they had commercials made to demonstrate the exceptional safety of those dash pads. they dropped eggs on them to show how they would not break and thus you would be more protected in a crash. no one thought to ask... i shit you not. the eggs were hard boiled... brilliant marketing
@@MoarteaLunii engines are pretty reliable, maybe even more than before, it's just that cars have lots of electronics nowadays so more things to break.
In that sense... absolutely YES!!!! (I mean i still like some old car exclusive features but if only they were a tad safer at least as an optional extra lol)
That's the result of only testing impacts with full frontal barriers (like it was done back in the days) instead of partial overlap tests like this one. Manufacturers only improve on what they can sell
As an old car buff, I refer my fellow car-loving friends to the IIHS video of the Malibu and Bel Air crash (contained in this video) when they start getting a little too whiny about modern cars. People lose perspective, or simply never thought about how modern cars are superior in virtually every respect (except price) to their ancestors. I love that old iron, but I don't lie to myself about the level of engineering that went into them, versus what is embodied in a modern vehicle.
@@markgigiel2722 It’s funny you’d say that...the only trannies I’ve ever had to rebuild were vintage. A couple of manuals, a Ford C4, and a Mopar 727. On the other hand, I have a car with a ZF 6-speed automatic with over 300K on it. Although I did have an Acura that cr*pped our at about 130K...for which they paid 3/4 of the rebuild cost. The best modern boxes are far better than the oldies. The best vintage automatics, like the Turbo-Hydramatic 400 were very strong (center shaft support bearing, oversized clutch packs), but were limited to direct third gear, and were comparatively inefficient. They also were relatively dumb, with only fluidic shift logic, while today, the control computer does rev-matched downshifts... The better modern transmissions are far stronger than even the best from back in the day. The problems start when a manufacturer insists on using a box that is too light-duty, or has known issues, like the Ford Powersh*t...excuse me, Powershift. There are other, similar examples.
It’s impressive how much car crash safety has improved in the last 30 years. Also sends a shiver down my spine seeing how poor the older cars fared that I was driving when I passed my test.
I still own a Mark 4 Fiesta similar to the one in the last test. Owned it since 2001. Under no illusions that it's as safe as a modern car, but it's still a lot safer than the cars from the 60s and 70s that my dad drove around in.
No car is 'safe' Crash a modern car into a concrete block at 70mph and all die. There is a lot of scaremongering about this. It's a minority of cars that are ever involved in a head on crash, often but not always the fault of the driver. People still die in modern cars
@@ronnieg6358 The point of the head on crash is not about the frequency with which that type of accident happens, it's that it's one of the worst case scenarios. If they can encourage manufactuers to produce designs that can potentially preserve life even in those situations, then that's beneficial.
The Rover 100 (formerly called the Mini Metro) dates from 1980 as a bodyshell design, and the test shown above finished it as a model, as sales fell off a cliff when people were reminded just how dated it was. Likewise the '98 Fiesta is based on a bodyshell launched in 1989. The point is, when thinking of safety, consider how old the design is, rather than the year of manufacture of the example you're considering buying. Another issue is that many bodyshells of that era were not designed with airbags in mind, and when they were fitted in later years, they were of lesser benefit, as the bodyshell didn't hold them aligned with the passengers' heads, as in the Rover test. A real problem with driving older, "crumple-zone" cars these days is that newer, "stiffened-for-airbags" cars are everywhere, and make mincemeat of them in old vs. new crashes, whereas they might have done a bit better against another crumple-zone car of the same era.
Many if not all the older cars were some of the worst of their generation. Fr example A MK2 Golf would fair much better than the fiesta, dispite being older.
@@idrisddraig2 filed under 'citation needed'! That Fiesta got 3 stars when it was tested the same time as the Metro, so hardly 'the worst of its generation'.
As a firefighter I can tell you how little fun it is to rescue someone out of a car looking like the old cars in the video. It’s less work to cut him out but the injury’s are way worse. And depending on the circumstances you can still get crash results with modern cars looking like the old ones. I don‘t won‘t to imagine how the old cars would‘ve looked like in this situation.
@@DanRyzESPUK If you are crashing head on at 130 km/h (motorway), something has gone really wrong though. Except if someone is speeding real bad on a country road..
@@Maakola77 Bad news, things go wrong sometimes. And many frontal crashes occur in one lane roads when overtaking (typical 100 kms/h) so not that "rare".
Basically modern cars are built to pass the crash tests specifically. How well they do in a real crash depends entirely on how similar to the test conditions a real crash is.
Seeing one of these videos is what made me finally retire my old ‘93 car even though I loved it. They didn’t even do side impact and other tests back then. When they did test it, the NTSB rated side impacts as ‘poor’. Poor means that your door pushes into the side so hard that your head bounces off the other cars hood. I used to believe in a ‘big safe old car’ when it is far better to buy a little new car than even an old midsize car. I opted for a newer midsize car, front and side airbags, and never looked back.
yeah. i agree. these kinds of videos are a real eye-opener for me. I dont understand cars....but i understand what i saw here. newer = safer no contest. i'm happy to find out i was wrong before it was too late.
@@GeoEstes The GM test was fake. It was built with thinner reproduction parts. They wanted dramatic footage so they did what they needed to do to make it impactful.
To be fair, though, many of these tests which pushed the envelope were outside the government sphere, like the IIHS tests in the US. NHTSA's tests were weaker.
@@awesomeone2979 not exactly. Safety regulations often drive car design. For instance, there are specific dimensional requirements, meant to reduce injury during collisions with pedestrians. Disappearing B pillars are also a thing of the past because rigidity is extremely important in modern regulations.
@@awesomeone2979 To think that all cars from the '50's are "beautiful" and that all new cars are "ugly" is definitely closed-minded. There did seem to be more of an effort on the idea of creating a piece of rolling artwork, though, but as the above poster noted, there are certain restrictions that can't be completely overcome now. The larger problem, I feel, is that unique characteristics have gotten lost over time in an effort to become more like the "top car in the class," so what you have now are the best car in the class and a bunch of copycats from other manufacturers as opposed to taking their own approach to things.
This is a consumer “must see” video. I joke with friends when I hear the old “they sure don’t make cars like they used to”, by replying “thank God!” My daughter was in a head-on collision driving a 2013 Honda Fit - the other driver fell asleep on a freeway access road crossing onto the interstate from the opposite direction - and while her car was utterly annihilated, she escaped with relatively minor injuries. It’s all made obvious in this excellent video!
@@21stcenturyfossil7 I've been in a head-on about as bad as these while driving a pick-up truck. I had come to a full stop half on the shoulder when the other drive crossed the line and hit me. He literally was searching the passenger side floor for something not even looking or braking. The seat belt did it's job, but the problem was the car that shot under my bumper lifted the truck up and threw it backward. It was the top of my head contacting the roof that did the damage to my vertebra.
@@HwangInhoBooNam yes you would. no air bags and a steel dash they would scrape your face off of. And that's if you bought the seatbelts sold as extra. Otherwise you'd be launched through the windshield. Then there is the chance of being impaled on the steering column. I use to own a vintage car.
yeah, but I bet all those older cars will still run again. All those new ones are done for good. Older cars are meant to compress in a crash the only reason the older car accidents looked more fatal is because they did not have airbags.
@@grahamcross7887 OIder ones also dont have the newer technology for the crumple zone......just look at how the old one has the entire dash and steering wheel come flying at your head.....new cars are designed to collapse the entire front and steering so it doesnt get jammed into the driver.
@@andrew02alex Doesn't matter how good you are when most drivers suck. You being a great driver won't save you if some dickhead texting and driving smashes into you.
I showed my mother this video and she changed her mind on the spot about "don't make 'em like they used to." Obviously some products are made weaker, but I'm glad that car safety was a priority, despite layman opinions about how easily they're crumpled.
@@thefinalroman The 1959 Bel Air and 2009 Malibu both weigh about 3500 pounds. As to the Suburban vs Prius, of course a much larger and heavier car will fare better than a smaller lighter car.
@@arunparkin2552 They bought the car specifically for this test. Their statement was something like "We wanted a nice original car, but not a museum piece".
0:10 - The Nissan Tsuru was manufactured until 2015, and this model was used in tests after its first tests when NCAP began testing with cars from Latin America (LatinNCAP). The model used in the test is from 2015, it is a real coffin on wheels.
I passed my car driving test in January 1990 and my first car was a 1985 Austin Mini ..I shudder to think how badly this car would have failed in a serious accident. Cars from the 1960s-1970s-1980s and even the 1990s were total death traps (Maybe except for very well-made cars such as the Volvo 240 and Mercedes-Benz W126)
Sad but true, since most consumers would, absent government regulation, opt for price over safety. Just look at the fools who refuse to take a free Covid-19 vaccine, and end up in an emergency room later, costs to be born by the rest of us (higher insurance and/or taxes).
@@-m.d.n-9019 you obviously didn't ever assist or be in a car accident.... What can I say, lucky you, but is not a very loud event, only if the driver breaks hard there will be the screeches of the tires but the impact is not that loud and last a sec.
@@sareth90 I've been in several, can confirm what you say. Brakes, screeching tyres, engine noise, all that makes it a lot louder and more dramatic. The actual impact is not that loud.
It's really heartwarming how much those car companies care about their customers, building in all those safety features after they have been forced by la... wait, hold on a second!
The difference is newer cars have enchanced cockpit protection which means when the frontal part of the car collapses in the crash, the mighty force from that impact does not reach the windscreen or the leg space but if they had used this concept with older cars, we could still drive them today.
It's also because modern cars are meant to crumple in front and rear. Where as back then this wasn't known. So built them to be sturdy up all around. Problem with that is that is it makes cabin the ideal zone to absorb impact
This is cool because it shows the recent engineering advances provided by dynamic computer modelling, but it would be even more interesting to see a 2000 model versus a 2020 model to see if advances plateaued 20 years ago
The bel air are in working restored condition (with very minimal rust and good frame) they bought it for $8500, the dust when the car crashed are not rust its a road dirt
@@Gavichap PROVE it genius...or are you just typing stuff? I remember crashing into plenty of shit in my parents 1983 Buick LeSabre. Didn't even dent the big chrome bumber. Took out: a fence, a bush, and two small trees. You don't need "crumple zones" and "airbags" in a TANK!!!!!
GREAT IDEA to publish that! All automotive media cries about cars getting heavier - here's why! Don't get me wrong, I love older car's for their style and ease to work on - but I also have driven several 100k on autobahn and old cars are just so weak. For city traffic ok, but...
Kinda curious as to what cars you were driving. My '87 Crown Vic was still hitting 80 mph no sweat in 2014. Didn't start complaining until we hit around 100-110. Could also tow a fully loaded two-horse trailer. (We often used it for moving.) Steep hills from a dead start on the other hand... She'd grumble at you all the way up. Old girl was quirky like that. XD
The 1992 Tsuru doesn't react to an offset frontal too differently from a late-'50s Bel Air - Incredible to see much of the improvements in car safety have actually been carried out in relatively recent years: mind the Benz Patentwagen, widely considered to be the first actual automobile, had been build in 1886, which means passive safety have improved much more in the first decade of NCAP testing than in the previous over-one-Century period!
WOW! We have come a long way in every aspect, safety, efficiency, features, technology and performance. Lets hope we continue to get better and better.
@Rata 4U No, they won't. They wouldn't know how to drive it in the first place. The buttons on the dashboard and on the steering wheel would be pretty confusing for them.
@Rata 4U And also, they won't know how to drive an automatic since, as far as I know most of the cars in the US in the 50s and 60s at least, had column shifters.
To be fair the Rover 100 used at 2:32 scored badly because it was an update on a car originally designed in the late '70's (Austin Metro). Even in comparison to other cars back in the '90's it scored badly.
Thats how many of them would be if they haven't been restored in recent years, but even in perfect condition it wouldn't be much different. Thank god relatively new cars are now on the used car market with airbags all round and safer survival cell. My car is now 10yo, has ABS & 7 airbags with a 5 star rating when new, it can be had for $5000AUD, which is very affordable for a first time car buyer.
@@lancer1993 If they focused more on teaching people how to drive properly in the first place then there would be no need for safety cells and the like.
@@lancer1993 You know the only way to feel truly safe is to pay attention, no distractions, no playing on you're cellphone, and keep you're eyes on the road.
My 1st introduction to crash test safety were the 1st cars I researched childhood heroes. The 1997 VW Polo, the 1999 Mercedes C class and a 2003 VW Golf. The 1999 Mercedes was the most unsafe of the 3 cars with it being based on the early 90s C class even with airbags it was useless. The 1997 VW Polo also built on the same kind of early 90s platform whilst not great was better than the Mercedes C class. The 2003 VW Golf MK4 that I first sat inside during 2008 was the 1st car I sat in where I could feel somewhat safe having watched the crash test knowing that the worse case scenario was serious but not life threatening injuires. In my 2016 Toyota Auris I have little risk of serious injuries and virtually no risk of death. 20 years is all it took for cars to go from death traps to being virtually death proof.
@@DashCamSerbia Also compared to modern cars! And even stronger were the full-size American cars from the 1970-1980 era! Believe me: These videos are fake. The Chevy Bel-Air is manipulated! I've seen real life accidents of 50s cars or even 1930s cars: They have no crumple zone, just a full steel heavy duty H-frame. They were built like trucks!
@@jurivlk5433 Yes... And that's what makes them so dangerous to be inside when you have a crash. You don't want to be in a car "built like a tank" in a crash. Go spend some time studying physics.
In Finland there was an accident on a highway where an old Saab 900 drove against the traffic. Then It collided head on with a modern Vw Passat. The old Saab was completely destroyed and the elderly couple inside were killed instantly. The Passat occupants had only minor injuries.
Crashing is not all about strength. Its how the energy is disappated. So being but like a tank can actually be more fatal with such a sudden and harsh impact.
The most surprising to me is not how much the modern cars have improved , because when you drive a newer car you clearly notice that it is much better in every way . What i am shocked about is how UNSAFE the cars were back then . I mean my mom used to own one of those 1988 ford fiesta's and back then they were considered safe cars. While on the crashtest it looked absolutely awfull . Looks like u could get serious injuries from that crash ,maybe even die from it. As in the modern Fiesta really looks like a safe car now .
@@DashCamSerbia LOL yes. To survive the impact of a crash you MUST disperse the energy of said impact, and to do that you have to allow the metal frame to bend in the proper way, have a super solid frame is completely useless, in a 100km/h crash the car will slow down suddenly, undented, but your body will slam right into the steering wheel and control panel AT 100 km/h, whatever they find of you will be a mangled carcass, of if you're lucky to have retaining belts on your car your body will twist on it, pivoting around the belt, breaking your spine and ribcage at best, if you are extremely lucky, but you'll probably still be found as a mangled carcass, at least you'll enjoy feeling your spine and ribcage get shredded before dying anyway in your bEaUtIfUl UglyAir. Don't believe me? Try this: jump down from some height and land properly, that means allow your legs to bend and absorb the impact, then do the same but keep your legs firm and straight, your heel, shinbone and calf bone, kneecaps or hipbone will explode immediately, or if you are very lucky you will just break a bone or too, either way you'll still end up in a hospital, probably thinking again on your stupid theories. Learn some physics, baboons.
I remember going on vacation when I was a kid. We drove at night to avoid traffic jams. I was in the back of the car with my sister, neither of us strapped in, me lying on the bench and my sister lying between the bench and the front seats on a cushion. And my parents in the front both smoking like a chimney. It was a different time...
It shouldn't really matter, because it's not a structuaral Part of the car, only the frame is and it also represtents the General condition of cars which are that old. Of course there are fully resored ones, but also enough with serious rust issues.
The front frame broke. These central-backbone chassis GM cars were not very strong. And, it doesn't matter, anyway...they're trying to show you what a difference (in that case) 50 years of safety engineering made. It is an impressive demonstration. I often refer my fellow car-nut friends to this video when they start b**ching about how modern cars are garbage. It is pitiful to see the excuses people come up with to explain away the obvious performance difference. Whatever you think, modern cars are MASSIVELY better in their structural engineering and safety equipment than anything from previous generations. It is truly a tribute to modern structural engineering, design tools, and materials.
@@jamesw1659 If the source video is still up (between the Malibu and Bel Air), I remember a bunch of nonsense being spouted on there by the anti-modern car crowd. I guess that's proof that no matter what you show some people, they will continue to come up with excuses if they want to.
It's good to see how the safety has improved over the years, but what they didn't tell you is, that even today you have to drive carefully! Even a modern car would not withstand a full head-on collision against a grown tree for example and the chance of dying in an accident like that is still high! We should see modern cars as they improve more as "less likely to die" rather than being invincible like some drivers behave :-)
Imagine a future where a vehicle could slam into a tree @ 100mph and have the occupant survivability be high. It's only inevitable really as we one up the safety measures. I'd imagine in the future there won't be nearly as many accidents due to automation though.
Considering the 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air is a much heavier car (higher momentum, greater kinetic energy) with a lot more steel, and yet the 2009 Chevy Malibu passenger cabin stayed intact and protected its test dummy with deployed airbags. In the 1959 Chevy Bel Air the steering column and dashboard were driven back into the test dummy and the passenger cabin was badly compromised. This is a testament to safety engineering. The monocoque body with crumple-zone design of the 2009 Chevy Malibu outperformed the body-on-frame design of the 1959 Chevy Bel Air even though the monocoque body of the 2009 Malibu use less steel, weigh less, and more fuel efficient. Engineers are amazing human beings.
I got rid of my classic car because of this video, thank you. I thought that since it was bigger and made of metal it would be safe. Everyone needs to see this.
Thank you Saab and Volvo for pushing the whole car industry towards higher and higher safety standards. The 9000 was an absolute tank in the 80s together with the Volvo 740.The Saab 9-5 from -97 is still today an extremely safe car to crash in. Saab 9-5 and Volvo S80/V70 really did set a new standard for passenger safety in the 00's and 10's. Saab and Volvo cared about safety before they had to. The others followed when they were forced to because of regulations. Compare that -97 Rover in the vid to a -97 Saab 9-3. You get the difference quite quickly.
@@martinsv9183 They invented the car itself and airbags, Bosch who work with German car makers including MB invented ABS and traction control too. Mercedes sold their airbags as luxuries not safety equipment at least pre 1995 they did. Volvo is the most safety focussed car manuufacture and currently the safest car on the planet is the latest Volvo XC90 which is safe on multiple roll overs which is not even tested for. Volvo were also the first to pass the small overlap test despite the car used being designed 8 years before the test was released.
@@gravemind6536 Airbags was a safety equipment not luxory. There's nothing luxorious with a bag. SAfest car on the planet is probably the MB EQS. And all the S-classes. Also the E classes has also often had better results than Volvo. The manufacturer that spends most on safety is MB.
I know modern cars are far safer than old ones but the only car accident I was ever in was when my Dad's elderly Volvo (I was the pssenger) was hit by a modern Audi. They hit corner to corner, similar to these tests, at quite low speed & no-one was hurt in either car but the cars themselves were totally different. We drove home from the accident in the Volvo which then spent 1 day at a garage for some minor scratches to be repainted, a new piece of trim and a new headlamp fitting. Just the fitting, the bulbs were fine. The Audi was completely written off and left the scene on a flatbed, in pieces. The two vehicles looked as though they had been in two entirely separate accidents. From that day, I've never been in an Audi & I never will.
Sure the newer cars are probably safer, but just like you’ve I’ve seen crashes with older cars and modern ones where the old car needs like a dent buffed out and some new paint and the new car is just a piece of scrap.
E falam que os carros antigos são mais resistentes a colisão, incrível como os novos modelos absorvem mais o impacto, fora o airbag que protege bem nesses casos. Great video
I remember my parents throwing me in the backseat of a rusty Datsun in the 80s, no rear seatbelts.The only AC was a slight lowering of the side window that they rolled down to blow the cigarette smoke out of. Kids today have no idea in the backseat of a Tesla.
Don’t forget that in the 70s and early 80s when you bought a new car you took the seatbelts and you shoved them in between the cushions so that they would Be out of the way. And of course my favorite was the station wagon with the rear facing back bench seat where the kids sat literally looking face to face with the driver of the car behind them.
hmm, i was led to believe that older cars were stronger (stiffer), and that they were unsafe because they didn't crumple enough to absorb the impact of a crash. That was a f'n lie.
@@syroboi3524 México, actually, it was sold here until it ended production on 2017. The Mexican government made airbags obligatory and Nissan said that the structure of the Tsuru wasn't able to hold an airbag so they (finally) stopped producing it and selling it.
It's a good thing we have government regulations and requirements, as well as independent NCAP tests today. In this capitalist system, they are the foundation of our safety. Otherwise, manufacturers would put us in a tin can and charge us as if it were a car.
And because everybody chose not to wear their seatbelts in the old cars, it was not unheard of for people in the backseat to become airborne missiles and go flying through the windshield at high speed impacts.
Meanwhile 90's Volvos are still pretty safe for today's standards, such as Volvo V70 or a Volvo 850. There's even a crash test on TH-cam featuring an old Volvo vs a new Volvo. The new one ended up better, but the old one wasn't bad at all.
Not to mention Saab. The 9000 was an absolute tank in the 80s together withe the Volvo 740.The Saab 9-5 from -97 is still today an extremely safe car to crash in. Saab 9-5 and Volvo S80/V70 really did set a new standard for passenger safety for the 00's and 10's. Saab and Volvo cared about safety before they had to. The others followed when they were forced to because of regulations. Compare that -97 Rover in the vid to a -97 Saab 9-3. You get the difference quite quickly.
not really, cars started to become safer at the beginning of this century, or in the really late 90s (1998, 1999). Huge improvement has been made in the 00s. Just look crash test of a 2006 passat vs cars from mid 90s, bigger difference in safety than 2006 vs 2021 passat!
@@martinsv9183 Regarding the passive safety a Saab 9-5 or Volvo V70 is fully on par with todays standards. Of course they lack all the latest proactive safety systems but that does not tell anything about how safe the car is to actually crash.
Subscribe to our channel 👉 goo.gl/M7yJtf
Press the little bell ((🔔)) to get notifications
How big was car speed in a video ?
Hello do you have the music please ?
no
Nice but small sample, too small
New does not mean better
One question: Where did they managed to get the old cars in such great condition?!
Kept around during their production lines
They weren't in good condition, they just looked like to make you believe this crap story. Capitalism is always a lie!
Juri Vlk oh lord you’re one of those people🙄
Bought from old German Grandpa, always Garaged, once a week to church. Grandpa was crying by selling, but it was promised to take a proper care of his black pearl. Oops.
Buy used ones
A colleague imported a late 50s Thunderbird from the US a few years back. It had a thin foam panel glued to the dash on the passenger side (and by thin I mean about 3mm thick). This was apparently a factory option for passenger safety, and was intended to cushion the passengers head in the event of a crash. Given that the car didn't have any seatbelts when it was built, I think we can safely say that crash protection in the 50s didn't consist of much more than wearing driving gloves and a stout pair of shoes.
Dash pads saved a few teeth in parking lots.
I remember car commercials actually advertised the padded dash as a safety feature, and we believed it. I owned a 1960 Thunderbird and I currently own a 1962 Thunderbird. I have the original build sheet and the car basically has every upgrade, including A/C at $600 and leather seats at about $400. However, they did not purchase the front seatbelts for $40! It has the anchors so you can add aftermarket belts to the front easily but the rear requires some drilling. I am also a member of a Thunderbird club, and old guys in it are convinced that these cars are built like tanks and will destroy anything on the road. I'm getting rid of mine because I just do not like driving it in modern high speed traffic with drum brakes in the front that fade out and are also pretty worthless in the rain.
@@PE9A3p4hUfwv If you can find a buyer or a pigeon !
they had commercials made to demonstrate the exceptional safety of those dash pads. they dropped eggs on them to show how they would not break and thus you would be more protected in a crash. no one thought to ask... i shit you not. the eggs were hard boiled... brilliant marketing
Driver protection in the 50s:
'DON'T CRASH, STUPID!"
0:23 I couldn't concentrate on the Nissan crash. I was too busy watching the Nissan emblem make an escape.
That looked too perfect lol
@@juliannavarro3440 *_-Too Perfect to be true-_*
A Ford Escape 😏
After my Nissan crash I found the emblem somewhere up the road, I still have it 😂
"They don't build them like they used to"
Thank God for that.
Most people are talking about the looks and the reliable engines.
@@MoarteaLunii I wish I had a dime for every time I heard that because they said the cars were "all plastic".
@@scavengerspc Yeah, that's a rather stupid point. I meant most of the people who actually know about cars.
@@MoarteaLunii engines are pretty reliable, maybe even more than before, it's just that cars have lots of electronics nowadays so more things to break.
In that sense... absolutely YES!!!! (I mean i still like some old car exclusive features but if only they were a tad safer at least as an optional extra lol)
Ah the good 'ol days when the driver was part of the crumple zone.
Haha
@@christinaandwena8917 l
Sometimes you can get lucky and use the other person's crumple zone
So, are modern car better for avoiding obesity?
Without a seat belt (in case he's lucky enough to be thrown out).
2:59 the airbag does its job wonderfully 👌
2:59 that airbag is tottaly useless
İt saves your left ear
😱😱
It is 😂😂
That's the result of only testing impacts with full frontal barriers (like it was done back in the days) instead of partial overlap tests like this one. Manufacturers only improve on what they can sell
lol yea the head went right past it
The old fiesta’s passenger airbag is pretty good for an old car
Also the Crash result of the old Fiesta is much better than the result of the old Honda
Jonas92 that’s true!
Jonas92 although the passenger airbag wasn’t standard in the fiesta here in the UK
Matt Timpson that metro was ok if you want to save your right arm🤣👍
Marty Crush hahaha 😂 the airbag was crap!
As an old car buff, I refer my fellow car-loving friends to the IIHS video of the Malibu and Bel Air crash (contained in this video) when they start getting a little too whiny about modern cars. People lose perspective, or simply never thought about how modern cars are superior in virtually every respect (except price) to their ancestors. I love that old iron, but I don't lie to myself about the level of engineering that went into them, versus what is embodied in a modern vehicle.
Except for transmissions. THEY ALL crap out at 100K and cost 5K to fix. Except for Toyota.
@@markgigiel2722 It’s funny you’d say that...the only trannies I’ve ever had to rebuild were vintage. A couple of manuals, a Ford C4, and a Mopar 727. On the other hand, I have a car with a ZF 6-speed automatic with over 300K on it. Although I did have an Acura that cr*pped our at about 130K...for which they paid 3/4 of the rebuild cost.
The best modern boxes are far better than the oldies. The best vintage automatics, like the Turbo-Hydramatic 400 were very strong (center shaft support bearing, oversized clutch packs), but were limited to direct third gear, and were comparatively inefficient. They also were relatively dumb, with only fluidic shift logic, while today, the control computer does rev-matched downshifts... The better modern transmissions are far stronger than even the best from back in the day. The problems start when a manufacturer insists on using a box that is too light-duty, or has known issues, like the Ford Powersh*t...excuse me, Powershift. There are other, similar examples.
That's true. Many people tend to see older cars as more tough and robust, which is not true at all.
@@jje984 Walking or bicycling is even worse. You aren't protected at all. Better to never leave the house.
Price, maintainability, visibility, privacy (no internet connected cars in my youth)
I can't believe they crashed a Bel Air.
He ain't walking out of that one!
I cried. Such a beautiful one too.
No wonder it didn't do well in the test it was rotted out look at the rust flying around
Don't worry to much about it. If you look closely it was rusted out with no engine or transmission. That's why it crumbled.
That was dust from 60 years of being around, not rust
It’s impressive how much car crash safety has improved in the last 30 years. Also sends a shiver down my spine seeing how poor the older cars fared that I was driving when I passed my test.
I still own a Mark 4 Fiesta similar to the one in the last test. Owned it since 2001. Under no illusions that it's as safe as a modern car, but it's still a lot safer than the cars from the 60s and 70s that my dad drove around in.
No car is 'safe' Crash a modern car into a concrete block at 70mph and all die. There is a lot of scaremongering about this. It's a minority of cars that are ever involved in a head on crash, often but not always the fault of the driver. People still die in modern cars
@@ronnieg6358 It has become accepted.Most viable organs for transplants come from this.
@@ronnieg6358 The point of the head on crash is not about the frequency with which that type of accident happens, it's that it's one of the worst case scenarios. If they can encourage manufactuers to produce designs that can potentially preserve life even in those situations, then that's beneficial.
@@trevhib Better to have more comprehensive training and suitability screening for drivers.
The Rover 100 (formerly called the Mini Metro) dates from 1980 as a bodyshell design, and the test shown above finished it as a model, as sales fell off a cliff when people were reminded just how dated it was. Likewise the '98 Fiesta is based on a bodyshell launched in 1989. The point is, when thinking of safety, consider how old the design is, rather than the year of manufacture of the example you're considering buying. Another issue is that many bodyshells of that era were not designed with airbags in mind, and when they were fitted in later years, they were of lesser benefit, as the bodyshell didn't hold them aligned with the passengers' heads, as in the Rover test. A real problem with driving older, "crumple-zone" cars these days is that newer, "stiffened-for-airbags" cars are everywhere, and make mincemeat of them in old vs. new crashes, whereas they might have done a bit better against another crumple-zone car of the same era.
Many if not all the older cars were some of the worst of their generation. Fr example A MK2 Golf would fair much better than the fiesta, dispite being older.
@@idrisddraig2 filed under 'citation needed'! That Fiesta got 3 stars when it was tested the same time as the Metro, so hardly 'the worst of its generation'.
The nissan logo just chillin 0:44
I would keep that
*Nissan*
Innovation that excites™️
So i guess that's why their logos are now inside a transparent plastic thing, like a dissected butterfly
As a firefighter I can tell you how little fun it is to rescue someone out of a car looking like the old cars in the video. It’s less work to cut him out but the injury’s are way worse. And depending on the circumstances you can still get crash results with modern cars looking like the old ones. I don‘t won‘t to imagine how the old cars would‘ve looked like in this situation.
60mph in any car is definitly going to be serious don't you would fair well even in a Volvo XC90.
These accidents were at mild speed. If you crash at 130 km/h or 80 miles/h you´ll be smush either way.
@@DanRyzESPUK If you are crashing head on at 130 km/h (motorway), something has gone really wrong though. Except if someone is speeding real bad on a country road..
@@Maakola77 Bad news, things go wrong sometimes. And many frontal crashes occur in one lane roads when overtaking (typical 100 kms/h) so not that "rare".
Basically modern cars are built to pass the crash tests specifically. How well they do in a real crash depends entirely on how similar to the test conditions a real crash is.
Seeing one of these videos is what made me finally retire my old ‘93 car even though I loved it. They didn’t even do side impact and other tests back then. When they did test it, the NTSB rated side impacts as ‘poor’. Poor means that your door pushes into the side so hard that your head bounces off the other cars hood.
I used to believe in a ‘big safe old car’ when it is far better to buy a little new car than even an old midsize car. I opted for a newer midsize car, front and side airbags, and never looked back.
A lot of people seem to believe that. They should be made to watch this video.
yeah. i agree. these kinds of videos are a real eye-opener for me. I dont understand cars....but i understand what i saw here.
newer = safer
no contest.
i'm happy to find out i was wrong before it was too late.
@@GeoEstes The GM test was fake. It was built with thinner reproduction parts. They wanted dramatic footage so they did what they needed to do to make it impactful.
@@davidparker9676 yeah, right...
@@GeoEstes yeah, that happens a lot around here too (south america). People do believe old big cars are more safe than new ones.
Those pesky “government regulations” look pretty good.
To be fair, though, many of these tests which pushed the envelope were outside the government sphere, like the IIHS tests in the US. NHTSA's tests were weaker.
ok bootlicker
Ok you can keep the UglyAir, give me a new car.
Also don't complain when your spine gets broken as a result of a mild crash.
@@awesomeone2979 not exactly. Safety regulations often drive car design. For instance, there are specific dimensional requirements, meant to reduce injury during collisions with pedestrians. Disappearing B pillars are also a thing of the past because rigidity is extremely important in modern regulations.
@@awesomeone2979 To think that all cars from the '50's are "beautiful" and that all new cars are "ugly" is definitely closed-minded. There did seem to be more of an effort on the idea of creating a piece of rolling artwork, though, but as the above poster noted, there are certain restrictions that can't be completely overcome now. The larger problem, I feel, is that unique characteristics have gotten lost over time in an effort to become more like the "top car in the class," so what you have now are the best car in the class and a bunch of copycats from other manufacturers as opposed to taking their own approach to things.
Cause of death? 1959 Chevy Bel Air dashboard lodged in throat lol
120 likes 0 comments lol
This is a consumer “must see” video. I joke with friends when I hear the old “they sure don’t make cars like they used to”, by replying “thank God!” My daughter was in a head-on collision driving a 2013 Honda Fit - the other driver fell asleep on a freeway access road crossing onto the interstate from the opposite direction - and while her car was utterly annihilated, she escaped with relatively minor injuries. It’s all made obvious in this excellent video!
Estos autos está hechos para que toda la parte de adelante reciban el golpe y dejen la cabina donde está el conductor intacto,
3:00 Ah yes .. the airbag would definitely save the passenger there
yes it did!
Ěbpï⅚wew
The airbag: alright ima head out
1 airbag FOR driver and pasaanger =}}}}}
Lmao. It was still deploying as it sailed passed the drivers skull. Jesus i dont know how anyone survived accidents back then.
Rest in peace to the ones who were killed in automobile accidents due to lack of safety specs.
At least they drove more beautiful cars than modern hideous ones.
@M J thats crazy
Ayrton Senna
@@brucedickinson8993 This hurt 😞
@@ligametis bruh
Scary how the older cars crumble. So much respect for all the scientists and engineers who’ve done so much for car safety
And, it only took them several decades, and hundreds of thousands of fatalities.
@@marktwain2053I don't get how safety wasn't priority at first anyway, the sides are still not well protected imho though better than in the past
Me: we gotta have Airbag in our Car
Mom: But we do have Airbag in our car
2:58 Airbag in our car
Phahaha! 😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
idk why they even made an airbag in this car.. it seems so pointless lol
middle rear passenger airbag
Why the dummy missed to hit the airbag 🤣
man, that hurt watching a 1959 Bel Air destroyed.
Be glad you weren't in the driver's seat.
@@21stcenturyfossil7 I've been in a head-on about as bad as these while driving a pick-up truck. I had come to a full stop half on the shoulder when the other drive crossed the line and hit me. He literally was searching the passenger side floor for something not even looking or braking. The seat belt did it's job, but the problem was the car that shot under my bumper lifted the truck up and threw it backward. It was the top of my head contacting the roof that did the damage to my vertebra.
Same with that Nissan tursus
You won’t be even hurt when you’re inside and crash it
@@HwangInhoBooNam yes you would. no air bags and a steel dash they would scrape your face off of. And that's if you bought the seatbelts sold as extra. Otherwise you'd be launched through the windshield. Then there is the chance of being impaled on the steering column. I use to own a vintage car.
"They dont make em like they uses to." Yea, good.
yeah, but I bet all those older cars will still run again. All those new ones are done for good. Older cars are meant to compress in a crash the only reason the older car accidents looked more fatal is because they did not have airbags.
@@grahamcross7887 OIder ones also dont have the newer technology for the crumple zone......just look at how the old one has the entire dash and steering wheel come flying at your head.....new cars are designed to collapse the entire front and steering so it doesnt get jammed into the driver.
@@grahamcross7887 yeah and the whole damn car went into the drivers face which would've been fatal
The 59 Chevy was an X frame. Try it again with a 57
@@grahamcross7887 no car is worth your life. Old car may still run afterwords but you'll be dead and unable to drive anyways
"I can't believe they're crashing all these beautiful vintage ca-... Oh my gawd, get these death traps off the road!" lol
piyupoiteqpooiuyrrewqpppuytewqq
Siva Chandru, he is speaking the language of gods
RUSSIAN language
Well if your a good driver you don’t need to worry lol
@@andrew02alex Doesn't matter how good you are when most drivers suck. You being a great driver won't save you if some dickhead texting and driving smashes into you.
"They don't build them like they used to..."
Good!
Bad
That's what I always think, if a can avoid driving a death trap I will.
@@davidg8628
Haha , my insurance agent said he gets the chills thinking about me driving my 91 Jetta with no airbags whatsoever 😆
Well modern cars are built so that the car takes the impact rather than the passenger in case of an accident
@@MrTheHillfolk They want you to pay more for insurance for a new model, gucking bastards...
I showed my mother this video and she changed her mind on the spot about "don't make 'em like they used to." Obviously some products are made weaker, but I'm glad that car safety was a priority, despite layman opinions about how easily they're crumpled.
too bad they cheated by using heavier new cars vs lighter old ones. Do a square body suburban vs a prius next...
@@thefinalroman The 1959 Bel Air and 2009 Malibu both weigh about 3500 pounds. As to the Suburban vs Prius, of course a much larger and heavier car will fare better than a smaller lighter car.
@@thefinalroman Weight isn't everything, the Wrangler for example did worse in the IIHS side impact test than many sedans.
The whole Old Cars Are Safe thing is total BS
Bruh that was a clean Bel Air
Ikr
It could've been an old test car or something. I saw a picture of both the cars standing in a museum so it still survives to this day.
@@arunparkin2552 They bought the car specifically for this test. Their statement was something like "We wanted a nice original car, but not a museum piece".
@@arunparkin2552 there was some article with the previous owner who said he didn't know were buying it for crash test.
Probably came from an estate sale, it was sitting in Grandpa's garage when he passed away...
Airbag : Opens
Steering : Flies Away
0:10 - The Nissan Tsuru was manufactured until 2015, and this model was used in tests after its first tests when NCAP began testing with cars from Latin America (LatinNCAP). The model used in the test is from 2015, it is a real coffin on wheels.
BeamNG Drive was so good they made it into a real thing!
n5vBill nah bro that’s just a concept of what beamNG 2 will look like. Coming 2033.
@@halomaster213 they never announced beamng 2 :I
Nissan Tsuru armadilha mortal
Old Fiesta did pretty well for his age showing a good development
Vc misturou as línguas 😂😂
O maluco misturou as línguas kkk
I passed my car driving test in January 1990 and my first car was a 1985 Austin Mini ..I shudder to think how badly this car would have failed in a serious accident.
Cars from the 1960s-1970s-1980s and even the 1990s were total death traps (Maybe except for very well-made cars such as the Volvo 240 and Mercedes-Benz W126)
Recent car: Slight to no intrusion into the occupant survival space.
Old car: What survival space?
Dumb drivers are sent to the G O D D I M E N S I O N
old car: driver is the crumple zone
@@ChrisPatrick-q6k translation: "idiots too dumb to drive straight shall be sent to heaven"
"They don't make them like that anymore" in this case maybe that's a very good thing
Both amazing and terrifying. Kudos to our engineers and regulators.
Sad but true, since most consumers would, absent government regulation, opt for price over safety. Just look at the fools who refuse to take a free Covid-19 vaccine, and end up in an emergency room later, costs to be born by the rest of us (higher insurance and/or taxes).
@@raylopez99 this has zero to do with the over politicized mess we call covid
@@raylopez99You don't understand man, you're taking away my God given freedom of dying from a preventable disease!
Forget the music I want to hear the sound of impact
@Green Mills hahaha i was expecting a huge sound like the normal accidents on streets, not 2 hotwheels crashing
@@SecretPesch lol. It sound like a toy car crash.
@@-m.d.n-9019 you obviously didn't ever assist or be in a car accident.... What can I say, lucky you, but is not a very loud event, only if the driver breaks hard there will be the screeches of the tires but the impact is not that loud and last a sec.
@@sareth90 I've been in several, can confirm what you say. Brakes, screeching tyres, engine noise, all that makes it a lot louder and more dramatic. The actual impact is not that loud.
2:59 airbag is like i'm done your'e on your own boii
It's really heartwarming how much those car companies care about their customers, building in all those safety features after they have been forced by la... wait, hold on a second!
😄😅😂
The difference is newer cars have enchanced cockpit protection which means when the frontal part of the car collapses in the crash, the mighty force from that impact does not reach the windscreen or the leg space but if they had used this concept with older cars, we could still drive them today.
It's also because modern cars are meant to crumple in front and rear.
Where as back then this wasn't known. So built them to be sturdy up all around. Problem with that is that is it makes cabin the ideal zone to absorb impact
1:50 the guy in the bel air looks like he's wearing a "make america great again" hat lol.
Ok?
@@ericgu9036 ok?
anyone knows the name of the background music :)?
Still can't find this
The only thing the Rover's airbag did was deflect the driver's head into the A-pillar!
Nimmo1492 Rover Metro was an awful car. Me and two mates went camping in Cornwall in one 30 years ago.
That rover crash just made me feel sick!
Apparently this test made Rover decide to stop building them.
One of the front passengers doesn't even get an airbag!
Remember though that the Rover 100 was basically an updated Mini Metro, which was launched in 1980
The best is 3:00 where head just MISSES the airbag! Omg! :D
What do you mean that's the rear passenger airbag
The driver one are you blind? He literally just flew across the driver bruh.
This is cool because it shows the recent engineering advances provided by dynamic computer modelling, but it would be even more interesting to see a 2000 model versus a 2020 model to see if advances plateaued 20 years ago
The bel air are in working restored condition (with very minimal rust and good frame) they bought it for $8500, the dust when the car crashed are not rust its a road dirt
Right. But the professional tin-foil conspirationists will still bleat it is "rigged". YT 'university' crowd is what it is.
Should be illegal to crash the Bel air 1959
@@Gavichap PROVE it genius...or are you just typing stuff? I remember crashing into plenty of shit in my parents 1983 Buick LeSabre. Didn't even dent the big chrome bumber. Took out: a fence, a bush, and two small trees. You don't need "crumple zones" and "airbags" in a
TANK!!!!!
GREAT IDEA to publish that!
All automotive media cries about cars getting heavier - here's why!
Don't get me wrong, I love older car's for their style and ease to work on - but I also have driven several 100k on autobahn and old cars are just so weak. For city traffic ok, but...
Kinda curious as to what cars you were driving. My '87 Crown Vic was still hitting 80 mph no sweat in 2014. Didn't start complaining until we hit around 100-110. Could also tow a fully loaded two-horse trailer. (We often used it for moving.) Steep hills from a dead start on the other hand... She'd grumble at you all the way up. Old girl was quirky like that. XD
When I hear old people talk about cars not being like they used to and they used to be tanks I think of this video.
Now that we know building a safe car is possible.. Can we go back to building beautiful and goodlooking cars now!
EXACLY!
there are lots of beautiful cars now but they're too expensive for normal people to buy them
@@sourmiIk even expensive cars look very different from the old ones.
Well, that Bel Air was NOWHERE beautiful. It looked like a sorry and bloated grannie's car like the Edsel from the very start.
Ok boomer , old cars are ugly
But back in its days, these “dangerous” cars were praised for their safety.
Francis Which should tell you what death traps there were 20 years before those cars to make them so good in comparison.
It will probably happen exactly the same in another 20 years
@@FockeWulfFW200 cars wont exist in the next 50 years
@@FockeWulfFW200 It wont.
@Francis: As they are today! They praise the crap they sell today and still millions of people die in these boxes of crap!
The 1992 Tsuru doesn't react to an offset frontal too differently from a late-'50s Bel Air - Incredible to see much of the improvements in car safety have actually been carried out in relatively recent years: mind the Benz Patentwagen, widely considered to be the first actual automobile, had been build in 1886, which means passive safety have improved much more in the first decade of NCAP testing than in the previous over-one-Century period!
The steering column did not protrude into the interior like on that Bel Air.
@@heikopanzlaff3789 Also different countries have different laws about safety, and the Tsuru was a car made for those countries who didn't give a damn
That Tsuru is from 2015 produced in Mexico
WOW! We have come a long way in every aspect, safety, efficiency, features, technology and performance. Lets hope we continue to get better and better.
Well, not really.The % injuries and deaths may have gone down, but the TOTALS RISE worldwide.
2:00 his clothes, those mirror dices. I present you, the coolest crash test mannequein on earth.
dummys got swag
RIP
They don't build them like they use to
Me- Good.
Me also-.wonder how much they want for that 1988 honda crx? Lol
When i saw that 50s car i cried
Really?! it's a polluting, dangerous old piece of crap best thing for it. Looking forward to swigging a cold drink from the can it's turned into
@@gtidan8467 Boy you sound like a complete Typical modern car lover.
@@gtidan8467 i never thougt i could disagree more with a YT comment
@Rata 4U No, they won't. They wouldn't know how to drive it in the first place. The buttons on the dashboard and on the steering wheel would be pretty confusing for them.
@Rata 4U And also, they won't know how to drive an automatic since, as far as I know most of the cars in the US in the 50s and 60s at least, had column shifters.
3:57 "there's just a crack in the wind screen"
ummm the whole front is missing!
Thanks for the laugh.
To be fair the Rover 100 used at 2:32 scored badly because it was an update on a car originally designed in the late '70's (Austin Metro).
Even in comparison to other cars back in the '90's it scored badly.
It was the worst car ever in NCAP testing history the Fiat Sciento was a close 2nd I'd imagine.
At 2:10 you can actually see the rust cloud coming from the old car
Thats how many of them would be if they haven't been restored in recent years, but even in perfect condition it wouldn't be much different. Thank god relatively new cars are now on the used car market with airbags all round and safer survival cell. My car is now 10yo, has ABS & 7 airbags with a 5 star rating when new, it can be had for $5000AUD, which is very affordable for a first time car buyer.
@@lancer1993 If they focused more on teaching people how to drive properly in the first place then there would be no need for safety cells and the like.
@@markwright3161 Exactly mate.
@@lancer1993 You know the only way to feel truly safe is to pay attention, no distractions, no playing on you're cellphone, and keep you're eyes on the road.
@@markwright3161 Even the best drivers in the world crash but yes with better training it could avoid a lot of crashes.
I love how the modern car just drove straight through the Chevrolet Bel Air. Literally...!!
yeah what happened to the Bel Air's steel frame?
@@edwardschmitt5710 The X frame?
My 1st introduction to crash test safety were the 1st cars I researched childhood heroes. The 1997 VW Polo, the 1999 Mercedes C class and a 2003 VW Golf. The 1999 Mercedes was the most unsafe of the 3 cars with it being based on the early 90s C class even with airbags it was useless. The 1997 VW Polo also built on the same kind of early 90s platform whilst not great was better than the Mercedes C class. The 2003 VW Golf MK4 that I first sat inside during 2008 was the 1st car I sat in where I could feel somewhat safe having watched the crash test knowing that the worse case scenario was serious but not life threatening injuires. In my 2016 Toyota Auris I have little risk of serious injuries and virtually no risk of death. 20 years is all it took for cars to go from death traps to being virtually death proof.
They should try and old Volvo or Saab from the 70s against one of the modern cars. They were built like tanks.
Like tanks, compared to the cars of the same era. Not to the modern cars.
@@DashCamSerbia Also compared to modern cars! And even stronger were the full-size American cars from the 1970-1980 era! Believe me: These videos are fake. The Chevy Bel-Air is manipulated! I've seen real life accidents of 50s cars or even 1930s cars: They have no crumple zone, just a full steel heavy duty H-frame. They were built like trucks!
@@jurivlk5433 Yes... And that's what makes them so dangerous to be inside when you have a crash. You don't want to be in a car "built like a tank" in a crash. Go spend some time studying physics.
In Finland there was an accident on a highway where an old Saab 900 drove against the traffic. Then It collided head on with a modern Vw Passat. The old Saab was completely destroyed and the elderly couple inside were killed instantly. The Passat occupants had only minor injuries.
Crashing is not all about strength. Its how the energy is disappated. So being but like a tank can actually be more fatal with such a sudden and harsh impact.
Pure science, thank you engineers for making life saving solutions!
Blame the managers for the delay.
The most surprising to me is not how much the modern cars have improved , because when you drive a newer car you clearly notice that it is much better in every way . What i am shocked about is how UNSAFE the cars were back then . I mean my mom used to own one of those 1988 ford fiesta's and back then they were considered safe cars. While on the crashtest it looked absolutely awfull . Looks like u could get serious injuries from that crash ,maybe even die from it. As in the modern Fiesta really looks like a safe car now .
Please make stronger cars for everyone’s safety I love my family
Have to take the older cars off the road as the new ones get stronger the older ones get weaker
How about pay attention and don't play on you're phone.
@Rata 4U LOL, no.
@@CJColvin Exactly what Im saying. There wouldnt be a need for all these safety regs if people would just learn to, you know, actually f***in drive!
@@DashCamSerbia LOL yes.
To survive the impact of a crash you MUST disperse the energy of said impact, and to do that you have to allow the metal frame to bend in the proper way, have a super solid frame is completely useless, in a 100km/h crash the car will slow down suddenly, undented, but your body will slam right into the steering wheel and control panel AT 100 km/h, whatever they find of you will be a mangled carcass, of if you're lucky to have retaining belts on your car your body will twist on it, pivoting around the belt, breaking your spine and ribcage at best, if you are extremely lucky, but you'll probably still be found as a mangled carcass, at least you'll enjoy feeling your spine and ribcage get shredded before dying anyway in your bEaUtIfUl UglyAir.
Don't believe me? Try this: jump down from some height and land properly, that means allow your legs to bend and absorb the impact, then do the same but keep your legs firm and straight, your heel, shinbone and calf bone, kneecaps or hipbone will explode immediately, or if you are very lucky you will just break a bone or too, either way you'll still end up in a hospital, probably thinking again on your stupid theories.
Learn some physics, baboons.
Наглядный пример того что современные машины безопаснее , а то многие кричат что раньше авто были крепче
I remember going on vacation when I was a kid. We drove at night to avoid traffic jams. I was in the back of the car with my sister, neither of us strapped in, me lying on the bench and my sister lying between the bench and the front seats on a cushion. And my parents in the front both smoking like a chimney. It was a different time...
Totally with you, this was kind of my experience as well.
The results of the old Fiesta Mark IV are not that bad considering the model was developed in the mid 80's.
Yes, because humans were driving them
It's a successful modern car crash test, compared to the Bel Air. Lmao!
Wow how improved by time! We forget to appreciate new norms!
The fuzzy dice on the Bel Air was a nice touch.
You see that rust cloud shoot out of that old Chevy. That was not a solid car.
It shouldn't really matter, because it's not a structuaral Part of the car, only the frame is and it also represtents the General condition of cars which are that old. Of course there are fully resored ones, but also enough with serious rust issues.
Believe me, it wouldn't make any difference even if it had been one straight out of the factory.
The quarter panels started coming off almost instantly, like they weren't bolted on properly. It definitely seemed to crumple a little too willingly
The front frame broke. These central-backbone chassis GM cars were not very strong. And, it doesn't matter, anyway...they're trying to show you what a difference (in that case) 50 years of safety engineering made. It is an impressive demonstration. I often refer my fellow car-nut friends to this video when they start b**ching about how modern cars are garbage. It is pitiful to see the excuses people come up with to explain away the obvious performance difference. Whatever you think, modern cars are MASSIVELY better in their structural engineering and safety equipment than anything from previous generations. It is truly a tribute to modern structural engineering, design tools, and materials.
@@jamesw1659 If the source video is still up (between the Malibu and Bel Air), I remember a bunch of nonsense being spouted on there by the anti-modern car crowd. I guess that's proof that no matter what you show some people, they will continue to come up with excuses if they want to.
3:00 It's supposed to be a "Driver's Side Airbag" not "To the Side of the Driver Airbag"
It's timed well with the music though.
Pitting a modern car against a bondo'd up rustbucket with no engine is a real fair fight
It's good to see how the safety has improved over the years, but what they didn't tell you is, that even today you have to drive carefully!
Even a modern car would not withstand a full head-on collision against a grown tree for example and the chance of dying in an accident like that is still high!
We should see modern cars as they improve more as "less likely to die" rather than being invincible like some drivers behave :-)
Trucks and cell-phones on freeways/motorways/autobahn.Mad world.
Imagine a future where a vehicle could slam into a tree @ 100mph and have the occupant survivability be high. It's only inevitable really as we one up the safety measures. I'd imagine in the future there won't be nearly as many accidents due to automation though.
Someone is doing something good with design these days.
Considering the 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air is a much heavier car (higher momentum, greater kinetic energy) with a lot more steel, and yet the 2009 Chevy Malibu passenger cabin stayed intact and protected its test dummy with deployed airbags. In the 1959 Chevy Bel Air the steering column and dashboard were driven back into the test dummy and the passenger cabin was badly compromised. This is a testament to safety engineering. The monocoque body with crumple-zone design of the 2009 Chevy Malibu outperformed the body-on-frame design of the 1959 Chevy Bel Air even though the monocoque body of the 2009 Malibu use less steel, weigh less, and more fuel efficient. Engineers are amazing human beings.
I got rid of my classic car because of this video, thank you. I thought that since it was bigger and made of metal it would be safe. Everyone needs to see this.
You can keep your classic car in your garage don't need to give it away
This video finally cemented my latent belief that old-car nostalgia is very short-sighted. I will never idolize older cars the same!
song?
I love old automobiles and think they are very beautiful, but I do now know that beauty comes whit a price.
Exactly oh well
OMG! 1998 fiesta has an air bag? Brazilian Fiestas started having air bags in 2013.
my first car was a 1997 Fiesta - and had airbags
1:00 "lalala having a good ol drive lalalala"
GET P A N C A K E D
2:56 The airbag on that Metro... It might as well not even been there! lol
Save the old car especially chevrolet bel air
Four door six cylinder junior model with a B post.
Thank you Saab and Volvo for pushing the whole car industry towards higher and higher safety standards.
The 9000 was an absolute tank in the 80s together with the Volvo 740.The Saab 9-5 from -97 is still today an extremely safe car to crash in. Saab 9-5 and Volvo S80/V70 really did set a new standard for passenger safety in the 00's and 10's.
Saab and Volvo cared about safety before they had to. The others followed when they were forced to because of regulations.
Compare that -97 Rover in the vid to a -97 Saab 9-3. You get the difference quite quickly.
MB is probably the brand that has done the most though.
Ask any motorcyclist and they will tell you about Volvo drivers. They drive like idiots because they feel safe, but are a danger to everyone else.
@@martinsv9183 They invented the car itself and airbags, Bosch who work with German car makers including MB invented ABS and traction control too. Mercedes sold their airbags as luxuries not safety equipment at least pre 1995 they did. Volvo is the most safety focussed car manuufacture and currently the safest car on the planet is the latest Volvo XC90 which is safe on multiple roll overs which is not even tested for. Volvo were also the first to pass the small overlap test despite the car used being designed 8 years before the test was released.
@@gravemind6536 Airbags was a safety equipment not luxory. There's nothing luxorious with a bag.
SAfest car on the planet is probably the MB EQS. And all the S-classes. Also the E classes has also often had better results than Volvo. The manufacturer that spends most on safety is MB.
I know modern cars are far safer than old ones but the only car accident I was ever in was when my Dad's elderly Volvo (I was the pssenger) was hit by a modern Audi. They hit corner to corner, similar to these tests, at quite low speed & no-one was hurt in either car but the cars themselves were totally different. We drove home from the accident in the Volvo which then spent 1 day at a garage for some minor scratches to be repainted, a new piece of trim and a new headlamp fitting. Just the fitting, the bulbs were fine. The Audi was completely written off and left the scene on a flatbed, in pieces. The two vehicles looked as though they had been in two entirely separate accidents. From that day, I've never been in an Audi & I never will.
Sure the newer cars are probably safer, but just like you’ve I’ve seen crashes with older cars and modern ones where the old car needs like a dent buffed out and some new paint and the new car is just a piece of scrap.
E falam que os carros antigos são mais resistentes a colisão, incrível como os novos modelos absorvem mais o impacto, fora o airbag que protege bem nesses casos. Great video
0:58 in Driving schools they should show this to future drivers what happens when you speeding
And why car choice is important when in market for a car, new or used.
wow the interior shots of the 92 nissan are terrifying
I remember my parents throwing me in the backseat of a rusty Datsun in the 80s, no rear seatbelts.The only AC was a slight lowering of the side window that they rolled down to blow the cigarette smoke out of.
Kids today have no idea in the backseat of a Tesla.
Maybe they were thinking at least without the seatbelt you'll only be flung out of the car at a high rate of speed instead of being crushed by it 🤷♂️
Thank goodness for progress.
@@vejet if you're in the back, how can you be flung out, you'll just smash against the headrest of the seats infront
Don’t forget that in the 70s and early 80s when you bought a new car you took the seatbelts and you shoved them in between the cushions so that they would Be out of the way. And of course my favorite was the station wagon with the rear facing back bench seat where the kids sat literally looking face to face with the driver of the car behind them.
@@latsnojokelee6434 I used to argue who would sit in the "well" with my sister in the 70's. That was the space behind the backseat of my dad's vw Bug.
hmm, i was led to believe that older cars were stronger (stiffer), and that they were unsafe because they didn't crumple enough to absorb the impact of a crash. That was a f'n lie.
1:00 worst fear being crushed like that
1:28 SACRILEGE! 😭
More like pancake
Can't find this music
that the Nissan Tsuru is from 2015
No, it is not.
@@papi8370 Yes, it was. While the Tsuru's design was from the 90s, both cars were the same model year.
compu85 true. It’s for indian market. I think
@@syroboi3524 México, actually, it was sold here until it ended production on 2017. The Mexican government made airbags obligatory and Nissan said that the structure of the Tsuru wasn't able to hold an airbag so they (finally) stopped producing it and selling it.
It's a good thing we have government regulations and requirements, as well as independent NCAP tests today. In this capitalist system, they are the foundation of our safety. Otherwise, manufacturers would put us in a tin can and charge us as if it were a car.
I remember seeing a bumper sticker on an older car once, that said "No Airbags - We Die Like Real Men"
old car will absorb more softly the impact and break more evenly your bones
Yes
And because everybody chose not to wear their seatbelts in the old cars, it was not unheard of for people in the backseat to become airborne missiles and go flying through the windshield at high speed impacts.
2:22 this guy painted a wilson on the airbag :)
I was sitting in the back of my great grandpa’s Chevy Bel Air when I was a little kid. Thank goodness we never crashed. I mean, holy cow.
Meanwhile 90's Volvos are still pretty safe for today's standards, such as Volvo V70 or a Volvo 850. There's even a crash test on TH-cam featuring an old Volvo vs a new Volvo. The new one ended up better, but the old one wasn't bad at all.
Not to mention Saab. The 9000 was an absolute tank in the 80s together withe the Volvo 740.The Saab 9-5 from -97 is still today an extremely safe car to crash in. Saab 9-5 and Volvo S80/V70 really did set a new standard for passenger safety for the 00's and 10's.
Saab and Volvo cared about safety before they had to. The others followed when they were forced to because of regulations.
Compare that -97 Rover in the vid to a -97 Saab 9-3. You get the difference quite quickly.
not really, cars started to become safer at the beginning of this century, or in the really late 90s (1998, 1999). Huge improvement has been made in the 00s. Just look crash test of a 2006 passat vs cars from mid 90s, bigger difference in safety than 2006 vs 2021 passat!
@@affordsled No, they are not very safe compared to a 2020 car.
@@martinsv9183 Regarding the passive safety a Saab 9-5 or Volvo V70 is fully on par with todays standards. Of course they lack all the latest proactive safety systems but that does not tell anything about how safe the car is to actually crash.
@@affordsled No they are nowhere near todays standards. You can watch any crash test you want. No comparison.