How to ruin a car show...
- Thread starter Blokey
- Start date
- Status
ouch! I sure hope that those vintage jalopies buff out ok?! (at least insured?!)
Q.
Q.
The driver is lucky she survived that.
Yeah, steroetypes galore, but foreign woman driver rams her fancy-pants Lexus into some good 'ole boys muscle car that he probably treasures more than his kids.....I'm amzed she wasn't lynched and torn into pieces!
Yeah, steroetypes galore, but foreign woman driver rams her fancy-pants Lexus into some good 'ole boys muscle car that he probably treasures more than his kids.....I'm amzed she wasn't lynched and torn into pieces!
I generally don't get too emotionally possessive about material things, but if I had been the builder of the Pontiac I would have been sick.
Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
I generally don't get too emotionally possessive about material things, but if I had been the builder of the Pontiac I would have been sick.
I've never even *seen* that Pontiac before today and I *am* sick.
I generally don't get too emotionally possessive about material things, but if I had been the builder of the Pontiac I would have been sick.
I've never even *seen* that Pontiac before today and I *am* sick.
shucks, that'l buff right out!
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
That old Pontiac is a write-off. The Ford will be OK. I can't believe how much damage was done to the Pontiac compared to the Lexus..... Scary!
Not touching the Asian female driver in a luxury car stereotypes
Not touching the Asian female driver in a luxury car stereotypes
Such a shame.I really like that particular body style.
The problems with these cars....
1-Hardtop.No center pillar.Nothing to keep the door jam/rear quarter from folding right in.
2-Its not a unibody but body-on-frame...Notice how the SUV overrode the rocker panel.The frame side rail is behind that.Overriding it puts all the stress on the door/jam/rear quarter panel.The frame amounts to no aid here at all.
3-Not crash tested.As the government never mandated side impact testing until recently,all your favorite 50s,60s,70s,80s,90s,00s cars were scary propositions at best in a T-bone impact.
4-Its a coupe.Those long front doors allow full access to the passenger compartment to anything wanting to break in.
5-I bet a 4 door post sedan Tempest would have faired slightly better,but obviously not as well as nearly anything made today.
6-Wonder why over 40,000 people were killed every year in the 60s when car population was a fraction of what we have today....???? Check those pics out and you'll know why.These cars look and sound rough and tough,but really,they're all paper "tigers"....
The problems with these cars....
1-Hardtop.No center pillar.Nothing to keep the door jam/rear quarter from folding right in.
2-Its not a unibody but body-on-frame...Notice how the SUV overrode the rocker panel.The frame side rail is behind that.Overriding it puts all the stress on the door/jam/rear quarter panel.The frame amounts to no aid here at all.
3-Not crash tested.As the government never mandated side impact testing until recently,all your favorite 50s,60s,70s,80s,90s,00s cars were scary propositions at best in a T-bone impact.
4-Its a coupe.Those long front doors allow full access to the passenger compartment to anything wanting to break in.
5-I bet a 4 door post sedan Tempest would have faired slightly better,but obviously not as well as nearly anything made today.
6-Wonder why over 40,000 people were killed every year in the 60s when car population was a fraction of what we have today....???? Check those pics out and you'll know why.These cars look and sound rough and tough,but really,they're all paper "tigers"....
And now you can pretty much figure out how most of the unintended acceleration incidents happened. Scary
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
That old Pontiac is a write-off. The Ford will be OK. I can't believe how much damage was done to the Pontiac compared to the Lexus..... Scary!
Yeah, well even today cars aren't designed to survive a side-impact where the impacting car is airborne and comes through the window. You can tell that the Lexus was either airborne or extremely nose-high with the suspension unloaded because *nothing* touched the Pontiac's door sill and frame beam and the door strike pillar is laid downward into the passenger compartment- had the Lexus' bumper caught the frame, the dynamics would have been different and the Ford would have taken a bigger hit too. Couple that with an old B-pillarless hardtop design with no side-impact beams, and yeah. Big mess. But also a very unlikely crash scenario. And no, I'm NOT saying that "big old cars are just as safe as modern cars." I'm just saying this was an extreme situation.
That old Pontiac is a write-off. The Ford will be OK. I can't believe how much damage was done to the Pontiac compared to the Lexus..... Scary!
Yeah, well even today cars aren't designed to survive a side-impact where the impacting car is airborne and comes through the window. You can tell that the Lexus was either airborne or extremely nose-high with the suspension unloaded because *nothing* touched the Pontiac's door sill and frame beam and the door strike pillar is laid downward into the passenger compartment- had the Lexus' bumper caught the frame, the dynamics would have been different and the Ford would have taken a bigger hit too. Couple that with an old B-pillarless hardtop design with no side-impact beams, and yeah. Big mess. But also a very unlikely crash scenario. And no, I'm NOT saying that "big old cars are just as safe as modern cars." I'm just saying this was an extreme situation.
Originally Posted By: NHGUY
3-Not crash tested.As the government never mandated side impact testing until recently
I think the bigger issue is that its a pre-1973 model, which was the year when side-impact protection was first mandated, let alone tested.
Originally Posted By: NHGUY
Check those pics out and you'll know why.These cars look and sound rough and tough,but really,they're all paper "tigers"....
Well, yes and no. Modern cars are certainly better designed and crash tested for a wide variety of crash scenarios (front, side, offset, rear, rear offset, etc.) On the other hand, you can't defeat simple old F=MA. Having been in a collision in my '69 in 1994 where a gal ran a red light and hit me in the left front quarter without ever touching her brakes, I can tell you the result. I walked away without so much as a bruise, my car lost a quarter panel, wheel, and the left front suspension components but is obviously now fully restored, and HER Mazda was a write off with the radiator and engine stuffed under the dashboard, and she was banged up a bit but thankfully OK.
Had she hit me 4 feet further back... well... who knows. But I'd have definitely been hurt at least a bit and my beautiful R/T would have had a destroyed unibody instead of the subframe taking all the pressure.
What I'm saying is that with old cars the relative protection is MUCH more dependent on exactly how and where the impact occurs. They're extremely safe in some cases, unsafe in others.
3-Not crash tested.As the government never mandated side impact testing until recently
I think the bigger issue is that its a pre-1973 model, which was the year when side-impact protection was first mandated, let alone tested.
Originally Posted By: NHGUY
Check those pics out and you'll know why.These cars look and sound rough and tough,but really,they're all paper "tigers"....
Well, yes and no. Modern cars are certainly better designed and crash tested for a wide variety of crash scenarios (front, side, offset, rear, rear offset, etc.) On the other hand, you can't defeat simple old F=MA. Having been in a collision in my '69 in 1994 where a gal ran a red light and hit me in the left front quarter without ever touching her brakes, I can tell you the result. I walked away without so much as a bruise, my car lost a quarter panel, wheel, and the left front suspension components but is obviously now fully restored, and HER Mazda was a write off with the radiator and engine stuffed under the dashboard, and she was banged up a bit but thankfully OK.
Had she hit me 4 feet further back... well... who knows. But I'd have definitely been hurt at least a bit and my beautiful R/T would have had a destroyed unibody instead of the subframe taking all the pressure.
What I'm saying is that with old cars the relative protection is MUCH more dependent on exactly how and where the impact occurs. They're extremely safe in some cases, unsafe in others.
I'm surprised the air bags didn't deploy, unless the Pontiac made a darn good "cushion" so the deceleration wasn't enough to trigger them.
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
man, these old cars were POS death traps.
Very astute.
This is the principal reason I don't own one.
man, these old cars were POS death traps.
Very astute.
This is the principal reason I don't own one.
Just another parking lot fender bender, right?
That V6 in lexus was too powerful for the drivers' skills. ;-)
I'm surprised no one tried to blame it for unintended acceleration. Funny how over a year changed everything.
That V6 in lexus was too powerful for the drivers' skills. ;-)
I'm surprised no one tried to blame it for unintended acceleration. Funny how over a year changed everything.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Just another parking lot fender bender, right?
That V6 in lexus was too powerful for the drivers' skills. ;-)
I'm surprised no one tried to blame it for unintended acceleration. Funny how over a year changed everything.
Oh, I was thinking about it..... LOL
Just another parking lot fender bender, right?
That V6 in lexus was too powerful for the drivers' skills. ;-)
I'm surprised no one tried to blame it for unintended acceleration. Funny how over a year changed everything.
Oh, I was thinking about it..... LOL
lmao made my night
- Status
Similar threads
