| Author | Message | ||
     Vladimir Ivanovich Kirillov Grand Master Username: soviet Post Number: 611 Registered: 2-2013 |
In 1978 or thereabouts my then in laws bought a brand new Holden Commodore. I had a 1969 Cadillac at that time and I thought their Commodore was a rude joke. Now in 2016 I am about to get rid of my ex partners 1997 Commodore. Oh yes it came with an airbag and a computerized V6 Buick engine. It handles well and will hit 133 mph. It cost over $30,000 new but we got it for $2500 three years ago. In a few days a young poor man will come to collect it and what a glorious day that will be as it is to me an eyesore parked next to my 1976 Cadillac Fleetwood. This Commodore was junk from new and evidence that the general public is really gullible. I hope to fill its parking space with a decent car like a 1955 Desoto Fireflite Sportsman. No airbag, no shock absorbing steering column, and no bloody computer. My selling price for the Commodore was $0. The Desoto will be a tad more expensive at 20 to 30 grand but it won't go down in value even if the Canadians and Mexicans invade the USA to clamp Trump into a mosquito riddled Texas jail cell without tacos or hot looking eastern European women. Call me a dinosaur but I know the difference between a good looking solid car and plastic Euro trash. | ||
| Robert Noel Reddington Grand Master Username: bob_uk Post Number: 1152 Registered: 5-2015 |
I also dislike modern cars because of the amount of electronics and cheap plastic parts that break. My Jeep is an appalling example of poor build quality and parts. The electrical stuff is particularly cheap and nasty. I one year old value of a car probably shows its true new car worth. However among the dross are some good cars such as the small VWs and Jap stuff. The MPG of a car is only part of the running costs not the be all and end all. To me reliability is a major consideration. Despite the poor quality my Jeep manages to keep going and smoothly as well, roads permitting that is. On rough roads it drives like a 3 legged camel. | ||
| Jeff Cheng Experienced User Username: makeshift Post Number: 31 Registered: 2-2016 |
If you're after a super cheap runabout and are afraid to get your hands dirty once in a while, I've usually found the most economical choice is whatever local cars the government ran 15 years ago. Hold on, you might say, but let me explain myself. - Ex-government fleet means there were lots of them, many now in junkyards for cheap second hand parts. - Lots of them also means lots of servicing and repairs by sheer fleet numbers. Economies of scale for the parts manufacturers means even new parts will be cheaper. Consumables, engine parts, suspension bushings. - They're usually adequately powered for hauling cargo, meaning eventually they end up in the hands of teenagers as a cheap thrill. A good thing because teenagers are thrifty and rather save their money (for new go-fast bits) by doing their own wrenching. Combined with the web and forums, virtually any problem has already been documented with solutions. The trick is to find a nice example to begin with. Then from there it's all smooth sailing. P.S. my daily driver is a 1999 Fairlane. It cost me $2500 with 270,000km on the clock. It's a tarted up Falcon and mostly horrible, but if it breaks down in the middle of nowhere, there's always parts and knowledge around to get me back on the road. That and if it's a total loss, I can just throw it away and buy another. | ||
| Patrick Ryan Grand Master Username: patrick_r Post Number: 559 Registered: 4-2016 |
Gents, I love old cars as much as the rest of us here. I drive a 25 Chevrolet sitting up as high as a 100 series land cruiser with no seat belts, no roll over protection except small timber hoops with vinyl over them, brakes on the back wheels only, and a steering column that that resembles a javelin with a wooden steering wheel affixed to it. I don't mind my kids driving it, but not until after extensive training. I teach them to drive like riding a motor cycle, be vigilant as everyone on the road wants to kill me, so look far ahead, and far behind. But I am also aware not to let them drive it much. It's not that I don't trust them, I just don't trust other drivers. If you look at pics of 20's cars that have been in crashes, it's pretty horrific. I don't know if many of you have seen this, but most like me when first shown this said "I'd rather be in the old car for sure" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_ptUrQOMPs My point is that old cars can be a death trap simply based on their level of technology. Things in cars are designed to break for the occupants safety, but I agree with Robert, they shouldn't break prematurely. As Jeff said, good old fleet hacks are bullet proof and parts are available anywhere, this is a good point. I get asked to buy, check and advise on purchases of a second car or a car for the kids who have just got their licence. "Japanese or Korean, NEVER European or Chinese" This is based mainly on their reliability and the availability of parts. Most families have a reasonable budget these days set aside for this, so a 4 or 5 star ANCAP rated car is usually within there means. This is a great way for them to learn, have the odd bingle and scrape, but the parents know that in most cases they have some great active & passive safety features that may ease mum and dads nerves a little. Vlad is right about new cars and the "disposability" But for me, the young need to get some really good experience before we let them into classic cars of which we are all devoted. In regards to kids doing work on cars, If they are taught well, that's a good thing. What I can't stand is kids getting together to pull wheels off, replace brakes, do modifications without any idea of what they are doing. A neighbours kid is the worst offender. More than once have I seen him in our estate with a wheel fallen off due to lack of wheel nuts etc. mostly smoking stuff they shouldn't or drinking while working on the said shitbox. He drives a death trap and continually refuses the offer of help or advice. Lastly My pet hate is: You need to have a licence and formal training for years to be able to change a light switch or power point. If this man makes a mistake, he may only kill himself. The idiot accross the road from me can go buy anything he wants for his car, fit them badly, and if something goes wrong, he may kill many more than himself. But no one is interested in this subject. I love old cars, But I also love the tech that keeps people safe in new modern throw away machines as well. | ||
| Patrick Ryan Grand Master Username: patrick_r Post Number: 562 Registered: 4-2016 |
Gents A better video of the crash test with drivers compartment footage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U | ||
| Omar M. Shams Grand Master Username: omar Post Number: 859 Registered: 4-2009 |
right ..... thats it....... my 59 Bel Air is going to be sold ASAP | ||
| Christian S. Hansen Grand Master Username: enquiring_mind Post Number: 397 Registered: 4-2015 |
Ouch! I wonder what the impact speed was in the test. | ||
| Vladimir Ivanovich Kirillov Grand Master Username: soviet Post Number: 615 Registered: 2-2013 |
Omar don't sell your Belair until you are completely convinced that that video is not a complete whack up of the propaganda department of GM. Frankly I believe that Belair had an enormous amount of metal including the left hand chassis rail removed from the car. Notice the way the late model car carves into the Belair - er yes like a hot knife through butter - its not even slightly believable unless 2 + 2 = 7. Actually its as believable to the extent that the domino theory was to justify Vietnam, or Bush yap of WMDs in Iraq or Putin's nonsense about Syria. Its first rate capitalistic dribble aimed at an extremely poorly educated US public to con them into selling their reliable old cars and buying a new car so that the present vultures in GM can eat up any meat left on the bone after Fanny Mae and a pack of US banks managed legislate the milking of the US treasury via the president. But its more - its pure comedy like Saturday Note Live. I saw this video years ago and got a big giggle out of it then. I have looked around wrecking yards for years and seen direct and primary evidence that crumple zone theory on late model junk ends up with the safe occupants bone tissue impregnated in the back seat alongside the airbag. BS is totally legal in the west and that video is proof of this fact. | ||
| Patrick Ryan Grand Master Username: patrick_r Post Number: 564 Registered: 4-2016 |
Vlad, I don't know wether this is engineered to get this result or not. The fact is technology has allowed cars to crash safer compared to old cars. Look at some of the crash test photos of Silver Shadows, they fold like a house of cards. Am I going to sell my Shadow or the even more unsafe 25 Chev, no! Nor should you either Omar. Cars disintegrate today to take the impact away from the occupants. Thus it does not take much to write one off. Christian I believe the impact was at 60kph. Another example is this a friend of mine on his Chev site posted of a club member who was rear ended in a not so fast accident.  It has completely peeled the body off the chassis, which is fairly common in non monocoque cars. | ||
| David Gore Moderator Username: david_gore Post Number: 2254 Registered: 4-2003 |
OK - This test has been deliberately set-up to concentrate the crash loadings on a small area of both vehicles to cause the greatest possible damage. An analogy would be hitting a piece of wood with an axe [concentrated impact] and a sledge hammer [broad impact]; the amount of damage to the wood is significantly different for each type of impact. Same situation applies with the cars.....Q.E.D as we used at school when writing up the results of science experiments [Q.E.D. = Quod Erat Demonstrandum - Latin for "which is what had to be shown".] There is large component of a Government Agency trying to justify its existence [and future funding of course] in the the timing and content of this video. There can be no argument that crash testing has resulted in cars that protect occupants better in crashes but at the additional expense of cars that were repairable in earlier times being "written-off" at much greater cost. The main viable argument will be the comparative difference in the cost increase due to the insurance write-off to the reduced cost of medical care for crash victims. | ||
| Patrick Ryan Grand Master Username: patrick_r Post Number: 567 Registered: 4-2016 |
Good points David. | ||
| Omar M. Shams Grand Master Username: omar Post Number: 861 Registered: 4-2009 |
I must admit - the video made the Belair look like it was made out of biscuits and french toast - not steel. My 59 Belair feels like a tank - so how can it just crumble like that? Perhaps I should keep it a little longer then..... | ||
| Brian Vogel Grand Master Username: guyslp Post Number: 2090 Registered: 6-2009 |
Everyone seems to believe that "made of steel" equals "strong" but that crash test shows that energy transfer and controlled crumple is far more vital to safety. As far as how the crash was arranged, it's pretty realistic to me. There are relatively few dead head-on crashes, but lots where people realize what's about to happen and try to take evasive maneuvers, resulting in precisely the kind of front end collision shown here. Certain genuinely strong aspects of longer pieces of heavy steel can prove the most fatal. Look at what used to happen with steering columns, for instance, and parts of the car itself external to the passenger compartment being turned into ramrods and/or spears, being pushed into the passenger compartment during wrecks. The crumbling such as seen on that Bel Air is the direct result of lack of engineering for crumpling. Energy gets transferred in a way that is an unintentional domino effect where certain things that you actually would hope might give way early don't, and then start blowing things that they run into to bits. My father, God rest his soul, was for many, many years the Safety Supervisor for the local mail sorting center of the United States Postal Service. As a result I got fed a lot of safety information, including stuff like this, long before it was popular to use it in the form of a public service announcement. If you look at the crash history of two very new cars to the marketplace, Tesla and Smart, both demonstrate that passenger protection in the event of many kinds of accidents (pretty much all of them) is "light years ahead" and advances continue to be made in that arena all the time. There's plenty of crash test footage out there of various sorts of crashes, including footage of the passenger cabin during same. What was shown is hardly "false" or "propaganda," it's the cold, hard truth. Brian | ||
| Patrick Ryan Grand Master Username: patrick_r Post Number: 573 Registered: 4-2016 |
I agree 100% with Brian. At my Volvo head office we are subject to safety at all times. The multitude of old truck and car crash videos is amazing, they all reflect exactly what Brian has just said. Cars then were designed for looks, not safety. Full steel dash boards, non collapsible steering columns, and the only thing soft anywhere to be seen was under your bum. Cars and trucks today are designed more for occupant safety, and then pedestrian safety. Car mascots, wings front & back were horrifically terminal even at slow speeds. The next thing that governs car & truck design is how it slips through the air. It wont be long before all cars & trucks looks similar as a wind tunnel governs a lot of this. Getting back to the matter at hand, We love our classic cars and drive them for this reason, we just need to be vigilant as some can be death traps in certain circumstances. I know my survival rate in my 25 Chev if crashed at its top speed of 80kph will be 0. But do I stop driving it, no, or at 80kph, no. We do this because we love it. We just need to know, that new cars break easily for a reason, and that is to take damaging forces away from the occupant or pedestrians. This of course is different to crap quality that is rightly mentioned by Vlad & Robert, There is no excuse for that. |
