crash survival rates?

[p24-1953]

I was talking to my insurance sells man today and he stated he would never drive an old car due to the fact the were so "deadly". I think that he is overstating his case a little. Maybe in 1950 when you had a ton of steel hitting a ton of steel, with no crumple zones or seat belts, but against a modern car? wouldnt you think our solid steel cars wuold fare decently against a "squishy" modern car?

[55 Fargo]

I have read and have been told the doors pop open in collisions, whether this is fact, or not I am not sure.

Hmm, the 40s and 50s cars for the most part were full-framed vehicles, I always thought that would help protect the integrity of the car upon impact, maybe I am wrong, as I am no expert with vintage cars and what happens to them in major collisions.

Lets face it, in 1950, most people only drove there cars at 50 to 55 mph on the highways, still a lot of gravel roads in those days, on gravel most folks would probably cruise at 45 mph.

The fact there was less traffic volume, lower highway speeds, possibly contributes to maybe less accident fatalities in the old days, but again I am speculating, this is not based on empirical evidence.

I would think, a T bucket with a 400 hp SBC, would be about as risky as riding a motorcycle on the highway, but who knows for sure.

An A model ford, with a SBC, and modern drive train doing 70 mph on the highway would no doubt be in trouble with a major impact.

People who drive Hotrods, Collector cars, and maybe even old beater 1947 Chryslers like me are usually more vigilant, more careful, and watch other drivers, with a vengance.

What the heck does your insurance guy know anyway, probably never rode in a 48 P15.........Fred

[RobertKB]

Your insurance sales guy is a person who always fears the worst. Yes, our cars are probably not as safe as the new ones if involved in an accident. Hoever, he better not walk across the street though as he might get run over as he has a higher chance of that happeining. He better not eat too much red meat or he might have a heart attack earlier than if he ate chicken. Life is full of risks from the time you are born. It's knowing when to take them and how to avoid them if possible that is important. I don't have seatbelts in any of my old cars but I try to drive one everyday I can but I am concious of being very defensive when driving them. In fact, I just came back from a 30 mile cruise in my '48 Dodge D25 without seatbelts and am actually still alive. Tell your insurance guy to get a life, one he can enjoy!

[Bodacious]

Another large factor in older cars is the lack of a collapsible steering column. I remember seeing an accident as a child in which a woman died in a '57 Ford. The car impacted with the left front corner only and it didn't really look that bad. However it was bad enough to spear her with the steering shaft causing fatal internal injuries.

[BobT-47P15]

And those Fords had the safety deep dished steering wheels......along

with padded dashes----I think.

[PatS....]

Doesn't seem these doors stayed shut on a rollover:

No-one survived this one...4 fatalities...belts may have made a difference?

[JIPJOBXX]

I really think if I hit my 2005 Honda with my 42 that the Honda would just collapse and turn back into an American coke can.

[JIPJOBXX]

Interesting picture and I don't think the people who slamed the tree faired out to well. Jon:(

[buds truck]

The Newer Cars Are Made With "crush Zones" In The Frame Rails, Hoods And Aprons In The Front And Rear Rails In The Back That Absorb A Certain Amount Of The Energy Of The Impact And Lessen The Damage To The Occupants. As An Insurance Adjuster And Former Bodyman, I Have Seen Numerous Heavy Front And Rear End Hits That Did Not Affect The "capsule Area", Which Is The Area That The Occupants Would Be Sitting. Amazingly Enough, All 4 Doors Would Still Open And Shut With Ease. A Full Framed Vehicle With Some Years On It Did Not Have These "crush Zones" And All The Energy That Was Made From The Impact Would Be Transferred Directly To The Occupants, Thus Adding To Their Injuries. Most Times The Doors Would Be Either Difficult To Open, Jammed Shut Or Popped Open. I Love My 49 Plymouth, But Would Not Expect To Fare As Well Thru A Similar Crash As With With A Newer Vehicle. I Accept That Risk. The Insurance Salesman Is Correct. (i Would Have Said That Before I Got Into That Industry). Bud

[curtiswyant]

I asked the same question on the HAMB a while back and got some interesting answers. I think with an old car, the car itself will fare far better than a newer car, but a newer car will protect the passengers better. Straight steering columns, metal dashes, no seat belts, no crumple zones, etc have all been mentioned. Your chances of dying in an accident today are much lower than it was 50 years ago even though speed limits and traffic are much higher.

[p24-1953]

thats strange i asked it today on the hamb and my thread got closed after 5 min....

[62rebelP23]

insurance guys are by nature pessimistic.

i have thought long and hard about why i prefer the vintage over the modern, and sheer mass has a lot to do with it. IMHO if you add seatbelts to an old car and wear them, you've increased your odds 100%. most fatalities come from striking the inside surface of the car or the steering wheel, i'd say, and by keeping this from happening as much as possible improves the odds.

i'm more pessimistic about being struck by much larger vehicles like SUV's and large pickup trucks, of which there are seemingly hundreds more on the roads than "normal sized" cars. from my counter at work i can see a 4lane highway and i'd estimate 7 out of ten vehicles that go by are large pickups and SUV's.

[buds truck]

insurance guys are by nature pessimistic.

i have thought long and hard about why i prefer the vintage over the modern, and sheer mass has a lot to do with it. IMHO if you add seatbelts to an old car and wear them, you've increased your odds 100%. most fatalities come from striking the inside surface of the car or the steering wheel, i'd say, and by keeping this from happening as much as possible improves the odds.

i'm more pessimistic about being struck by much larger vehicles like SUV's and large pickup trucks, of which there are seemingly hundreds more on the roads than "normal sized" cars. from my counter at work i can see a 4lane highway and i'd estimate 7 out of ten vehicles that go by are large pickups and SUV's.

in your first sentence you say that insurance guys are pessimistic... in your last paragraph, you say you are more pessimistic.... you must work in the insurance industry too. LOL, Bud :D

[Don Coatney]

thats strange i asked it today on the hamb and my thread got closed after 5 min....

Why did your thread get closed?

[p24-1953]

not for sure. they told me to run a search.

[james curl]

One days posts on the ham unlike here can run ten or more pages. If you post in the morning by afternoon it may already be on page five or six. That said I ran a search there for "crash survival rates" and could not find a match. I posted a thread about front supension updating on 08-02-08 and it is only half way down on page two here.

[Don Coatney]

I found it. Here is the link.

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=284083&highlight=crash+survival

[blueskies]

I would think that in a crash between one of our old cars, and a newer car, that the new car would BE the crumple zone for the old car .

Crash survival is all about deceleration physics. The more distance you have to slow the car down on impact, the less G forces your body will have to endure. In a modern car, the crush zones are, say, 2 feet. So, 60 mph to zero in 24". In a vintage car, the crush zones are maybe 2", the depth of the dent your forehead makes in the dashboard. So, 60 mph to zero in 2", exponentially increased g forces that the human body cannot withstand.

This is why wearing a seat belt, especially in an old car that does not have crush zones, is so very important. With a seatbelt, your body decelerates with the car. Without a seatbelt, your body will continue on at 60 mph until you hit the dash, coming to a rapid stop in the form of an unsurvivable splat. Sure, the cars are built like brick sh!thouses, and will survive the crash, but it is inlikely that the occupants inside will fare so well. New cars are sacrificial in the event of a crash, to protect the occupants as much as possible.

But as Jay Leno says, they will just hose off the dash of your old car and sell the car to the next guy!

Pete

[Don Coatney]

Pete;

Speaking of new cars did you get yours yet?

[blueskies]

Pete;

Speaking of new cars did you get yours yet?

Yep, finally arrived about week and a half ago, delivered to my door. No pictures yet, but I'll take some today and post them. It is remarkably quiet, even at 75mph on the freeway. It is confortable, has the full blown Navigation/audio system which is fun, visibility is great, easy to drive, etc. The guages give great feedback to achieve the best mileage.

Drove it to Boise ID from home on Sunday, about 150 miles one way. Averaged 53.4 mpg from here to there. That's about three times better than my Toyota FJ Cruiser. Imagine if everyone drove a high mpg car... we would need only 1/3 the oil we currently consume for gasoline.

The Honda Civic is a little on the boring side of car design for my taste, but right now I could car less, as the advantages far outway my design ideals. I drive about 60 miles a day so I'm all over the savings in fuel. The only thing about the car that is a bit odd is the CVT transmission. I have never driven one of these things before, so I didn't know what it would be like. It does not shift like a regular automatic, it just is a smooth increase in speed sort of like a snowmobile. For gradual and even acceleration, I hardly notice it. But when you need to get on it to move out into fast traffice, the rmps ramp up, and stay there as the car gains speed.

All in all, I think it's a great car for the transition from gas guzzler suv's to unknown technology/fuel of the next few years. If I had the cash, I'd buy another one and park my wifes Tahoe. Still can't believe I won this one, and it couldn't have come at a better time.

Pete

[Don Coatney]

Almost sounds like a Buick dynaslow but gets much better mileage. How big is it and would I fit in it?

[blueskies]

Almost sounds like a Buick dynaslow but gets much better mileage. How big is it and would I fit in it?

Don-

The car itself is a regular Civic, so you can drop by your local Honda dealer and see if it fits... It is a relatively small car, but reasonably roomy inside. Might be a tad on the small side for a feller like yourself .

Pete

[Don Coatney]

Pete;

The Boston taxi cabs were a tad small for a feller like myself:rolleyes:

[blueskies]

Pete;

The Boston taxi cabs were a tad small for a feller like myself:rolleyes:

yea, but there were five of us crammed in there (including the driver)...

Pete

[62rebelP23]

i AM pessimistic! i just know how to laugh it off. when you have to establish your point on the automotive "food chain" it helps if your steak is all tough and gristly, not all tender and sweet. my ancient Detroit steel is all tough and stringy compared to that sweet tender sushi sold by the Asians....... so when i happen to encounter one, i will explore the limits of it's crumple zones with enthusiasm.