 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / General Car Topics / September 2005New cars safe?
I was in an accident today (as a passenger, friend was driver) a driver of a accord (03) hit us (1962 lincoln). they ran a red light an hit the drivers side door/front quarter) the accord was totaled, and all 3 passengers were taken to the hospital, the driver was seriously injured (driver/passenger wearing seatbelts, back seat passenger wasnt). while in our car, we were just alittle shaken up, and my friend has a good sized bruise on his leg and arm. and the accord was just a few inches away from my friend!!! you couldnt tell the lincoln had been hit from 35 feet (the door panel and quarter was dented, looked like someone opened the door into a large pole). and I have already fixed 80% of the damages to my friends lincoln with a dent puller (cost $15). I ask, how can New cars be considered safer? a few inches of steel was all that stood between us and death, and we were not hurt, but the 5 stars test rated accord was totaled, and sent all occupants to the hospital. they had 5 feet of car infront of them, airbags, and shoulderbelts. I wont argue we were lucky, but still, that is sad. >I was in an accident today (as a passenger, friend was driver) a >driver of a accord (03) hit us (1962 lincoln). they ran a red light an [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >hospital. they had 5 feet of car infront of them, airbags, and >shoulderbelts. I wont argue we were lucky, but still, that is sad. Primative thinking, it it was bad enough to total the accord, it did more than just damage the door. Either the impact was overrated or the damage was under rated. I have been in a bad collision in a Camary and I do not believe I would be here today if it had been another car. If it had been my old camary t-boning that lincoln with any real force, that lincoln would have been totaled too. > [quote:76b5f9232f="xmirage2kx"]I was in an accident today (as > a passenger, friend was driver) a driver of a accord (03) hit [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > t-boning that lincoln with any real force, that lincoln would > have been totaled too. Your CAMRY would be boucing like a tennis ball off that 6,000# Lincoln. Now if you do have a CAMARY that may be something special that we don’t know about. "steve" wrote: >Your CAMRY would be boucing like a tennis ball off that 6,000# >Lincoln. Now if you do have a CAMARY that may be something special >that we don’t know about. You should have seen what my Camary did to the vehical it hit. Chewed it up. My car still ran but was not drivable any real distance and it was perfect for windshield on back and all four doors were perfectly aligned and closed like new too. The unibody "sub frame" is massive in that car and held up quite well. If the car had no been so old it would have been repairable. There was a steel cage under the dashboard going side to side to re-enforce the car on side impacts too. There was no distortion in the passanger compartment at all. It would have mauled that Lincoln good in a Tbone. Back then Toyota had real 5mph plus bumpers too that really worked. When the bumper standard was introduced by the NHTSA it was set at 5 MPH. Subsequently it was reduced to 2.5 MPH because it was more cost effect than 5 MPH standard with little extra value attributed to the higher standard. Ford is the only manufacture still meeting the 5 MPH standard for all of the vehicles it builds today. No other manufacture uses the 5 MPH standard. The federal crash standard for front end collisions is 35 MPH and it is that standard that is used by all manufactures EXCEPT Ford. Ford builds all of its vehicles to withstand a 40 MPH collision. The rear collision standard it 30 MPH. Again Ford is the only manufacture that builds to a higher standard, 35 MPH. In addition the Crown Victoria is built to withstand a 50 MPH crash standard and it is the only vehicle built to do so. mike hunt "steve" wrote: >Your CAMRY would be boucing (sic) like a tennis ball off that 6,000# >Lincoln. Now if you do have a CAMARY (sic) that may be something special >that we don't know about. You should have seen what my Camary (sic) did to the vehical (sic) hit. Chewed it up. My car still ran but was not drivable any real distance and it was perfect for windshield on back and all four doors were perfectly aligned and closed like new too. The unibody "sub frame" is massive in that car and held up quite well. If the car had no been so old it would have been repairable. There was a steel cage under the dashboard going side to side to re-enforce the car on side impacts too. There was no distortion in the passanger (sic) compartment at all. It would have mauled that Lincoln good in a Tbone (sic). Back then Toyota had real 5mph plus bumpers too that really worked. Camry vs. 1962 Lincoln = Snoman corpse to morgue. This is just common sense. > "steve" wrote: > >Your CAMRY would be boucing like a tennis ball off that 6,000# [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** > ---------------------------------------------------------- A Camary against a 1962 Lincoln. Think about it. The Camary would be bug juice against a 1962 Lincoln. >A Camary against a 1962 Lincoln. Think about it. The Camary would be >bug >juice against a 1962 Lincoln. I have crashed in one and I am here today because of the cars design. It impressed even me and I am not easily impressed. That car is really built with good strength in impact areas. It take more than size to do well in a crash, it takes design as well and a 62 lincoln had no crash design to it at all. > A Camary against a 1962 Lincoln. Think about it. The Camary would be bug > juice against a 1962 Lincoln. I don't even know what a 'camary' is, but there are things to consider when talking about an accident besides the visible damage to the car. True, modern cars may be toast in some collisions, but they are designed that way. That makes more sense than it sounds like it does. Auto design currently implements crumple zones- areas designed to 'accordian' in a crash, keeping the passenger compartment intact. The hood and engine area will be totaled, but the passengers should be safe, in a car with this tech. Modern cars, though, with their lighter body materials, do not do well in front-to-side (T-bone) collisions, especially if the colliding car is a heavier model. The stiffening of door panels and pillars has helped, but not to the degree that the side of the car won't cave in. Side air bags can help, but if the whole side of the car is caved in by something heavier and structually more sound, they won't help that much. k wallace Generally, you are correct. However, I've seen many more modern cars completely severed into two pieces (the rear half in one place and the front half 50 yards further down the road. Never saw that situation happen back in the 1960's. "" wrote: > Generally, you are correct. However, I've seen many more > modern cars [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > happen back > in the 1960's. I was looking up safety ratings and the history of such, and what has been considered ’safe’ has been cut by 75% with the addition of airbags. (aka frame strength, paneling, firewall, etc) now I know airbags save lives, I wont argue that and have seen it many times, but if I ht something and my car breaks apart what is left to protect me? I understand the reducing impact yada yada yada, but when the engine breaks away because i hit something wheres it gonna go? under me so my car will flip, or on my lap. there arent many other options, and with that 1/8" think peice of fiberglass they call a firewall as my barrier between me and a 500# 500degree engine flying at me..... well lets just say Ive seen better ideas. so they will put Six $1000+ airbags into a 2005 SUV, but they wont put in a $150 roll cage so if a tire blows and you flip you still live? I know I would pay another $2000 to have a thicker frame and a roll cage on my $35,000-$50,000 SUV. Snoman, you're full of sh.t. Hit my 67 Coupe de Ville with your new crumply car and I guarantee a small dent in mine and you're in the morgue > >I was in an accident today (as a passenger, friend was driver) a > >driver of a accord (03) hit us (1962 lincoln). they ran a red light [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > If it had been my old camary t-boning that lincoln with any real > force, that lincoln would have been totaled too. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.