As you gape at the below pictures and ready your snide 'see; old cars suck' commentary... please keep in mind that the pics you are used to seeing are 30-MPH impacts into stationary objects. The below pics (from the IIHS) were conducted from 43 to 49-MPH... BUT as both vehicles were moving towards each other, that's an 86 to 98-MPH impact.

Still, and I agree: yikes.

I like how the Ambassador looks like it suffered more than the Gremlin.

I had to laught at the way the impala plaughed through the Vega .. OMG..

but these are all scary...

Igor

That Galaxie looks terrible. The roof looks like it's caving in.

But the Vega...wow

Hmmm, are these supposed to be full-frontal crashes, or offset? It seems like the AMC guys chickened out at the last second and tried to swerve. :AH-HA_wink:

It would have been really cool to have been there on Crash Day to walk around the vehicles in the aftermath and survey the damage. Is that weird?

That Vega... omg.

So, as I intended to comment on originaly but forgot- people will say smaller cars are safe but no one does these tests anymore (to my knowledge- I hope that's incorrect), and they should. The roads are not filled with concrete blocks but moving vehicles. Let's see a H2 hit a sentra at 95 MPH. Physics will not be denied.

I agree whole-heartedly with you on this one balth, there should be crashes like this every day in test centers around the world, not just here in the US. I know that small cars are nice to have, but when you pair them up with something like a full-size car, or hell a pickup or SUV, you're going to lose, I don't care how well built the car is...like you said, nothing can stop physics.

what a waste of a perfectly good Ambassador

So, as I intended to comment on originaly but forgot- people will say smaller cars are safe but no one does these tests anymore (to my knowledge- I hope that's incorrect), and they should. The roads are not filled with concrete blocks but moving vehicles. Let's see a H2 hit a sentra at 95 MPH. Physics will not be denied.

I know .. but then.. I do not want to be punished into driving an SUV, justbecause so many people around me have one.... I refuse to do that .... but I am not sure what else to do..

BTW for those that ever wonderred why the B and A segment have been so slow to come .. imagine a Yaris ran over by a Suburban..

BTW you are right noone tests againts big vehicles anymore .. they test and compare to the same class of vehicles - so 5star in a minivan is different than 5star in a b-segment .. at least from NHTSA .. IIHS might be different, but htey still do not test against big vehicles.

Igor

Let's see a H2 hit a sentra at 95 MPH. Physics will not be denied.

That would be a pointless crash.

That would be a pointless crash.

ont it would not it would mean each car was doing 47.5mph and were hit head on...

quite plausible ..

Igor

In the context of the thread; obviously I meant hit each other at what would amount to a 95-MPH impact.

Aye.

Those hurt my eyes.

Yet, they are very informative/educational.... Kinda makes you wonder what today's cars would look like if put to a similar test.....

Cort, "Mr MC" / "Mr Road Trip", 32swm/pig valve/pacemaker

MC:family.IL.guide.future = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort/

Models.HO = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort/trainroom.html

"I ain't ready for the junkyard yet" ... George Jones ... 'I Don't Need Your Rocking Chair'

Think crushed beer can....

The Institute began frontal offset crash testing in 1995. In the Institute's 40 mph offset test, 40 percent of the total width of each vehicle strikes a barrier on the driver side. The barrier's deformable face is made of aluminum honeycomb, which makes the forces in the test similar to those involved in a frontal offset crash between two vehicles of the same weight, each going just less than 40 mph. Test results can be compared only among vehicles of similar weight. Like full-width crash test results, the results of offset tests cannot be used to compare vehicle performance across weight classes. This is because the kinetic energy involved in the frontal test depends on the speed and weight of the test vehicle, and the crash is more severe for heavier vehicles. Given equivalent frontal ratings for heavier and lighter vehicles, the heavier vehicle typically will offer better protection in real-world crashes.

In side crashes, weight seems to be less of an issue than strength of the passenger cell. With the IIHS side test, all cars are struck by identical SUV-like trolleys, and the results are eye-opening.

Also, while cars may be getting smaller, they're not necessarily lighter. A Ford Five Hundred weighs about the same as a much larger '62 Galaxie 500.

Aye.

Those hurt my eyes.

Yet, they are very informative/educational....  Kinda makes you wonder what today's cars would look like if put to a similar test.....

Sorento vs. Golf

XC90 vs. Golf

Sorento vs. Golf

XC90 vs. Golf

Rough translation of test from German to English:

A multi-ton off-roader rams a weedy VW Golf. A nightmare scenario on the road that the OAMTC simulated in this crash test. “Both drivers, including the Golf driver, would have survived this accident. Compared to earlier tests, this is a huge step forward,” reports OAMTC Chief Technician Max Lang. However, there is still room for improvement in the compatibility of SUVs with other vehicles.

The Golf V (1,480 kg) had to take on two giants – the 2,340 kg Volvo XC90 and the 2,270 kg Kia Sorento. Both vehicles were travelling at 56 km/h (35 mph), with half of the Golf’s width against the larger vehicle.

Volvo XC90 v Golf: The Volvo represents the modern concept of compatibility and, according to the manufacturer, is constructed so as to spare a smaller vehicle in a crash. However it doesn’t quite add up, as the Volvo rips through a crossmember and so the Golf can only support itself in points. The Volvo rises up in the collision and climbs up the front end of the VW. The dashboard is pushed back into the cabin and the driver’s knee experiences strong forces. However, the Golf’s own safety system succeeds in preventing very serious or fatal injuries to the head or chest. “This shows the progress that has been made in passive safety over the last few years. The Volvo passengers have only minor injuries,” says Lang.

Kia Sorento v Golf: The construction of this off roader is characterised by a massive ladder chassis. However, the ladder frame suddenly gives way in the crash so that the Golf can no longer support itself and bores into the “soft space” of the Kia’s front end. For the Kia driver, this means a higher risk of injuries to feet and lower legs. The occupants of the Golf are less severely injured than in the Volvo crash, however, as the dashboard is not pushed as far back. “The Golf owes the fact that it is not overridden to its safety concept,” says Lang.

There is still enormous room for improvement in compatibility between off road vehicles. In summary, “What are required are front ends that are equally stable throughout,” says the OAMTC’s chief technician. “It should not be left to chance whether the front holds out.” For off roaders, this means a crumple zone that is softer at the front to protect other vehicles with a stiffer part at the rear to protect the vehicle itself. Furthermore, the 'overriding' of cars by 4×4s must be ruled out.

Rough translation of test from German to English:

Thanks.

>>"Test results can be compared only among vehicles of similar weight. Like full-width crash test results, the results of offset tests cannot be used to compare vehicle performance across weight classes. This is because the kinetic energy involved in the frontal test depends on the speed and weight of the test vehicle, and the crash is more severe for heavier vehicles. "<<

I believe that should have read: 'the crash is more severe for lighter vehicles'.

>>"...the Institute's 40 mph offset test.... The barrier's deformable face... makes the forces in the test similar to those involved in a frontal offset crash between two vehicles of the same weight, each going just less than 40 mph."<<

This does not make sense on the surface of it. Hitting a stationary object at 40 MPH should not be comparable to hitting an object moving towards you at 40 MPH. The latter should roughly double the kinetic energy encountered.