http://www.webridestv.com/xml/wbuserembedplayer.swf?movieid=197173'>

With all those opening doors and flopping bodies, all it needs is the "Yakkety Sax" music in the background (music used in Benny Hill fast-motion hilarity).

I know I shouldn't be, but I could not help but laugh.....

Funny how most of the cars were older than '68 and from Chrysler and Ford rather than GM.

But I thought that because they were old, RWD, BOF, and weighed 5 tons that they were safer than everything made today?

WOW, That made me crack up laughing with all the flaying dummies falling out of the auto's. yea I know it is not funny, but those cars sure sucked for protecting the people inside.

Yep, I couldn't help but laugh at the footage either.

Maybe "Let the bodies hit the floor" should play during the clip.

But I thought that because they were old, RWD, BOF, and weighed 5 tons that they were safer than everything made today?

Actually, most of those cars were not BOF.

They were unibody.

Actually, most of those cars were not BOF.

They were unibody.

I don't think it would t make a difference either way, since regardless of how they were built, I'm willing to bet money they didn't do a good job absorbing the energy and controlling passenger movement.

Of course they did do a good job at keeping themselves intact.

I don't think it would t make a difference either way, since regardless of how they were built, I'm willing to bet money they didn't do a good job absorbing the energy and controlling passenger movement.

Of course they do do a good job at keeping themselves intact.

Well, they weren't even too good at that - those early unibodies were pretty weak structurally. When the floorboards would rot out, some literally folded in half.

But we are talking about cars built when seatbelts were an option, and steel dashboards were the norm.

Safety has come a long way...

No doubt.

Being 43 years old and actually having spent time in Junkyards when I was a kid and wrecked examples of these cars were everywhere...

Yes, even though they may suck in other ways...cars of the era were not that safe.

Chris

WTF, were the doors designed to open and throw passengers out onto the street during a collision?

How do we know for sure this is a GM research video? I see no GM cars atall anywhere. Wouldn't it behoove them to use their own stuff for relevancy to their mission?

Forget Unibody or BOF.... half the time the seats didn't even stay bolted down!

How do we know for sure this is a GM research video? I see no GM cars atall anywhere. Wouldn't it behoove them to use their own stuff for relevancy to their mission?

yeah, isn't this more likely to be a Chrysler vid?

but I know that GM participated in the development of early crash test dummies....

yeah, isn't this more likely to be a Chrysler vid?

but I know that GM participated in the development of early crash test dummies....

I saw one Pontiac, the rest were Chryco and Ford.

But maybe that was part of the plan, to make the competition look bad?

Also all of the cars are pre '68, some of them quite a bit earlier.

I've heard GM researchers were credited with inventing crash test dummies... can anyone confirm or deny? Also, if this was made in 1968... why use obsolete cars? It would seem to me the research would not be current, sort of a waste, really, NOT to have the newest cars in the tests.

Edited May 30, 200916 yr by ocnblu

Seemed to be videos of '60 Plymouths, '64 Plymouths, and '67 Fords..didn't notice '68 GM products.

I believe that is true, but I can't cite a source.

Did it occur to anyone that cutting 90% of the roof and removing all 4 doors might have played a BIT of a part in how the cars crumpled and how easily the doors popped open on those with doors ???

We also don't know the speeds- the one toward the end looks like that Ford is doing 80 when it rear end the other & the flames pour out. Duh.

This is one of the most loaded 'crash test' vids I've seen- not sure at all of the purpose.

And as Camino said- the MoPars were all unibody- Except for Imperial, ChryCo went Unibody for '60.

Chrysler used to build some beefy frames, but the Unibody, as evidenced by the production cars-- seemingly was moved to in order to save steel costs... :wink:

Edited May 30, 200916 yr by balthazar

Did it occur to anyone that cutting 90% of the roof and removing all 4 doors might have played a BIT of a part in how the cars crumpled and how easily the doors popped open on those with doors ???

We also don't know the speeds- the one toward the end looks like that Ford is doing 80 when it rear end the other & the flames pour out. Duh.

This is one of the most loaded 'crash test' vids I've seen- not sure at all of the purpose.

And as Camino said- the MoPars were all unibody- Except for Imperial, ChryCo went Unibody for '60.

Chrysler used to build some beefy frames, but the Unibody, as evidenced by the production cars-- seemingly was moved to in order to save steel costs... :wink:

I was wondering about the roof and door thing too - then it occured to me that a film camera of the time was as big as a Hemi V8!

They couldn't have taken many of those shots if the roof and doors were in their proper places.

I also remember that some of the Chryco cars of that era actually would bend due to the power of the monster hemis - early unibodies had some definite drawbacks.

What if this is footage of the development of the dummies themselves and not actual testing of the cars? You don't really need the newest car available to test the dummy, just something cheap you don't mind cutting up and crashing. That might explain the date and model discrepancy..... also, some of the cars have the initials UCLA stenciled on the side.

What if this is footage of the development of the dummies themselves and not actual testing of the cars? ....

Now THIS makes sense. Structurally compromising cars & then attempting to judge crash-worthiness is something nutty enough to have come from NBC news. :wink:

>>"I also remember that some of the Chryco cars of that era actually would bend due to the power of the monster hemis - early unibodies had some definite drawbacks."<<

This would have to be the '64 426s - the 'early' Hemi's ended after the '58MY.

Oldsmoboi: You may have nailed it.

Balthazar: Yup, I was thinking of the 426. It always amazed me how Chrysler products could be so big without a real frame under them - especially with a torque monster under the hood.

Random point of interest:

1958 DeSoto Adventurer frame : 318 lbs

1958 Chrysler 300-D frame : 474 lbs

I doubt there's even 175 lbs of 'structural' channel in a '60 Unibody.

Not sure I can tell you what my Buick's frame weighs. The guy who did a little chassis work cut the 'K' section out, and that alone weighs 70 lbs and it's no more than 3.5' x 3.5'. I flipped the remains by myself by tipping it over on the floor, and that was a struggle for even me. It's fully boxed FRT to RR, I couldn't guess. Shoulda balanced it on a bathroom scale....

Drew, that could explain everything. All of us dummies should have figured that out, it's likely a dummy development video.

Edited May 30, 200916 yr by ocnblu

Well, when you go on the "GM Test Track" ride at Epcot in Walt Disney World, the que line basically tells you about the development of the test dummies by General Motors, even showing you the range of dummies available (children, women & men of various sizes and weight classifications, including pregnant women).

W.O.W.

Now, while I'm not comparing the whole mass-equal-safer argument, it's funny how we relate size with death traps when back then, as it would appear, anything less than a dump truck would be a death trap.