: For your own safety don't drive a Toyota Corolla or similar cars!



ben.gators
10-21-10, 06:33 PM
One hour ago I walked out of campus to have a fast launch and returning back I encountered this accident scene:

http://i53.tinypic.com/2a6t2jm.jpg

http://i54.tinypic.com/hx4xao.jpg

Yes, Toyota Corolla rear ended Ford CV, and pictures are descriptive enough and there is no need for further explanation!

The driver and passenger of Ford were still sitting inside the car, enjoying Ford's cozy leather seats, and the driver of Toyota was inside the Ambulance going to the hospital!

Apparently Toyota is totaled, after failing to protect its driver, but no damage to Ford, well a bended muffler and a few scratches on bumper cover.

However Toyota's driver still can be happy, since he/she has saved a lot of gas money and probably maintenance money by owning a Corolla and now he/she can happily spend that money for his/her injuries treatment!


Drive safe folks!

drewsdeville
10-21-10, 07:12 PM
One hour ago I walked out of campus to have a fast launch and returning back I encountered this accident scene:

http://i53.tinypic.com/2a6t2jm.jpg

http://i54.tinypic.com/hx4xao.jpg

Yes, Toyota Corolla rear ended Ford CV, and pictures are descriptive enough and there is no need for further explanation!

The driver and passenger of Ford were still sitting inside the car, enjoying Ford's cozy leather seats, and the driver of Toyota was inside the Ambulance going to the hospital!

Apparently Toyota is totaled, after failing to protect its driver, but no damage to Ford, well a bended muffler and a few scratches on bumper cover.

However Toyota's driver still can be happy, since he/she has saved a lot of gas money and probably maintenance money by owning a Corolla and now he/she can happily spend that money for his/her injuries treatment!


Drive safe folks!

The Ford is most likely totaled as well, don't let it's appearance fool you. They aren't worth anything...

The car not sustaining damage is not an indicator of safety. In fact, not sustaining damage is worse. Crush zone are important. Cars are MADE to crush around the cabin, absorbing energy from the impact before it the energy penetrates to the cabin. If cars were driving down the streets bouncing off each other with no crush zones, your body would be absorbing the full force of the impact by itself. You'd die.

In all, this photo does not say that small cars or Toyota's are not safe... Had the CV been the one doing the rear ending, the outcome would have been vastly different. It just so happens that in this instance, things worked out the way you like to see them.

gary88
10-21-10, 07:35 PM
Yes because instead of having crumple zones, I prefer when a car transfers the shock to my ribcage instead.

ben.gators
10-21-10, 07:39 PM
^^^^
So what about the Toyota driver in ambulance and Ford driver and passenger in good shape?

drewsdeville
10-21-10, 07:58 PM
Too many variables there for us to know, it's not all in the car.

You can't assume that each driver was in the same health previously, the impacts weren't identical, say like a headon crash. One was rear ended, one did the rear ending, two different angles, I'm sure the Toyota deployed airbags while the Vic didn't. This is among other variables as well.

gary88
10-21-10, 08:11 PM
^^^^
So what about the Toyota driver in ambulance and Ford driver and passenger in good shape?

When my mom and sister were clipped at an intersection two years ago they were taken to the hospital as precautionary measures. Probably the same case here.

Jesda
10-21-10, 08:12 PM
Yes because instead of having crumple zones, I prefer when a car transfers the shock to my ribcage instead.
Youre a young guy. Its all good, right?

ben.gators
10-21-10, 08:34 PM
Facts: Toyota is wrecked, driver is in ambulance. Ford is in perfect shape, driver and passenger are sitting inside enjoying themselves....

Conclusion Type A: Ford is a safer car than Toyota, since it protected its driver and passenger much better than Toyota did.

Conclusion Type B: Well, because of crumple zones toyota is wrecked and driver was moved to hospital just for precautionary measure or maybe because of preexisting issues or maybe the Ford driver was healthier than Toyota and ...... and at the end toyota is a safer car than Ford CV.

You are blaming me for believing what I can see with my own eyes and then you come up with some conclusions based on guessing and assumptions and expecting me to believe them?!

ben.gators
10-21-10, 08:38 PM
Too many variables there for us to know, it's not all in the car.

You can't assume that each driver was in the same health previously, the impacts weren't identical, say like a headon crash. One was rear ended, one did the rear ending, two different angles, I'm sure the Toyota deployed airbags while the Vic didn't. This is among other variables as well.

As far as I remember air bags were not deployed in both cars, but I am not very sure. But FYI, a friend of mine was involved in a rear end accident, she was in a Corolla and a truck rear ended her, well her car! :D, and her light car was pushed forward and she rear ended the car in front of her, Corolla's both front end and rear end was gone, but air bags were not deployed in such a harsh crash!!!!

drewsdeville
10-21-10, 09:17 PM
You are blaming me for believing what I can see with my own eyes and then you come up with some conclusions based on guessing and assumptions and expecting me to believe them?!

No, no one is blaming you for anything, sorry for making it sound like that. I'm just saying that no one here really knows enough details to accurately conclude whether one car was safer than the other. You can ASSUME whatever you want, but you can't conclude anything.

Stingroo
10-21-10, 09:19 PM
Anybody else notice that the side mirror on that CV looks almost photoshopped into that pic because of the lighting?

Also, HOLY CRAP A NON-P71 CROWN VIC! :lol:

RippyPartsDept
10-21-10, 09:24 PM
i think the car has to be moving at least 20MPH or something before the airbags are activated - but of course I may be (and probably am) wrong

drewsdeville
10-21-10, 09:28 PM
Yeah I know, right? Civilian CV's are somewhat difficult to find. On top of that, those are the HPP (Handling and Performance Package) wheels as well. The package came with air suspension, thicker sway bars, 3.27 trac-loc, and those 17" wheels...one of the better Vics you can buy, outside of the LX Sport - but that's really just an appearance package on top of the HPP in my opinion, and it costs a hell of a lot more.

ben.gators
10-21-10, 09:34 PM
No, no one is blaming you for anything, sorry for making it sound like that. I'm just saying that no one here really knows enough details to accurately conclude whether one car was safer than the other. You can ASSUME whatever you want, but you can't conclude anything.

Hum, What about a duel to find the answer? :cowboy::gungrin:You take the Corolla and I take Ford CV for a head to head collision test! :D

Just aside, Ford CV is one the safest cars in the market and that is one of the reasons that the car is recruited by law enforcement departments, else we would not see a lot of alive cops around! :D

drewsdeville
10-21-10, 09:36 PM
It used to be, yes. The panther has been falling behind slowly for the past 10 years or so though. IIRC, the panther cars are doing horrible in side impact, by todays standards.

Stingroo
10-21-10, 09:38 PM
Curiosity strikes: Can you get side curtain airbags (well, could you) in a CV/GM? I've never had to use them, thankfully, but they seem like one of the more clever safety innovations as of late.

Vinsanity
10-21-10, 09:41 PM
When my mom and sister were clipped at an intersection two years ago they were taken to the hospital as precautionary measures. Probably the same case here.

I did the same when I got rear-ended on the freeway a few years back, even though I could have probably just walked away. Better safe than sorry. It actually looks like the Corolla's passenger cabin held up quite well.

ben.gators
10-21-10, 09:41 PM
Yeah I know, right? Civilian CV's are somewhat difficult to find. On top of that, those are the HPP (Handling and Performance Package) wheels as well. The package came with air suspension, thicker sway bars, 3.27 trac-loc, and those 17" wheels...one of the better Vics you can buy, outside of the LX Sport - but that's really just an appearance package on top of the HPP in my opinion, and it costs a hell of a lot more.

Interior was looking good too, I am not a big fan of Ford cars, but I liked those big cozy leather seats... It was looking very nice....

ben.gators
10-21-10, 09:43 PM
Curiosity strikes: Can you get side curtain airbags (well, could you) in a CV/GM? I've never had to use them, thankfully, but they seem like one of the more clever safety innovations as of late.

You mean aftermarket installation?

drewsdeville
10-21-10, 09:44 PM
Curiosity strikes: Can you get side curtain airbags (well, could you) in a CV/GM? I've never had to use them, thankfully, but they seem like one of the more clever safety innovations as of late.

I don't think they were available.

As far as the police comment, Ben, the panther is a popular police vehicle simply out of convenience due to it's old age. The CV hasn't had a major revision since 1992. Because of this, the lawl enforcement has garages full of equipment (radios, computers, lightbars etc) parts, knowledge and tools that fit and specialize in the panther platform. Therefore, it's very cost efficient to continue using them, even if they don't perform as well as the competition.

Aron9000
10-21-10, 09:44 PM
Drew, the Crown Vic is a hell of a lot safer than that stupid Toyota. They are tanks, very safe and also easy to fix after a crash due to the body on frame design. That's one of the reasons police departments love them, just put on new fenders, bumpers, and such when they're wrecked, no worrying about a twisted unibody. Also here's some crash test data, seems like they're pretty damn safe to me:

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2007/ford/crown_victoria/crash_test_ratings/index.html

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-21-10, 09:46 PM
Fact of the matter is that size and body mass always helps the passengers fare better inside, not to mention the fact it's got a full frame. The crumple zones are only the icing on top of the cake. I'll take the Crown Victoria, antique dinosaur or not.

Vinsanity
10-21-10, 09:48 PM
yeah, so long as the fuel tank doesn't rupture...

heck, I heard that the bodywork on Crown Vics can actually be a PITA to deal with

drewsdeville
10-21-10, 09:51 PM
You know, in passenger cars, full frames are almost always weaker. The integral design of a unibody is far stronger than a full frame, especially in torsional flexing. Think of the unibody as a full frame with the body welded right on it. Very strong. The full frame has no torsional support by itself.

Watch the massive car get demolished by the smaller, far lighter, new unibody Malibu. If you pay close attention, you can see the frame on the Bel Air collapse and rip from the body under the doors, providing no support whatsoever from that point on.

http://www.iihs.org/video.aspx/info/50thcrash

Even modern advancements like airbags wouldn't have saved the Bel Air driver.

ben.gators
10-21-10, 09:55 PM
It actually looks like the Corolla's passenger cabin held up quite well.

This accident happened at a low speed, less than 30 mph I guess, since the speed limit is 35 in this street and traffic doesn't allow you even reach to it. In such a low speed accident the front end of Toyota is wrecked almost until the cabin. The only thing between the wrecked part and driver is the engine... So what if the accident happens at a bit higher speed? Cabin would be wrecked as well and engine will be pushed inside the cabin... Good luck for the driver!

Playdrv4me
10-21-10, 09:59 PM
Of course any firmer a tap to that Crown Vic's rear end and you engulf the passengers in flames... Pick your poison. This thread tells me nothing other than the fact that modern crumple zones do their job.

drewsdeville
10-21-10, 10:00 PM
This thread tells me nothing other than the fact that modern crumple zones do their job.
:thumbsup:

Playdrv4me
10-21-10, 10:13 PM
yeah, so long as the fuel tank doesn't rupture...

heck, I heard that the bodywork on Crown Vics can actually be a PITA to deal with

Every modern CV and GM I've ever had a ride in has been very plush and serene, but the sheetmetal feels ridiculously thin (the doors especially are MUCH lighter than you would expect). This is very similar to the 1995 Ford SHO I had. Since it's not very sturdy I suspect working with it is a pain in the ass.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-21-10, 10:18 PM
That makes sense Ian. The '90s era Town Cars were always about 4-500 lbs lighter than a comparable Fleetwood Brougham.

drewsdeville
10-21-10, 10:25 PM
That's why the pre '98's are nicknamed the "aero" cars. They were pretty light for what they were. Many panthers of the era actually came with aluminum hoods and trunk lids.

The later '98+'s got quite a bit heavier and thus are nicknamed "whales". They are, coincidentally, about 4-500lbs heavier than the aero panthers.

Jesda
10-21-10, 10:32 PM
Yeah, side impacts are where older cars definitely suffer. The latest vehicles have reinforced floors and beams. But in a head-on or rear-end impact, I'd feel perfectly safe in a Panther.

I'm glad that when I got smacked in the driver's door, I was in a modern BMW.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-22-10, 12:03 AM
That's why the pre '98's are nicknamed the "aero" cars. They were pretty light for what they were. Many panthers of the era actually came with aluminum hoods and trunk lids.

The later '98+'s got quite a bit heavier and thus are nicknamed "whales". They are, coincidentally, about 4-500lbs heavier than the aero panthers.

That's another thing that I don't like about the Panthers, as opposed to the B/D bodies. They feel so flimsy and thin.

Playdrv4me
10-22-10, 12:46 AM
That's another thing that I don't like about the Panthers, as opposed to the B/D bodies. They feel so flimsy and thin.

Rust will take hold VERY quickly if you aren't careful in northern climates. The Taurus SHO I had was barrels of fun and was in MINT MINT MINT condition with just 65000 miles *EXCEPT* for the fact that the elderly NY owners (I bought the car from a franchise dealer in FL) obviously never garaged it so the entire undercarriage and even the shock towers were beginning to rust through. Had some fun with it then dumped it as I didn't want to end up falling through the floorboard after hitting a pothole.

Night Wolf
10-22-10, 02:27 AM
From the various responses about crumple zones... many are acting like the Panther chassis dosen't have them... realize they do.

In this particular accident, the Vic was rear ended so the passengers were pushed back into their seat, and with properly adjusted head rests, their heads pushed into those. The passengers in the Corolla were thrown forward - at the mercy of seat belts and air bags if deployed. That also is a difference.

Safety from other vehicles is soemthing I think about in the e30 convertible. The car is already low, and I'll be lowring it even more. It isn't so much front-back accidents in question, but side-impacts. With the older design of a convertible having a lower belt line, plus a lowered car, plus no side air bags or even much extra support (doors are beefed up a bit, but they are low) it does make me think about all the pickups and SUV's around here - which keep getting bigger. That would put their bumper right around skull level.

Likewise, in the Jeep with no doors, I feel quite safe and not worried about a side-impact as much due to the extra height, an impact would hit the lower tub/frame. Once I get rock sliders that part of the tub will be very strong too.

Atleast in the Town Car world, steering and suspension was revised in 1991, new steering box was used in 1997, steering and suspension were revised again for 1998 and in 2003 (IIRC) rack and pinion and watts linkage were then put in use.

Many like to romantically think the cars were unchanged since 1979, but that just isn't the case. They were updated over the years - not as fast or to the same degree as other cars - then again other cars were not riding the same basic chassis for over 30 years.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-22-10, 08:34 AM
Yeah, all cars nowadays have crumple zones. You couldn't sell a car without them.

Playdrv4me
10-22-10, 08:49 AM
I don't think there is any dispute as to whether a newer Panther has crumple zones, but that what they've got is primitive compared to a vehicle designed from the ground up with modern crash worthiness standards in mind. Frankly, if I am hit in the Jeep I'm pretty sure most of that energy is going to be transferred straight to me, even if the the physical damage is minimal. Something that comes to mind occasionally when darting around in traffic or traveling down the highway. There's only so much you can ask of decades old platforms not originally conceived to satisfy such stringent safety concepts.

Now... we certainly can't defy the laws of physics no matter what kind of magic we throw into sheetmetal stamping and reinforcement. If an F150 and a Smart Car meet in a dark alley at anything above about 40mph there will be carnage, I don't care what Mercedes says.

The-Dullahan
10-22-10, 12:13 PM
^And I'd pay for a front row seat.

Foreign car rear-ends American car. Results are unsurprising.

Stingroo
10-22-10, 01:00 PM
Yeah. I agree - no matter how safe they try and make those things out to be, I seriously get nervous when I see them on our 55mph+ roads up here.

Fortunately I've yet to see a fortwo on the interstate. I'd be nervous travelling anywhere near it. At 70mph, if another car hits that thing, I swear it would go flying.

RippyPartsDept
10-22-10, 01:08 PM
We've got a couple deuce and a half's running on the roads around here... wonder what would happen if a corolla hit one of those!

Aron9000
10-22-10, 03:53 PM
I pulled up to one of those smart cars at a stoplight. His whole car was the length of my hood:histeric:

ben.gators
10-22-10, 06:31 PM
I totally understand the concept of crumple zones, and the fact that an smashed front end might absorb the energy of impact, however it does not imply that whenever we see a wrecked car we say, Yes, that is it! this is crumple zones and they are working correct and the car is safe!

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-22-10, 06:53 PM
Safety (or lack there of) isn't the only thing that would drive me nuts in a Smart Car.
-Bumpy, stage coach ride
-Jittery, overactive steering
-Lack of any real room inside (aside from acres of headroom)
-No storage room
-lack of any real power
-rear engine/rear drive would be a bitch in the snow
-smug outward appearance

Yeah, definitely not my sort of car.

gdwriter
10-22-10, 07:18 PM
I call it the Dumb-Ass Car. Even if it weren't a ridiculous POS, the pretentious Smart Car name has FAIL written all over it.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-22-10, 09:16 PM
Actually Gary, SMART is an acronym. I don't know the whole story, but apparently Swatch (the watch company) and Mercedes Benz were partners in the company that made the SMART car, and SMART stands for SwatchMercedesART

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_(automobile)

mhamilton
10-22-10, 09:29 PM
Watch the massive car get demolished by the smaller, far lighter, new unibody Malibu. If you pay close attention, you can see the frame on the Bel Air collapse and rip from the body under the doors, providing no support whatsoever from that point on.

http://www.iihs.org/video.aspx/info/50thcrash

Even modern advancements like airbags wouldn't have saved the Bel Air driver.

Okay, BIG difference comparing these cars... '59 was from the era of GM's X frames, amost no side impact protection. The only side-impact protection you got was from the rocker panels.

Would be a totally different story with a full-perimeter frame.

drewsdeville
10-22-10, 09:51 PM
That video was more directed towards the comments about all heavier cars having an advantage...since the Bel Air probaby has another half ton (at least) "advantage" on the Malibu, I felt the video negated that very well.

However, I also feel that the Malibu would devastate any panther (most modern full framed production car?) in that instance as well.

For side impact, the full frame just can't win. What makes the unibody so incredibly rigid compared to the full frame is the fact that the pillars, with huge emphasis on the B pillar, are naturally a large structural member of the car. Therefore, they are inherently very strong members. That's a LOT of strength placed right next to all of the passengers protecting most of the cabin from the side.

I can't tell you how many Vics are in my local yard where the bumper height of the damaging vehicle allowed it to plow right over the top of the panthers frame and penetrate nice and deep into the flimsy body bolted on top. There's one Vic in particular I remember seeing where the drivers door was pushed nearly to the center armrest. When I saw it the first thing I thought was "wow, that guy's probably dead"

Jesda's statement is the truth, the older full framed cars just don't have the support for side impact.

Aron9000
10-22-10, 10:57 PM
I also heard that 59 Bel Air didn't have an engine in it, which could've made a big difference.

drewsdeville
10-22-10, 11:12 PM
http://jalopnik.com/5364071/yes-the-iihs+crashed-59-chevy-had-an-engine

That rumor always drove me nuts. What would have been the point of setting up such a test with it knowingly rigged? the IIHS doesn't have anything to prove or benefit from with a rigged test.

RippyPartsDept
10-22-10, 11:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHp1GAFQzto
and just for good measure...

and why would the IIHS fake a crash test video... that would be pretty scandalous, no?

hueterm
10-22-10, 11:31 PM
http://jalopnik.com/5364071/yes-the-iihs+crashed-59-chevy-had-an-engine

That rumor always drove me nuts. What would have been the point of setting up such a test with it knowingly rigged? the IIHS doesn't have anything to prove or benefit from with a rigged test.


Sure they do -- to promote the "smaller is better" PC green BS dogma so prevalent among those who like, say, Corollas...

RippyPartsDept
10-22-10, 11:51 PM
Sure they do -- to promote the "smaller is better" PC green BS dogma so prevalent among those who like, say, Corollas...

those cars in the 50th anniversary crash test were basically the same size though

Aron9000
10-23-10, 12:12 AM
I think the results would've been quite different if they had crashed a car with a full perimeter frame. The X frame was just a bad, bad, bad idea and a death trap. I don't know why GM used it over a conventional ladder type frame that was the industry norm back then.

Night Wolf
10-23-10, 01:05 AM
I don't think there is any dispute as to whether a newer Panther has crumple zones, but that what they've got is primitive compared to a vehicle designed from the ground up with modern crash worthiness standards in mind. Frankly, if I am hit in the Jeep I'm pretty sure most of that energy is going to be transferred straight to me, even if the the physical damage is minimal. Something that comes to mind occasionally when darting around in traffic or traveling down the highway. There's only so much you can ask of decades old platforms not originally conceived to satisfy such stringent safety concepts.

Now... we certainly can't defy the laws of physics no matter what kind of magic we throw into sheetmetal stamping and reinforcement. If an F150 and a Smart Car meet in a dark alley at anything above about 40mph there will be carnage, I don't care what Mercedes says.

This is a common misconception on the Jeep site as well - people think a Jeep dosen't have crumple zones. Look under the hood at the support bar. Look on the frame just forward of the front axle....

The TJ is on a new chassis from the ground up in 1997. The frame is much stronger than the YJ's as well as the added airbags. The '07 JK is such a radical change - mostly made bigger in all dimensions because the old CJ/YJ/TJ tub wasn't able to meet the new upcoming federal regulations for things such as side-impact.

The TJ despite its looks and what others that never owned, let alone driven one - is a well engineered, up to date vehicle. The fact that it does share so much in common with the older line of tub based Jeeps is a big plus, but in terms of safety and driveability, it is off the charts compared to those older models as well.

I could post pictures of TJ's involved in accidents - they taken them well... but then many would be quick with the ol' "dosen't matter how the vehicle looks - it's the condition of the person" and what many of those pictures don't show - is the condition of the person is quite well, because they are the ones taking the pictures. Instead, one can go to jeepforum.com and simply search "accident" in the TJ tech section to get pages of postings from people involved in all sorts of accidents and reporting on how they and the Jeep did. The majority is positive.

When it is brought up about the benefits of "crumple zones" and why they would rather be in a car with them vs not and using the pictures as an example - when the accident in question is involving 2 modern cars.... then I get the vibe that it is being hinted that one of the vehicles does not have them.

*edit*

Quick search brought this result up - TJ hit by a school bus - twice, including a side-impact.

http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f9/my-accident-pictures-150089/

Night Wolf
10-23-10, 01:14 AM
Safety (or lack there of) isn't the only thing that would drive me nuts in a Smart Car.
-Bumpy, stage coach ride
-Jittery, overactive steering
-Lack of any real room inside (aside from acres of headroom)
-No storage room
-lack of any real power
-rear engine/rear drive would be a bitch in the snow
-smug outward appearance

Yeah, definitely not my sort of car.

What keeps me from it is how stupid it is. The whole idea is to have a fuel efficent car, yet for the cost one can buy a TDI Jetta and actually have a real car - that gets even better mileage.

Stingroo
10-23-10, 01:29 AM
Not only that, but I wouldn't feel like a complete dickhead driving a TDI Jetta.

Playdrv4me
10-23-10, 02:58 AM
This is a common misconception on the Jeep site as well - people think a Jeep dosen't have crumple zones. Look under the hood at the support bar. Look on the frame just forward of the front axle....

The TJ is on a new chassis from the ground up in 1997. The frame is much stronger than the YJ's as well as the added airbags. The '07 JK is such a radical change - mostly made bigger in all dimensions because the old CJ/YJ/TJ tub wasn't able to meet the new upcoming federal regulations for things such as side-impact.

Again, I think my words are getting twisted around here. I never said that the Jeep *doesn't* have crumple zones. I merely stated that regardless that fact, its roots are still that of a platform originating in the middle of the last century. That it can be modified to a certain extent is not being disputed, but you can only do so much modification before you have to start over from scratch (which you essentially confirmed with your comments about the JK).

Unfortunately, its not terribly surprising that evidence found on a Jeep enthusiast site is likely to offer support in favor of the vehicle. However I can easily find as many incidents of disastrous or even deadly results in Wranglers. A portion of those involve idiots who don't wear safety belts and are much more easily thrown from the vehicle due to its open nature, and lower ability to absorb impact. However, there are still serious injuries in cases where the occupants used all available safety equipment.

As this video from the NTSB shows, a side impact at moderate speeds not only results in serious body-twisting forces, but also quite a bit of cabin penetration. It would be difficult to walk away from a routine accident like the one being demonstrated, without some form of injury. Most likely due to the force being exerted on the neck...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhH7jH9r3l0

That being said, whether or not it is an illusion, I do *feel* safer in the Jeep simply because it is a good sized vehicle and I am higher up than most smaller vehicles on the road. Of course, the extremely short wheel-base and high center of gravity also means that depending on what I hit and how I hit it, I'm also likely subject to rollover far more easily at any speed. Don't get me wrong, I still VASTLY prefer my Wrangler to ANY economy car (my stereo rivals that of the LS430), but I drive it with additional care keeping in mind it has limitations in a collision.

Playdrv4me
10-23-10, 03:12 AM
What keeps me from it is how stupid it is. The whole idea is to have a fuel efficent car, yet for the cost one can buy a TDI Jetta and actually have a real car - that gets even better mileage.

The Volkswagen Jetta TDi is one of the best kept secrets on the road. As much or more fuel efficiency than a Honda CRX, with comfort and space for 4 people and good looks (at least in the early 2000's generation) to boot.

gdwriter
10-23-10, 03:30 AM
What keeps me from it is how stupid it is. The whole idea is to have a fuel efficent car, yet for the cost one can buy a TDI Jetta and actually have a real car - that gets even better mileage.The Smart only comes with a (reportedly very, very crappy) automatic. Automatically (sorry) disqualified from Rick's driveway. :rofl:

gdwriter
10-23-10, 03:38 AM
I think the results would've been quite different if they had crashed a car with a full perimeter frame. The X frame was just a bad, bad, bad idea and a death trap. I don't know why GM used it over a conventional ladder type frame that was the industry norm back then.Interestingly, based on vintage road tests (I have books featuring Impalas and Cadillacs) GM's X-frame was touted for its stiffness and being safer in a crash. When the B-Bodies went back to a perimeter frame in 1965, several road tests complained about the frame being too flexible, causing squeaks, rattles and an overall feeling that the car wasn't screwed together as well as the 64s.

From what I've read, the engine was not removed from the '59 Bel Air, but it was a straight six and not a V8. There's already a lot of open space under the hood of these cars, and with a much narrower engine, there wasn't a whole lot beyond the frame rails to absorb the impact.

drewsdeville
10-23-10, 05:55 AM
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but an engine doesn't absorb much of anything due to impact. It just gets bounced around, pushed and shoved about the car. I never saw an engine that got wrinkled and crushed during an accident.

Night Wolf
10-23-10, 06:18 AM
Again, I think my words are getting twisted around here. I never said that the Jeep *doesn't* have crumple zones. I merely stated that regardless that fact, its roots are still that of a platform originating in the middle of the last century. That it can be modified to a certain extent is not being disputed, but you can only do so much modification before you have to start over from scratch (which you essentially confirmed with your comments about the JK).

Unfortunately, its not terribly surprising that evidence found on a Jeep enthusiast site is likely to offer support in favor of the vehicle. However I can easily find as many incidents of disastrous or even deadly results in Wranglers. A portion of those involve idiots who don't wear safety belts and are much more easily thrown from the vehicle due to its open nature, and lower ability to absorb impact. However, there are still serious injuries in cases where the occupants used all available safety equipment.

As this video from the NTSB shows, a side impact at moderate speeds not only results in serious body-twisting forces, but also quite a bit of cabin penetration. It would be difficult to walk away from a routine accident like the one being demonstrated, without some form of injury. Most likely due to the force being exerted on the neck...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhH7jH9r3l0

That being said, whether or not it is an illusion, I do *feel* safer in the Jeep simply because it is a good sized vehicle and I am higher up than most smaller vehicles on the road. Of course, the extremely short wheel-base and high center of gravity also means that depending on what I hit and how I hit it, I'm also likely subject to rollover far more easily at any speed. No doubt I'd rather be IN the Wrangler than the Corolla REGARDLESS how safe it is or isn't! Even my TJ's stereo (with subwoofer in the center console) rivals the base system in the LS430 with windows down or top off.

I understand what your saying - but the TJ shares next to nothing in common with the CJ or even YJ in terms of a safety stand point. So say that the chassis dates back to the middle of last century is flat out wrong. The TUB (body) is basically an updated carry over in many ways, but not the frame/suspension.

The JK, while still having a full frame, is built to be more like a unibody vehicle while the TJ's ladder frame can be compared more to a full size truck. Chrysler's marketing says how many xxx% stiffer the JK frame is, which has to due to the hybrid unibody construction - it is better in some ways and not in others.

As with any vehicle - there will be fatal crashes. If someone dosen't wear a seat belt - and especially in a Jeep then that is just dumb. Favorable or not - I wasn't saying to check it out for statistic reasons, I was simply saying that if one so felt - they could find dozens and dozens of actual stories with pictures from people involved in a crash with a Jeep.

Just like every other simulated crash test - it is just that - simulated. I would say that Jeep did pretty good considering... and here are the things to consider:

There are no crash bars in the Jeeps doors - they are not designed for protection nor a structure element. People that feel "safer" in a Jeep with full hard doors vs factory half doors, soft doors or no doors are just fooling themselves. They are designed for protection against the elements only, not for safety.

But the main thing - How many things can hit you sideways at (40mph? either way...) that don't deform at all? A freight train comes to mind - otherwise the thing that you hit, or hits you - will also deform, absorbing ~50% of the impact as well.

As for rollover - due to its design, a Jeep has a rather low COG compared to most SUV's. Alone with that, the TJ's coil spring suspension with front and rear sway bars does a rather incredible job at keeping it firmly planted. While the chance of a rollover is increased from a sports car - it isn't increased to the degree that some make it out to be. There are very few instances on-road (as in not dedicated off-road situations) that would cause a Jeep to roll that would cause a car not to. One thing that comes to mind would be if the Jeep was either hit, or swerved and caused it to go off the road and into a steep off-camber ditch etc... Even then, just as a sports car has it's built-in safety of being nimble to out handle things in the road, depending on the Driver if one was forced off the road and into a ditch of some sort, even at a higher rate of speed - a Jeep is better suited to not cause further injury to the passengers.

If someone is going to be stupid and drive a Jeep in a way that promotes roll-over, that is their own fault. So far this thread has been about multi-vehicle on-road accidents.... and in that regard, a Jeep ranks right along most other truck-based SUV's, and I don't see them rolled over all that much.

When my Jeep was stock with 30" tires, it felt incredibly stable for being a Jeep. Now? It still feels incredibly stable for being a lifted Jeep. The shocks on my lift kit are on the stiff side and as such, there is minimal body roll. Evasive maneuvers at any legal speed feel safe. In fact because the Jeep is rather sure-planted, it feels much more secure in terms of high speed swerves than my '79 DeVille and '89 Brougham - those cars wallowed all over the road with the rear tires feeling like they were following a seperate path of the front tires.

I have pushed my Jeep quite hard to find its limits. I have taken turns that had all 4 tires howling and I could feel I was at the edge of loosing traction. I did this because once the Jeep was lifted with bigger tires - I wanted to know what it could, and couldn't do and where the limits were, so that in the event of an emergency I have better control over the vehicle.

With that said, getting to that point where it was ready to loose traction was at a much higher point than what many would think, much less want to expereince as a passenger. Durring the whole time, the Jeep never felt like it wanted to roll over. To actually roll the Jeep on-road, I would have to be doing some very wild swerving to the point of being intentional OR run it off the road while swerving or into a ditch etc... which puts any vehicle at a risk for roll-over.

That was done with the current setup. Speaking COG, the frame is a total of 4.5" higher than stock, 3" suspension lift and 1.5" from the tires. The body is another 1" higher above that too. The wheels are aftermarket with an extra 1.5" backspacing over stock, which makes the overall track of the Jeep 3" wider than stock, but the 33x10.50 mud terrain tires aren't exactly made for excellent on-road handling either.

Not that it can be factored in to a statistic, but generally, lifting the Jeep also makes it safer. On a typical lifted (4" or less) Jeep with bigger tires, it puts it quite higher then all but other lifted vehicles, which is also safer. Also, a popular mod is rocker protection in the form of rock sliders that bolt to the tub - obviously designed for off-road, they still greatly increase the strength of the tub between the wheels... which together on a lifted Jeep means the vehicle, and passengers are better protected as well.

There was a thread on the Jeep site involving a lifted Jeep that was t-boned at an intersection. The damaged to the Jeep was a dented tub at the rocker area (fix was to use the insurance money to buy rock sliders) but that was otherwise it and the owner drove it home, the car that hit him looked quite similar to the Corolla on the original post. I tried a quick search for the thread but couldn't find it.

With all that said, I would say for you in your stock Jeep, there is very little to nothing on-road that would cause it to rollover at any greater risk then your Escalade.

OH NOES RICK MADE A LONG JEEP POAST!!11!!11 before the anti-Jeep nazi(s) turn up, in no way am I trying to make a Jeep out to be an excellent handling vehicle or safest vehicle on the road. I am simply stating my personal observations from my personal vehicle. Which is why I personally think that, all things considered, a Jeep is a rather safe vehicle that in stock form, but especially modified, is more than able to take on the urban jungle to protect its driver/passengers in the event of an accident who can then buy it back and either rebuild it or turn it into a dedicated trail rig.

Night Wolf
10-23-10, 06:27 AM
The Smart only comes with a (reportedly very, very crappy) automatic. Automatically (sorry) disqualified from Rick's driveway. :rofl:

At my last job, we had two electric golf carts, one with a pintle hook that, along with the tugs, was used to tow everything but the airplanes. I grew to really enjoy the behavior of a full-electric vehicle with 100% torque being avalible at any RPM, including 0. I remember calculating to most amount of weight we would tow with it and I think it was around 3200lbs - quite a bit for a run of the mill EZ-GO.

Every time I would use it - I kept thinking to myself how cool something like that would be with a manual transmission - a full electric vehicle with a manual trans. The Tesla Roadster much to my disapointment does not have a manual transmission, or even changeable gears at all, but instead a single speed unit.

I think it would be a neat experience, and you are right - would atleast make the Smart mildly interesting to me.

Playdrv4me
10-23-10, 06:32 AM
OH NOES RICK MADE A LONG JEEP POAST!!11!!11 before the anti-Jeep nazi(s) turn up, in no way am I trying to make a Jeep out to be an excellent handling vehicle or safest vehicle on the road.

Well, at least we agree on that. :)

mhamilton
10-23-10, 10:40 AM
From what I've read, the engine was not removed from the '59 Bel Air, but it was a straight six and not a V8. There's already a lot of open space under the hood of these cars, and with a much narrower engine, there wasn't a whole lot beyond the frame rails to absorb the impact.

Ah, that does explain why the crash looks like it does. The way the impact was set up, the new car basically crushed the fender and pushed the engine off to the side. Especially with that new Malibu's densely packed engine bay, it went through that like a battering ram. Then again, devil's advocate, even if it had the little 283 it might not look too different... those huge fenders were nothing but hollow space.


Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but an engine doesn't absorb much of anything due to impact. It just gets bounced around, pushed and shoved about the car. I never saw an engine that got wrinkled and crushed during an accident.

You're correct that the engine doesn't crush (typically), but it absorbs energy in that it's a massive object that is accelerated by the impact, plus whatever energy is needed to rip if off its mounts, etc, and it would prevent impacts from going directly into the passenger compartment as seen in that video.

Of course newer cars are safer overall, but those old cars were never really safe (we're talking about predating seat belts). But there's definitely a safety aspect in driving a bigger heavier car vs a small car. I think that video is one scenario, and another crash angle/setup might see the Malibu devastated.

drewsdeville
10-23-10, 10:50 AM
You're correct that the engine doesn't crush (typically), but it absorbs energy in that it's a massive object that is accelerated by the impact, plus whatever energy is needed to rip if off its mounts, etc, and it would prevent impacts from going directly into the passenger compartment as seen in that video.


This would be true if the frame, which the engine is mounted to, was a immovable object that couldn't be compromised, but it isn't. In the video it looks to me that the frame gave way under the cabin, you can see it collapse, allowing the engine to be shoved into the firewall, probably while still attached to the frame. Browsing the local junkyard, it seems to me that this is usually what happens, even in modern vehicles. In fact, looking for odds and ends for my '90 Eldo, there's a 91 Eldo in the junkyard with the right hand side of it's 4.9 and transmission buried into the firewall, still on it's mounts, subframe pulverized.

I don't think the whole collision happened around the engine, completely missing it. The engine rides on the frame, and is at it's mercy. If the frame gets crushed, the engine rides along with it. It wouldn't have mattered if this was an I-6 or the V8.

RippyPartsDept
10-23-10, 12:14 PM
I think that video is one scenario, and another crash angle/setup might see the Malibu devastated.

the malibu seemed pretty devastated to me... i would guess it was totaled
the main point is that it's safer though for the passengers
what angle/setup do you think could be worse than a head-on collision? t-bone?
the reason they did the head-on was probably because it would give a good comparison since both cars are hitting each other in the same place

anyways the video was just a demonstration applauding the safety advancements in the last 50 years - basically patting themselves and their partners on the back
it was not meant to be taken with reverse logic ("oh, look how bad safety was 50 years ago!")

i just thought it was a cool youtube video when i first saw it... super slow motion of a high speed head on collision - bonus for the cars being father/son (or is that grandfather/grandson... or great great... whatever, you get the point)

mhamilton
10-23-10, 02:33 PM
This would be true if the frame, which the engine is mounted to, was a immovable object that couldn't be compromised, but it isn't. In the video it looks to me that the frame gave way under the cabin, you can see it collapse, allowing the engine to be shoved into the firewall, probably while still attached to the frame.
I don't think the whole collision happened around the engine, completely missing it. The engine rides on the frame, and is at it's mercy. If the frame gets crushed, the engine rides along with it. It wouldn't have mattered if this was an I-6 or the V8.

I'm sure the frame did collapse, it looked like a high speed collision. I don't know... there's only so much that can be seen in that video. I'm going back a way, but I had a '46 Olds and I seem to remember the I6 was only mounted at the transmission and at the front crossmember (it could be "knocked over" fairly easily). But either way, my intention was to simply point out the '59 was not a good comparison to the Crown Vic.


the malibu seemed pretty devastated to me... i would guess it was totaled
the main point is that it's safer though for the passengers
what angle/setup do you think could be worse than a head-on collision? t-bone?
the reason they did the head-on was probably because it would give a good comparison since both cars are hitting each other in the same place

anyways the video was just a demonstration applauding the safety advancements in the last 50 years - basically patting themselves and their partners on the back

That's true, I wasn't trying to imply it wasn't. My point (which I may have missed in my previous post) was that a '59 B-body is not really a good comparison to a more modern perimeter frame car. You can't really compare those cars with the accident in the original post, because if the same Malibu rear ended that BelAir it would probably be parked in the back seat... those designs didn't have any substantial frame members past the axle.

And yes, I agree that unit body designs have inherent strengths, but they aren't necessarily safer than a (well designed) big full-frame vehicle.

Stingroo
10-23-10, 02:37 PM
A car is only as safe as its driver.

Just sayin'. If you drive like an asshat, you deserve whatever comes to you - whether you drive a unibody car, a full frame truck, or a peon fortwo.

gdwriter
10-23-10, 02:38 PM
If you look at pictures on eBay of a 59-64 Chevy with a six and one with a V8, even a small block, the amount of extra empty space under the hood is considerable. And while the engine isn't designed to absorb impact, there's still a difference between hitting an iron block engine and hitting empty air.

I was mortified when I saw that video because that Bel Air, while hardly a museum piece, was still a nicely preserved survivor that didn't deserve to be destroyed to make an obvious point to anybody with two brain cells to rub together.

Stingroo
10-23-10, 02:43 PM
I thought the same thing. I mean, really. Raise your hand if you had no clue that car safety has increased hundred-fold in the last 50 years.

Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Thought so. :noidea:

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-23-10, 02:52 PM
Wait, wait wait, so you mean to tell me after all the enhanced design and engineering tactics pushed through by government backed programs and instutuions, cars are MORE safe than they were in 1959????

Holy shit, what have we gotten into???

drewsdeville
10-23-10, 03:52 PM
http://www.funnyforumpics.com/forums/not-funny/1/Funnay_Off_to_the_left.jpg (http://www.funnyforumpics.com)

:P


Anyway, I'll go get my flame suit...I love seeing automotive abuse/carnage and thought the Bel Air was @ss ugly when it was in one piece anyway...didn't bother me one bit. :hide:

Stingroo
10-23-10, 03:58 PM
Flame suit:

http://www.5amuelchan.com/blog_images/2009_06/humanTorch.gif

:thumbsup:

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-23-10, 06:58 PM
http://www.funnyforumpics.com/forums/not-funny/1/Funnay_Off_to_the_left.jpg (http://www.funnyforumpics.com)

:P


Anyway, I'll go get my flame suit...I love seeing automotive abuse/carnage and thought the Bel Air was @ss ugly when it was in one piece anyway...didn't bother me one bit. :hide:

I'd rather see 1,000,000 Corollas getting smashed up by angry methheads than one classic like this die for some stupid government propaganda film.

RippyPartsDept
10-23-10, 07:41 PM
get mad at the insurance companies, not the govt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance_Institute_for_Highway_Safety

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) is a U.S. non-profit organization funded by auto insurers, established in 1959 and headquartered in Arlington, Virginia. It works to reduce the number of motor vehicle crashes, and the rate of injuries and amount of property damage in the crashes that still occur. It carries out research and produces ratings for popular passenger vehicles as well as for certain consumer products such as child car booster seats.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-23-10, 07:49 PM
Ahhh, gotcha. Did not know that.

RippyPartsDept
10-23-10, 08:16 PM
it happens
and i agree it is a shame to wreck a car like that

77CDV
10-23-10, 08:37 PM
IIRC, the purpose of the X frame was to allow the car to sit lower. Drew is right that unibody cars are more rigid than BOF cars. Nash figured this out over 50 years. Newer cars are certainly safer in that your chances of walking away from an accident in one are much improved. They're still by and large rolling snooze fests.

johnny kannapo
11-01-10, 01:58 AM
2 weeks ago in a brand new 2010 Toyota Camry driven by Kyle Busch had a stuck throttle wide open for 10 laps using the kill switch to adapt & maintain his lead from lap 95 to 105 at Charlotte Motor Speedway. Speeds reach 205 mph.

Of course thats a Toyota Camry.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSeEGag7OrWyO9SU6x97C1e7tB4Ym-_zJWk-ZAZ3xFXdJzYTjE&t=1&usg=__esmtyV7a0qzUWZwq4D03iB_syFM=

Playdrv4me
11-01-10, 02:04 AM
http://motleycrow.com/ImageHost/gall.off.topic.jpg

johnny kannapo
11-01-10, 12:43 PM
Ok then, a Toyota crashing at 200mph.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZyCRaVZx3Q

RippyPartsDept
11-01-10, 01:03 PM
if you post enough johnny eventually you'll be on topic and the rest of the thread will be off-topic

johnny kannapo
11-01-10, 01:32 PM
I'm finished, the subject was getting old.

Cadillacboy
11-02-10, 01:55 PM
Another reason why buy bigger cars rather than cheap eco boxes , Ford held up pretty well considering it was rear ended and almost no damage but toyota looks it was hit by a SUV on a head collision .
Well Done Ford engineers or whoever makes it ,long live American cars in style and fashion
:highfive:

Jesda
11-02-10, 03:33 PM
Not every unibody car is stronger than a BOF equivalent, and not every large BOF car is automatically stronger than a unibody one. The strength of the steel, the quality of the welds, the design of the impact zones, and the overall level of engineering play a huge role in the overall safety of the car.

I wouldn't say for certain, based on the issue of BOF vs unibody alone, how safe a car was without seeing it tested (youtube has plenty of crash videos).

I'd feel pretty safe in a Crown Vic. I mean, a 2000 CV is likely safer than a 92 Seville (like I had) simply due to age, 1997 federal requirements, and other modernizations. But, having said that, I wouldn't feel invincible in one either.