All I know is that I don't want to roll any domestic or asian truck or SUV. And especially not something, as Rockstate45 says "weighs about 8000 lbs". (All the more reason to add a rear anti-sway bar and improved shocks and something like RAS. - All of which I had done last week. Plus 'smaller' tires 285s vs 295s.)

As for small cars being beautiful - I've never believed that - love the roll cage, formula race car comparisons but I'll never believe that a manufacturer will go as far as is necessary to ensure that level of safety - I suspect customers, not profits are expendable.

Note: I've own a Saab 9000s for years and they've ranked as the safest sedan -somewhere - in Europe. However, I've pulled up behind and looked directly at the rear bumpers on too many trucks and flat beds to believe I have much hope of surviving some accidents.

And I grew up with a '64 Chrysler Saratoga (square steering wheel, a great push button transmission). Yes it was pretty indestructable - but like all cars back then it had a steel dashboard, steel window and door pillars, etc. (And my Saab mechanic tells me that people were critical of Saab when they started to pad their interiors, put the key on the consol, etc.)

 

Holy wow!

I came home today and guess what was next to the only parking spot at my Apartment complex?

A white Mini Cooper!



Not only was it like 1/2 my Ex's size, but you could've fit two of them in the parking spot length wise and 1/2 width wise!

But the worst part was that they had it parked right against the white line on the ground hogging up almost two spots, so I squeezed mine in!

Their going to have to crawl in through their passenger side to get in their car tomorrow!

Sorry, no pics!

 

I crashed twice in the same '77 Chevy Monte Carlo Landau. Twice.

I walked away from both of them.

(when I was 16 and a speed-racer)

 

You want indestructible, you get a 64-67 chtysler imperial! They are banned from all demolition derbys as they are basically indestructible!


Heres what I found on google images, shows a buncha angles so some of you older people may remember this thing!

 

Theres nothin to crumple, its basically a solid box vs whatever you hit. Notice they always talk about how the car survives the wreck, but NEVER how the driver or occupants fair in those smart car ad's!

 

YouTube - smart vs s-class

Smart car vs. S class MB. Better be strapped in good and plan on your next ride being in an ambulance.

 

yes - my grandfather had a '62 Imperial LeBaron. Much like this without the huge fins... - instead really cool and dangerous projectile like tail lights. Long and heavy and dangerous in an accident. Fascinating video...

YouTube - Ride in a 1961 Imperial LeBaron

and this is cool... "Ride in a 1956 Continental Mark 11" $10,000 in 1956!!!
YouTube - Ride in a 1956 Continental Mark 11


For old car lovers - click on some of the other videos under "More From: TheOriginalWheelsTV". Some incredible old cars covered.

YouTube - TheOriginalWheelsTV's Videos



Maybe someday there will be a video like these on the Excursion.

 

Yeah, true! Here's a video of an F150, 1999 I think... scary stuff!

YouTube - Re: Russian Car Crash Test

 

I was talking to a guy the other day who just bought a brand new Toyo Yaris 3-Door hatchback. He said he paid $14.5k for it brand new and the best mpg he got was 40mpg. The Yaris is a nice little car, gets good mpg and as far a little cars go is pretty roomey. I don't know why someone would pay more for a smaller car like the Smart car and have no power whatsoever. The guy was eyeing up how big my SD was compared to his Yaris. I think if I was looking for a car it would be a Crown Vic.

 

I saw a F150 at the Insurance Institute on display after the crash test and it had the same result as the video you attached. It was pretty scary considering at the time my wife was driving my children around in a 99 Expedition. That helped prompt me to move to an Excursion. I have bought more frames for last generation F150 and Expeditions than any vehicle I have ever encountered as an adjuster. I am a Ford guy but I had to agree with the shops that the frame was the weak link in the last design.
It was bad enough that initially you could only buy a complete assy from Ford but they later due to pressure began offering a short front section because so many trucks were being totaled as replacing a complete frame is very costly.

 

This is a video of a 2004 design F150 after their crashworthiness was drastically improved.

YouTube - Crash Test of Ford F-150

 

sort of off topic, but i saw a 1965 chrysler imperial in a local demo derby last summer. It was amazing, mid 80's full size fords were hitting it in the side and not damaging the chrysler. This thing would line up and bend the frame on pretty much whatever it hit. Un fortiountly, the chrysler ended up losing to a mid 70's GM station wagon that had half the body pealed off the frame.

 

One of my uncles in Baltimore, Maryland (mortician) had several big black Imperials like the ones pictured above. For whatever reason, you could tell the cars were extremely heavy and well built just by looking at them. They were quite the status symbol back in their day and age as well.

 

Heres the Pontiac Montana and the other GM minivans of this bodystyle, this was a very poor performance.

• YouTube - GM U-Body Crash Test (with music)
• YouTube - Pontiac Montana Crash Test Video (IIHS)

 

Does the mustang pass fords own internal tests for fuel loss and doors jamming shut yet? I know its failed fords own tests since the late 70s! Ford still sent the cars out the door though.

This F150 gets obliterated, holy moly!
YouTube - Crash Test Ford F 150 ncap test