Well at least car vs car is equal. The picture in the first post is car vs truck. If it were a head on with that red 69 Ford (or what ever year) vs a super duty, I'd rather be riding in the super duty. The vehicle crumpling absorbs energy that your body doesn't have to take.
I also have some personal experience with this next story. My dad used to drive a 1970 F-100. I was riding with him and we had a head on with a 1964 Impala at 55 mph. Both vehicles were totaled but the F-100 looked worse. I know the frame is bent and so is the crankshaft! The truck is sitting at my dads still, I could grab pics if there is any interest. I don't think my dad appriciated the lap only belt and a non-colapseable steering column either. He bent the steering wheel and column with his face. I was a kid when this happened but still remember it very, very well. What a story it was too. One person in the Impala took off running. lol. They didn't have insurance either so my dad just lost that truck, they were in the wrong lane coming over a hill. I do have to say I didn't get hurt, thats a nasty wreck and the truck kept me safe. Maybe that Escort up top vs that Impala would have been worse, who knows.

 

Gotta love all the rust that blows out of the old Chevy upon impact!


Also, those idiots (or itelligently) picked that 58 Chevy for a reason. It was considered the WORST car at the time for accidents. The "X-Frame" is by far one of the worst designs ever.

Take a 59 Ford Fairlane and redo that test. The Malibu would be non-existent.

Josh

 

The body of a vehicle can be always repaired/replaced. However, you can't replace your own body. Get it? Newer stuff are better at protecting YOU.

What happens when the steering column impales you? Your truck gets crushed, you get buried.

 

Brand bias aside, sir, if it were any make from that era the results would be very similar. A vintage vs. modern F-truck wouldn't be any prettier either. "Crumple zone? What's that, daddy-o? Sounds like commie talk!"
PS: "And the winner of 2009's trendy, overused word contest is... (drum roll) ...FAIL!"

 

yea but each to there own now of days people want MPG with small cars. If thats keeps up we dont have nothing to worry bout with these old trucks they can take it these new cars cant. Higher MPG = lighter materials & smaller cars & smaller engines might have more safety features but size does matter here. besides you can put safety harnesses in these trucks an make them safer plus disc brakes.

 

The '59 chevy wreck proves a solid point. And not all the chevys had the X frame, I think it was just the ones built in Canada or something like that. New cars ARE safer, but I'll stick with the classics for now.
Speaking of small cars, the Smart car does surprisingly well. Go to www.vehix.com and check out the crash test vids there. I like crashes so I watched them all haha. I have to say though that the Chevy S-10's (my daily driver) has the worst looking crash test video on there. Sucks to be me. Ford Ranger ain't much better.

Anyway, off topic, was that your bump side?

 

Let's not forget that in both the case of the red 69 and my own the trucks were not only bigger and heavier than the cars involved but also much higher. That's why I went over the honda and kept going instead of impacting it solidly and came away better than the guy with the crumple zones and airbag. If I hadn't rebuilt my trans two weeks prior and was still driving my dad's 2wd F150 things would have been different. People have always joked with me that I wouldn't have to worry about getting in a wreck because I would just roll over the other guy and that's what happened. So as long as I have to drive a notorious two lane to work I'll stick with my tall truck. Bigger is better.

 

i truly and honestly believe that i am much better off in my trucks. the more people that want to drive cars for the economy, makes me that much safer. also, i think crumple zones are a good idea for people safety when they hit a brick wall. personally, id rather have some bruising on my chest and around my hips, and be able to A: drive away. or B: be able to fix my truck than have to buy a new vehicle. id like to see what turns out better, a dentside vs. an 09 super duty.

 

I don't think a '59 Fairlane would have done any better than the Chevy. Sheet metal death traps. In watching rebuilds of cars from the 50's, they're just tack-welded sheet metal, even for major structural components, like door pillars. Bodies were cosmetic at that time. The biggest safety factors on the trucks are the small cab (which will be much more rigid than a larger car body of the same gauge sheet metal), and the generally heavier construction. Also, a head-on collision in a pickup will be a lot different than a t-bone, because the heavier frame rails become battering rams. Look around you Youtube for an 80's crash test between an F150 and an Escort. F150 was head-on, escort was offset. You can see that the F150 cab does not deflect at all, while the "dummy" Escort driver's head bounces lightly off the hood of the truck as the little tin-can Escort folds around the bumper and framerails of the F150. Once the floorpan of the unibody starts to go, the door pillars and roof just crumple. I'd still hate to be t-boned in my F100- there's just sheetmetal between me and the oncoming vehicle until they hit the frame. You'll notice both my wife and I both have heavy modern cars- 2005 Impala and 2008 300, both of which are ~3800lbs curb weight cars. We had to call it "good enough" somewhere, otherwise we'd both be driving H1 Hummers.

 

Yea but you could always put a safty harness & disc brakes an stuff like that on these old trucks to make them safer. Besides what people don't understand is the crash tests are for car in the same class like a Civic & Cobalt hitting one another not like a Civic hitting a Crown Vic. People don't get that they think the crash tests means that they will be in good shape reguardless of what they hit an that is not the case. Thats why I like this ol truck it dont have the new stuff on it but size & weight is in its favor an the more the government ups the MPG the more small cars will be on the road an the less old big vehicles will be driving around. People just dont get it MPG is only good for so much than you have a vehicle that is better on MPG than safety an its not worth it. I would rather pay more for gas in something like that truck an be safer than to have a small compact car like a Toyota Prius. Think if a Prius will all the safty features an stuff would hit a Dent head on at 50 with the Dent having 35's on it an a 2" lift an a wraparound brushguard on it. Now how good would your MPG be then?

 

I spent several hours trying to find a picture or video of pickup vs. pickup, but all I found was pickup vs. car, pickup vs. train, pickup vs. semi, pickup vs. plane, and pickup vs. wall...

Does anyone know if there is any crash test footage of pickup vs. pickup? I can't find any...

 

I know there used to be a 70s Ford truck versus a 2004+ Ford Truck, but cannot find it.

But here is this to tide the time until something comes up...


YouTube - Vw Bus Crash Test

How does that saying go for a VW bus wreck?... What's the last thing that went thru your head during the crash? Yeah, that was your ***!

Josh

 

WOW! you want to talk about pancaking!

 

Somewhere I've got a copy of the NHTSA crash test database from a few years ago. They only had "impact G" data in it for various cars and crash scenarios. The data was kind of surprising- there was a wide spread in impact forces 3-17 Gs on one end, and 100+ Gs at the other end. Which car would you rather be in? The "soft impact" at 10Gs, or the "hard impact" at 100Gs? Think about it for a second. Soft impact cars means there's a lot of deformation going on. The soft impact data was for Subarus and other small tin cars (and some land yacht Caddies with acres of sheet metal between passengers and the outside world), and the hard impact data was for Volvo 240, Mercedes and other similar "bank vault safe" bricks. Go look up W123 and W126 Mercedes crash test videos on YouTube. In my drivers ed course, we watched some video talking about seatbelt safety that used Mercedes crash-test film from the early 70's, where they ran a sedan head-on into a parked car at 50MPH. The driver shook off the dizziness, took off his seatbelt, and walked away. In any other car without airbags, it would have been "hamburger time".

 

Found this 79 Ford truck vs escourt.

YouTube - Crash test F-150 vs Ford escort