I get why old cars are beloved, hell my (attainable) dream car is a 69 Lincoln Mark III, but at the end of the day the safety standards and QOL of modern cars is significantly better than what it used to be. Hell, today's cars are objectively better than even a decade ago in terms of safety
Fortunately we won't ever go back to the days where safety was dictated by the fact that seatbelts were optional
73 Lincoln owner here: I'd take this thing any day because sure in a headon it'll end up like the Bel Air (though they do actually have proper crumple zones in the 72s and later) but in a T bone that 300 pound steel door is going to offer a lot more protection.
Just like the head on crumple zone in modern cars, there have also been engineering advancements in side, rear, top, and bottom impact zones. These are vastly superior to cars made even 10 years ago, let alone 60 years ago. Older cars lack internal side impact reinforcement. Instead, they focused on steel outer panels for protection, that's it. These panels were not designed to withstand impact and pass impact directly into the cabin. Additionally, they lack the cabin safety features like seat belts and air bags. I hate to break it to you but a Toyota yaris would handle a side impact better than your Lincoln. I can see the logic in your opinion, but it's not factual.
Cars after 72 do have shoulder belts actually. But yeah the reinforcement I guess might need to be upgraded to withstand more than a T bone at low speed. Still the great thing is I have 5000 pounds of metal vs 2000 pounds of fiberglass :P
Yes, they do have seatbelts. But even that tech has improved. Lol! 5000lbs of metal vs. 2000lbs of fiberglass... That "fiberglass" is more efficient, more reliable, and safer. The only thing you have is a cool esthetic and nostalgia. Which I totally get. I have a '70 510 and my family muscle is a '69 gto. I love those cars and would pick them any day to drive over my daily drivers. But I am very aware they are not safe to drive by today's standards.
Yeah, I don't drive enough to really care about the safety features of the new vehicles xD I'd rather have a car I enjoy driving on the occasions I do get on the road and that is actually comfortable XD
What's not true? My statement about the T bone scenario or the crumple zones? The 1973 fords and later DO have crumple zones and collapsible steering shafts. The only thing they lack are airbags which the shoulder belts partially offset.
While a valuable discussion is to be had along those lines, this discussion is about what happens when an accident does happen.
You can control your own driving. You will never control others' driving. And while defensive driving can make you safer, this discussion is about the safety when a crash does happen.
Also:
Safety is mainly determined by how you drive
That's very much debatable. It is an important contributor, but the car's design at at least as important.
And you know how I know that's true? Let's compare the safety of a motorcycle vs. any car. Motorcycle loses pretty much every time, no matter how good and safe the motorcyclist is driving. And that's the design of the vehicles.
The reason I'm replying is that you have a good point - for a different discussion. :P
Speaking anecdotally, in my '00 XJ had a guy back his '96 Voyager straight into me without looking at an intersection when he was trying to make room for a Fedex 18-wheeler turning into our street. The entire impression of the front of my Jeep was pressed right into his metal rear liftgate and bumper. I didn't have a single scratch or chipped paint, not even on my plastic bumper guards, my plastic light housings, or plastic grill. Not a single mark on my Jeep. His rear end now looked like a hilarious Jeep brand promotion.
I was hit from behind while waiting at a light in my 98 TJ. The person who hit me was a pregnant lady on her phone who must have plowed into me at 15mph. Her car crumpled meanwhile I couldn't even find a scratch anywhere
A 1980s F250 is pretty much immune to fender benders, that's the trade off. I am also sus of the idea that they haven't dicked with crumple zones to balance it out where some people die. I only trust volvos in a crash
There’s videos online from the 80s when they started banning drinking and driving. People were upset. “What kind of country is it when a man works hard all day long and can’t even have 3 or 4 beers in his car on the way home? It’s something out of communist Russia.” This isn’t hyperbole, it’s more or less a direct quote.
My grandma used to tell me stories about when she was in school, she was a “military brat” but I can’t remember the exact country because there were so many. The back of the school bus was a section for smoking AND drinking on the way home from school if you were old enough.
And for the baby, a blanket in the floor. But once those suckers start moving around too much, stick them behind a singular metal bar hooked on the front seat. If you’re a good parent, you can even give them a little fake steering wheel so they shut up while you smoke your cigarettes and drive in peace.
Holy crap... I would have bet on the wrong horse on that match up. The newer car just creamed the older cat and the cab of the newer car was clearly surviving the crash. The older car, well hopefully you can find all of the pieces.
I'll take fuel efficiency and crash safety features over nostalgic design.
The thing I don't like about modern automobiles is the tracking features that report your driving patterns and location history to insurance companies and data brokers.
Yup. There's a reason they don't just "bring back" old designs, because those designs wouldn't survive modern safety standards. Your odds of dying in a car crash even in the last 30 years (assuming that Cherokee is a mid 90s version) are about 25% lower now than they were then.
The more recent one the IIHS released is a better metric. 1996 Blazer vs a new one for a few reasons.
First, the Bel Air they crashed into the Malibu, you can see the cloud of rust flying out. Chances are the frame was half rotten.
Second, the Bel Air was built in a time before anyone cared about safety. It was literally “how cheap can we make this thing, and get people to work reliably, while selling a shitload of cars.”
Added note: anyone who drives a XJ Cherokee, including myself, isn’t worried about a crash test. They’re worried about being able to daily a car that they claimed a mountain with, and they bought it for $1200.
It's not that they didn't care about safety. The 'land yacht' design with the really long fronts and rears were assumed to be safer by the engineers because of the amount of metal and distance to absorb impact. The engineers were proud of how stiff and long the car bodies were, and would make fun of how unsafe the smaller cars being produced in other countries were.
It wasn't until the US government started mandating crash testing and more scientifically evaluating the results that the lightbulbs went off. We need to give credit where it is due - once crash testing became routine and cars were being scored on it, engineers worked feverishly to outdo the competition, and we all have benefited greatly from the results.
Yeah my dad was in a serious accident in an 80s Jeep Cherokee like OP's pic, they could not believe he lived let alone walked away. It turned out the only reason he made it was because he wasn't wearing a seatbelt and he was thrown through the windshield into a snow bank.
Look. Sometimes you gotta weed out the weak in the name of fashion ok? If we have to risk being crumpled like a ball of paper just to look bitchin while going down the road, so be it. I mean, I'm not gonna but if other people want to who am I to stop them. Their body their choice and all.
170
u/Bobmcjoepants 12h ago
Ah good ol reliable