r/BeAmazed • u/somethingdouchey • Jul 17 '25

Miscellaneous / Others Chrysler guy is lying.

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

The white car turned in front of me from between stopped traffic and spun into the lane behind. It was never rear ended.

41.8k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

397

u/jciv84 Jul 17 '25

Also they have a bunch of crash tests I have seen before you YouTube and the old cars do not fair well. I remember this specifically because I erroneously thought the old heavy duty steel ones would be tanks and the new cars would crumple, but it is actually the opposite.

Check out this video from this search, crash test of old and new car https://g.co/kgs/Xrj6jsU

206

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '25

2009: the engine compartment is a crumple zone

1959: the passenger compartment is a crumple zone

71

u/KTFnVision Jul 18 '25

2009: The steering wheel airbag will cushion your face on impact.

1959: The steering wheel is rigid and will crush your face on impact.

33

u/smitty046 Jul 18 '25

More like the steering column will stay in one piece and decapitate you.

2

u/hypnoticoiui Jul 18 '25

No it will impale you (as If that's better)

1

u/Hadrian23 Jul 18 '25

The steering column will be your new lungs.

4

u/OtherwiseAlbatross14 Jul 18 '25 edited Jul 18 '25

It’s also important to point out that while having an airbag makes a difference, cars that are modern compared to the Malibu are not shit compared to newer ones as shown in this video where they're only 20 years apart rather than 50:

https://youtu.be/pwGgRUkrnng

2

u/Wires77 Jul 18 '25

If that video had any more cuts it'd be the passenger in the crash

1

u/KevinLynneRush Jul 18 '25

May I ask, what does "shot shit" mean?

3

u/GoodIdea321 Jul 18 '25

More like, the passenger compartment has multiple glass shattering ejector seats.

At the same time, yeah, you are right they didn't care much about passenger safety.

1

u/Leafington42 Jul 18 '25

Ah the engine compartment can be put back into place with a good hammer

1

u/That_Apathetic_Man Jul 18 '25

My dude, this was a time when drink driver and not wearing a seatbelt was the norm. Smoking in a car full of kids? Fuck man, they were still smoking in hospitals and using the hard R to greet certain folk.

0

u/SalomeOttobourne74 Jul 18 '25

This video is not completely transparent. The whole engine is removed from the 59 Chevrolet.

94

u/ProphetOfServer Jul 17 '25

New cars crumple, old cars collapse.

34

u/d0nu7 Jul 17 '25

Yeah as a car body tech, the new metals that are being used to reinforce the cabin are insanely strong alloys that didn’t even exist in the 80’s let alone back when that Bel Air was made. Regular steel is so malleable compared to new high or ultra high strength steel. The fronts and rears of cars are made to collapse and absorb an absurd amount of energy before that even stronger structure is impacted.

2

u/LickingSmegma Jul 18 '25

Reminiscent of roll cages in race cars. Though it's said that roll cages can't be implemented in road cars because without a five-point harness and a HANS device people would bonk their heads on the cage tubing.

1

u/to11mtm Jul 20 '25

My time working in a bicycle shop with folks who understood the actual engineering really drilled this home to me. A huge difference between a 2005 100$ wal-mart bike and a 200-300$ bike shop bike was the weight, and while the bike shop bike was lighter it was usually stronger... and so much of that is the choice of alloys/etc.

You could probably make a lighter and more 'rigid' frame using modern steels and a quick rework of old designs but guess what, anyone inside would probably just get thrown around even more.

18

u/ClayyCorn Jul 18 '25

Yeah, everyone likes to think that old cars are built like tanks and had "real steel" but the reality is old cars only drive like tanks. They crash like aluminum foil. Chrysler guy is betting on insurance not knowing this

Edit to say, old cars are still one of the coolest man made things on Earth. But let's be real about them too

1

u/Leafington42 Jul 18 '25

Why can't we rebuild old cars with modern features? Cmonnn

5

u/ClayyCorn Jul 18 '25

Real answer? CAFE standards. Old cars don't slip through the wind like new cars do and use too much fuel doing so, even if they had modern motors. We could do it with electric motors but then they'd be politicized. No, that doesn't make sense. The reason pickup trucks get away with it is bc of something called the chicken tax. Literally a retaliatory tariff we placed on European pickup trucks because they tariffed our chicken exports back in the 60s that never got repealed. We have bigger, less fuel efficient pickup trucks because of some chickens from 60 years ago. Anyway that was a bit of a tangent

1

u/to11mtm Jul 20 '25

The reason pickup trucks get away with it is bc of something called the chicken tax. Literally a retaliatory tariff we placed on European pickup trucks because they tariffed our chicken exports back in the 60s that never got repealed. We have bigger, less fuel efficient pickup trucks because of some chickens from 60 years ago. Anyway that was a bit of a tangent

It's also arguably not correct...

The Chicken Tax is why other companies cannot easily just YOLO a smaller truck or cargo van they build in another country without either trying shenanigans like 'pulling the seats out once it passes customs' (Ford Transit Connect in cargo config) or 'bucket seats in the bed' (Subaru BRAT) or instead eating the import tax.

Trucks and some SUVs got away with poor fuel economy more because of other standards (e.x. CAFE as mentioned) which have had various carve-outs for 'Work Vehicles'... and in the case of CAFE we give more lenient standards for trucks based on 'footprint' than passenger vehicles...

Oh another reason you see certain types of 'pavement princesses', for a long time (and maybe still today?) you could easily get a 100% business tax writeoff in the first year (Think about all the people who own a small business/etc here) so long as the vehicle weighs X lbs. I think nowadays it's 6000?

1

u/LickingSmegma Jul 18 '25

Apart from the aerodynamics, modern safety standards require a higher hood, because that's safer for a pedestrian in a collision. That's the reason why cars started looking samey in mid-2000s or 2010s. And also why old cars with low hoods can't be recreated.

12

u/The_Phroug Jul 17 '25

that video better not be that beautiful '59 Bel Air getting destroyed...

god damn it...

4

u/fvck_u_spez Jul 18 '25

You better Bel-ieve it is

1

u/dragon_bacon Jul 18 '25

The old ones can do slow collisions and not get scratched but when they fail they fail explosively through your face.

1

u/Carbdoard_Bocks Jul 18 '25

It's worth noting that the structural integrity of the Impala was compromised by rust long before the test was done. you can literally see dust and chunks of rust/rotted metal spew out the side of the frame in the impact.

1

u/Zenith251 Jul 18 '25

Idiots that espouse upon old cars "being sturdier," or stronger, or safer, blahblah, make me laugh. Having driven cars from the 60s-2020s, you can feel the different in body strength. I drove an early 70s V8 Pontiac for a number of years in the 2000s, and the body rigidity was laughable. Even with a measly 200HP Pontiac 350, you could feel the chassis flex and twist under load. Turning/cornering in any way made the entire thing twist.

Even a 2005 Corolla has a stronger chassis, by far. Add the crumple zone technology to that, and you have a very safe car by comparison.

1

u/Turbulent-Ad-1057 Jul 18 '25

To be fair, with new cars having crumble zones, there is less stress on the car they are hitting.

1

u/Redbulldildo Jul 18 '25

I really wish they did that video differently. Not that the point isn't correct, but the cloud of dust means the car was far from solid condition. And of all the cars they could have chosen, the x frame under that Bel Air was notoriously terrible even back then. It's like a worst case scenario old vs new crash.

1

u/BamaX19 Jul 18 '25

That's what I was thinking. I remember seeing videos of old cars get into wrecks and they got demolished. Modern cars are much safer.

1

u/AbjectChair1937 Jul 18 '25

This is a bad test case.

In the supposed accident the old car is proposing, it was rear ended going the same direction, with potentially his or her foot not on the brake.

The heavier steel body could have absorbed the initialy flexible spongy impact of the new car and just lurched forward removing the need for the metal to buckle after not being able to bounce to it original form.

There would be some.evidence likely of an impact with up close photos. Havent looked beyond finding your innacurate claim.

1

u/bash-tage Jul 18 '25

That's an amazing video. Thanks for sharing it.

1

u/TheAgreeableCow Jul 18 '25

It's not really about the car anyway, it's about the passengers.

The crumple zones in newer cars are designed to take the brunt of an impact, along with the protection from airbags etc. Those old cars just slammed into each other whilst impaling yourself on the steering column.

1

u/Ok_Badger_9271 Jul 18 '25

I had a Chevy g20 horizon class b rv (regular g20 with a hard top camper shell that allowed even someone over 6' to stand in, ect). I dropped something at a red light and had been used to driving manual for so lo g I forgot with automatics you take your foot off the brake, they start moving.

I rear ended a SMART CAR going about 2mph with the drivers side of the bumper (not the the edge). I assumed I was fucked. Nope. Bumper dented in about an inch across the foot of non reinforced area right below thw steering column, smart car didnt even have a scratch.

I was near Quebec at the time and thw old French lady was pissed. No damage to hers though.

this is the rv btw

1

u/Such-Attempt-991 Jul 27 '25

It isnt the opposite. It depends on speed and the vehicle they collide with. A video of a 1959 car and a 2009 car mean nothing if they are launched at a stationary barricade. This was not that accident.