Ford Mustang gets 48.5 mpg

[Supersonic64]

No, but you have enough time to tell everyone what you'd do if you did.

What a tool.

 

[Bignate603]

I'm not sure this safety equipement is even all that effective. I know several statisticians who have worked on several auto-related lawsuits and they seem to have found that if a seat belt can't help you, an airbag usually won't either.

I might believe that airbags don't save lives, but they'll lower cases of head and neck injury. Lowering cases of injury, even nonfatal injury is useful. Having your head whip forward or whack into the side pillar isn't a huge amount of fun. It may not kill you but it can do some damage.

I also have heard a number of stories about classics being fairly safe (despite the shenanigans with the '09 Malibu and the Bel Air a year ago). A woman I know was telling me about how her daughter's '66 six cylinder mustang rear ended a truck at 55 mph (her daughter was driving...) and the worst injury she sustained was a gash on the forehead. She walked out of the hospital.

Talk to pliablemoose about that. He's worked as an ER nurse. He's stated in the past that people that come into the ER after an accident in a newer car are typically in far better shape than someone in an older car.

As for the bel air/malibu crash, if you think that was some PR stunt you're lying to yourself. The Bel air used an X-frame which is notoriously weak. If the story you shared about the 66 mustang is true she got lucky she wasn't the one that got rear ended. Classic mustangs have a known issue where the fuel tank erupts in a fireball during a rear impact. So much for being safer.

Now I know obviously the conditions vary for each accident and so forth. I'd probably just keep the steel door guards. And I'm not advocating removing airbags from my cars. I'm just pointing out how more and more regulations demanding more and more airbags aren't going to help someone survive a terrible accident.

Really? Than why did you say this?

yea I agree all these damned laws seem bent on destroying fun. The politicians are determined to not allow idiots to die. I guess they need more voters.

I'd like to get hold of a 2006 Mustang GT and if the owner hasn't already done it, remove airbags, remove everything except the door guards and the AC. Remove all the dumb sound insulation. I don't even know why that shits there. If you want a quiet car buy a Ford Taurus or a BMW or something else.

 

[StageLeft]

The front end looks absolutely sinister!

Literally does look like a snake, well done.

 

[TehMac]

Really? Than why did you say this?

Excellent sleuthing Detective Bignate, you really got me now, don't you?

I was referring to the fact that most cars have tons of airbags but that's fine, you have fun with the airbags.

edit: And for heaven's sake, I'm just throwing ideas out there and then people throw some critiques/criticism my way about how/why that would/wouldn't work. A lot of the things I say are pure speculative in the first place.

I wouldn't say I'm trolling for reactions, I'm just sort of throwing fish hooks out there for people who have some knowledge about the particular caveat of car talk I am discussing. No need to get all hostile.

 

[Throckmorton]

I might believe that airbags don't save lives, but they'll lower cases of head and neck injury. Lowering cases of injury, even nonfatal injury is useful. Having your head whip forward or whack into the side pillar isn't a huge amount of fun. It may not kill you but it can do some damage.



Talk to pliablemoose about that. He's worked as an ER nurse. He's stated in the past that people that come into the ER after an accident in a newer car are typically in far better shape than someone in an older car.

As for the bel air/malibu crash, if you think that was some PR stunt you're lying to yourself. The Bel air used an X-frame which is notoriously weak. If the story you shared about the 66 mustang is true she got lucky she wasn't the one that got rear ended. Classic mustangs have a known issue where the fuel tank erupts in a fireball during a rear impact. So much for being safer.



Really? Than why did you say this?

I googled "bel air x frame" and this was one of the results http://www.examiner.com/x-12024-SF-...Bel-Air-and-successfully-narrates-the-obvious

 

[Zap]

80 mph, huh! When we drove through Denver on our way to Yellowstone last year, I had the cruise control set on 80 and Prius drivers were blowing by like I was sitting still. I wonder what kind of mileage a Prius gets at 90mph?

I did that in a rental Prius once when we road tripped to a LAN party. The "instant" MPG on the screen said 15MPG.

 

[Bignate603]

I googled "bel air x frame" and this was one of the results http://www.examiner.com/x-12024-SF-Classic-Cars-Examiner~y2009m10d6-IIHS-wrecks-a-1959-Chevy-Bel-Air-and-successfully-narrates-the-obvious

That's what he was referring to when he talked about shenanigans with the malibu and bel air. Many people seem to hold onto a belief that older cars were stronger and safer because they were built more sturdily. Older cars often were two weak in places where strength was required or too strong where you needed it to crumple. This meant that some cars would collapse during a collision like that bel air or it would barely crunch at all, having little to no cushioning effect like a modern car would with a crumple zone. Many of those cars that didn't crunch helped create the myth that older cars were safer because they seemed to drive away from low speed crashes with barely a scratch. This wasn't too bad for low speed impacts but for higher speed crashes it could have some pretty bad results for the people inside the vehicle.

This isn't to say that every new car is safer than every old one, but in general your average new car is significantly safer than your average car from a few decades ago.

 

[LTC8K6]

Anyone remember the Prius VS M3 fuel economy test that the M3 won? When the Prius was driven hard to keep up with a cruising M3 on a track, the M3 got the better mileage, iirc.

 

[overst33r]

Anyone remember the Prius VS M3 fuel economy test that the M3 won? When the Prius was driven hard to keep up with a cruising M3 on a track, the M3 got the better mileage, iirc.

Yeah good episode. Really brought home the idea that how you drive your car matters more than the engine size.

 

[obamanation]

Yeah good episode. Really brought home the idea that how you drive your car matters more than the engine size.

What it really teaches is that if you drive any vehicle HARD, it's going to get poor mileage...What you're saying whether you realize it or not is that if you conservatively drive an M3, you'll get Prius mileage which is ridiculous to say. Driving style is important but a conservative driver would benefit more from a Prius, not less. You can get 10mpg out of a Prius or out of an M3 but you can't get 90mpg out of an M3 like you can out of a Prius. (under certain circumstances)

 

[TehMac]

That's what he was referring to when he talked about shenanigans with the malibu and bel air. Many people seem to hold onto a belief that older cars were stronger and safer because they were built more sturdily. Older cars often were two weak in places where strength was required or too strong where you needed it to crumple. This meant that some cars would collapse during a collision like that bel air or it would barely crunch at all, having little to no cushioning effect like a modern car would with a crumple zone. Many of those cars that didn't crunch helped create the myth that older cars were safer because they seemed to drive away from low speed crashes with barely a scratch. This wasn't too bad for low speed impacts but for higher speed crashes it could have some pretty bad results for the people inside the vehicle.

This isn't to say that every new car is safer than every old one, but in general your average new car is significantly safer than your average car from a few decades ago.

I never said modern cars weren't safer, it's just I heard the Bel Air was rusted...you don't have to be a huge classic car geek to know that the chassis or even the body work might have severely rusted or worn away. So it I said shenanigans just to hint that this may not have been such a decisive test.

Also, the metal they used back then, at least for American Cars but I'm assuming for imports as well, was of a lesser grade. This means deterioration could be a lot more severe than guessed.

There's no way I'd say classic cars are safer, I'm just not sure how much I agree with the whole "let's stick 10 airbags into a sports car so the people inside are protected when they overdose on cocaine while driving"

 

[Bignate603]

I never said modern cars weren't safer, it's just I heard the Bel Air was rusted...you don't have to be a huge classic car geek to know that the chassis or even the body work might have severely rusted or worn away. So it I said shenanigans just to hint that this may not have been such a decisive test.

The claims that the bel air was rusting to pieces or without a drive train are pretty much unfounded. There are always people that come out and say anything that you post on the internet is fake.

I'm sure there was corrosion and road grime inside the body panels. On most old cars that haven't had a full restoration you'll find that junk packed in every nook and cranny you could possibly imagine. When you throw in the fact that the bel air had a design issue where air that was supposed to flow through the rocker and dry it typically made it pack full of crap and corrosion you're going to get pounds of junk flying everywhere. Last I checked, rockers that have some rust on the inside or having 10 to 20 pounds of road grime packed into random spots in your car will not have any effect on the car's actual strength.

If you spend some time working on old cars that have been driven but never completely taken apart to clean them out you'll begin to understand. Almost every old car had spots where the crap would just pack in. Each car is different but from what I've seen the rockers on this model of bel air are a common culprit for collecting it.

Even back when the bel air was new the x-frame design was considered more dangerous than other options but they liked the ability to make the car sit lower for appearance and the flexible frame made the ride smoother. The frame was designed as part of the suspension, flexing around to smooth out bumps in the road. A ladder frame vehicle from the same era would have probably done better but I still believe that the Malibu would have beaten it, hands down.

Edit: It looks like the car used was sold in Indiana. A guy familiar with it spoke about it on Chevy talk

It took more than a year to sell that four door. My friend doesn't have a computer and he had advertised it (in print) everywhere. When I finally convinced him to let me list it on the net, it sold right away from my website.

If I would have had the space to keep it and the extra money, I would have bought that car myself. At the time, it didn't make much sense to have my spiffy Impala and also a similar BelAir.... My buddy's car was so nice! Original interior was incredible, and almost zero rust.... grrrrrrrrr............ What a waste.

 

[LTC8K6]

What it really teaches is that if you drive any vehicle HARD, it's going to get poor mileage...What you're saying whether you realize it or not is that if you conservatively drive an M3, you'll get Prius mileage which is ridiculous to say. Driving style is important but a conservative driver would benefit more from a Prius, not less. You can get 10mpg out of a Prius or out of an M3 but you can't get 90mpg out of an M3 like you can out of a Prius. (under certain circumstances)

The Prius was driven flat out on the track. The M3's job was to keep up. The M3 got 19.4 vs the Prius with 17.2, no one is saying anything about conservatively driving the M3. The M3 was driven as hard as the Prius.

It was just a demo about driving style and about operating the car where it's efficient.

 

[MJinZ]

The Prius was driven flat out on the track. The M3's job was to keep up. The M3 got 19.4 vs the Prius with 17.2, no one is saying anything about conservatively driving the M3. The M3 was driven as hard as the Prius.

It was just a demo about driving style and about operating the car where it's efficient.

Heh, I bet the M3 was only driven 1/2 as hard to keep up with a full-throttle prius.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Edit: It looks like the car used was sold in Indiana. A guy familiar with it spoke about it on Chevy talk

It took more than a year to sell that four door. My friend doesn't have a computer and he had advertised it (in print) everywhere. When I finally convinced him to let me list it on the net, it sold right away from my website.

If I would have had the space to keep it and the extra money, I would have bought that car myself. At the time, it didn't make much sense to have my spiffy Impala and also a similar BelAir.... My buddy's car was so nice! Original interior was incredible, and almost zero rust.... grrrrrrrrr............ What a waste.

While I agree that a new car would have fared better regardless, I have to say that, having lived in the midwest for a large percentage of my life, the phrase, "almost zero rust" means something very different in Indiana than it does in, say, Arizona.

ZV

 

[obamanation]

Heh, I bet the M3 was only driven 1/2 as hard to keep up with a full-throttle prius.

Exactly, to think otherwise would be crazy unless someone removed some spark plugs or something..

While I agree that a new car would have fared better regardless, I have to say that, having lived in the midwest for a large percentage of my life, the phrase, "almost zero rust" means something very different in Indiana than it does in, say, Arizona.

ZV

X2

 

[TehMac]

Thank you Zv. Living in Illinois and then living in CA has taught me such wisdom as well.

 

[Eli]

What it really teaches is that if you drive any vehicle HARD, it's going to get poor mileage...What you're saying whether you realize it or not is that if you conservatively drive an M3, you'll get Prius mileage which is ridiculous to say. Driving style is important but a conservative driver would benefit more from a Prius, not less. You can get 10mpg out of a Prius or out of an M3 but you can't get 90mpg out of an M3 like you can out of a Prius. (under certain circumstances)

I drive the ever living fuck out of my Insight, and still manage 55MPG on a bad day. 😛

 

[Perknose]

LOL, and I can get 40mpg too if I stay in a slipstream behind a truck going 55mph for few hours...

Thank-you! I remember posting in OT, long before The Garage even existed, about drafting (with their permission, which is important) behind semis all over the interstates of America in my VW pop-top camper bus, and being met with total incomprehension and outright disbelief.

Bus owners regularly did this, and the overwhelming majority of truckers would let you, so long as you got visible in their mirrors and signaled your intention first.

It was almost a necessity if you wanted to maintain interstate speeds over long distances in the SW in the summer without overheating, especially if you didn't have an aftermarket oil cooler installed.

More on topic, re: A Prius being driven hard. Anecdotally, I went to NYC with a female friend for some music in her Prius and she was bombing down I-80 doing over 80mph at times, and, fwiw, I glanced over and saw the trip computer was still showing an instant mpg of 38.xxx mpg.

Suspect, I know.

Worst thing is that she had spazzed out and traded in an absolute cherry 5 speed Civic SI coupe on the Prius that I would have bought from her in a heartbeat.

 

[TraumaRN]

I'll just say that as an ER nurse I'd much rather be in a new modern car then a classic one if I'm in any crash >25mph.

Case and point yesterday had a car crash patient she rear ended another driver at 55mph in an 04 Buick and she had a single broken rib and an abrasion to her cheek from the airbag. Otherwise no serious injuries.

 

[obamanation]

I drive the ever living fuck out of my Insight, and still manage 55MPG on a bad day. 😛

not , "top gear" hard...

 

[Bignate603]

While I agree that a new car would have fared better regardless, I have to say that, having lived in the midwest for a large percentage of my life, the phrase, "almost zero rust" means something very different in Indiana than it does in, say, Arizona.

ZV

While I've seen 'almost no rust' in the north east mean a few spots, bubbles on sheet metal, surface rust on the frame, or even holes on the rockers I've never met anyone that had a clue about cars say 'almost no rust' included anything that compromised a car's structure.

If anyone is interested about how an x-frame looks, here's some pictures of a 1959 Chevy convertible's frame. http://www.xframechevy.com/chevrolet341.htm. Having it bend in like that makes it inherently weaker than even the other designs at the time.

Here's some pictures of two X-frame chevys that hit head on. They failed in pretty much the same way that the one did in the test by the IIHS.

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=767570&d=1253982273
http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=767571&d=1253982273
These cars with an x-frame were known to fold up during a collision long before this crash test. The way it failed is no different than what you see in pictures from back when they were new brand new.

 

[TehMac]

chassis sucks

Yes, no one is doubting the chassis sucks. But what about dynacorn's chassis for classic cars? Or hell, haven't some of these classics been "converted" to unibodies or something?

 

[Bignate603]

Yes, no one is doubting the chassis sucks. But what about dynacorn's chassis for classic cars? Or hell, haven't some of these classics been "converted" to unibodies or something?

I could imagine someone putting together an integrated frame and roll cage for a classic car but I can't imagine how you would successfully convert a body on frame design to a unibody without tearing the car to pieces, creating a unibody from scratch, and then welding on the exterior sheet metal to make it look like the old car. The bodies used on older cars were just that, a body. They relied on the frame for strength and rigidity.

The modern replacement frames that are available for these classic cars could be better than the ones they replace, but they still aren't as safe as your average newer model. If I had to guess I'd bet that those replacement frames would perform either similar or only slightly better than an original in good condition. I highly doubt you'd see any meaningful improvement unless the original car had huge issues to begin with (possibly like that crashed bel air).

The replacement has to fit into the same car so its design is still limited to what can fit. Improvements in steel strength and modified designs can make them stronger than the originals, but as I mentioned before, this isn't always a good thing. Modern cars are designed to crunch in certain places to absorb the impact and stay rigid in others to protect the occupants. While there may be a company that considers crumple zones in their replacement classic frame design I would bet that the vast majority don't. The major concerns for classic replacement frames is this:

1. Does it bolt on to the body and have everything I need to hang my suspension (could be original or modern suspension)
2. Does it fix any known issues with the original frame (some form cracks in certain places or are prone to rust in others)
3. Is it strong enough to deal with the intended use, especially if more power is planned

If they do anything for crash safety it would most likely be to make it stronger. While this is better than having a car collapse like a soggy shoebox it still is harder on the vehicle occupants than a vehicle with proper crumple zones. In the end, the companies making the classic replacement parts don't have the resources design or test a frame that is safer in a crash, they don't have customers that are demanding it to be included in their product, and there is no government regulation that forces them to consider crash safety. It's possible that some frames will be safer due to increased strength but it's very hard to make a conclusive argument either way.

With all that being said, I love old cars. There are some that look amazing and they can have a driving experience that is so much better than anything you'll find on the road today. That being said, I understand they're more dangerous and accept that as part of driving an older car. I know my classic jeep is a death trap but I still love it.

 

[TehMac]

I could imagine someone putting together an integrated frame and roll cage for a classic car but I can't imagine how you would successfully convert a body on frame design to a unibody without tearing the car to pieces, creating a unibody from scratch, and then welding on the exterior sheet metal to make it look like the old car. The bodies used on older cars were just that, a body. They relied on the frame for strength and rigidity.

The modern replacement frames that are available for these classic cars could be better than the ones they replace, but they still aren't as safe as your average newer model. If I had to guess I'd bet that those replacement frames would perform either similar or only slightly better than an original in good condition. I highly doubt you'd see any meaningful improvement unless the original car had huge issues to begin with (possibly like that crashed bel air).

The replacement has to fit into the same car so its design is still limited to what can fit. Improvements in steel strength and modified designs can make them stronger than the originals, but as I mentioned before, this isn't always a good thing. Modern cars are designed to crunch in certain places to absorb the impact and stay rigid in others to protect the occupants. While there may be a company that considers crumple zones in their replacement classic frame design I would bet that the vast majority don't. The major concerns for classic replacement frames is this:

1. Does it bolt on to the body and have everything I need to hang my suspension (could be original or modern suspension)
2. Does it fix any known issues with the original frame (some form cracks in certain places or are prone to rust in others)
3. Is it strong enough to deal with the intended use, especially if more power is planned

If they do anything for crash safety it would most likely be to make it stronger. While this is better than having a car collapse like a soggy shoebox it still is harder on the vehicle occupants than a vehicle with proper crumple zones. In the end, the companies making the classic replacement parts don't have the resources design or test a frame that is safer in a crash, they don't have customers that are demanding it to be included in their product, and there is no government regulation that forces them to consider crash safety. It's possible that some frames will be safer due to increased strength but it's very hard to make a conclusive argument either way.

With all that being said, I love old cars. There are some that look amazing and they can have a driving experience that is so much better than anything you'll find on the road today. That being said, I understand they're more dangerous and accept that as part of driving an older car. I know my classic jeep is a death trap but I still love it.

I agree with everything you said.