Poll regarding new and old cars - Page 2

4Vman · 23-08-2010, 10:04 PM

Put an egg inside a foam lined plastic box and drop it off the roof of your house, i bet the egg survives but the plastic deforms, place an egg inside a box made from 10mm thick steel and drop it off the same roof... i bet the box remains perfectly intact but the egg smashes...
Plastic box = new car, Steel box = old car.... Sadly the egg = you or i....

mik · 23-08-2010, 10:08 PM

no doubt some modern cars are better a lot of the time, but there are some circumstances were i`d rather a big car with a lot of rear and frontal area thats not aerodynamicly wedge shaped in a collision.

geckoGT · 23-08-2010, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mik

no doubt some modern cars are better a lot of the time, but there are some circumstances were i`d rather a big car with a lot of rear and frontal area thats not aerodynamicly wedge shaped in a collision.

Maybe so, but you do not get to choose which one you are in before the crash or how the crash happens.

Which one do think will give the better odds the majority of the time, no fence sitting option in the poll?

Smoke Pursuit · 23-08-2010, 10:11 PM

New car, less impact from the collison on the occupants, thats why they buildd them with plastic / light metal, the car takes most of the force and sucks it in, therefore the safety cell protects the occupants and makes the hit softer.

Older car = heavier impact, damage maybe much less but the occupants are gonig to jarred and thrown around way more, not to mention no proper lap sash seatbelts, pretentioners or airbags to also aide the impact.

In saying that however id pick an FG Falcon over a LV Focus today!

Smoke Pursuit · 23-08-2010, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AussieAV

I voted Focus. I'd say its safer in every situation!!!

Not every situation.. a heavy rear ender in a focus could leave rear occupants way worse off then a heavy rear ender in a 40 year old Fairlane. In saying that however while they make look better after the accident in the Fairlane their internals could be a different story.

geckoGT · 23-08-2010, 10:38 PM

Could we please keep the debate out of it. If yo would like to add to the debate, please cut and paste a quote into the other thread and debate it there.

Ryan · 23-08-2010, 11:15 PM

I would prefer to be in the newer car. Things like crumble zones, airbags etc have come along way in 40 years. A big car like a Fairlane in this case probably would withstand quite a bit of damage, but what about the occupants in side?

I've been in many old Holdens, and Fords, and I seriously would not like to be in them in a severe accident.

Scott · 23-08-2010, 11:26 PM

Old car for me.

WMD351 · 23-08-2010, 11:40 PM

Frontal airbags, side airbags, roof airbags, thorax airbags, scrotal airbags, airbags for every situation. NEW CAR

RedHotGT · 24-08-2010, 10:18 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_ptUrQOMPs

This video is COMPLETELY relevant to the OP and the Poll....

Not sure if you guys have seen this... but it is certainly worth the 2 minutes...

This is a video of a 1959 Chevrolet Impala vs a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu...

Head on impact (in highspeed camera)

I know which car I'd rather be in...

Bad Bird · 24-08-2010, 11:01 AM

New car everytime. The odds are better- there may be accidents where the old girl performs better, but these are not in the majority.

That said, referencing the above video, 1959 Bel Airs had a shocking (even for the time) X-frame chassis that is as weak as a noodle.

tweeked · 24-08-2010, 01:29 PM

Just cause the bumpers are made of metal does not = strength.

The lighter, smaller, newer car is much stronger.

To place your life on the hope that you will be significantly heavier than the other party, is too much of a gamble for me.

It is a no brainer......unfortunately prophetically. New for me

mik · 24-08-2010, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Maybe so, but you do not get to choose which one you are in before the crash or how the crash happens.

Which one do think will give the better odds the majority of the time, no fence sitting option in the poll?

ok , the newer car wins.

Boosh Brus · 24-08-2010, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTP006

Old car for me.

Can you explain you reasoning?

Scott · 24-08-2010, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boosh Brus

Can you explain you reasoning?

Well, I was being more than a little facetious - but not without a back-up argument

With the simple question of "what is safer" I resorted to which I am more likely to crash. And the answer is a new, super safe egg carton - hands down.

Though I don't have an old car at the moment, when I did I used it to the tune of about 5000km a year. At the same time, I used my AU for about 120,000kms a year. As a percentage of time exposed to a potential crash, the old car was only about 4% of my driving time. In it I was more diligent than I was in the AU and paid far more attention to braking distances, wet weather and not attracting the attention of the fuzz by speeding.

So take my 4% driving time, add some extra due care and attention and it was very unlikely I would have been involved in a prang compared to in my [at the time] new and super safe Falcon.

Don't get me started on the odds of actually getting the thing out of the shed

If I had the choice of car to crash, it would obviously be a new one - almost any new one would do over anything more than a few years old.

svo supporter · 24-08-2010, 07:01 PM

There are alot of factors relating to which car to be in, to prevent injuries. Speed, how many ancap rating points the car has, for starters.

However for the sake of this thread, I don't want a to and froing incident occuring. So we'll leave it at that and my solitary vote.

geckoGT · 24-08-2010, 09:51 PM

Ok, the poll and the discussion is going great, well done everyone.

I have to say that I am a little surprised that there are 10% that believe the old car is safer. What worries me at the moment is that there have been 10% say the old car is safer but no where near 10% of posters have made any form of statement that backs this vote. My fear is that there are some that are just voting to mess with the figures but either do not actually believe it or don't really have any opinion. I hope that is not the case.

Now that the other thread is locked there is no other option for debate, but I still do wish to see debate here. I would like to see reason for personal opinion to back up votes if possible. I think in the spirit of this it is reasonable to ask for evidence of why this opinion is held.

Now there is no secret how I feel so myself pointing out that I voted for the new car is really a bit pointless. But I did vote for the new car and I have done more research to see if I am on the right track.

For those that have a interest in this topic, have a read through ADR 73/00 in the tech section. This ADR was dated 2005 covering offset frontal crash tests and is still in force.

Important points are the test has to occur at 56 km/h +/-1 km and must be full kerb mass with the strict fuel weight and equipment weight restrictions.

Many of the cars pre 2005 that I have seen videos of the crash test would not have passed the criteria under this ADR, all cars post 2005 must to achieve compliance.

A good example is this 2002 Dodge ram crash here or this Ford F150 here

Both are big cars, both failed miserably. Just the simple fact that the door opened on impact is an instant fail.

Evidence like that demonstrate to me very clearly how safety standards have improved over time with a turning point being 2005. These research results also back up my professional observations attending actual car crashes. That is why I voted the way I did.

So for me I would prefer a new car for a daily driver and an old classic for a toy to come out for enjoyable (but careful) cruises on the weekend (anyone know of a good condition 307 ci HK Premier in good condition).

Walkinshaw · 24-08-2010, 11:57 PM

I don't have access to the restricted forums here any more, but I'm sure this thread would defiantly be up for an award.

Suggestions for the next poll might be along the lines of What is safer to juggle (a) tennis balls (b) enriched uranium

svo supporter · 24-08-2010, 11:59 PM

I can't see debating in this thread achieving anything more than what the last thread did.

UNR8D · 25-08-2010, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by svo supporter

I can't see debating in this thread achieving anything more than what the last thread did.

why? because you still have no evidence to back up your claims?

zdcol71 · 25-08-2010, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Could we please keep the debate out of it. If yo would like to add to the debate, please cut and paste a quote into the other thread and debate it there.

Come on ,guys. It's not an unreasonable ask, seeing as how the other thread was (eventually) closed.

XR6TCraig · 25-08-2010, 08:42 AM

I voters the 5 star ANCAP rated Focus, but if I had my choice:

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

And if both were to hit a semi trailer?

I would like to vote for the Semi trailer if thats ok? I am sure I will be safer in it despite the lack of crumple zones, at least until I hit another truck.

svo supporter · 25-08-2010, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UNR8D

why? because you still have no evidence to back up your claims?

No. It's because anything I say you don't believe anyways. So it's pointless trying to convince someone that's set in their ways.

CFOUR · 25-08-2010, 06:58 PM

My dad rolled a xy gtho 11 times butt over head. All five occupants where fine except for some fuel in their eyes (gas tank split). I don't see a buzz box surviving more than a single roll.

Nikked · 25-08-2010, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by svo supporter

I can't see debating in this thread achieving anything more than what the last thread did.

So, can you prove that all the wires, to all the tone wheels are going to fail a split second before a crash, along with the airbags, and seatbelt pre-tensioners?

And that, crumple zones, Side intrusion bars, modern metals are in-effective at passenger protection?

Nikked · 25-08-2010, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CFOUR

My dad rolled a xy gtho 11 times butt over head. All five occupants where fine except for some fuel in their eyes (gas tank split). I don't see a buzz box surviving more than a single roll.

Modern cars have got a way better "shell" then older cars, the metals used in todays cars have got better properties, the metals used in the frames of older cars is (in most cases) the same soft material as whats used on the gaurds etc..

Now there is Boron-steels that are much stronger then normal steel. A bloke at work rolled his liberty of a road (at around 150km/h) through a fence, and all his passengers survived.

Case's like that, i think are more lady luck...

boss 300 · 25-08-2010, 07:12 PM

hi all,well spent 20 years on my 79 zh fairlane,and i reckon i fell safe,then my 03 and 09 xr8,my 2 cents

xy500 · 25-08-2010, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nikked

Modern cars have got a way better "shell" then older cars, the metals used in todays cars have got better properties, the metals used in the frames of older cars is (in most cases) the same soft material as whats used on the gaurds etc..

Now there is Boron-steels that are much stronger then normal steel. A bloke at work rolled his liberty of a road (at around 150km/h) through a fence, and all his passengers survived.

lets keep the superiority debate out of it.
But on the subject of metals, what the heck? iron hasn't changed since it was formed in the star it came from. I think you mean alloys and steels. And you will find cheaper substandard steels are more prolific now than ever across the board.

Franco Cozzo · 25-08-2010, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craiginmackay

I would like to vote for the Semi trailer if thats ok? I am sure I will be safer in it despite the lack of crumple zones, at least until I hit another truck.

Isn't it always the case in a head on involving a truck, the truck driver always ends up with leg injuries?

(The other people are dead but the truck drivers don't get out of it without a scratch).

4vxc · 25-08-2010, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveJH

What size? Or should I say, what mass?

http://www.uniquecarsandparts.com.au...ifications.htm
ZF Fairlane, 1425-1549kg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Focus_(international)#Mk_2_.282004-2010.29
Focus Mk.2, 1,229-1,630kg.

Now add in airbags, seat belt pretensioners, a lot more mass used strengthening the passenger area rather then being made up by a heavy block of iron weighing 250kg.

thats a light Fairlane, my 351 ZF weighed 1792kg. Here are specs of the 1977 ZH and P6 LTD

Dimensions:
Length:
Width:
Height:
Wheelbase:
Front track:
Rear track:
Kerb weight:
Turning circle:
Fuel tank:
Boot space: Fairlane
5196mm
1956mm
1367mm
2946mm
1537mm
1524mm
1768kg
12.6 m
79.5 litres
494.7 litres LTD
5364mm
1956mm
1366mm
3074mm
1537mm
1524mm
1832kg
12.9 m
79.5 litres
494.7 litres

View Poll Results: What out of the two options do you believe is safer?
A late 70's Fairlane or equivalent, size does matter.	25	14.45%
A late model hatch such as Focus or equivalent, it is not the size but how you use it.	148	85.55%
Voters: 173. You may not vote on this poll