29th Jan 2005, 23:58

I have seen what happens when older cars run into modern "safe" cars in my life and the results contradict what you just said. Sure modern cars are safer if you hit a wall head on etc.etc. But when a much bigger and much heavier older car hits a newer car the newer car gets turned into a crumpled up piece of foil. I do agree that older cars aren't particularly safe, but I wouldn't say that newer cars are all that much better.

7th Feb 2006, 22:34

I would like to add that in high speed impacts, new cars are a lot safer then older cars are, but new cars are also more costly to repair. I had a 72 Dodge Dart and at slow speeds I hit a Lexus, and the Lexus has severe damage where as my car only had a little spot of paint on the bumper.

This doesn't mean that at low speeds old cars are safer, it just means they don't sustain as much costly damage and are frequently still drivable where as a new car would be in the shop. Safety wise new cars always win, but in repairs, old cars don't have the same damage.

8th Feb 2006, 15:19

Well, there you go. An old car that gets in an accident is more likely to still be drivable.

Too bad you would be less likely to be in any condition to still drive it tho.

8th Feb 2006, 15:56

That would have been hilarious to see the top-of-the-line Lexus taken down by the lowly '72 Dart! Your experiences certainly match what I've seen--'83 Diplomats knocking Hondas right out of their ball joints leaving the wheels laying in the street, and the Dodge drives away unscathed; '72 Newports getting sideswiped by new Oldsmobiles, with the result that the Chrysler had a small dent and the Oldsmobile had the whole front end caved in. I've seen the same examples over and over! Even so, there's that faction that will continue to preach how new cars are made so much better, and imports have such higher quality than junky old American cars. Let them rant, I guess.

21st Oct 2006, 22:51

Back in the late 70's when my mom was driving a mid-70's Honda Civic CVCC, she got rear-ended by an old guy in a Lincoln Continental at relatively low-speed. The Lincoln was basically unscathed, while the Civic had minor damage to the rear, and my mom suffered whiplash.

BTW, I think modern cars are safer for drivers and passengers than older cars. Extreme imaginary example car crash (medium force) : 1955 Bel Air vs. 2005 Taurus. Relatively the same size.

Bel Air: no seat belts, no power brakes or ABS, etc. Sure, the outside might be all right, but the inside occupants would get shaken around/thrown through windshield/suffer major whiplash, possibly be killed, etc.

Taurus: HAS seatbelts, power/ABS brakes, airbags, crumple zones, etc. Sure, the Taurus may LOOK all crushed and crumpled and broken, but the passengers (assuming they wear seatbelts and have not de-activated the air bags) would suffer minor to medium injuries and would likely still be alive.

19th Dec 2010, 16:31

I agree that an older car feels safer at slow speeds, but at an accident over 40 MPH I'd feel a lot safer with airbags and such.

5th Jun 2024, 12:27

Agree. You have to wonder if any of the commenters here ranting about how much safer older cars are in an accident have actually BEEN in one in an old car. Not some 15 MPH fender-bender, but a real high-speed collision. Maybe hitting all those steel knobs on that metal dash, and that non-collapsing steering column, might change their minds? Or, maybe not.

7th Jun 2024, 05:54

Who is ranting that older cars are safer? Would hope nobody is that clueless. The lack of airbags yes, but also stuff like the lack of headrests on seats. Was very easy to get whiplash upon impact several decades ago before front seats had headrests. Look at old Cadillacs and Lincolns and such which had front cushy bench seats, but literally no head rests for the driver or front passenger. Insanely dangerous. Hard for me to comprehend that anyone would argue those cars are safer than today’s.