I think they intentionally crashed the 59 Chevy, so that the doubters wouldn’t have anything to say
If they had only simulated the crash, the doubters could always point to the lack of physical evidence
Since this is so well documented, it’s extremely hard to argue with the facts
That is my opinion, as to why they actually crashed the classic car
Four door sedans like that '59 Chevy can be found pretty cheaply in that era. The new one was more expensive.
Two Neighbors of mine were injured pretty seriously in newer model Mustangs(the last one very seriously) so be careful in a trace of snow with one-however they were young Guys and a sporty car and young people,oft times doesnt seem the best mix-Kevin
@olderbody
Living that way in general with disregard for your own safety puts others at risk and creates hardship for those who need to care for you. Guess if those “1000 virgins” after death are intriguing enough, that would be a good philosophy for driving unsafe cars. ;=)
Wow! I didn’t expect this thread to last the weekend. Passions run deep, that why I came here for info and help. 
I’ve still got my eyes on the vintage Mustang, but I don’t presently have the disposable income to upgrade it to a point I’d feel safe driving it around regularly, especially with all the bad drives I see. It’s not that I’m living in paranoia or putting on enjoyment for fear of the “what ifs”, but I’m not looking to thrust myself into unnecessary risks. Yes, the vintage Mustang is – imo – an absolutely beautiful car; and I’d also prefer to have a vehicle which doesn’t take a BS in Computer Sciences to diagnose or fix. But it seems that economically that is a bit out of my current reach; so in lieu of that I’ll look for that’s the next best fit between looks and practicality. Kind of like a girlfriend.
The 59 Chevy had an X-frame without any side rails. It was also a 4 door hardtop with minimal strenghth. A great styling excercise but lethal on the road.
I had a 48 Dodge one time and got teeboned which caused the car to roll over and land on its roof. I safely crawled out with only a scratch to my elbow! The car’s body was very rigid. and the doors did not even open. Imagine that type of accident happening in a 59 Chevy hardtop.
“It was also a 4 door hardtop with minimal strenghth”
Actually, Doc, the one that they crashed was a pillared 4-door sedan.
I agree with you that the 4-door (pillarless) hardtop was even weaker than the other designs that they offered, but this particular one was actually the best of a weak lot for Chevy in that era.
@Docnick–I once owned a 1948 Dodge sedan. The body was very rigid. I don’t think there was a crumple zone, so in a high speed front crash, the passengers might be thrown around more than in a modern car. On the other hand, the pontoon fenders would absorb a lot of energy in a side crash or roll-over. I bought the Dodge to restore and had the car running really well. However, the body work was going to be expensive. I was driving it down the street and another motorist pulled along side and offered me way more for the car than I paid for it . He followed me home and bought the car. At that point, I decided I would rather look at old cars than own one.
My first car was a 1947 Pontiac 2 door Streamliner. I bought the car in 1962. The body was perfect inside and out. When I cleaned it up, it looked like it just came out of the showroom. Unfortunately, the engine was pretty well worn out and when I found coolant in the oil and removed the cylinder head, I found that the block was cracked. I doped it up with K & W seal and that did stop coolant getting in the oil. The cluster gear was also worn in the transmission and it made a terrible howling noise when I started off in low gear. If I were to have a crash, I would rather be in either the 1948 Dodge or the 1947 Pontiac than the cars I owned that were made in the 1950s–a 1954 Buick and a 1955 Pontiac. In fact, I am not certain that the cars I owned in the 1960s were any better.
@Triedaq I owned the Dodge for a short ime before it crashed and got totalled. Yes, the body was very solid. My next car was a 1948 Chevy “Stylemaster Deluxe” which put me through college. It had only 58,000 miles on it when I got it and the body was good. It had been owned by a military guy and even had a block heater. I drove that car to well beyond 110,000 miles, unusual for those days. The purchase price was $125 and I spent $600 on it in total over 4 years.
That included the valve and ring job, recored radiator, new back spring, some body work (rear fender started to rust), and new battery and starter.
It had a powerful recirculating heater hung from under the dash, and my dates loved the car, especiallu in cold weather. One English student called it “the heater with the car attached”. It also had a vile metallic green color and around the campus it was known as “the green hornet”.
After leaving school I gave it to my kid brother who used it in Teacher’s College for two years.
db4690 writes
Why on earth would you want to drop a Corolla engine into a classic Mustang engine bay?
@db4690 … I have no experience with the reliability and fuel economy of modern Ford engines, but a modern Ford 4-banger electronic fuel injected engine seems like it would be a good choice to combine w/ a 1964 1/2 Mustang body style. It wouldn’t have to be a Corolla power train in other words. I’m just saying I like the 1964 1/2 Ford Mustang appearance, the size, with actual bumpers, etc, but I’d prefer it with a smaller & more fuel efficient powertrain, similar to a Corolla power train. I have no interest in a Mustang no matter how it looks if it sports a heavy gas guzzling V8. That’s just me. I’m not saying it applies to anyone else. But it would definitely attract me to the local Ford dealership if one was available. A Corolla-like power train would get me where I’m going in plenty of time.
I think the 2015 Mustang will have an ecoboost 4 as one option.
There were rumors earlier that Ford was getting 34mpg out of an Ecoboost 4cyl mustang but we’ll have to wait and see what the EPA numbers actually are. Shown on some of the car blogs as a $1,995 Ecoboost performance package (what that actually includes isn’t clear yet)
http://forums.themustangsource.com/f806/2015-mustang-option-codes-pricing-color-codes-529821/
I see the point of safety, but at the same time there is something to be said for managing it and balancing against your obvious desire. I’ve owned my '66 fastback since 1974 and have made some upgrades to address safety: dual master-cylinder, collapsible steering column, wheels/tires/suspension, '68 door handles, sub-frame connectors and full roll-cage with 5-point harness. I’m not sure of how to best address the fuel-tank/fuel-line issue which is of obvious concern in a rear-end collision. The point is, I believe (though am willing to hear arguments otherwise) these changes both improve the driving experience and improve the safety to a reasonable level. I would encourage you to pursue your dream, though mindful of the trade-offs. I don’t think the initial cost is that much of a price to pay for the enjoyment you would receive. Operating costs (primarily fuel-economy) are a bit high though. I am thinking of a V6-Ecoboost swap - though it may be too tight for 65/66. 67/68 have room for a vintage big-block and so may be able to accommodate this swap more easily. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
The Taurus is available with the 2L EcoBoost engine and it is rate at 32 mpg on the highway. Since the mustang weighs 500 # less, it is not hard to believe a 2 mpg improvement. But the 6 cyl has 306 hp and still gets 31 mpg highway with the auto transmission. Would someone really opt for a 240 hp 2L EcoBoost just to gain 10% fuel economy?
Not me. I’d much prefer the V6.
It would depend on the performance characteristics whether the four was acceptable. If it’s decently smooth, quiet, and responsive, I’d consider it. We’re going to be seeing a lot of such engines and some are getting pretty good. As they get more mainstream the extra price they tack on anything new and whizz will go away. These will just be the most efficient engine choice. The sixes will have to be upped in power with similar technologies to make them legitimate premium choices. Eights will only be found in the biggest, most traditional luxury models (Mercedes S-Class and the like), heavier dirty trucks, and very high performance models. I suspect we’ll see amazing performance from smaller cars with potent small engines. Take the guts out of Focus or Fiesta hot hatch and drop it into a small, mostly aluminum or carbon fiber body. That would be one hot car.
I want mine with a folding hardtop. Top down is for posing. Mazda showed with the Miata that you can build a folding hardtop that doesn’t fill up the trunk.
I recently drove a new BMW 528i with their high output turbo 4. It was plenty powerful, but was not as smooth as my 3.5l V6 in my current car, or the 3.0l V6 in my prior car. And ‘real world’ tests indicate the turbo 4 engines often don’t get their EPA mpgs.
The thing about that crash test is that they didn’t show underneath the cars, so you get people saying “If they would have kept the engine in that Bel Air, it would have crumpled that Malibu.”. Same as the Renault/Volvo crash I’ve reposted multiple times
Speaking of crashes . . .
On the way home from work today, I saw five crashes
All rear enders, and nobody was hurt
I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the “victims” seek a payout, in spite of the fact that everybody is fine
Don’t let the truth get in the way of a payout . . .
I must say I definitely think this type of behaviour is not acceptable
Over the years, I’ve had MANY acquaintances that see every accident as a potential payout, and have acted upon it plenty of times.
A couple of times when I was rearended, and there was no damage . . . or nothing worth reporting . . . these same people thought I “was a fool for not taking the money”
Greed . . .
Did you tell the creeps what low down, lying, criminal filth they are? You should have turned them in. That’s fraud, and inky mind is a serious offense. It’s why your insurance costs so much.