Your question is too broad. Which vehicle against which vehicle? The thing is today’s average driver drives an SUV or truck which is a literal tank in comparison, whereas in the 70s most people drove cars. The bumpers wouldn’t even line up (btw this is a modern issue between “cars” and “SUVs/Trucks”) leading to the bigger vehicle overtopping the smaller vehicle. Modern vehicles are also on average heavier and have better safety features. The only thing I will say is an advantage of an older vehicle is in lower speed crashes it has a better chance of being repaired then a modern vehicle that crumples, but at 70mph even solid steel will get wrecked (as will the passengers).
Also bold of you to assume a lot of these vehicles from the 70s can easily reach 70mph without shaking apart.
If you weren’t fucking murdered from the whiplash of not having any crumple zones absorbing the impact. Then you would surely die of your insurance going absolutely through the roof for driving a fucking car from the '70s and getting into an accident
Heh no.
Cars in the 1970s were made from coffee tins and cardboard.
48 minutes? I totally have time for that while scrolling.
The car would win but the occupants would suffer more. Your new car is designed to crumple around you to help save you.
It’s not certain that the car will win: https://youtu.be/C_r5UJrxcck
Although I wonder about that since I also saw the results of classic crash tests (in a museum and web site) with 60s Mercedes and Peugeot where the cars were more stiff than nowadays.
Maybe that Cadillac is a special case or these cars have their weak points where they break apart in non classical test settings.
When I was a kid our car had only lap belts, and even those were optional. In the early ‘70s they had the attitude of building street tanks and that mass = safety. Doesn’t matter that the humans inside got tossed around like a hackey sack or to get an aortic dissection when hitting the steering wheel. It wasn’t until the last year of the ‘60’s that a collapsible steering column started being more common. By the late ‘70s they were starting to engineer for actual safety of the occupant. It wasn’t great at all by today’s standards, things like airbags didn’t really show up until the ‘80s, much less all the side curtain ones that are more common today.
Anyway, a modern vehicle is way better safety-wise, the debate would have to be about the speed of collision and the mass of the old car. Even though modern cars are safer, g-forces can be severe and no telling how the old car would crumple.
Everyone is concentrating on the crumple zones and safety at the crash. Remember that modern cars have features that make it easier to avoid the crash in the first place. Antilock brakes. Traction control. Lane assist/warning. Better headlamps, adaptive headlamps. Better suspension and handling. All things to avoid crashes.
All good reasons to avoid the 70’s car.
If I got in a collision with a car from the 70s with a car today
Everyone is concentrating on that because that’s what the actual question is about. OP didn’t ask to avoid the collision.
“If so why don’t people buy more 70’s cars?”. IMHO, this is actually the whole point of the OP’s question.
Here is a fictional scenario, you hit a tree at 30 miles and hour your 2026 Volvo is totaled.
Your dad hits a tree at 30 miles an hour in his 1970 chevy, you replace the windshield and hose it out and you can drive that chevy.
“fictional”. Op is ded
Yeah, but the people in the Volvo get to walk away.
I think that’s implied by “hose it out”: Your dad’s gone, all you can do is wash out the blood.
…
…
…
Oooooh, now I get it.
Walking away is a lot harder than being hosed away
Dad would be proud to see his beloved Chevy live on.
The 70s car might beat the modern car. For the people inside the vehicles, the story is quite different.
Which do you want as a crumple zone: the car or you?
In this economy? Idk man
In the US medical costs would bankrupt you if you don’t have insurance.
Even having insurance is no guarantee.
Yeah but you can survive being half crumpled and your half crumpled car will probably still get you to your 9 to 5… Pretty good outcome!
Damn…
The thing you got to understand is that the energy of the crash has to go somewhere. The same energy will apply to both cars, the modern car will absorb a lot of it by deforming, the old car won’t absorb any in that way because it’s a hard piece of metal. And you have to wonder, what is more important to you, the car chassis or the people inside? You might as well ask “why do we put packing peanuts if nails are a lot tougher” or “why do we ship eggs in weird cardboard boxes if a metal square would be more resilient”
The cylinder must remain unharmed
It’s not the speed that kills you. It’s the rapid deceleration.
If two 70s cars collided, all the energy is transferred to your body since the solid construction of the car wouldn’t dissipate much of it.
If you’re in an old car with no crumple zones, my intuition says it’s better to hit a modern car because then you also benefit from the other car’s crumple zones. Colliding with another rigid car would basically be like hitting a brick wall. I think the effect on the driver ends up the same in both cases.
If it’s two old cars with rigid bodies colliding, it’s exactly like hitting a brick wall. Even if the car itself is unharmed, the driver isn’t. It’s how quickly you stop that makes the impact dangerous, and in a car like that you stop almost instantly.
On the other hand, when two modern cars collide, there’s 2x the crumple zones, so the impact is the lowest there.
I was in a fender bender a few years ago where the other party insisted on getting the police involved because of injury - the passenger slumped dramatically to the ground complaining of whiplash. The officer who attended said, “You don’t have whiplash.” And explained to her the concept of crumple zones in modern cars absorbing forces from impact. Then he declared it a no-fault accident (it was actually my fault).
Your car would receive a lot more damage, but the driver in the older car would be much more hurt than you.
Also, modern vehicles are far more reliable and efficient
thank you for the question . it was interesting reading through the responses.
“70s car wins …but you still lose” lol
