• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Car/Physics Question

U

USSEnterprise

Experienced Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
252
Location
Jackson, New Jersey
I found a car I really like. Its a 1976 Lincoln Continental Mark IV. Its a gas guzzling, 5,000 pound tank of a car. I love the way the thing looks, its driveable except for a power steering leak, and its going for under $1000. My question is this: When in an accident, which is truly safer: A newer car of plastic/metal, or an older car of solid steel? It has 3 point seat belts and disc brakes, btw.
 
250px-1976_Lincoln_Continental_Mark_IV.jpg


Nice find! (Add some hydrolics, some neon lights, some Trekkie music, & you're set! :p)
 
I tend to refrain from off-topic posts, but this one is too juicy.

All things being equal, the heavier object wins in a collision.

That being said, comparing a 1976 Lincoln to a 2006 Focus is too complex. The 1976 Lincoln wins on mass, but in the last 30 years the construction of cars has changed a lot. Crumple zones, air bags, seatbelts, material changes, construction techniques, etc. have all changed.

A newer car might get totalled in an accident, but the occupant might do fairly well compared to an older car in a similar accident. There are other factors to consider too, like the better handling of a newer car might keep you out of an accident in the first place.
 
I'm with Mike, but I'd have to flip a coin on that one. (Hmmmn, what if the Lincoln rear-ends someone driving an un-modded '76 Pinto)? Even more off-topic, I have tested the rear bumper of a '76 Pinto vs. a 55-gallon steel oil drum...the oil drum won.

--T
 
Last edited:
Following my ill-informed logic, you could argue (If older cars are not crumpley) that an older, sturdier car with no crumple zones would be better off in an accident than those with, but you would be 10 meters through the windscreen and possibly a little bit dead.
 
Older cars are generally better built than modern ones - thicker steel and generally over-engineered makes them very study in an accident. However, modern cars are designed opposite to this - to completely crumple on impact.

Anyway, I wouldn't worry about it too much, you could sit here all day giving "for" and "against" :)
 
But when a newer car crumples in an accident it absorbs a lot or most of the energy before it gets to you. While you may still survive an accident in the older car, you may get hurt more because the car isn't absorbing as much energy... I would rather walk away from a car accident by myself (and have the car wrote off) then needing to be taken away on a stretcher.

Cheers,

80sFreak
 
The newer cars are safer for you to hit.

:)

The trouble with the construction of older cars is that they are more rigid and do not have crumple zones.

The crumple zones are there to keep you from getting turned into Jell-O by the extremely sudden deceleration during a crash - since the car crumples over a few hundred more milliseconds you just might not find your head trying to escape from your neck at a rather fatal rate.

Of course, this is only important in wrecks at typically fatal speeds (35MPH+). In a crash at any lower speed I'd much prefer to be driving a tougher vehicle (say, a 1985 diesel Suburban) because I wouldn't suffer any injury wearing my seatbelt, I wouldn't have to pay to get the stupid airbags recharged, and the most work I'd have to do on the car/truck itself is front-end alignment.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top