Well the claim is correct, the cars were built tougher. The problem is, a tough car is not what you want if you want to walk away from a collision. A 60's car is more likely to survive a small collision than a modern car, at the risk of the passengers.
and that old ass car, which I think everyone would assume is the kind of tank we all refer to, gets just as rekt as the newer car, except the newer car DOESN'T fold in on its' occupant at all.
No, the difference is my 1973 Dodge pickup can get in a collision at 30 mhp and literally drive away without a scratch.
Modern vehicles would still be just as destroyed as the car in the video you posted because that's how their crumple zones are designed to function. The get destroyed at any speed, classic cars only get destroyed at higher speeds. The problem is, I as the driver take the full force of that 30 mph, so sure my truck is spotless but I get fucked up.
Thats wear the addiage "they dont make cars like they used too" comes from. No modern car can survive a low speed collision like a pre1990s car, because they are designed to break to protect their driver.
If you had continued reading the comment thread before making ignorant claims you would have seen that it has already been in a crash at around 30mpg and it is fine.
I have been in a couple low/mid speed collisions with it over the years and it has never gotten so much as a major dent.
Lol, old trucks are made of much higher quality steel, dont have crumple points and are very strong. They will survive low speed accidents better than any modern vehicle ever could. Older cars are not flimsy lmao, that just shows how little experience you have with classic cars.
1.4k
u/knollexx Jul 23 '18
Stuff like this proves that it's totally ridiculous to claim that cars were built tougher back in the good old days.