Remember how big the old cars were?
Remember how much metal they were made from?
Do you think a new car from today has a chance against one in a front end crash?

Watch this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U

...zap!

 

Seen it here before.

 

Perhaps Consumer Reports should have read 'Unsafe at Any Speed' by Ralph Nader, and realized that the poor X-frame that GM used in that era of passenger cars was well known for failure in those types of accidents.

As far as a classic car being totalled, its a '59 Bel Air 4 door, no big loss. Now if it was a '57 Bel Air 2 door, that would be a different story.

 

No. that was a great loss. Cars like that one will at some point in the future be worth more than the ones that are considered classics now. simply because, allot of people consider them worthless, there will be far fewer left.
I would love to have that car. If I were offered a choice between it or the 57, I like most would take the 57. But that is what will make the 59 more valuable in the future.

 

I had a 59 Impala given to me when I was 18. Man do I wish I had that car now.

 

I would have to fix one of those up Chicano, like Cheech and Chong.

 

This is why it always makes me laugh when I hear people say "they don't make them like they used to." Well, thank goodness they don't!

 

They need to do that to an old Studebaker. I think the results would be quite different. They were the Volvos of their time.

 

It's like comparing HDTV to a little 8" black and white tube with rabbit ears.

50 years of technology makes a HUGE difference, in crash protection, braking, cornering, etc...

Shoot, I'll bet a stock plane jane 2009 Impala (or Camry, or Accord, etc...) could run rings around just about any 1959-1969 stock production car on a road course, including Vettes, Boss 302's, Z/28s, etc...

FWIW, MSRP for a 2009 Impala was $23,790.

MSRP for a 1959 Bel Air 4 Door was $2,674.

 

Sadly, you're probably right. My mom's altima 3.5 does 0-60 quicker than a stock '69 camaro SS 396 (according to Motor Trend times).

 

Spent way too many years in body work and can tell you though the 2 series was a decent car (crash wise), there was to much hype by Volvo. The 7 series was a different story though. When you clamped it in the rocker clamps on the frame rack, you really had to watch the rocker panels or you would mangle 'em. They were weak enough to be scary. Volvo got caught a couple of times faking the video's about the strength of the cars. Nothing beyond decent. Way to much hype! And i don't think the Studebakers would do any better than anything else built in that time period. Nobody knew much about crash engineering. I started in body in '60 so I worked on those cars.
Now here is a crash test!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOFIt...eature=related

 

I really don't know much about Volvo. They are just to dang ugly for me to look at. I also remember them getting busted on the fake safety standards.

But a Studebaker was a car that was ahead of its time. I have been impressed by them many times. I even got to sit in a Golden Hawk once. The thing I remember most about it was the A/C, and the electric windows.

The switches that controled the windows and the sunroof, by todays outward appearance looked they they carried enough amperage to carry an electric grid for a large town

Years ago I went to a musium in Elkheart Indiana, the history there was awsome. Miles Laboratory was pretty cool too. To think Alkaseltzer once cured so many ailments:santa:

 

I remember our '59 Olds with plastic seat covers that in the summer heat would cause you to stick to the seat's. Even in a head on you would probably survive but would be found stuck to the seat's!!

 

My first car but way before Cheech's! The original Love Machine

 

Those backseats could do more than a single throw.