James B.

Is this the post - photo you saw? http://forums.aaca.org/f169/1959-chevrolet-crash-test-safety-photo-320879-3.html#post1093651 I believe what Ralph Nader said it broke where the front fork connected at the center section. I also would like to see a better copy of this picture and see more details.

Glenn, I hope you did not take offense to my post? I too love and have owned many older cars and enjoy them over modern fodder. But my questions are more along the lines of a reasoning "why" this frame failed?

I think what is deceiving here is the fact that what is "better" in new cars is under the skin. Outside they look horrible and the sheet metal gauge is thinner so dents easily. But on the other hand I have also seen cars from the 1930s-1940s rolled off cliffs and flip over and over yet sometimes come out looking like they could be driven away. There is no denying that The sheet metal on cars up to the early 1970s was heavier and resisted denting better but the frame in question on the Chevrolet was considered a failure in general and GM knew it skirting around the issue and even admitting that the Oldsmobile and Buick of this era were safer since they incorporated side rails. Yet, why did Buick change at the last minute to this cruciform style if they considered their original frame safer and knew of the issues? Oldsmobile I believe never used this type frame? I would like to see some sort of published study or development on these frames without side rails to see why they considered them safe at the time? Jim

Dave, that is what I said later that he typed the wrong year... was a '42. he no longer owns it but yes, was one of the Fifth Avenues. Your photos sound like a plan!

Thanks helfen. Must have been ESP because I had no idea that Hemmings was revisiting this topic and thought the article was about some other rare car being destroyed or something. I would like to see the frame of the 59 Chevy after the accident and know how it failed... how twisted it actually was?

Details... what was the circumstances and what did they destroy?

There is a lot published and seen about this test crash but was there any pictures published to see of the Chevrolet frame afterwards (body off) to see exactly the extent of the damage and what failed?

Here is another shot

So it looks like they were on the Saratoga as well. I am having problems as well using Windows 8 with this site, sometimes I can get pictures to upload and sometimes not. You can always go to the Advanced editor here and use the Manage Attachment link.

My post counter stuck? Also think there is a post missing I got an email about that came between my two posts above?

Also found this:

Any interior door shots to see how it is configured? See my reply to Dave. I have seen the 1941 convertible chassis shot and it is like the 1948 above but the topside floorboard was flat so had a double floor as opposed to a single with the late '30s style. Thanks.

Dave, I asked my friend who had a 41 Desoto which has the 41-48 chassis / floor pan configuration but they said the topside of the floor in the convertible was flat, no driveshaft hump-tunnel. This leads to believe there was a second floor laid over top of the coupe style floor as a double floor and the enclosed running boards count as the riser height on this body style as opposed to the previous exterior running boards that shows the riser more. So, do you have any door shots of the interior showing the floor? Why would they use a double hull floor design for the 1941-1942? Only thing I can think of is besides strength is to shed water. Jim. [EDIT] I have since found out that my friend's 1941 was actually a 1942. I found pictures online and it shows a hump for the front floorboard so possibly they were mistaken? But Dave also says his floorboard is "flat" in his 1942 so not sure what he is saying without photos? The late '30s seem to have a floor that sits above the hump area making it flat across like those on a front wheel drive car. The support beams welded to the floor creating the second "frame" raises it to that height. Sorry if I have only muddied the water here but trying to straighten it out. Thanks.

Great catch Fleek. The closest I could come up with for standard wheel covers was the 1950-1953 style but nothing came close to this and we now know why. It was hidden by the spokes. The other ones with the center bullet nose may be aftermarket for Hot Rod Customs from the 1950s-1960s. Just checked further and it is a 1957 Chrysler wheel cover but for the lower priced Windsor. See below. The design goes back to 1954 but without the rings that are on the '57.

The first one may be an aftermarket since it doesn't look quite right since the center part is usually in a concaved part. And the rings seem to have come from another later year. That said they would fit a 1950-1953 model.

Any way you could post some photos of the 1936 double? I was able to find a rotten example where some on the ground under the car shots were made and if I am not mistaken, it isn't a double frame in the true sense. But rather a series of braces welded to the body with some following the frame shape and that added height gave way to the drop side floorboard so the body profile matches other bodies. With that said I am sure the seat height was altered and people having to stretch their legs more straight out as opposed to the way people sat on seats during those times?

That I have not seen. Here is a picture of a 1948 Chrysler convertible frame but don't see a stacked one? If you come across an example please post it! I understand that Hudson around this same time did have some sort of double stack (quarter pounder with cheese) frame? :-) would like to see it but think it was hanging lower rather than higher? Jim

True. All of the Chrysler products from 1932 to 1940 used a strengthened frame that had a cross section shaped like an X. After 1941 only convertibles had them but from what we have seen, the brace is no higher than the side rails and the center part that the transmission tail or driveshaft goes through is higher on the top but sits inside the tunnel of the floorboard so doesn't interfere. If you look the material used that seems higher in the convertible picture, it is made of something that doesn't rust - aluminum? I am thinking it is a cap of sorts, false floor that sits over the contoured floor pan so water doesn't settle in the low spots to rust it out. This top layer is smooth to shed water if the top is left down? Just a theory that needs verified or not? Thanks!

I hope I am not putting this in the wrong place but I do have a puzzling question and hope someone can solve the myetery? We have noted that in the 1941-1949 era Mopar that the floorpan has a "riser" or false floor over another on the Convertibles creating a large step-up into the car. This may carry over to other years but the ones we have seen fall into this range of chassis design and not sure if the convertible frame has anything to do with it or if it is a design to keep water out? I have attached a picture of a car in a junk pile (now crushed) that shows the raised floor which runs up to the door sill. This seems to be on only the convertibles. Any help appreciated! Jim

Please excuse my first post being one to help a friend out that doesn't have a computer and is in need of selling off a collection of antique wheel covers and hub caps. This was a hobby of sorts for him and he has accumulated hundreds of what he describes as the original premium style wheel covers for many 1950s-1980s makes of cars and models. They have remained in a private garage free from the elements for up to 35+ years and even has some duplicate sets. His health is not good and is wanting to clean out things while he can. Not selling as a "collection" unless someone wants to make an offer but offering those restoring cars an opportunity to obtain a set for their own vehicle if needed. You can contact him directly (or leave a message) at : Everett Hogge 542 Deep Creek Road Newport News, VA 23606 (757) 930-0343 Thanks Jim Butcher