1959 Chevrolet Crash Test - safety photo

[Guest]

To tout the qualities of the new frame would be to admit the shortcomings of the prior one, wouldn't it?

Yep!

[James B.]

To tout the qualities of the new frame would be to admit the shortcomings of the prior one, wouldn't it?

Fair assumption guys but could someone elaborate more than just saying they F-ed Up the X frame and didn't want to remind people? :-)

And besides, it isn't a new concept. The Lagonda had it, The early Fiat 1500 series had it, and I even seen a US patent in the 1930s for one.

Jim

[Guest]

Fair assumption guys but could someone elaborate more than just saying they F-ed Up the X frame and didn't want to remind people? :-)

And besides, it isn't a new concept. The Lagonda had it, The early Fiat 1500 series had it, and I even seen a US patent in the 1930s for one.

Jim

Jim, your right in saying a central backbone is nothing new as this design as Rover of 1904 was using the earliest known central tube chassis. It's the basis for the 1909 Simplicia, 1923 Tatra, 1924 Sn Giusto, 1924 Hanomag Kommisbrot, Mercedes 130-150 H, and the most ever produced single design automobile and world champion The VW Beetle starting in 1938,

Getting back to when and the reason the central backbone GM fell out of favor my personal feelings were MONEY. Look at the cars from GM in 1961.

Full size Buick; New for 1961 a X frame and a two piece driveshaft, a two lower link control arms and a Panhard rod. Up front Buick does away with a lower "A" arm and uses a single arm with a tension rod to connect to the front frame head. What does Buick say about going to the X frame? Buick say's this new frame concentrates strength where it's needed and makes it possible to reduce height without sacrificing passenger space.

Full size Oldsmobile; Oldsmobile has gone to a box-shaped frame with widespread side rails that run along the outside of the floor pan. Since there is no crossmember under the transmission, the front seat area has a low, step-down floor. Moreover seat benches are nearly at chair height, and headroom is within last years X frame. Olds uses unequal "A" arms in front suspension, and new for Olds this year with the new frame are coil springs in the rear using two short upper links, and two long lower links.

Pontiac; A completely new boxed frame is used ( like Olds ) that replaces last years X and allows lower floor levels in front and rear compartments. Rear suspension, like Olds has coil springs with two short upper links and two longer lower links to control the axle. With seats about the same height from the ground, passengers ride more comfortably. The improved position for the driver who can place himself within easy reach of pedals without being too close to the steering wheel. Remember the X body/frame cars were the first to lower the floors of cars--but only satisfactory in the rear floor area.

Chevy, X type frame, coil springs in the rear with a three link rear end-using a panhard rod, and two lower links.

Cadillac; Cadillac retains the X frame again.

Certainly much cheaper and stronger to provide a perimeter frame, a single piece driveshaft, lower the body between the frame rails, pick up a deeper floor area, and provide side rail impact safety. Intrusion from being center-punched is better protected by the rocker box section and the frame rail as well.

How's that Jim?

Edited February 20, 2013 by helfen (see edit history)

[rocketraider]

Olds did not use a true "X-frame"- they had a full perimeter frame with siderails to support the body and suspension, and used an X section for rigidity- which in all my 57-60 shop books appears to be bolted to the perimeter frame. It is clearly a separate section whereas Chevrolet used the X as integral support of suspension and body, with front and rear frame horn extensions for front and rear suspension mounting. I'm not familiar enough with Cad to comment on their setup.

It has always been my understanding that the attraction of the cruciform ("X") frame was that it had excellent torsional rigidity and was quite resistant to flexing. The carmakers must have thought lack of side impact protection was worth the tradeoff.

Older ladder style frames didn't offer much in way of side impact protection either, but look how long they lasted- and are still in use on most light trucks.

[Rusty_OToole]

Just went through this whole thread again. I find it significant that nearly all the stories of cars breaking in 2 or 3 pieces, being crushed beyond recognition etc. involve Chevs or in a few cases, Mustangs.

Never a Chrysler, Imperial or even a Dodge.

The 58 and 59 Chevs have proven to be flimsy and easily destroyed in an accident, the frames and bodies just don't have the strength, which engine they have makes little difference, although I suspect the V8 would be more likely to be shoved into the passengers' laps in an accident while a 6 might not, if the car was hit a glancing blow. Chevs from the sixties and seventies also have frames that tend to rust out over the rear axle and break, even without being in an accident.

Once I asked a guy who ran the crusher at a junkyard what car was hardest to crush. He answered without hesitation "an old Dodge or Chrysler".

[Rusty_OToole]

There is a video on Youtube showing Tom McCahill supervising tests of 1958 Chrysler cars vs. comparable GM cars. The Chrysler products sailed through the torture tests, the GM cars folded under the strain. You can see the doors flying open on the Cadillacs and refusing to close again because the bodies are so badly bent by walloping over some big bumps. Air bags popping on the Buick, springs and shocks breaking on the Lincoln.

Worth mentioning too, is the fact that the Chrysler cars went through the torture course 3 times to their rivals' once.

Yet by Chrysler standards, the 57s and 58s were not nearly as strongly built as earlier models. Still they are a lot tougher than anything GM made.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[Guest]

There is a video on Youtube showing Tom McCahill supervising tests of 1958 Chrysler cars vs. comparable GM cars. The Chrysler products sailed through the torture tests, the GM cars folded under the strain. You can see the doors flying open on the Cadillacs and refusing to close again because the bodies are so badly bent by walloping over some big bumps. Air bags popping on the Buick, springs and shocks breaking on the Lincoln.

Worth mentioning too, is the fact that the Chrysler cars went through the torture course 3 times to their rivals' once.

Yet by Chrysler standards, the 57s and 58s were not nearly as strongly built as earlier models. Still they are a lot tougher than anything GM made.

If only they knew at the end while comparing the Chrysler to the F-104 that pilots had already nick named the F-104 the "Widow Maker"

Edited February 20, 2013 by helfen (see edit history)

[James B.]

Don, I really believe most people today couldn't drive the cars we drive. That's what's scary!!

Bob, that remark is all so true!

　

To tout the qualities of the new frame would be to admit the shortcomings of the prior one, wouldn't it?

True Hudsy but according to the small highlight in the 1961 brochure, it was basically saying the new frame gave side impact protection. Other ads and brochures highlighted the triangle rear suspension configuration that helps prevent twist.

　

Jim, your right in saying a central backbone is nothing new as this design as Rover of 1904 was using the earliest known central tube chassis. It's the basis for the 1909 Simplicia, 1923 Tatra, 1924 Sn Giusto, 1924 Hanomag Kommisbrot, Mercedes 130-150 H, and the most ever produced single design automobile and world champion The VW Beetle starting in 1938,

Helfen, there is a difference between the "backbone" chassis and the GM cruciform one. Modern backbones are deep and normally rise up between the seats like in DeLorean and Lotus. Older ones you mention are basically hollow tubes with 'T's' on the ends for the suspension. The GM type is a variation on the popular 1930s these X-braced frame but without side rails. In fact Cadillac said it was influenced by the Mercedes 300D series chassis of the 1950s-1960s. But I say that the design looks even more similar to the 1935 style Fiat 1500 chassis. In any event GM patent both the frame and the floor pan designs for the 1957 Cadillac design. Rocker-door sill braces and floor pan braces were cited to add strength in place of the missing frame side rails. If you were to look at the chassis of the late 1940s Lagonda DB cars you will also see a similar X void of side rails so the idea is not new.

　

It has always been my understanding that the attraction of the cruciform ("X") frame was that it had excellent torsional rigidity and was quite resistant to flexing. The carmakers must have thought lack of side impact protection was worth the tradeoff.

True Glenn, it was said that they were so hard that road noise and vibrations traveled through them too much causing a noisy ride.

[James B.]

The 58 and 59 Chevs have proven to be flimsy and easily destroyed in an accident, the frames and bodies just don't have the strength, which engine they have makes little difference, although I suspect the V8 would be more likely to be shoved into the passengers' laps in an accident while a 6 might not, if the car was hit a glancing blow. Chevs from the sixties and seventies also have frames that tend to rust out over the rear axle and break, even without being in an accident.

I have seen several incidents where GM cars with X frames were torn in half after broadsiding a tree or pole and there was one common factor. All were either Convertibles or Station Wagons. The roof, or lack of, seems to have been a major factor.

[Guest]

　

Helfen, there is a difference between the "backbone" chassis and the GM cruciform one. Modern backbones are deep and normally rise up between the seats like in DeLorean and Lotus. Older ones you mention are basically hollow tubes with 'T's' on the ends for the suspension. The GM type is a variation on the popular 1930s these X-braced frame but without side rails. In fact Cadillac said it was influenced by the Mercedes 300D series chassis of the 1950s-1960s. But I say that the design looks even more similar to the 1935 style Fiat 1500 chassis. In any event GM patent both the frame and the floor pan designs for the 1957 Cadillac design. Rocker-door sill braces and floor pan braces were cited to add strength in place of the missing frame side rails. If you were to look at the chassis of the late 1940s Lagonda DB cars you will also see a similar X void of side rails so the idea is not new.

James, while the X frame and the central backbone have differences one of their main objectives is to connect front and rear suspensions and then to the body. Your also right that modern backbones even VW beetles and Porsche's rise up between the seats. In those two cars most of the backbone is inside the car, and only the bottom of which is part of the floor/pan assy.. You must remember with a semi-unit body - the body, pan, central backbone when put together form a single strong unit.

The problem with the X frame is during some situations (accidents in broadside) the body and the backbone sometimes go in different directions. Perhaps if they had more hard points to mount to things might be different, but in hard centerpunches I've seen outriggers torn from the body. 　

[Rusty_OToole]

A unibody car can be immensely strong with no frame at all. Modern unibody designs often use a rubber mounted sub frame to isolate the suspension and powertrain for noise and vibration suppression.

I always thought of the GM X frame models as an example of a unibody car with a king size sub frame isolating all suspension and power train components.

Such a design could be very strong and resistant to crash damage if properly designed. The GM cars weren't. They were cheap, flimsy, and not strong or durable at all, even the most expensive Cadillac versions could be reduced to a heap of junk in half an hour without hitting anything, just by driving over a rough road.

As we saw in the crash test video, the 59 Chev can be completely pulverized when hit by a car half their size. And we have photographic evidence that they can be torn into 2 or more pieces by a severe crash.

Edited February 23, 2013 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[Rusty_OToole]

I'd like to see a picture of a step down Hudson torn in half by a collision with anything smaller than an express train. And that is a unibody car with no separate frame at all.

Sound of hysterical laughter from Hudson fans, imagining what would be left of a modern Chev if a Hudson were crashed into one instead of a 59 Chev.

I have seen old pictures of step down Hudsons that were involved in severe wrecks. In every case the comments were about how the car had kept its structural integrity, usually the doors opened and shut normally and the passengers walked away with few or no injuries. Never saw one broken in half or anything like it.

Now a crash between a 52 Chrysler New Yorker and a 52 Hudson Hornet ..... that would be like the irresistible force meeting the immovable object.

Edited February 23, 2013 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[Guest Skyking]

Now a crash between a 52 Chrysler New Yorker and a 52 Hudson Hornet ..... that would be like the irresistible force meeting the immovable object.

Rusty, don't give the IIHS any ideas, before we know it they'll be looking for some nice early Chryslers and Hudsons to ruin.:eek:

[Guest]

A unibody car can be immensely strong with no frame at all. Modern unibody designs often use a rubber mounted sub frame to isolate the suspension and powertrain for noise and vibration suppression.

I always thought of the GM X frame models as an example of a unibody car with a king size sub frame isolating all suspension and power train components.

Such a design could be very strong and resistant to crash damage if properly designed. The GM cars weren't. They were cheap, flimsy, and not strong or durable at all, even the most expensive Cadillac versions could be reduced to a heap of junk in half an hour without hitting anything, just by driving over a rough road.

As we saw in the crash test video, the 59 Chev can be completely pulverized when hit by a car half their size. And we have photographic evidence that they can be torn into 2 or more pieces by a severe crash.

Rusty, I presume your talking about F,X and K bodied cars. Actually the "F" body 2nd gen. 1970-1981 ( Camaro-Firebird ) were first, then the "X" 1975-1979 4th gen Chevy Nova, Pontiac Ventura/Phoenix, Olds Omega, Buick Opollo/Skylark and "K", Cadillac Seville from 1975-1979. Those cars are semi uni body with a front sub-frame and are some of the best handling/riding cars from GM. They can also be tuned to be super handlers. They all share the same subframe, but tune their suspensions to the customers needs. I have a Omega version which is one of the best cars I've ever owned although most of it's suspensions and steering and tuning specifications are Firebird Trans Am. In other words it handles more like a T/A than a standard Omega.

[Rusty_OToole]

I was thinking of Chrysler unibody cars that used a sub frame in the sixties, or Mercedes that used a unibody and sub frame in the fifties. Both were stronger than anything GM ever made.

I "tested" one of those X body cars, a Pontiac Phoenix. A fool spun one around and hit my Dodge pickup from behind, going backwards at 50 MPH one rainy night. The Pontiac folded up like a cardboard box, the back bumper ended up under the back window. I drove my Dodge home, installed a tail light lense and continued driving it for another 4 years. The rear fender was dented a little, and the tail light cracked, other than that no damage. The Pontiac was a writeoff.

[Guest]

I was thinking of Chrysler unibody cars that used a sub frame in the sixties, or Mercedes that used a unibody and sub frame in the fifties. Both were stronger than anything GM ever made.

I "tested" one of those X body cars, a Pontiac Phoenix. A fool spun one around and hit my Dodge pickup from behind, going backwards at 50 MPH one rainy night. The Pontiac folded up like a cardboard box, the back bumper ended up under the back window. I drove my Dodge home, installed a tail light lense and continued driving it for another 4 years. The rear fender was dented a little, and the tail light cracked, other than that no damage. The Pontiac was a writeoff.

Yes, it's funny how things happen in accidents. About five years after I bought my Olds I was going to work and a guy in a large Toyota cut in front of me then slammed on his brakes to avoiding a car that turned in front of him in the intersection we were approaching. The driver of the Toyota got the tail of the car and I got the Toyota's rear end. I got out and my 5 mph bumper had compressed it's shocks and while I was standing there the shocks pushed the bumper back into it's original position. When the cops got there they thought I was a witness because there was no damage to the Olds. I told the cop what happened, but he couldn't believe there was no damage to the Olds. Toyota's rear bumper had pushed the valance, both rear quarter panels wrinkled and bent up the deck lid ( because it was still latched to the back panel. I had a witness that saw the cut off and the accident who saved my arse.

Found out later that this stunt driving had been going on for about a couple of miles behind me my witness had said. The guy in the Toyota and his girlfriend in another Toyota were racing to work going in and out of traffic.

Edited February 24, 2013 by helfen (see edit history)

[Guest Magoo]

I don't think one-off crash anecdotes mean very much. Change the impact angle 10 degrees or the speed 10 mph and you have a totally different impact that is not directly comparable to anything else. Indeed, imagine if formal impact testing in the lab were conducted in such a casual, haphazard way. None of the data would mean much of anything.

I am also very leery of the current thinking that goes: "modern cars are junk because they break apart and fold up in a crash." Personally, I like cars that break apart and fold up in a crash. The automakers spend many man-hours and millions of dollars designing the cars to do that. The car gives up its life, absorbing the bulk of the tremendous impact energy, so the occupants can walk away.

[Rusty_OToole]

If you like cars that break apart and fold up in a crash, buy an old Chevrolet or other GM product. Proof positive is before your eyes in this thread with actual tests of a 59 Chev being pulverized by a car half its size, actual crash photos of Chevs broken in half, and films of Cadillac and Buick cars falling apart without hitting anything.

[Guest Magoo]

If you like cars that break apart and fold up in a crash, buy an old Chevrolet or other GM product. Proof positive is before your eyes in this thread with actual tests of a 59 Chev being pulverized by a car half its size, actual crash photos of Chevs broken in half, and films of Cadillac and Buick cars falling apart without hitting anything.

As I noted earlier, cars of the past such as the '59 Chevrolet had essentially zero crash pulse management. The science of crash engineering as we know it did not yet exist. In an accident, these cars were totally unlike the cars of today, which are carefully designed to deform and shed components upon impact in an orchestrated fashion. Really, that's what the '59 vs '09 Chevrolet crash video illustrates.

[X-Frame]

As I noted earlier, cars of the past such as the '59 Chevrolet had essentially zero crash pulse management. The science of crash engineering as we know it did not yet exist. In an accident, these cars were totally unlike the cars of today, which are carefully designed to deform and shed components upon impact in an orchestrated fashion. Really, that's what the '59 vs '09 Chevrolet crash video illustrates.

I will have to find my post from a while back because as you said, it was a different time. There were a couple of lawsuits against GM by car owner's families that had someone killed in these X framed cars and lost because, the courts sided with the auto manufacturers then. The auto maker was NOT liable for people's safety in an "accident" but only liable to make sure the car was free from manufacturer defects that may injury an occupant. They viewed the act of a crash is not predictable so the auto maker is not liable. It took a few of these cases before they started to do testing and change the laws.

[Rusty_OToole]

As I noted earlier, cars of the past such as the '59 Chevrolet had essentially zero crash pulse management. The science of crash engineering as we know it did not yet exist. In an accident, these cars were totally unlike the cars of today, which are carefully designed to deform and shed components upon impact in an orchestrated fashion. Really, that's what the '59 vs '09 Chevrolet crash video illustrates.

Don't look at my Chrysler when you say that, or a Hudson, or several other strong, well made cars. I know that 50 years ago crash safety was in its infancy but that doesn't mean all cars were flimsy and badly made.

[Guest]

Remember this one at Daytona in 1961. Chevy takes out Plymouth, or X frame vs uni-body;

http://www.legendsofnascar.com/Johnny_Beauchamp_PettyCrash.jpg

http://www.legendsofnascar.com/Johnny_Beauchamp61DaytWreckLeePetty2.jpg

[Rusty_OToole]

Plymouth gets broadsided at 100MPH , driven through a guard rail, tumbles 30 feet down the embankment and hits the bottom in one piece. Driver rescued, taken to hospital in serious condition but lives.

This may not mean much because those cars were reinforced and equipped with roll cages. I'm not saying the Plymouth survived a far more severe crash than the ones that tore all those Chevs in half and killed their passengers because it was a stronger car, part of the difference was the roll cage and other reinforcements.

[Guest Magoo]

Don't look at my Chrysler when you say that, or a Hudson, or several other strong, well made cars. I know that 50 years ago crash safety was in its infancy but that doesn't mean all cars were flimsy and badly made.

Don't say what?! I'm sure I never even suggested that cars of the past were "flimsy and badly made."

I am only noting a historical fact that is both totally obvious and absolutely irrefutable: That before the safety era in automobile design arrived -- say, when Hudson was still in production -- the science of safety engineering didn't exist. It wasn't part of the design mission as it is today. This is in no way a criticism, only a reflection on how times change and social standards with them.

I would only add that you seem to be conflating heavy construction with safe construction. They are by far two different things.

[Guest]

Plymouth gets broadsided at 100MPH , driven through a guard rail, tumbles 30 feet down the embankment and hits the bottom in one piece. Driver rescued, taken to hospital in serious condition but lives.

This may not mean much because those cars were reinforced and equipped with roll cages. I'm not saying the Plymouth survived a far more severe crash than the ones that tore all those Chevs in half and killed their passengers because it was a stronger car, part of the difference was the roll cage and other reinforcements.

Sorry Rusty , I was just giving you the mickey. You really are a serious fellow.

[James B.]

I am not even sure if safety was considered when Hudson came out in 1948 with their new designed cars? I can tell you that my mother's life was saved because she was in one of these. Driving on a gravel road the Over Drive kicked in, wheels spun, car went out of control, and slammed into a tree after cartwheeling a couple of times. Onlookers said if she was in any other car she would have died... and I wouldn't even had been born.

I think when Hudson came out with this legendary design it was more about the low profile design craze and their introduction of step-down floor boards.

People can't deny that "some" cars were built much sturdier than cars of today since they used heavier gauage steel and wasn't covered with junk plastic. I owned a 1963 Chrysler in which trying to drill a hole into a front fender was almost impossible. Today's cars dent just looking at them. Though you have "crumple zones" which came with unibody designs, you can still get killed very easily even in cars that are extremely popular and thought as safe. Case in point below, a 2004 Honda Civic versus a 2002 Ford Pickup... head-on collision. Look who came out alive.

There is no doubt that side impacts from the 1957-1964 era General Motors X frame was an issue and apparently courts sided with the company rather than the injured people because of the lack of safety testing of the era. But they seem to think that the heavy rockers and extra floor braces compensate for some of this. But like all situations, it depends on the circumstances. How many GM cars with these frames were built versus deaths connected with them? No they weren't perfect yet they weren't a total disaster either.

And yes, without the roll bars in the cars these guys in 1961 would have been killed that day. Other pictures I have seen clearly show the outline of the bar through the roof that kept it from being flattened.

Edited February 26, 2013 by James B. (see edit history)

[James B.]

Just going to throws these in here for S&G...so people can see the outcome better of the Lee Petty and Johnny Beauchamp crash at Daytona in 1961.

[Rusty_OToole]

What I object to is looking at the film of the crash test of the 59 Chev and the new (09?) Chev and saying "Yep... them old cars sure are unsafe.... they were never designed for safety in the first place".

This may be true of the X frame Chevs and other X frame GMs and for that matter, GM cars in general. But it is not true of other cars that were built better and stronger. I suggest if they used a Hudson or Chrysler or even a Dodge in that test the results might be very different.

I agree that new cars have safety devices that were not even dreamed of in the fifties. But even then, some cars were safer than others and the GMs were not at the top of the list.

So let's not make too much out of a test carried out on a car that has been known for years for its weak construction.

[Guest]

Just going to throws these in here for S&G...so people can see the outcome better of the Lee Petty and Johnny Beauchamp crash at Daytona in 1961.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]180182[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]180183[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]180186[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]180187[/ATTACH]

The Plymouth's back is broken.

[Dave Mellor NJ]

This old crash test was posted on HAMB's "vintage shots from days gone by" by Graverobber.

[Guest Magoo]

What I object to is looking at the film of the crash test of the 59 Chev and the new (09?) Chev and saying "Yep... them old cars sure are unsafe.... they were never designed for safety in the first place".

This may be true of the X frame Chevs and other X frame GMs and for that matter, GM cars in general. But it is not true of other cars that were built better and stronger. I suggest if they used a Hudson or Chrysler or even a Dodge in that test the results might be very different.

I agree that new cars have safety devices that were not even dreamed of in the fifties. But even then, some cars were safer than others and the GMs were not at the top of the list.

So let's not make too much out of a test carried out on a car that has been known for years for its weak construction.

"The '59 Chevy was never designed for safety in the first place" -- that is pretty darn close to a flat statement of fact, if not right on the money. And it's equally true of the Hudson et al. They may well have been stouter in some impacts, but if so, it was incidental to their design. How many step-down Hudsons were instrumented and crash-tested in the process of development? I will estimate approximately zero.

For interesting reading, I recommend Ralph Nader's Unsafe at Any Speed from 1965. In it, he pleads for the most basic and simple safety features, including trapping door latches, collapsing steering columns, and padded dashes. It really is startling to see how conservative his initiatives seem today. But at the time, he was regarded as a radical extremist: How DARE he make such demands on the auto industry? He was seen as anti-free enterprise and the American way. To this day, car enthusiasts are more or less indoctrinated to hate Ralph Nader, even though his original proposals have long since been adopted as simple good sense.

By the way, Unsafe at Any Speed is now available for free online reading. I think participants in this discussion will find it fascinating.

Unsafe At Any Speed -- The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile, by Ralph Nader

[Rusty_OToole]

Believe it or not I read Unsafe At Any Speed when it first came out, twice. The first time made me sore because it was such a hatchet job. The second time I laughed like hell at all the errors, mis statements of fact and twisted statements.

You and I must be the only people who actually read it. Over the years I have seen many people who refer to it, who have no clue what is in it or how it was written.

As for whether cars were designed for safety, some were and some weren't. One that was, was the 1955 and 56 Fords. Ford made a big deal at the time, of their safety door latches, collapsible steering wheel, padded dash, and (available at extra cost) seat belts and other safety features.

Meanwhile Chev was advertising their hot new V8 engine, power, performance, style, hardtop bodies, 2 tone paint, etc.

Chev beat Ford's brains out in sales.

For 57 Ford took a new tack. They brought out an all new, longer, lower, wider car with bigger engine, even a supercharger. Also the super deluxe Fairlane model. They went all out for stock car racing, and whatever performance publicity and advertising they could get. They completely dropped the safety pitch.

In 1957, Ford outsold Chev for the first time in years.

Other cars designed for safety that promoted their safety features: The 1926 Safety Stutz, 1948 Tucker and stepdown Hudson.

Hudson was proud of their excellent handling and road holding, and low center of gravity for avoiding accidents. Their extremely strong bodies, with guard rails running down the sides of the car and outside the back wheels. And their double action brakes, with a cable operated backup connected to the brake pedal in case the hydraulics failed.

The side guard beams and double brakes eventually became mandatory, many years after Hudson featured them.

So what happened to Stutz, Tucker and Hudson? We mourn our loss, in the old car hobby. Nobody else cares what happened to them.

Everyone who tried to sell safety, quickly found the public wouldn't buy it. The public had nothing against safe cars. It just wasn't high on the list of things they were looking for, and willing to pay for.

Other cars, like Chrysler, built safe cars but did not push them in their advertising. For example, one of the safety featured Ralph Nader wanted, and Ford had in 55, was the padded dash. Chrysler had it in 1949. The same year Chrysler also had window winder handles that hung down from the handle, as became mandatory in the sixties for safety. Chrysler also had very strong bodies, frames, bumpers, and door latches. Chrysler also had the best brakes, with twin wheel cylinders and double leading shoes, backed up by a hand brake on the drive shaft, completely separate from the wheel brakes.

Chrysler also had the center mounted brake light, from 1941 through the forties. This was hailed as a great new safety invention when it was made mandatory in 1986.

None of these things were stressed in their ads, but they were on the cars just the same.

Another thing Chrysler had was Safety Rim wheels. These were wheels made in such a way, that in case you got a flat or a blowout, the tire stayed on the wheel while you brought the car to a stop. The tire did not come off the wheel and get balled up and wrapped around the axle, throwing the car out of control. Flats and blowouts were a lot more common and a lot more dangerous back then than they are now, so this was quite an advance.

Chrysler held the patent on the Safety Rim wheel but they offered to license it to any car or wheel maker, free of charge, in the interest of safer driving.

None of them took them up on it because it would have cost a few pennies, less than a dime a wheel, to change their tooling.

I also agree that today's cars are safer. I do not agree with the way the legislation was handled. One auto expert remarked, that the new safety laws (in the sixties) reminded him of a convention of drunken plumbers laying down rules and procedures for brain surgeons to follow.

The safety laws, and pollution laws, are the reason cars of the late sixties and seventies were so lousy, unreliable, poor drivability and performance, ugly and overpriced. The sudden drop in gas mileage (due to safety and pollution laws) had a lot to do with precipitating the gas crises of the seventies. The gas crisis, plus the destruction of the domestic auto industry, which brought in the Japanese imports in droves, had a lot to do with destroying America's industrial base and bringing about inflation, stagflation, and depression through the late sixties and seventies.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[Guest]

Rusty says;

The safety laws, and pollution laws, are the reason cars of the late sixties and seventies were so lousy, unreliable, poor drivability and performance, ugly and overpriced. The sudden drop in gas mileage (due to safety and pollution laws) had a lot to do with precipitating the gas crises of the seventies. The gas crisis, plus the destruction of the domestic auto industry, which brought in the Japanese imports in droves, had a lot to do with destroying America's industrial base and bringing about inflation, stagflation, and depression through the late sixties and seventies.

Two of the cars I have in my collection were built in the era you refer to, and I'm the original owner of both. I like the looks of my 69 Pontiac. It came with a Real Pontiac 350" 330hp engine, T-400 trans and a 2.56 posi. When new it ran mid 14's at 96mph and got 24mpg. Yes 24 mpg, primarily because of the 2.56 rear end and a great carburetor if there ever was one the R. Quadrajet. The build quality was very good, it still has it's original interior and vinyl roof and chrome. Never a driveability issue when new. A friend did the PDI and other than that one time no one has ever touched it except me. My 76 Olds had dent and paint problems on delivery, but other than that it has never had any driveability issues. At 111,000 miles it still has it's original steering components, original alternator, fuel pump, original calipers, rear wheel cylinders, master cylinder, and rear brake shoes also has it's original complete exhaust system and at idle the cat still cuts the idle CO to 0.10 % or less and HC at 20 PPM's at testing time. The carburetor has never been apart. This car while not nearly as fast as the Pontiac (because I ordered it that way) will just do a honest 100 MPH and used to get 31-32 mpg. Today this car gets 28 mpg. In fact all of my cars (new and old) get 4mpg less with 10% ethanol laced fuel.

One thing about the body and paint issues with my Olds. At that time I worked for a major auto importer and I can tell you we would have never let a car go to the dealer in the condition mine came. Furthermore, I was the one to tell the dealer to fix these things before I took delivery, as he was just going to pass it off on me. Believe me the issues were so obvious-2 front doors dented, bubbles and sand in the paint on the hood. Originally I didn't know where I would end up in the auto business or who I would work for, But after that importer took care of me and became a global company which decided to not only build cars here-not assemble and invest in this country did I decide to stay. I retired from them in 2006. They met every commitment they ever made to me and more. Although rare these days that company was a home away from home...that's how you build loyalty.

You may say that imports invaded this country, but in reality American countries had already done this in Europe and in southeast Asia decades before, the likes of Vauxhall, Opel, Ford of Germany, Holden ring a bell? In a global economy there are global corporations. In the 70's and 80's when offshore global auto companies started to invest in America, American global companies like Chrysler would buy into companies like Mitsubishi build a car like Colt, Sapporo etc. in that host country and sell it here with Chrysler's name on it. What about buying VW engines and transaxles and installing them in Dodge Omni - Plymouth Horizon. Ford going to Ford of Germany to bring in cars like Fiesta and many more.

The destruction of The American auto industry was done to it by itself. They let themselves get behind the curve. Remember all that pollution and safety standard stuff had to be installed by every manufacturer so no excuses for that's why the American got left behind

[Guest Magoo]

The safety laws, and pollution laws, are the reason cars of the late sixties and seventies were so lousy, unreliable, poor drivability and performance, ugly and overpriced. The sudden drop in gas mileage (due to safety and pollution laws) had a lot to do with precipitating the gas crises of the seventies. The gas crisis, plus the destruction of the domestic auto industry, which brought in the Japanese imports in droves, had a lot to do with destroying America's industrial base and bringing about inflation, stagflation, and depression through the late sixties and seventies.

Couldn't disagree more. The Detroit auto industry brought on all its own troubles. It's my world. I saw it and lived it. To this day there are people in the biz who just don't get it. These obsolete mindsets played a big role in the 2008-09 bankruptcies.

[Dave@Moon]

The safety laws, and pollution laws, are the reason cars of the late sixties and seventies were so lousy, unreliable, poor drivability and performance, ugly and overpriced. The sudden drop in gas mileage (due to safety and pollution laws) had a lot to do with precipitating the gas crises of the seventies. The gas crisis, plus the destruction of the domestic auto industry, which brought in the Japanese imports in droves, had a lot to do with destroying America's industrial base and bringing about inflation, stagflation, and depression through the late sixties and seventies.

One additional point, usually glossed over by people who decry the safety and environmental controls required of cars beginning in this era: Every single car sold here was held to the same standard at the same time, then and now. Toyotas, Hondas, Mercedes, Volvos, VWs, Datsuns, and all the other cars that began eating Detroit's lunch beginning in the 1970s did it by the same rules that Detroit was held to, and did it (initially) from thousands of miles away. The car companies that couldn't do it as well (Triumph, MG, Hillman, Fiat, Renault, etc.) suffered far worse here than Detroit did. Many couldn't make it at all.

[Guest Magoo]

One additional point, usually glossed over by people who decry the safety and environmental controls required of cars beginning in this era: Every single car sold here was held to the same standard at the same time, then and now. Toyotas, Hondas, Mercedes, Volvos, VWs, Datsuns, and all the other cars that began eating Detroit's lunch beginning in the 1970s did it by the same rules that Detroit was held to, and did it (initially) from thousands of miles away. The car companies that couldn't do it as well (Triumph, MG, Hillman, Fiat, Renault, etc.) suffered far worse here than Detroit did. Many couldn't make it at all.

Exactly right. Everyone had to meet the same requirements. Some automakers regarded the safety, emissions, and economy standards as systems to be gamed rather than objectives to be met.

[Guest Skyking]

Exactly right. Everyone had to meet the same requirements. Some automakers regarded the safety, emissions, and economy standards as systems to be gamed rather than objectives to be met.

And it's too bad they all didn't have to meet the same requirements to sell globally.

[Guest]

And it's too bad they all didn't have to meet the same requirements to sell globally.

Be careful what you wish for. Globalization has crept into all facets of our life, just attend your counties planning commission's meeting and see all the U.N. stuff in there. Those regs. are also in your building and safety department. A friend of mine is very large grower in my state as well as others and he tells me all this regulation that has crept into his business that is coming internationally into our government and then to him. It's not only what he can grow, but how he grows it including how much water and the purity of the water as well. He gets his water from the state aqueducts but he is responsible and must treat it for it's quality. One world government is coming much faster than you think. Any of you remember what Russia did about two weeks ago? Russia bought enough gold to fill the Statue of Liberty. Don't tell me other countries aren't getting prepared.

Just keep spending beyond your means America! That will seal the deal.

[Guest Skyking]

Don, what I was referring to was how the Japanese dumped their products on us well below what they were selling their cars for in Japan. Lexus, Infinity,Acure............just to mention a few back in the nineties. Toyota trucks being brought over without rear bumpers to let them be taxed as cars............... What about those requirements??? Yeah, that was all over looked!

Edited March 3, 2013 by Skyking
spelling (see edit history)

[Guest]

Bob you are referring to happened in the 70's which was promptly dealt with and corrected. In fact for the trucks it was not about bumpers because a rear bumper in the 70's was not required by law. The problem was the beds. The trucks were actually shipped without beds and beds were installed here at the port. Then they started to make the beds here which finally resulted in actually making vehicles here so actually through pressure and economical sense foreign companies set up manufacturing here.

I think that the U.S. should have a basic trade policy, but if some other nation has for example tariffs on goods that we don't, than we should treat those countries the way they treat us. Anyroad Lexus and Infiniti didn't dump cars here. All that earlier kind of business was finished by the mid 80's.

Edited March 4, 2013 by helfen (see edit history)