[Scott]

Wow i would have thought the old impala would have been much better off than it was. That was a real eye opener. Its a bit sad they killed the classic old chev though.

 

[lightly]

They're built safer for crashes/impact an can withstand more, but the material in old cars will last a lot longer then the metal we get in most cars these days

 

[Barrabundy]

I have watched the video yet but crash safety doesn't surprise me at all, nor does service life, reliability, performance etc.

Where I think older cars, bikes, machinery would come out on top is where you park a half worn modern car along with a half worn old car in storage for 40 years and then compare which one requires the most among of resources to get it going again. The old one will need a battery and maybe some cleaning up of the fuel and ignition systems and it will be made mobile by an joe with half an idea of how their lawn mower works. As for the modern stuff, have fun!

We bought a farm many years ago and it had an old McDonald single cylinder 2 stroke Diesel engine on it. Before the machinery preservationists came to take it away they wanted to start it. After toppi g it up with oil and fresh fuel and making sure the flywheel would turn it started just like the last time 40 years prior when electricity made it redundant. A modern diesel with its electronics might be doubtful after 40 years of weather, vermin and deteriorating plastic.

 

[spork]

I'm really surprised by that.
Always "knew" new cars were safer for the occupants, but I thought that was due to air bags and crumple zones. My belief was that older cars would survive impacts better, at the expense of their occupants. From the looks of that video, if anything the older car was more damaged than the newer one.
Given my (fairly limited) understanding of physics, in a collision the object with the least inertia (weight x speed) will take the greater % of energy / force in an impact. I'd have thought the older car would be much heavier than the newer one as well - but maybe not, by the time you all all the bells and whistles of a modern car to the total weight.

 

[kayakone]

I'm really surprised by that.
Always "knew" new cars were safer for the occupants, but I thought that was due to air bags and crumple zones. My belief was that older cars would survive impacts better, at the expense of their occupants. From the looks of that video, if anything the older car was more damaged than the newer one.
Given my (fairly limited) understanding of physics, in a collision the object with the least inertia (weight x speed) will take the greater % of energy / force in an impact. I'd have thought the older car would be much heavier than the newer one as well - but maybe not, by the time you all all the bells and whistles of a modern car to the total weight.

So was I, but some time ago, when I became aware of a modern car's weight. A Subaru Forester's kerb weight is 1.43 tonne, and it is not a big car. An equivalent old Mazda Capella, for example, was about 0.9 t. The yank tanks were heavier, but comparing size with equivalent size, it seems modern cars are heavy. And it seems, vastly safer.

 

[Barrabundy]

True... Check out this one - an ancient WW2 Soviet tank destroyer, starts and runs after 65 years sitting in a field:

Thanks for sharing that mingle, thoroughly enjoyed watching it. I don't know about the 65 years of sitting there but, if that was in Australia, it would have been vandalised to the point of only the superstructure remaining, there wasn't even any graffiti on it!

 

[Barrabundy]

I just watched the video of the two cars and I've changed my mind, yes I am very surprised. I thought the old car would have stayed more intact to the detriment of the occupant but it fared worse in that regard also. Not sure if its design, materials or both but I'm impressed.