Head-on crash of 1959 chevy with 2009 chevy (1 Viewer)

I cringe at the sight of that classic Chevy being wrecked just to prove a point that everyone already knows. Should have been loved and cared for, not wrecked for no good reason.:( -- Al
 
I cringe at the sight of that classic Chevy being wrecked just to prove a point that everyone already knows. Should have been loved and cared for, not wrecked for no good reason.:( -- Al

Same here :(:rolleyes2:{sm2}
 
my terminology may have been harsh earlier but, its absolute madness what they did
Mitch
 
I'm not sure that really proves much. It would be like sending a WW I plane against a modern era jet fighter and saying that the latter is much more effective. It's a meaningless result.
 
I suppose that it combats the notion that old cars had more metal (compared to today's plastic/resin) and thus were somehow safer than what is on the road now.
 
I suppose that it combats the notion that old cars had more metal (compared to today's plastic/resin) and thus were somehow safer than what is on the road now.
The old classic autos obviously weren't as safe, (most didn't even have seatbelts), and the new cars are much more efficient, but the old cars had a personality that reflected the makers and the buyers unlike 99% of the new cars that, IMO, all look basically the same. I can't tell one from the other, for the most part. Where did all the fins, wood sides, and chrome go? Too bad. Progress strikes again. -- Al
 
But the driver of the 2009 car gets to attend the 1959's drivers wake.
 
Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!! that poor '59! it made all this way only to be used for a novelty video. what a shame
 
bogus,,it wasnt head on,,almost three oclock left,,the 59 was a 6 with the engine mass centered,,hit on the frender line,,the dummy in the new car was a radical lib.swinehund
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top