Just how safe can you feasibly get a first generation Mustang to be?

Discussion in 'Classic Mustang Specific Tech' started by BillyT903, Feb 28, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Haaaaa!!! So now I am "outmatched" by a guy whose bulb is so dim he can't even recognize sarcasm when he sees it. Would it have been easier for ya if I used an asteroid instead of an earthquake as my example? :D
    Man, this thread gets funnier by the minute :rlaugh:
  2. I will give my quick .02 as a Firefighter/Paramedic.

    The safety features of modern cars have been designed to sacrifice the car for the safety of the occupant. The crumple zones absorb the energy prior to it reaching the passenger compartment.

    IMO they are the second biggest safety feature of a vehicle. The first being safety belts. Crumple zones are not overated, they save your ass.

    Air bags are a toss up imo. An accident where air bags save your life is not as common as the accident where a seatbelt saves your life. You have to hit something fairly hard. This is assuming that you have the standard front driver and passenger air bags. Side air bags are a different story.

    When you drive a classic vehicle, you have to accept some risk. The car was not desinged for crash safety. Up until 1968 it was an afterthought. Even after they started putting the mandated safety features they used the bare minimum.

    You can make a classic safer than it was. But you will never make it as safe as a newer car.

    Just to validate my opinion. I have cut up a few hundred cars after accidents. Newer vehicles do an excellent job at protecting the occupants (within reason, of course no safety feature will save you if you are in a head on with a semi in your miata).
  3. As do any and all passengers you ever have, right?

    So then you'd say it's totally justifiable when I say "Come on kids! Let's go for a ride in Uncle Bill's Mustang!", and my brother or his wife says, "Umm... Billy, we'd really rather you not." Or a girl I am dating says, "Wow, that really is a gorgeous car, but I hope you're not offended, cause I think I'd prefer if we just take my Jetta".

    I don’t think I want a car that evokes that kind of response from people. Ya know?
  4. If your response was sarcasm, then you must agree with the concept of large scale vehicles leading to death. So where's the issue here?

    You're worried about the possibility you might crash, you prepare for it to the nth degree because it scares you. Thus you claim a classic is unacceptable transportation because, "by the gods! you (could) DIE man!".
    Yet when another possible event is beyond standard methods to prepare for, you claim it's a non issue and refer to it only through hyperbole?

    But, we're to consider you something other than a troll?

    When you get in a car, you roll the dice. Getting in a safer car just means that it's less likely you'll end up dead, still doesn't guarantee it. And again, that's only in the event that you end up on the wrong end of statistics.

    To add some of that annoying thing called actual information, here's some:
    Persons Killed or Injured and Fatality and Injury
    Note that only 51,000 died driving in the "wild, irresponsibly unsafe" world of 1966, and yet there were 196,000,000 people living in the U.S.

    Even then the chance that you'd actually die in a car accident in those, "asking to die" days was quite low. only .00026% of the population died in a car crash.

    So while car crashes may be the most likely thing to die from, That doesn't mean that it's likely to occur.
    In summation, stop whining and grab a pair.
    Life ,and death, happens (though in cars, one of those occurs only rarely).

  5. That was implied with my statement.

    Yes, a concerned parent or romantic partner could feel that way.
    What is the point of this statement by the way?

    Well, if you are not willing to accept the risks of driving an older vehicle. Then do not drive one. Not sure why this point needs validation or argument.
  6. Hungrymonkey hit the nail on the head with the crumple zones. I've noticed in reading through this thread that people seem to think that crumple zones don't do much, which isn't the case. It's a very simple concept behind crumple zones.

    Ever heard the saying, "it's not the fall that kills you, but the impact"? Well, that is true for an accident as well. Speed doesn't kill, nor does the act of hitting something else. Rather, it's the acceleration that kills you. Ever heard of an equation F=ma? Well, we all have mass, so if we are accelerated (whether from braking, a hard launch, or a crash), a force is produced.

    So how is this related to an accident? Well, there is a very important law in physics known as Conservation of Linear Impulse and Momentum, which states:

    In the case of an accident, you mass remains constant, and v1 and v2 are your initial and final velocity respectively. If we integrate the infinitesimal amount of time, dt, and divide it out we get:


    Using Newton's Second Law:


    The masses are the same, so:


    So, the amount you accelerate is dependent upon the total change in velocity divided by the amount of time it takes for said velocity change to happen (well look at that, the definition of acceleration!).

    Crumple zones increase the amount of time it takes for the total change in velocity to occur, thereby reducing the magnitude of acceleration.
  7. i love you.

    my 2¢ is that the only thing more precious than life is quality of that life. i do my daily commute in a 400hp 2005 model because i could not buy a 400hp '65 model new (or i would have). life is too short to be a lemming stuck in a camry or accord.
  8. Why worry about it when your number comes up. It is up.
    Old Cars are not designed to deflect the impact away from the passengers compartment. New Cars are. Simple as that. Take a new car and bolt the old parts on it and you may be a little safer. But guess what if you get into it with a brick wall doing 90 you will still loose... Regardless of the car you are driving. Yes driving an older car is a little more risky but not many older cars are out there getting wrecked now are they. The People that Drive them are defensive drivers they pay attention to their environment. They have too much time and money invested into them to be careless with them. If you are looking for a safe car go buy one, if you are looking for a cool car Fix up a Mustang. Maybe buy a tank. I hear those are pretty safe.
  9. I have never had they type of response. Given, mine is not a daily driver, but no one has ever said that about mine. Everyone is always thrilled to go for a ride. If someone doesn't want to ride in my classic then they don't have to. They can take their car, walk, ride the bus, etc.
  10. I really don't understand why this whole thread has become an arguement. If someone doesn't think a classic car is safe to drive, then don't own one.
  11. because the OP made it into an argument oddly.

    same with tx65, no one ever has said to me please don't take my kids in that car, i drive my niece and nephew around in my 65 as much as they bug me to go for a ride in it lol. my sister has only ever said good things about it, and i think my gf started dating me for it.. ; ) and i got 500 ponies under the sucker now and it doesn't make people want to ride in it less.

    in fact i don't know anyone that would ever tell me that my car is not safe enough for them or their little ones. i suppose it might be a clue to your driving style if people do not feel safe in a car with you without airbags.
  12. This makes sense from the OP's responses!
    It's the driver here, NOT the car!!
  13. Suggestions for the thread starter

    1. Buy a minivan
    2. Drive kids to soccer practice
    3. Stop trolling the vintage mustang section of stangnet telling us how much you don't want a classic car
  14. No, I didn't real all the posts but as a mechanical engineer working at the same company that makes the Mustang, here is my opinion:

    1. No, the first generation Mustang will never be as safe as today's cars. There is nothing you can do to change this.
    2. Airbags and antilock brakes are not necessary to create a 'safe car'.... if you are wearing your seatbelt and it is tensioned properly, you will not usually touch the airbag in an accident. If you know how to pump the brakes properly, it has been shown that cars without ABS actually stop shorter than those with ABS.
    3. Mass in king and crumple zones are of vital importance. E=MV^2.... Early Mustangs are pretty light. Heavier cars of today have an advantage in a crash. Old Mustangs are very solid and do not crumple. Crumpling absorbs energy, which keeps your body from absorbing it. It is extremely important. It's not the speed that kills you, it's the sudden deceleration when you hit something that kills you - crumple zones mitigate sudden deceleration... Old Mustangs do not do this well.

    By all means, drive an old Mustang for fun on occasion but not everyday!

    My suggestion - buy the heaviest modern car you can reasonably afford (price, gas mileage, insurance, etc) and use it as your every day driver for maximum personal safety.
  15. Or how bright the folks you've surrounded youself with are.
  16. Thanks for posting the first intelligent response in a few pages now. And yeah, that's pretty much the conclusion I've come to.
  17. The thread actually took 5 pages to get to this point?? wow.

    Bottome line, if you want a safe car, drive a tank. If you want a cool car, that gets tons of looks and comments. Drive a 65 stang.

    5 pages solved in 1 statement..

  18. I do believe that we have squeezed ever last bit of useful information out of this thread.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.