[strych9]

Wow.

[Silverlsinva]

old video but still a good one shows why newer cars are safer and heavier

[_Nick_]

A waste of a beautiful car. It is obvious the new design will be much better in a crash test, that is just progress. Additionally, cars are now built around safety.

What a shame.

[ChrisBlair]

...but....but...there was no reason to wreck the '59...WTF is wrong with people? Pointless destruction is not progress

[90503]

Yeah, too bad for the '59....(I used to have one of those).....they could have used some other clunker from the fifties to make their point, but oh well...

Interesting, though....I would have thought the old land yacht would have come out ok and creamed the Malibu....but apparently not....

[DGthe3]

This has been re-posted a couple times. Later tonight I'll see if I can find an older one to merge it with.

Anyway ... to those that say they ruined a great car: do you know what the condition of the '59 was before the test? Because odds are, the car was worth next to nothing. I wouldn't be surprised if the only decent thing about it was the body (because if the body wasn't, the test would be invalidated). Instead of a 50,000 classic getting destroyed, it was probably a lot closer to a $500 mess.

And while on the subject of classics getting destroyed ... most movie cars that are wrecked are junk as well. They buy up a dozen cars, and maybe 1 of them is ever worth anything. The rest of the cars that get shot up, blown up, flipped, bashed, banged, crushed, etc are usually only decent from one angle. The ones that run undergo a powertrain conversion. Most commonly, their inline 6 (probably) is removed & replaced with a Chevy small block crate engine (regardless of who built the car in the first place). Behind the small block is usually a GM 4 speed auto, followed by a Ford 9".

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

This has been re-posted a couple times. Later tonight I'll see if I can find an older one to merge it with.

Anyway ... to those that say they ruined a great car: do you know what the condition of the '59 was before the test? Because odds are, the car was worth next to nothing. I wouldn't be surprised if the only decent thing about it was the body (because if the body wasn't, the test would be invalidated). Instead of a 50,000 classic getting destroyed, it was probably a lot closer to a $500 mess.

And while on the subject of classics getting destroyed ... most movie cars that are wrecked are junk as well. They buy up a dozen cars, and maybe 1 of them is ever worth anything. The rest of the cars that get shot up, blown up, flipped, bashed, banged, crushed, etc are usually only decent from one angle. The ones that run undergo a powertrain conversion. Most commonly, their inline 6 (probably) is removed & replaced with a Chevy small block crate engine (regardless of who built the car in the first place). Behind the small block is usually a GM 4 speed auto, followed by a Ford 9".

I've seen posts criticizing movies, especially F&F franchises, of destroying great cars. According to an article I can't find right now, they tend to get them off Craigslist and repaint them.

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

This has been re-posted a couple times. Later tonight I'll see if I can find an older one to merge it with.

Anyway ... to those that say they ruined a great car: do you know what the condition of the '59 was before the test? Because odds are, the car was worth next to nothing. I wouldn't be surprised if the only decent thing about it was the body (because if the body wasn't, the test would be invalidated). Instead of a 50,000 classic getting destroyed, it was probably a lot closer to a $500 mess.

And while on the subject of classics getting destroyed ... most movie cars that are wrecked are junk as well. They buy up a dozen cars, and maybe 1 of them is ever worth anything. The rest of the cars that get shot up, blown up, flipped, bashed, banged, crushed, etc are usually only decent from one angle. The ones that run undergo a powertrain conversion. Most commonly, their inline 6 (probably) is removed & replaced with a Chevy small block crate engine (regardless of who built the car in the first place). Behind the small block is usually a GM 4 speed auto, followed by a Ford 9".

Remember the episode of Home Improvement when Tim dropped an Ibeam on his wife's 55 Nomad? Well it wasn't a Nomad, it was a regular station wagon made to look like a Nomad and it was just a shell made if repoduction and junk parts.

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by Article

"But for the old Mustangs and the Jensen Interceptor, for example, we buy them like anyone else would. I'll get one guy to find ten cars online, on Craigslist.com, ebay etc, and he'll then drive 3,000 or 4,000 miles to go and get these cars."

Here's an article discussing how the cars are bought and built by Top Gear UK.

[ChrisBlair]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

This has been re-posted a couple times. Later tonight I'll see if I can find an older one to merge it with.

Anyway ... to those that say they ruined a great car: do you know what the condition of the '59 was before the test? Because odds are, the car was worth next to nothing. I wouldn't be surprised if the only decent thing about it was the body (because if the body wasn't, the test would be invalidated). Instead of a 50,000 classic getting destroyed, it was probably a lot closer to a $500 mess.

And while on the subject of classics getting destroyed ... most movie cars that are wrecked are junk as well. They buy up a dozen cars, and maybe 1 of them is ever worth anything. The rest of the cars that get shot up, blown up, flipped, bashed, banged, crushed, etc are usually only decent from one angle. The ones that run undergo a powertrain conversion. Most commonly, their inline 6 (probably) is removed & replaced with a Chevy small block crate engine (regardless of who built the car in the first place). Behind the small block is usually a GM 4 speed auto, followed by a Ford 9".

I say they ruined a good car for no reason. What is your background in automobile restoration? I have 20 years in.

I can see the vehicle's overall condition, inside and out, by watching the video. It is my opinion- based on 20 years in the auto restoration hobby- that the car was worth more than a "$500 dollar mess". I don't see hunks of bondo flying off after the collision. I see a nice stain and tear free interior. I see a complete, shiny painted dash that shows no wear or paint fading. I see full stainless steel trim on the vehicle. I do not see rust scattered around during the collision. I see straight body lines and shiny chrome bumpers. The headliner hasn't even fallen in that car. The glass is clean and clear and all present. I see no corrosion on the inner structure that is exposed after impact.

I feel I have a very competent amateur opinion on the subject of the condition of old cars seen in slow motion, and I strongly disagree with your assessment on this car. You're free to have the opinion you have but also consider that the testing would be invalidated if the entire car wasn't in overall good condition- if the car were "just a good body" then the testing is skewed due to metal fatigue on corroded structure or missing components.

But have you priced rust free straight sheetmetal for vintage cars lately?