aajnow.com - Ford documents the changes in technology with crash testing over the years. This video shows changes from 1955 to 1986. For more information on Ford visit www.aajnow.com/...
Kudos to Ford for their Life-Guard program back in the 50s! It didn't sell and customers hated it, but they did try in a day and age when no other automaker cared.
I used to have a ‘55 Fairlane- what they never talk about is that older cars had enough visibility to avoid CAUSING a collision. There were no blind spots at all. No seat belts and I never worried. Maybe it’s because I was 25
My new Bolt has a rear backup camera and radar proximity warnings. Big windows won't help if somebody goes through a red light and T bones you, or crosses the double yellow line and hits you head-on.
@@drpoundsign I DO like the airbags. I find those other accessories mostly irritating. Keeping people from paying closer attention. The pillars on some makes just backing up and seeing anything difficult. I appreciate back up cameras, but would also like to see out windows.
Back in the day, Ford's logo was "Ford Sells Safety." The joke was that "...and GM sells Cars!" BTW, I've seen the first crash test site at GM's Milford Proving Grounds... a wall with dirt behind it. The GM engineers would stand on the running boards, get the car going, and jump off right before the car hit the wall.
The cars were goingnso fast and so when they hit they don't have much to get destroyed so they stop immediately but the passengers were moving at that same speed, so they hit the dashboard at tremendous speeds, and die. Seatbelts didnt exist. Seatbelts make it so that they don't actually move, and just get held by the seatbelt
Maybe a FEW side impacts came out better back then, because both cars had a high ride height, and the body panels were thicker than now. But, then-there were no side curtain airbags (those are very recent) and, again, the occupant wouldn't be restrained so they could be ejected through the side window.
The body panels were thicker, but you still had a hollow door with no impact beams, horrible rotary door latches that would allow the door to spring open in a rollover, and tiny B pillars. Thinking those old cars were better in a side impact is like thinking wearing a heavy winter coat will protect you from a bullet
What's wrong, afraid they'll land on a cushioned door too hard, then magically fly out the window? That thin beam is not thin, you just don't realize the size of the automobile. It's comical that you are afraid to compliment the past automobiles on having more resistance because of your modern mentality, then a thicker than that door 28 word slander as to how they aren't better. Jesus, you all do anything to show how you hated racist times. There would never be this much criticism and hate for those poor times if you didn't have another reason to be so enraged all the time scooter. You remind me of Mr Darling saying "poor nana? Poor Nana!?" After the children go to help the dog, both because you are unloved, and because you represent that mentality of getting angry when something that hasn't been awarded so much as a compliment (without you festering things attacking anyone who says something good about it), is finally shown appreciation. Poor you.
Funny how people think stronger chassis and body is better!!!! Have you ever heard about inertia? Do you know anything about it? Today's cars are more elastic so body and chassis can absorb more of impact energy and for this reason a person who sit behind the wheel won't move staright forward at the same speed that they had before the crash! If that happens,then airbag could kill person because it acts just like double impact,one from accident itself and the other one from inflation of airbag! Today's car are much safer than old ones
You keep believing those lies. If that was true then rally drivers would be dead. The cars are purposely made to NOT CRUMPLE so the energy from the impact is transferred out of the car and to the ground and not into it. Why do you think larger vehicles are safer in a crash? Cars today are designed to be disposable. If they made cars to be reused, it would end up like Cuba and nobody would have to buy a car again. They do not want that to happen, so they make cars to be irreparable with even the smallest impact.
@@MrWolfSnack Indy, NASCAR and F1 are ALL made to crumple. The cockpit is made of carbon fiber (unlike your daily driver) so it stays intact at 200 mph. But, the front and rear ends absorb the force. They also use strong roll bars. Yes-the drivers are helmeted, too, and have HANS neck protectors and soft walls on the side of the tracks to further absorb the energy. At NASCAR, there are acrobatic crashes every Sunday, but few deaths. Dale Earnhardt broke his brainstem off because he was too macho to wear the HANS device....now it's required. And, HE died back in 2001. There have been few deaths in the sport since then. Open wheel cars with open cockpits are more hazardous. There was a death at the Vegas speedway back in 2011, when a car was flung into the stands. But Indy has gotten safer, too. There have been Zero deaths on Memorial Day Sunday for decades. In 1981, there were a few during the time trials. Larger cars are safer because there is less deceleration during than in the smaller vehicle they hit, and also because the hood and trunk are longer, to absorb crash forces.
On moderate wrecks, cars from the 50s, 70s many times are still driveable; while modern cars end up in a salvage yard. On high impact crashes, whether you're in an old or modern vehicle, you're screwed; massive destruction that not even an airbag will save your ass.
Exactly. Thankfully they only ever show modern cars at 40 miles per hour with never letting people stress or have a reason to set themselves straight and drive like a mature human being, instead ending the clip with some bullshit statement such as "perfect safety". I'm sorry? It's 1 foot from the passenger level of destruction in the front, it's all crumple zone until it's the windshield and base that it is smashing into. No longer a soft crumple at that point when you hit any bit past 40. It is as my grandfather said and would say even more today...and it may sound like common sense which we had more of back then, however applies to how stupid people can be: "you aren't meant to find yourself and others in a crash, no matter the safety, it is not a event you are meant to go through and will be tragically dangerous no matter a cement roof or perfect solid frame... It is even more so foolish when you decide to put you and everyone in the automobile at risk driving like a maniac ready to set down 200 miles on a sandy stretch in Daytona".
lol i always love hearing people talk about how "old cars are safer in crashes". this is the same kind of nonsense as people saying 4x4's allow you to brake faster... one of the things i always hear, like you just said is that they're "still driveable" after an accident. Yeah, that's a great thing. Lets transfer all the crash energy into the human body instead of being absorbed by the vehicle. Who GAF how good your car looks if you've broken every bone in your body and liquified your internal organs. Go look at crash statistics and crash tests, saying you're screwed if you are in an accident above 40 mph is garbage. Again in an old car with full frame and no crumple zones, the car is going to look ok in comparison to what a new car looks after, but in a new car you aren't decelerating the human body from speed - stationary in a hundredth of a second basically making your 11lb head weigh 700 lbs when talking g-forces. no wonder people's heads used to literally fly off their bodies in crashes. I'll take a new car over an old car any day of my LIFETIME. The only thing old cars have over new ones, and this is a subjective opinion, but looks. In every single measurable way even cars from 20 years ago simply cannot stand up to new cars. This includes survivability in an accident at any speed.
@@jollyroger2012 maybe because there 20 to 80 years since their production genius, or limited supply when they were made while your spoiled era has everything it needs and all the cheated information to get the slight glimpse of what the right way to do something is. They get their information from the past, the act like they created it and Insult the past bragging about how good they are compared to back then pro future shit. Your all fucked in the head, careless imbeciles that put people in danger and then advertise and manipulate the crowd into beleiving it's safe. I've seen a tesla in a 50 mile per hour crash, it isn't so kitchy and "safe from crumple zone" as their 35 mile per hour tests.
Those old cars where built better to withstand impacts which was great….wish safety was better like today but at least have better quality for your vehicle to survive impacts today😂 they just did the switcharru 😂
Somewhat accurate but in reality , both the driver and passenger should have been holding a beer and smoking a cigarette with a 12 pack in the back seat that was not observed in the footage that should have been 🤔
during the sixties, they started using real corpses for crash tests because the dummies were giving them false information and not a real understanding of what happened in an accident to the human body that looks hunky-dory with the seat belt but most cars did not have them😶
Uh... no they aren’t. Because like guns... you have no control over the other wackjobs that use them. Look at all of the mass shootings in Texas... TEXAS of all places where gun-wielding good Samaritans didn’t do jack shit.
@@screenpiecestudios9866 aren't you manipulated, "getting safer and safer everyday"... Is that what you think? Saying safer and safer doesn't prove anything.
They didn't crash those old cars at 65 km/h with a moderate or small overlap like they do with newer cars. Traffic fatalities per 100 million miles traveled were 5 or 6 times higher in the 50's than they are now. Stats don't lie. Even watch GMC's 1960's Crash Test, IIHS Bel Air vs Malibu, Renault Modus vs Volvo 940, etc. Seems to me newer cars almost always come out better. Wasn't uncommon for seats in classic cars to detach, occupants to be ejected, or for the solid metal steering shaft and dash board to plow into your head.
yes when cars didnt crumple up like tin cans crumple zones are just an excuse the market uses to make you buy another car right after smashing the last car you had up
![When Classics Crash [Colorized]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tLyilTOZ_3c/mqdefault.jpg)
![When Classics Crash [Colorized]](/img/tr.png)
Yes it’s 1986 right now
Got milk?
The calcium in milk helps bones grow.
I wish
Nah its 1987 now
Isn't it 1978?
The guy with the cig in his mouth is hilarious
@Antoine Gordon ah the good old days
The good days when cigs were healthy 🤪
guy with the cig hahahahahahaha
@@captainunderpants936 honestly though, I bet they actually were healthier, since you weren’t pressured to hate them, which causes a LOT of stress.
Kudos to Ford for their Life-Guard program back in the 50s! It didn't sell and customers hated it, but they did try in a day and age when no other automaker cared.
YES. But-the lap belts only became standard in the 60s, and the three point belt later. Airbags and crumple zones were perfected in the 80s.
@@drpoundsign lap belts are still useless
@@drpoundsign no you nut, lap belts were first used in 1885 used first in a vehicle in 1925, and Volvo created the three end Seat belt in 1957-9.
@@artdecotimes2942 "only became STANDARD in the 60's"
Great to see the slow motion cameras for 1955 compared to 1986... .
they just use more film, same as a higher fps
I have to go watch some Miami Vice after hearing that 1986 music
On the '86 Ford Escort,the onlooker said to his pal,did they die ?,No you dummy,lol
I used to have a ‘55 Fairlane- what they never talk about is that older cars had enough visibility to avoid CAUSING a collision. There were no blind spots at all. No seat belts and I never worried. Maybe it’s because I was 25
exactly that’s exactly what i like about my brother 78 chevy big windows and blind spots 😂
My new Bolt has a rear backup camera and radar proximity warnings. Big windows won't help if somebody goes through a red light and T bones you, or crosses the double yellow line and hits you head-on.
The A pillars on new cars have gotten ludicrously wide. I feel like I need to look six times before pulling out from a stop sign in these modern cars.
@@drpoundsign I DO like the airbags. I find those other accessories mostly irritating. Keeping people from paying closer attention. The pillars on some makes just backing up and seeing anything difficult. I appreciate back up cameras, but would also like to see out windows.
Ya and no smart phones and no computers to navigate in the center of the dash taking your focus off of guiding a two ton speeding bullet.
I bet in 30 years, nobody is going to watch this and think, "Dang! I wish I had an Escort like that"!
I own a 89 escort
I wish I had an Escort like Margot Robbie. I'm getting to be worse than Trump!
I had one a 1.6 sport baby blue with al the trimmings and a Sony tape 😅
I'd like to have an Escort
I thought they'd show tests today too
Back in the day, Ford's logo was "Ford Sells Safety." The joke was that "...and GM sells Cars!" BTW, I've seen the first crash test site at GM's Milford Proving Grounds... a wall with dirt behind it. The GM engineers would stand on the running boards, get the car going, and jump off right before the car hit the wall.
Anyone can afford a Ford... But a Renault wont go
Now is 1986? That’s so rad 😂
Damn that escort is strong af
Maybe that's why Bill Deautrive in King Of The Hill has one
Those cars are very, very strong.
Trisdoo o
Its actually bad for that because back then they didnt have crumble zones
They were badly designed the chance of injury was worse back then
@@nathanielschaffer4610 Metal dashboards.
@@UstazFarhanBD kagak an
The cars were goingnso fast and so when they hit they don't have much to get destroyed so they stop immediately but the passengers were moving at that same speed, so they hit the dashboard at tremendous speeds, and die. Seatbelts didnt exist. Seatbelts make it so that they don't actually move, and just get held by the seatbelt
Ironically, Robert McNamara was an early advocate of car safety.
There was also a supreme Court Justice with the same last name "McNamara". I wonder if they were related
The guy who came up with the idea of lowering US Army IQ requirements so they could win Vietnam Lol.
He wanted America's young people to drive safely.
So more could be sent to Vietnam as cannonfodder.
50s design is unbelievable
1986 isn't now AT ALL. This is just comparing two different older eras.
Maybe a FEW side impacts came out better back then, because both cars had a high ride height, and the body panels were thicker than now. But, then-there were no side curtain airbags (those are very recent) and, again, the occupant wouldn't be restrained so they could be ejected through the side window.
The body panels were thicker, but you still had a hollow door with no impact beams, horrible rotary door latches that would allow the door to spring open in a rollover, and tiny B pillars.
Thinking those old cars were better in a side impact is like thinking wearing a heavy winter coat will protect you from a bullet
What's wrong, afraid they'll land on a cushioned door too hard, then magically fly out the window? That thin beam is not thin, you just don't realize the size of the automobile. It's comical that you are afraid to compliment the past automobiles on having more resistance because of your modern mentality, then a thicker than that door 28 word slander as to how they aren't better. Jesus, you all do anything to show how you hated racist times. There would never be this much criticism and hate for those poor times if you didn't have another reason to be so enraged all the time scooter. You remind me of Mr Darling saying "poor nana? Poor Nana!?" After the children go to help the dog, both because you are unloved, and because you represent that mentality of getting angry when something that hasn't been awarded so much as a compliment (without you festering things attacking anyone who says something good about it), is finally shown appreciation. Poor you.
@@WitchKing-Of-Angmar Some thousand island dressing for your word salad-Sir?
@@drpoundsign afraid an 83 year old is speaking better English than that sorry attempt for modern dialect.
@@WitchKing-Of-Angmarbigger doesn’t mean better
Cars that don’t crumple on impact transfer massive G Forces onto the occupants causing more injury!
Funny how people think stronger chassis and body is better!!!!
Have you ever heard about inertia? Do you know anything about it?
Today's cars are more elastic so body and chassis can absorb more of impact energy and for this reason a person who sit behind the wheel won't move staright forward at the same speed that they had before the crash!
If that happens,then airbag could kill person because it acts just like double impact,one from accident itself and the other one from inflation of airbag!
Today's car are much safer than old ones
Shocking how many people do not grasp the most basic concepts of physics even after being explained a million times.
Calm down
Cars last century were more durable and could still work
You keep believing those lies. If that was true then rally drivers would be dead. The cars are purposely made to NOT CRUMPLE so the energy from the impact is transferred out of the car and to the ground and not into it. Why do you think larger vehicles are safer in a crash? Cars today are designed to be disposable. If they made cars to be reused, it would end up like Cuba and nobody would have to buy a car again. They do not want that to happen, so they make cars to be irreparable with even the smallest impact.
@@MrWolfSnack Indy, NASCAR and F1 are ALL made to crumple. The cockpit is made of carbon fiber (unlike your daily driver) so it stays intact at 200 mph. But, the front and rear ends absorb the force. They also use strong roll bars. Yes-the drivers are helmeted, too, and have HANS neck protectors and soft walls on the side of the tracks to further absorb the energy. At NASCAR, there are acrobatic crashes every Sunday, but few deaths. Dale Earnhardt broke his brainstem off because he was too macho to wear the HANS device....now it's required. And, HE died back in 2001. There have been few deaths in the sport since then. Open wheel cars with open cockpits are more hazardous. There was a death at the Vegas speedway back in 2011, when a car was flung into the stands. But Indy has gotten safer, too. There have been Zero deaths on Memorial Day Sunday for decades. In 1981, there were a few during the time trials.
Larger cars are safer because there is less deceleration during than in the smaller vehicle they hit, and also because the hood and trunk are longer, to absorb crash forces.
1981-1986 Escort was strong unibody than 2012-2019 Focus?
The title says now there is no now, unless u r playing GTA Vise City and its 1986
Ford Crash Test: A really long time ago vs. a long time ago.
How can they test without doors?the effect body flex
Interestings observations. Good video.
ill take the 1955 version, with seatbelts...
On moderate wrecks, cars from the 50s, 70s many times are still driveable; while modern cars end up in a salvage yard.
On high impact crashes, whether you're in an old or modern vehicle, you're screwed; massive destruction that not even an airbag will save your ass.
Exactly. Thankfully they only ever show modern cars at 40 miles per hour with never letting people stress or have a reason to set themselves straight and drive like a mature human being, instead ending the clip with some bullshit statement such as "perfect safety". I'm sorry? It's 1 foot from the passenger level of destruction in the front, it's all crumple zone until it's the windshield and base that it is smashing into. No longer a soft crumple at that point when you hit any bit past 40. It is as my grandfather said and would say even more today...and it may sound like common sense which we had more of back then, however applies to how stupid people can be:
"you aren't meant to find yourself and others in a crash, no matter the safety, it is not a event you are meant to go through and will be tragically dangerous no matter a cement roof or perfect solid frame... It is even more so foolish when you decide to put you and everyone in the automobile at risk driving like a maniac ready to set down 200 miles on a sandy stretch in Daytona".
lol i always love hearing people talk about how "old cars are safer in crashes". this is the same kind of nonsense as people saying 4x4's allow you to brake faster...
one of the things i always hear, like you just said is that they're "still driveable" after an accident. Yeah, that's a great thing. Lets transfer all the crash energy into the human body instead of being absorbed by the vehicle. Who GAF how good your car looks if you've broken every bone in your body and liquified your internal organs. Go look at crash statistics and crash tests, saying you're screwed if you are in an accident above 40 mph is garbage. Again in an old car with full frame and no crumple zones, the car is going to look ok in comparison to what a new car looks after, but in a new car you aren't decelerating the human body from speed - stationary in a hundredth of a second basically making your 11lb head weigh 700 lbs when talking g-forces. no wonder people's heads used to literally fly off their bodies in crashes. I'll take a new car over an old car any day of my LIFETIME. The only thing old cars have over new ones, and this is a subjective opinion, but looks. In every single measurable way even cars from 20 years ago simply cannot stand up to new cars. This includes survivability in an accident at any speed.
@@jollyroger2012 maybe because there 20 to 80 years since their production genius, or limited supply when they were made while your spoiled era has everything it needs and all the cheated information to get the slight glimpse of what the right way to do something is. They get their information from the past, the act like they created it and Insult the past bragging about how good they are compared to back then pro future shit. Your all fucked in the head, careless imbeciles that put people in danger and then advertise and manipulate the crowd into beleiving it's safe. I've seen a tesla in a 50 mile per hour crash, it isn't so kitchy and "safe from crumple zone" as their 35 mile per hour tests.
@@WitchKing-Of-Angmar my spoiled era? and you're right... fuck progress! everything was perfect in the past why should we change anything!
@@jollyroger2012 Just remember, it is impossible to win an argument against a fool
it's called the song name used in the Escort?
Esos eran autos,no se desarmaban. Ahora un choque a 40 km/h el auto se desintegra.
El unico problema que la persona es la que absorbía todo el impacto. Los vehículos de hoy son echos para que absorben el impacto y no vos.
cool
Those old cars where built better to withstand impacts which was great….wish safety was better like today but at least have better quality for your vehicle to survive impacts today😂 they just did the switcharru 😂
Mercedes Benz were always at the forefront of vehicle safety both back in the 50's right through to now.
Somewhat accurate but in reality , both the driver and passenger should have been holding a beer and smoking a cigarette with a 12 pack in the back seat that was not observed in the footage that should have been 🤔
Those cars are very strong. And then you be in pain the next minute or the the next day.
No
Music was like scarface movie
Fascinating...! *Even 11 yrs ago* , every _other_ crash test video was infinitely more interesting and informative than this rubbish.
I hate Fords but its Sad to see those beautiful muscle cars crash :'(
Doing this with today's plastic disposal cars and there would be nothing left
Real steel
The Ford Escort ran a red. Light lol that much damage,,at what speed? Cars of the 30-40 we're built like Sherman's
during the sixties, they started using real corpses for crash tests because the dummies were giving them false information and not a real understanding of what happened in an accident to the human body that looks hunky-dory with the seat belt but most cars did not have them😶
putting clothes on a dummy, thats not odd
How dafak is a joke
**look at the date**
Then and now? Now is not 1986 weirdo!
Taunter Atwill, right? not to mention cars were, have and are getting safer and safer everyday
@@screenpiecestudios9866 Cars are like guns they are as safe as the person using them. :-)
Uh... no they aren’t.
Because like guns... you have no control over the other wackjobs that use them.
Look at all of the mass shootings in Texas... TEXAS of all places where gun-wielding good Samaritans didn’t do jack shit.
What's weird is this comment substrip
@@screenpiecestudios9866 aren't you manipulated, "getting safer and safer everyday"... Is that what you think? Saying safer and safer doesn't prove anything.
1955 whe dont like to crash these cars
1987 1:53 its thime to get funky
Unsafe since the 1950s ahaha
I know the 1950s cars without seat belts are dangerous but I really love the designs
them cars were safer then todays cars . just go look at the crash test of 2000 cars
They didn't crash those old cars at 65 km/h with a moderate or small overlap like they do with newer cars. Traffic fatalities per 100 million miles traveled were 5 or 6 times higher in the 50's than they are now. Stats don't lie. Even watch GMC's 1960's Crash Test, IIHS Bel Air vs Malibu, Renault Modus vs Volvo 940, etc. Seems to me newer cars almost always come out better. Wasn't uncommon for seats in classic cars to detach, occupants to be ejected, or for the solid metal steering shaft and dash board to plow into your head.
ymxctrails no just because a car is strong doesn't mean it's safe. The newer car has a crumple zone
but if you get into a high speed crash you get crushed in newer cars
Garrett - what's your point. If you are in a high speed crash in any vehicle old or new, your internal organs cannot withstand the impact
ymxctrails but a dump truck is a dump truck. It weighs a lot. A vintage car may be heavy, but it is not dump truck heavy
yes when cars didnt crumple up like tin cans crumple zones are just an excuse the market uses to make you buy another car right after smashing the last car you had up
no it's for safety
You don't need crumple zones to survive a crash
@@BuickParkAvenue No, you don't. But it helps!