PDA

View Full Version : Car/Physics Question



USSEnterprise
September 11th, 2006, 11:27 AM
I found a car I really like. Its a 1976 Lincoln Continental Mark IV. Its a gas guzzling, 5,000 pound tank of a car. I love the way the thing looks, its driveable except for a power steering leak, and its going for under $1000. My question is this: When in an accident, which is truly safer: A newer car of plastic/metal, or an older car of solid steel? It has 3 point seat belts and disc brakes, btw.

atari2600a
September 11th, 2006, 11:40 AM
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/2/2b/250px-1976_Lincoln_Continental_Mark_IV.jpg

Nice find! (Add some hydrolics, some neon lights, some Trekkie music, & you're set! :p)

mbbrutman
September 11th, 2006, 11:58 AM
I tend to refrain from off-topic posts, but this one is too juicy.

All things being equal, the heavier object wins in a collision.

That being said, comparing a 1976 Lincoln to a 2006 Focus is too complex. The 1976 Lincoln wins on mass, but in the last 30 years the construction of cars has changed a lot. Crumple zones, air bags, seatbelts, material changes, construction techniques, etc. have all changed.

A newer car might get totalled in an accident, but the occupant might do fairly well compared to an older car in a similar accident. There are other factors to consider too, like the better handling of a newer car might keep you out of an accident in the first place.

Terry Yager
September 11th, 2006, 12:20 PM
I'm with Mike, but I'd have to flip a coin on that one. (Hmmmn, what if the Lincoln rear-ends someone driving an un-modded '76 Pinto)? Even more off-topic, I have tested the rear bumper of a '76 Pinto vs. a 55-gallon steel oil drum...the oil drum won.

--T

Terry Yager
September 11th, 2006, 12:28 PM
Ummn...does the Linc have the 460 engine?

--T

USSEnterprise
September 11th, 2006, 12:39 PM
No, it has a 212HP Engine

Terry Yager
September 11th, 2006, 12:50 PM
No, it has a 212HP Engine

I'm not familliar...would that be the 390cid?

--T

bbcmicro
September 11th, 2006, 01:01 PM
Following my ill-informed logic, you could argue (If older cars are not crumpley) that an older, sturdier car with no crumple zones would be better off in an accident than those with, but you would be 10 meters through the windscreen and possibly a little bit dead.

dongfeng
September 11th, 2006, 01:49 PM
Older cars are generally better built than modern ones - thicker steel and generally over-engineered makes them very study in an accident. However, modern cars are designed opposite to this - to completely crumple on impact.

Anyway, I wouldn't worry about it too much, you could sit here all day giving "for" and "against" :)

USSEnterprise
September 11th, 2006, 01:50 PM
but you would be 10 meters through the windscreen and possibly a little bit dead.

Seatbelts


I'm not familliar...would that be the 390cid?
460

Terry Yager
September 11th, 2006, 02:08 PM
Seatbelts


460

Either way, good luck keeping gas in 'er...

--T

dongfeng
September 11th, 2006, 02:29 PM
It sounds perfect for an LPG conversion!

Terry Yager
September 11th, 2006, 02:34 PM
It sounds perfect for an LPG conversion!

Or alkie...long's ya can grow yer own corn & make yer own likker...er, ummn, I mean...FUEL!

--T

80sFreak
September 11th, 2006, 04:56 PM
But when a newer car crumples in an accident it absorbs a lot or most of the energy before it gets to you. While you may still survive an accident in the older car, you may get hurt more because the car isn't absorbing as much energy... I would rather walk away from a car accident by myself (and have the car wrote off) then needing to be taken away on a stretcher.

Cheers,

80sFreak

dreddnott
September 11th, 2006, 04:57 PM
The newer cars are safer for you to hit.

:)

The trouble with the construction of older cars is that they are more rigid and do not have crumple zones.

The crumple zones are there to keep you from getting turned into Jell-O by the extremely sudden deceleration during a crash - since the car crumples over a few hundred more milliseconds you just might not find your head trying to escape from your neck at a rather fatal rate.

Of course, this is only important in wrecks at typically fatal speeds (35MPH+). In a crash at any lower speed I'd much prefer to be driving a tougher vehicle (say, a 1985 diesel Suburban) because I wouldn't suffer any injury wearing my seatbelt, I wouldn't have to pay to get the stupid airbags recharged, and the most work I'd have to do on the car/truck itself is front-end alignment.

USSEnterprise
September 23rd, 2006, 07:05 PM
Going to go look at a car tomorrow. A 1995 Subaru Legacy. Has All Wheel Drive, Anti-Lock Brakes, Dual SRS, 129,000 Miles, and for only $1500 or best offer.

Terry Yager
September 23rd, 2006, 07:07 PM
Subaru builds a nice, well put together vehicle. I approve of them. Good kuck!

--T

USSEnterprise
September 24th, 2006, 07:08 AM
went to check it out today. Was leaking transmission fluid. Owner "appeared" oblivious

USSEnterprise
September 24th, 2006, 01:05 PM
Going to go look at a 1997 Infiniti I30 at some point in the week

USSEnterprise
September 25th, 2006, 08:57 AM
Dad won't let me get the Infiniti because its Rear Wheel Drive. Now checking out a Volvo 850 Turbo. Oh, so many cars, so little cash.

chuckcmagee
September 25th, 2006, 09:33 AM
What's wrong with rear wheel drive? Bad news in da snow? :rolleyes:

USSEnterprise
September 25th, 2006, 10:35 AM
yeah, and we get a good deal of it in Jersey

Terry Yager
September 25th, 2006, 04:09 PM
Just throw a few bags of cement in the trunk...

--T