[Badhobz]

https://youtu.be/zxDHuthGIS4

Many of us here loves to buy older vehicles. Value wise they are quite amazing but in terms of safety the newer ones are usually much safer. Quite interesting to see the difference and improvements the industry has made within 17 years.

This goes back even older, but it's really interesting.. probably a repost
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U

[MattUA]

damn , pretty nice vid thanks for sharing :)

[twitchyzero]

i'll never understand:

buying JDM vehicles without a rebar

replica seats (fake Bride, Recarco, etc.)

aftermarket steering wheel sans airbag in a daily driver

[Badhobz]

what really hit me was the speed of the impact. 64km/h isnt exactly fast. you can hit that speed anywhere in the city.

[nsx042003]

surprised that corolla didn't have airbags from the steering wheel, not that it helped but laws in canada is tougher from what i remember.

A 98 to 2002 corolla that we have in canada and US did better in that test

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUxgeApq-MI

The same gen car used in OP's link received only a 2-star rating on the same test.

[Gerbs]

Makes me want to upgrade my same year corolla to a safer econbox..

[Badhobz]

thats a tough one though... id drive that 2000 rolla into the ground. I love the old ones even if they are deathtraps.

[inv4zn]

what really hit me was the speed of the impact. 64km/h isnt exactly fast. you can hit that speed anywhere in the city.

Yes, but both vehicles were doing 64, so it's technically 128km/h head-on.

Which is still of course possible, but not as likely as a car doing 64 hitting something stationary.

Still scary stuff though.

[Indy]

Yes, but both vehicles were doing 64, so it's technically 128km/h head-on.

Which is still of course possible, but not as likely as a car doing 64 hitting something stationary.

Still scary stuff though.

i'm pretty sure that's not how it works. the forces applied to each car would still be 64km/h*mass of the car. same as if it was a single car crashing into an immovable wall at 64km/h.

98 corolla transfers 64km/h*mass to 2008 corolla
2015 corolla transfers 64km/h*mass to 98 corolla

the cars can't transfer their own 64km/h*mass to themselves so it doesn't equate to a 128km/h car crash.

does that make sense to anybody else?

[double0seven]

Yes, but both vehicles were doing 64, so it's technically 128km/h head-on.

Which is still of course possible, but not as likely as a car doing 64 hitting something stationary.

Still scary stuff though.

http://www.scaricabile.it/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/jesus-facepalm.jpg

[inv4zn]

Failed myself. Was thinking in terms of relative velocity, but you're right.

The forces would be identical to hitting a wall at 64.

Physics 11 ftl.

[Klondike]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61C2nBAkmC4

:ohgodwhy:

Also no ABS on mine :fuckthatshit:

[mr00jimbo]

I sometimes complain about some impeding stuff on newer cars; higher ride height, big thick A pillars, sound deadening and refinement makes you feel more disconnected from the driving experience. But they're so much safer and more reliable.

I remember in high school a friend of mine had a slammed CRX. It felt like we were flying and I think he would be still under the speed limit.

[AzNightmare]

I remember in high school a friend of mine had a slammed CRX. It felt like we were flying and I think he would be still under the speed limit.

I believe that's the perfect example of having more fun driving a "slow car fast" Vs a "fast car slow".

And the slow car isn't even breaking speed limits when you're flooring it. Lol

[ScizzMoney]

...98 corolla transfers 64km/h*mass to 2008 corolla
2008 corolla transfers 64km/h*mass to 98 corolla...
does that make sense to anybody else?

No, it was a 2015 :derp:

[Indy]

No, it was a 2015 :derp:

lol oops

fixed.