1970s OLDSMOBILE DELTA 88 FRONTAL IMPACT CRASH TESTS 70 MPH CRASH TEST DUMMIES 89374

[@Morgorn1]

My uncle owned a 1975 Oldsmobile Ninety Eight four-door hardtop. It was silver with a black vinyl roof, really stately and beautiful. In 1980, while driving at 55 mph on a two lane highway, he suffered a medical episode with his heart, and lost consciousness. The cruise control was on, and the car continued traveling for some distance before it left the roadway and crashed into a dry creek. Similarly to this vehicle, the entire car was bent downwards in a bowed shape, shedding the fender skirts and causing the rear taillights to retract inside of their housings, with the roof pulled down to where it was touching the seats. My uncle survived, with a small cut on his head that required stitches. His car was equipped with the optional "air cushions," (airbags) which were partially credited for his survival.

[@mexicanspec]

I am not sure if the air bag would have helped in this crash test. The engine was pushed into the passenger compartment, and it is a big engine, and even though it has a collapsing steering column, it looks like the driver was pinned between the steering wheel and the seat. Where would an air bag fit in there?

[@donw3912]

Those super early air bags...as we know them as today...was a really rare option. I am glad your uncle survived that collision...and what a tale too what he was able to recall.

[@mexicanspec]

@@donw3912 You can see an example in the green Chevy Kramer drove on Sienfeld. That was an air bag car.

[@e28forever30]

@@mexicanspec Seinfeld

[@mexicanspec]

@@e28forever30 Close enough.

[@MrTommyboy68]

Wow. This brings back memories of when I first started as a volunteer EMT. A lot of the wrecks we responded to were pretty gross. And almost NO ONE wore seat belts back in those days and when you are trying to get someone out of the car after they ate the steering wheel or dash board, it got messy.

[@ajhproductions2347]

Exactly what came to mind for me when I watched this, particularly on the cleanup side of things. Plenty of things you’d really rather forget, and no amount of weed of drugs or booze or whatever can make those memories go away.

[@davidjansing9696]

Well, the seat belts in 1973 were pretty much for show.

[@artoodiitoo]

@@davidjansing9696 well if you didn´t wear them then yes

[@mc-jl2be]

Utmost respect to you and your colleagues for the difficult work you have done

[@bradparris99]

You are absolutely correct. I was one of those rare teenagers that did use the lap and separate shoulder belts when I drove back then. Aside from the obvious safety aspect of buckling up, the car seemed to drive and handle better with the belts holding me firmly in the driver's seat. Most of my friends thought I was nuts for buckling up and I was usually the only one in the car with a belt on. Those belts most likely saved me one night in a head on collision with a drunk driver. Because of the size and quality of the 1970 Electra I was driving along with the fact that I was wearing both the lap and shoulder belts, I walked away with only minor cuts, scratches and bruises from the belts. ​@@artoodiitoo

[@FN_FAL_4_ever]

My mom had a 1971 Delta 88 for the first few years of my life, and one of my earliest recollections is that engine scaring the crap out of me whenever she'd warm it up on a cold day. That interior was like an apartment, just big.

[@Mabeylater293]

How did the engine scare you?😂

[@curbyourenthusiasm9874]

​@@Mabeylater293probably loud

[@FN_FAL_4_ever]

@@Mabeylater293 Loud as hell when she'd rev it up and floor the gas pedal

[@SpecialAgentJamesAki]

That’s actually a 1971 olds 98 LS, I have this exact car. Longer wheel base and different tail than the 88, you can tell the difference by the rear tail lights in the beginning. Great footage as always!

[@tedlawrence4189]

Was just going to say that. LOL.

[@mexicanspec]

The obvious difference is the Delta 88 didn't have fender skirts.

[@SpecialAgentJamesAki]

@@mexicanspec good eye!

[@SpecialAgentJamesAki]

@@tedlawrence4189 😆👍

[@chriscadillac8448]

Yes. 👍

[@xmvirus202]

All of the occupants survived and became a commercial success in the 90's with the hit song "Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm".

[@pony053]

I GOT THAT!!! too funny

[@jeffreydavis9783]

…as did I! Lol

[@SHUB281]

Once. There was this guy who..........

[@Whateva67]

😂

[@thetomgibson]

These are tough cars. We know that it can withstand traveling through a temporal portal back to the Middle Ages.

[@geemanbmw]

Army of Darkness 🤘🏼

[@planetvegan7843]

Boomstick in trunkd

[@stevensons78]

I see what ya did there... Niiiiiiice...

[@compu85]

This must've been more of a test of the crash testing facility than of the car...

[@MattTrakker350]

Honestly, for 70MPH into a solid freestanding object like that in a modern car, the outcome wouldn't be much different with fatalities for the passengers in all likelihood. This 1971-76 GM Passenger platform had a lot of safety features compared to older cars, crumple zones, side impact beams, perimeter frame, 5MPH shock bumpers, shoulder belt retractors, multi stage dual airbags with sensors in the front seats, anti skid braking systems, high mount redundant stop lamps, and even adjustable pedals, depending on the year make and model. For the time these held up very well in a crash and the airbag system is highly regarded by NHTSA and the IIHS even today.

[@JustMe-pc2ii]

Totally agree.

[@michaelorlando6159]

Nothing at 70 into a free standing object today is survivable...perhaps luck and a miracle could save someone

[@jeffreyconstance6435]

Air bags were a 74-75 option, and was rear brakes only and an option, not standard and hmsl were not until 1986 but this was a big sturdy car with a full heavy frame. Have seen a similar test on a compact car and it was literally a 4 ft high x 2 foot cube of metal and a lot of debris.

[@MattTrakker350]

@jeffreyconstance6435 the high mount stop lamps were on Toronados and certain year Rivieras, I think 74-76 for those and through 78 for the Olds. They were dual lamps rather than a CHMSL. The adjustable pedals were Pontiac items, the air bags were 74-76 but only in Buick Olds and Cadillac, with Olds developing the system in house. Yeah even crashing one of these cars into a stationary compact car of the same time is ridiculous as well. The large car suffers very little damage, although the danger is the driver hitting their head on the metal A pillar and things like that they were much improved. I've been in an accident in one myself and it was an experience to say the least

[@LITTLE1994]

​@@jeffreyconstance6435Air bags weren't common until the 1990s, though...

[@oliverrojas3185]

By United States standards, quite a substantial vehicle impacting at a significantl speed. A vivid demonstration of how a lack of butressing in the roof is a elemental safety weakness. It explains why in 1973 General Motors started building full to medium size coupes with collinade B pillar designs and ditched the hard top roof designs for sedans by adding B pillars and framed door glass.

[@mikeh2006]

I thought that too. Obviously the roof caving in isn't really going to make a difference in a 70mph crash into a solid object. But it would be relevant in a roll over.

[@yankeedoodle1963]

@@mikeh2006We can only hope

[@nathanielorthmann4830]

That was a pretty cool view of the underside of the car, I haven’t seen that before. They should do that in modern crash tests.

[@americanrambler4972]

They do. With a lot more fidelity and detail. These were the early days of crash testing. They were still figuring out what to test for and how to measure it. While it may look similar to todays testing, todays testing is literally light years ahead of those tests from the 1970’s.

[@DSGNflorian]

I expected much worse. 70 mp/h into a solid barrier usually spells total destruction. Many vehicles would fold up well past their B-pillars, such is the impact energy at that speed. A 5,000 pound tank like that could virtually self-destruct just from its own mass. The passenger compartment, while severely damaged, is actually deforming to a lesser degree than what can reasonably be expected from a vehicle designed over half a century ago, with no structural B-pillars (it's a 4-door hardtop) and those pencil-thin A-pillars that snap like twigs and transfer near zero energy into the roof. Those massive perimeter frame rails absorb a lot of kinetic force. I wonder how severe the crash pulse was. Survivable for rear seat occupants (if buckled up) but for the front passengers...not so much.

[@bloqk16]

My dad had a 1973 Olds Toronado that was built like a tank, where a side-swipe incident proved it. My elderly dad, when making a left turn on a street, misjudged the approaching mini-pickup truck. The result was the front end of the Olds side-swiping the mini-pickup truck with cutting the side panels of that truck like a can-opener, about $1.5K [US dollars] in insurance company assessed damage in 1990. The damage on the Olds? Amounted to $35 [US in 1990], which amounted to replacing the driver's side turn-signal-lens and bezel. It was a simple repair I did myself. The chipped paint surrounding the bezel was negligible.

[@_ford_crown_victoria_p]

Wait what are you trying to prove exactly?

[@SB-hy9iq]

1. Older cars were better made 2. Cars were cheaper to repair in the past

[@garymanis6305]

My first car was a 1973 Toronado. I did an all-nighter studying for a final exam in college. Fell asleep on the way home and drove off a banked curve at 55 mph. My car was airborne for about 15 feet. Landed in a green wheat field. Cracked the windshield and wrinkled the left front fender in the middle of the wheel opening. That was it. I backed the car to the edge of the field and drove it home. My dad knew the owner of the field and he called him. We worked out deal that I would cut weeds out of his wheat by hand and called it even. A school mate did the same thing with his 1986 Mustang. Totaled the mustang. He had some cracked ribs and bruises.

[@desertmodern7638]

An extremely severe test, at double the speed of the test performed today. I knew a tow truck driver in the late 1970s who said the cars that seemed to hold up best in serious wrecks were this generation (1971-76) of GM large cars, and Mercedes-Benz sedans.

[@onedayiwillmakesomecontent]

The passengers were jello, but the next owners didn't have a lot of work to get the wreck back on the road.. 😂

[@G_Machine_Joe]

Scary what we used to drive. But then again, I'm still driving 60's/70's cars today. Having restored them, I'm hyper-aware of just how thin and flimsy every part of those cars are. I'm basically driving around in a soda can on wheels. 😳 But they're fun to work on and drive. One thing I always do to my cars is immediately install modern (new!) 3-point seatbelts. It'll be easier for the rescue folks to find all the pieces of me after a 2023 Honda obliterates my '72 Skylark.

[@aloysiusbelisarius9992]

Granted, that is the case with most. Although GM finally did away with that treacherous X-frame configuration by the beginning of the '70s, there was still a lot of empty space in between that bumper and the cab, meaning not a whole lot in the way of reinforcement. Plus, those bodies were bolted onto the frames with rubber cushions inserted into the bolts. That sort of impact would cause the whole body to heavily shift forward, maybe even break some of those bolts, causing even more damage that could make seat belts almost irrelevant (which I strongly believe was the case here). Those factors would make it easier for those cars to cave like that...though I must say that 70 mph is a very fast speed for a crash test.

[@olikat8]

'76 Valiant sedan. 12" rotors on front, 11.2" on the rear. Subframe connectors, torque boxes, reinforced core support, A-pillar to shock mount reinforcements. Bergman Auto Craft front suspension, rear is XHD springs w/poly bushings & rear sway bar. Have modern rim & tire combo. Chassis is much stiffer and the car car stop & handle far better than stock- I like the idea of avoiding crashes...

[@johneckert1365]

​@aloysiusbelisarius9992 the last year for X-frame cars was 1965.

[@G_Machine_Joe]

@@olikat8 I've done the same 'upgrades'. But if a Toyota meets your passenger door...it'll squish you against the driver's door. Just sayin' 🤷🏼‍♂️

[@aloysiusbelisarius9992]

@@johneckert1365 I was wondering when GM finally dropped that frame, but I think it was later than that, by at least a year. The '66 Riviera was X-framed.

[@stevensons78]

Grew up with these big ole Land Yachts Fun to Drive and work on....Good Time’s

[@creditelectric]

3:50 At 70mph it is all over be it an old car such as this or a modern car, the sudden stop G forces are enough to kill you at 35-40 mph, the effect on brain & internal organs is devastating.

[@yankeedoodle1963]

Which is why nobody survives the elevator cable snap or the plane crash

[@yankeedoodle1963]

I just love how the dummy eats the windshield at your time stamp

[@thebrain7065]

Gas tank held up pretty good.

[@jimkeskey]

Crashes like this are actually VERY rare in real life.

[@stevensons78]

Unless the someone paints a tunnel on the side of a wall

[@MrTruckerf]

Maybe not running into a wall, but similar crashes involve hitting stopped semis or head on collisions.

[@Nounooon]

To be fair, modern crash tests are done at half the speed / a quarter of the force.

[@user-ew6jy9mo4r]

Yeah, but even still. This is horrifying. A W116 Mercedes would still hold the passenger cell together.

[@planetvegan7843]

What speeds are those please?

[@MrYAMAHA32177]

Those Ford engineers must have had a grudge against their competition so they doubled the normal test speed. Trying to distract from a recent Pinto rear ended on the Interstate.

[@LITTLE1994]

True

[@jaybarber68]

@@MrYAMAHA32177What Ford engineers?

[@Lobo-ih3bh]

Interesting that GM chose to incorporate the driver as part of the crash structure.

[@yankeedoodle1963]

Bravo GM

[@timkis64]

even if the crash didnt kill you.the G loading would.so it really dont matter.

[@20alphabet]

I'd still take the Olds over any passenger car post 1990s.

[@bobjohnson205]

Not Bad! That should buff right out!

[@googleusergp]

As others said, it looks to be an Oldsmobile 98, not a Delta 88, and someone else mentioned it being a 1971. That year was unique as GM used louvers on the rear sheet metal (such as the trunk on an Olds 98), something that was pretty unique to that year.

[@marko7843]

Right you are. GM luxury cars and Lincolns both tried louvers in the rear horizontal surfaces for one year, for their new flow-through ventilation systems. The next year somebody figured out they could blow the air through the trunk and then out through black plastic air valves in the door jambs...

[@googleusergp]

@@marko7843 Yup, making that 1971 trunk lid a "one year" part more than likely, although possibly other years would fit and work.

[@cyclenut]

In 87 or 88 I drive a 1963 Nova SS convertible. The road was 2 lane 55 MPH limit. A 80s car could not see me because a pickup truck. The driver pulled out when I was about 30 feet. My car had bias ply tires and I keep the breaks in top shape. I made the Nova skid to he left and around and barley got behind it. I lined up my drivers side frame to the passer side frame and just before impact I released brakes and hit the gas to raise my front bumper to match the other car. I timed it just right. The 80s car the read end crushed in. My Nova had a small scratch on the front bumper that waxed out If the car that pulled out in front of me had been an old solid car, my Nova would have been destroyed.

[@rjl9707]

Not a Delta 88, but this is a heavier 98 with the 455.

[@michaelroberts6450]

70 mph crash test, lap belts, and nearly 5000 lbs of Olds 98, it's gonna hurt.

[@ВлымЫлымв]

Очень нравится машины тех годов!... Жаль ее.На 1000% уверен что ни одна современная такой тест лучше не пройдёт😅

[@artmellon8852]

My grandparents had an Olds Ninety-Eighth just like this one. It was chocolate brown with tan interior and a tan vinyl top. This car was massive in size with a big v8. I remember riding in it may times as a kid until my grandfather passed away in 1978.

[@Michael-lk4oh]

My mother had a ‘72 Olds 98 2 door, very fancy interior. I had four brothers, I was the youngest and I used to ride shotgun sitting on top of the armrest in the middle of the front seat. Of course the seat belts were stuffed into the seats, they were an inconvenience. Whenever my mother had to hit the brakes hard her right arm would instantly shoot out to prevent me from flying into the dashboard. That’s the way we lived life back then and didn’t think anything of it. Now days I put my dog in the back of the Volvo and fret about what would happen to her if we got rear ended. 52 years of wisdom later.

[@MegaEmily99]

Looks like one hell of a ride.

[@MarkWG]

I had a 1976 Cadillac Sedan de Ville as a daily driver from 1979 through 1988. In 1987, I was rear-ended by a 1980 Camaro who could not see me stopped at the red light in a blinding rain storm. He was doing 40 mph when he hit me. I felt a "bump" and lurched forward. The Camaro was obliterated up to the windshield. It was totalled. My trusty Cadillac? LOL.......$40.00 damage to the right rear bumper shock absorber and a half-dollar sized dent in the lower portion of the bumper. Body shop popped the bumper back out with new shock absorber and I put a sticker over the bumper ding. Done! They don't build 'em like that anymore!

[@rschosch]

What exactly did you expect at a speed of 70mph, doubt that there is a survival chance in a new vehicle when hitting a concrete block head on.

[@captaintoyota3171]

Nope, ppl dont realize crash test 5 stars is only 35-40mph rating. ANY car at 70+mph ur lucky to survive no matter how new. More likely in 2024 than 1973 but yeah ppl dont respect the danger of interstate speeds at all

[@abpsd73]

Yup, even with crumple zones, air bags, etc and the structural engineering new cars have, that is a hell of a lot of kinetic energy being dissipated in a fraction of a second.

[@apokatastasian2831]

I don't advise this, but allegedly In minecraft, in a dream I had.... I was sitting shotgun in a 50th aniversary mustang that lost control and hit a concrete telephone pole at 120~MPH it tore the pole out of the ground and threw the base of it 20ft, totally mashed the car to the point that you couldn't tell it had been red anymore...apl the plastic just flew everywhere... it hit square in the center (thank god) and put the engine block in the front seat between me and the driver.....and I walked away with only bruises from the curtain airbag hitting my arm i had put up on my head, and scrapes from the seatbelt cutting into my skin. the driver got a mild concussion and lacerated liver but was ok in a few days. a testament to modern engineering. and the power of staying relaxed and loose. I was literally able to put my friend in the ambulance and walk home.

[@troysanchez776]

The safety argument was also used for the 55 limit.

[@johneckert1365]

​@troysanchez776 We need 55mph again. Safety, fuel savings, vehicle longevity.

[@carriertaiyo2694]

At those speeds, the entire car is a crumple zone

[@robertturner4955]

In a 1970s car, the passengers are the crumple zone

[@LITTLE1994]

Actually, the passengers are the crumple zone back in the day.

[@adamtrombino106]

Looks like a 71-72 Olds 98. Though an extreme test to be sure, right around this time GM was experimenting with spring loaded energy absorbing front bumpers, before they went to 'shelf' multi piece bumpers with hydraulic shock absorbers for mounts to the frame for 73, rear for 74. Most cars prior had fixed bumpers. The 1st govt tests were for 5mph impacts, with no damage to the car's body and self restoring bumpers. It was NEVER about the G forces the occupants faced until much later. GM was ahead of its time and worked with Allstate insurance to develop the 1st air bags around 72. Deemed to costly to implement industry wide, the 3 point inertia locking seat belt was invented to help front seat passengers only, around 74. That basic system is still used today, though the belt tensioning is controlled by electronics. Say what you will about new vs old, these early tests helped the auto industry to implement complete safety and restraint systems including crumple zones, that have come a long way in saving lives.

[@DrOlds7298]

1971. A '72 has a different front bumper/grille/header panel. My 'Handle' will likely tell you why I know this??

[@hardyboy1959]

When I was 18, I drove a '73 Delta 88 Royale Convertible, seafoam green white interior. I thought it was so snazzy! This video terrifies me!!

[@milfordcivic6755]

Anyone who says cars from the 60s and 70s were better built should take a look at this video. Everyone would have died or been seriously injured. And nobody wore seat belts back then either! Most people stuffed them under the seat.

[@rjbiker66]

But that test was at 70mph. Far higher than any crash test today

[@RockAnywayBand]

Try the same test (70 mph) on any new car and the results will be the same. Today's tests are done at 35 mph against a deformable barrier, not at 70 mph against a concrete block. And that's a substantial difference.

[@Artist1974CH]

When it comes to those pro-USA, flag waving idiots, this video is beyond their comprehension. Even they still think the new Chevy vs 1959 Chevy Bel Air crash test is fake because they still think those old big American cars were safer because they made out of metal. According to studies, there were more deaths from car wrecks in American roads back than it is today. That's something that these idiots don't want to acknowledge.

[@mikeh2006]

​@Artist1974CH true but we should give some sympathy to the bel air as it had its engine removed and was apparently quite rusty as you can see all the rust flying out in the crash. Obviously it will never happen, but it would be interesting to see how a none rusty bel air with an engine in would fair. I'm not suggesting it would turn the tables but it would certainly change things, but by how much I don't know

[@yankeedoodle1963]

@@Artist1974CHNot a pseudopatriotic MAnGinA Trumpscab, but a lot has changed with the roads themselves over the last 50+ years. Thanks to improved signage/signals, jersey barriers, guard rails and collapsible barriers, the likelihood of slamming into a bridge abutment, a support column, or head-on into another vehicle has declined significantly. Here in Washington State, however, about 30 years ago they decided to experiment with cable barriers in the medians on interstate highways; the failure rate was staggering. Trucks, buses, and shrapnel like this Olds 98 go right through ‘em. There are still a few stretches left today but they’re disappearing.

[@RenoLaringo]

It's like seeing a 3 yr old jumping on a Stradivarius.

[@jeffreydavis9783]

I also own a 71 98 LS & it’s hard to imagine the kind of force necessary to deform such a heavy & substantial automobile. Interesting to watch though!

[@twoeightythreez]

Ironically is the vehicles own mass that works against it in a crash like this. Smaller lighter car with a strong passenger cell such as modern car, would do far better. That said, these 71-76 B bodies were among the safest cars of thier era. It held up considerably well considering it was never designed for such a high speed impact!

[@TomSnyder-gx5ru]

The '71 Olds 98 is my favorite year 98, you're lucky to have one - especially an LS! I was 14yo when they came out and was absolutely mesmerized by them - still am - so rare to see one now.

[@allanharris4281]

I don't think any one would survive such a crash, to this day

[@ernstzundel736]

These days 2 thirds of all the cars on the road are driven by dummies.😄

[@SHUB281]

Is this the song the Rolling Stones left off of Black and Blue ?

[@yankeedoodle1963]

Subtle, nuanced, AND funny

[@roachtoasties]

Is that survivable? Without airbags the occupants are just smashed into the steering wheel or whatever is in front of them. I was in a crash where I was t-boned by a truck. Had seatbelts and airbags. Nothing like this but I was bedridden for a month and could hardly move for weeks. I was lucky. If I was in a 70's Olds, I'll probably would have been dead.

[@yankeedoodle1963]

Next time

[@Drewsky840]

And old people will still try to argue that "old cars were safer because they were made of steel"

[@yankeedoodle1963]

That’s because they weren’t in a serious wreck, and think they’re still alive falsely based on the assumption of safer cars. I’m in my 60’s now, cars back then scared the hell out of me

[@Sajuuk]

Boss auto-engineer to colleague: Did the test go well? Colleague: Yep, the car destroyed the concrete block with only a damaged front guard to show for it.

[@jessesan2003]

The dummies walked away from the crash.😂😂

[@ronbrock6153]

It is a 1971 Olds 98, in 1972 they added black rub strips to bumpers then the 73s got the huge bumpers.

[@robertwalls5794]

And so many say "they don't build cars like they used to". Thats a good thing!

[@AnonMedic]

I had both a 1977 delta 88 (350 v8) and a 1988 delta 88 royal broham (3.8 liter v6) Bought the 77 for $20 with only 48,000 original miles from the daughter of the original owner. And after a friend of mine totaled it while borrowing it. I sold it in East Oakland for $300 on high street, because my Friend didn't stay at the crash scene. (Nobody injured he hit a parked car at night when the brake master cylinder went out) I loved that car had so much fun doing donuts in it. The 88 was front-wheel drive with worn out shocks, so I could get the front wheels off the ground gas brake dipping.

[@lrich8181]

That is why I won't loan cars to anyone. It seems like people forget how to drive when they are in a loaner.

[@AnonMedic]

@@lrich8181 wasn't his fault, although he might have been going a little faster than he should have, the master cylinder and prop valve went out, pedal straight dropped to the floor, had zero front brakes, and about 1/4 of an inch of firm pedal play. Only 1/4 of an inch between no braking, and locking up the rear brakes. As he was braking in a turn rear wheels locked up, fishtailing into a parked car. Paid $20 for the car and sold for $300 so win win in my opinion.

[@onedayiwillmakesomecontent]

Im glad it had a laminated windscreen! Occupants would have walked away for sure! 😂😂

[@Johnny-s7y]

That’s a ou not 88. A 88 didn’t have fender skirts. And those people would be dead.

[@mrraff69]

I like the music towards the end. It’s like elevator Grateful Dead.

[@ds440RB]

Hahaha it really does!

[@yankeedoodle1963]

If the GD were conducting an autopsy on their own music, then yeah just like this

[@theobster]

70mph into a concrete block would be pretty much unsurvivable in even the most modern cars, I wonder what the point of the test was??? Our family car in 73 was an Austin A35, you chaps in the US look it up and imagine what that would look like after this test!!! We’d have 3 kids and full camping gear on a roof rack when we went on holiday 😂😂

[@yankeedoodle1963]

We Americans are programmed to destroy everything, preferably with full film documentation and a blues-rock jam accompaniment

[@tommywatterson5276]

This is a 71/72 Ninety Eight. The whole front end pushed all the way into the front seat.

[@stevebot]

I want to see this test sequence done on modern cars, the side offset testing they do now is just not enough to satisfy my viewing sensibilities. I’d also like to see this test sequence done on the 74-76 B and C bodies to see the difference of the newer safety regs on the same chassis. Seeing Fords and Chryslers would be cool also.

[@gregbarhorst3986]

It’s a 98 bigger than the 88

[@Ctrl-XYZ]

That’s an Olds 98, not a Delta 88.

[@ferrochinabisleri1587]

That looks more like a 98 to me.

[@mikeh2006]

Depends on the speeds. If it was just say 20mph you'd end up with the yaris in bits and the old car with a bent bumper. Add another 20mph on and you'll see the yaris's safety cell at work as it pushes through the old car

[@JeffreyWilliams-dr7qe]

Now it looks like a Caddy.

[@yankeedoodle1963]

Nice

[@brucemoriarty9964]

Lets suppose cars of today have better outcomes in wrecks. Then why do demolition derbies separate the two ? I've run a towing business for 43 years. In the real world, heavier vehicle wins everytime. Wanna talk EV'S????

[@SpecialAgentJamesAki]

Facts. I actually own one of these, it’s a 71 olds 98. All the body is double or triple layered steel, fully boxed frame underneath, caged passenger compartment and the windows are 12-14 mm thick. They weigh about 5000 lbs so if you hit anything other than 500 tons of steel bolted to the ground you’re going right through it like a battleship to a wooden dock. It’s been crashed a few times by myself and previous owner. Hit by a semi truck while parked, hit a tree head on, but keeps going and you’d never guess by looking at it. Took the tree down when I hit it and drove away 😆

[@swordfish1986]

Modern cars are just as heavy as 1975 cars on average, around 3,800 pounds. Modern pickup trucks and SUVs are often much heavier than older trucks and SUVs. They're also heavier than most of the old full size cars. The SUVs and pickup trucks especially would destroy those old cars in a collision. But I've also seen a crash between a 70 Chevelle and a 95 Chevy Malibu and the former got absolutely obliterated in the crash. Modern cars are much tougher than a 95 Malibu, so I'd imagine it'd be even worse for the classic car.

[@louf7178]

It crumpled more than I expected, and that is not by coincidence. 70 mph is fast.

[@SpecialAgentJamesAki]

One of the first cars with proper crumple zones 👍

[@twoeightythreez]

Considering that over four times the energy needs to be absorbed compared to a 35 mile an hour crash. This car held up extremely well. I honestly don't think a modern car would hold up any better and modern cars are designed for crashes

[@williamstamper442]

My eyes are not doing very well this morning but pretty sure that is a 1970 Ninety Eight fullsize 4 door hardtop. Its not a delta 88 midsize. I still have dad's 1968 Ninety Eight red convertible he bought new. Its in unrestored always garaged condition. All it needs is a good bath and its ready for a parade. The white top and pearl white interior really sets dads car off. Id trade 1,000 of them for just one more day with dad. He passed on March 15, 2016. Our beloved tuxedo cat Sylvester died this morning. I know its kinda weird to bring that up but thats whats on my mind right now. He got real sick last night, i hoped if he made it thru the night then we would go to vet today. He was still alive at daybreak but lost him about 2 hours ago. Now its time to bury my little buddy.

[@agems56]

Today's cars take only a hammer tap for plastic bumpers to fall off, and cost 4000 dollars to repair!

[@twoeightythreez]

Bumpers have absolutely zero influence in how a car holds up in a high-speed crash. Especially bumpers on this particular car They are 2 1/2 mile an hour at best Obviously, if it would hit a smaller and lighter car, it would seem to take less damage at higher speed. That's why crashed her done with the car running into a wall. Far more realistic.

[@sasz2107]

This appears to be an Oldsmobile 98, not a Delta 88. It appears to be a 71 or a 72, not a 73. I'm wondering why the lighting is so poor in this film? Also, it looks like a really old car or something that is just in primer. They usually test new cars, not old ones. Maybe the lighting is so bad that it just looks this way. I think what surprised me the most is how the A pillars bent backwards - the roof kept moving forward when the car stopped. If a tough old car like an Olds 98 cannot survive a 70 mph crash, then no car can. These cars have a LOT of metal on them and were built strong. I guess the accident is just too severe.

[@flyingfortressrc1794]

Wow that's kinda surprising that the heavy metal folded like that.

[@albear972]

They don't build those cars, that the old timers say, "were built like tanks" for a good reason.

[@mountainhobo]

"for a good reason" -- Yeah, they build them cheap now.

[@tireballastserviceofflorid7771]

Fun facts. It's possible to die in a 1975 cadalac a 5mph. In a parking lot once in Missouri a 12 year old kid was internally decapitated at 7mpg in a 70s camaro. I like old cars a lot, but I drive with an air bag exclusively.

[@justcallmejohn2833]

They crash test modern cars at 40 mph. 70 is very fast into an immovable wall!

[@MintyFreshTurds]

Whew I was shocked until I saw this was a 70mph impact instead of a 30 or 40 mph impact.

[@twoeightythreez]

Yeah, these cars are very safe for their era.

[@barnhousegarage]

It blows my mind at how poorly these old classic vehicles hold up in a crash,l always thought they were tanks and could smash through just about anything,theres a video l saw of a 60s chevy impala going head on with a modern car and it was not good for the old impala

[@milfordcivic6755]

Metallurgy back in the 70s isn't what it is today.

[@imp81]

its a olds 98 not an 88

[@YaGottaLuvIt]

It's unlikely a crash like that would be survivable, in any vehicle.

[@brandonb7362]

Hey wait, those aren’t dummies

[@mdecerteau]

This exhibit is closed!

[@Adrian-mq5ld]

Groovy

[@formatique_arschloch]

Cars were horribly unsafe back in the day. If you put a 70's land yacht and a new Toyota Yaris to a head on crash, the Yaris would penetrate the yacht like warm butter.

[@curbyourenthusiasm9874]

Yeah cars back then were not safe to drive but my ass is hardheaded because Im still gonna daily drive an older car someday which is why i always say, "If I have the money, mechanical knowledge, and a little bit of luck id be driving thst classic right there."

[@agems56]

Pretty good results considering the speed and the absence of seat belts and air bags!

[@lwilton]

Likely had seatbelts in 71 or 73, but they were probably just lap belts. Shoulder harness didn't become common until about 75. Without seatbelts those dummies would probably have "submarined" out of the seat and under the dashboard, or what was left f it.

[@MattTrakker350]

These cars had lap and shoulder belts with a rolling intro of different designs, retractors were in the ceiling by 74, maybe 73

[@glen7201]

My 72 Cutlass has original equipment lap and shoulder belts,they are a 2 piece design.

[@bradparris99]

@@lwilton My 1970 Buick Electra had the double buckle lap and separate shoulder belts and I was that rare kid that wore them in the mid 70s.

[@steveib724]

Mom can i borrow the 455 tonight thanks mom Oldsmobile 🇺🇸🇺🇸👌

[@chrisjohnson5776]

the era preference for pillarless hardtops, particularly GM, whereas a sedan with roof support and strength of framed door glass, and lighter weight weight to boot (thinking Cutlass Rallye350) would have to be safer. But hey, it was all about style.

[@carlm8821]

Wow, talk about design for pure aesthetics alone, with NOTHING else considered…..no safety whatsoever. Even if seatbelts were used, doubt if they would have helped much in case of front passengers.

[@yankeedoodle1963]

So much the better

[@georgegeorgakopoulos5956]

No fire?

[@yankeedoodle1963]

The disappointment in your comment definitely moved the needle

[@Carsten-rf4ny]

The car is almost gone, unsafe at any speed....

[@PartTimeLaowai]

If it was an early model Olds it probably would have still started and reversed back.

[@craigexaustralia7147]

Thats a cadaver at 1.07

[@MyHumanWreckage]

Back in the day when even a minor fender bender could kill you

[@CollinMacQuarrie]

The ironic thing is we think because these vehicles are large and in charge that they are safer than smaller cars of today, when it’s just the opposite. I mean, you’re DEAD at 70 mph in the front seat, without a doubt.

[@mountainhobo]

"it’s just the opposite" -- I see my previous comment has already been removed. If you think you will be safer in a Nissan Kicks crashing into that Olds head on with a combined speed of 70 mph, you need to take high school physics again.

[@apokatastasian2831]

​@@mountainhoboyou know who also studies physics? modern structural engineers, who design the crumple zones, seats and airbags. the old car may be tougher, but it is not nearly as good at shunting the kinetic energy around your squashable meatsack in a directed way definitely take a modern car...especially cars 30-40k and up...where they have any extra engineering. maybe not the KIA sorento...but in general, modern is gonna be better

[@louf7178]

Much merit. Because of transfer of momentum, the big car will greatly overcome the small mass car. (But it's not quite that much bigger; 5000/3000 lbs. An F250 is; 7000/3000 lbs)

[@mountainhobo]

@@apokatastasian2831 "but in general, modern is gonna be better" -- 'Modern' does not overcome mass difference. The smaller car will stop more abruptly, and will propel the passengers forward with greater speed. Exaggerated example: Put a small, *modern* car on railroad tracks and see if the train magically stops. Exaggerated? Yes, but illustrates the point. As @louf7178 said, this becomes ever more dramatic if you move from that Olds to an F250, and no amount of modernity can help you overcome physics.

[@apokatastasian2831]

@@mountainhobo all that is true, but you are also talking to someone thats sat shotgun, in a 130mph crash to a dead stop into a concrete light pole in a modern sports car and I *walked home* I'm telling you, the ability of modern engineering to make alot of energy *go around* your body....is frankly remarkable and I wouldn't have believed it, if i hadn't been through it. as I write this I know that it sounds unbelievable...but thats the exact point i'm making...a 2021 60k car can do things to defend you, I wouldn't believe if i hadn't personally witnessed it. it totally lunches the car though. I've got a 77 F250 too, and a 70's velle...and i'd rather not eat those iron steering wheels instead of a modern set of airbags...

[@Geckobane]

Walk it off

[@jeffreyconstance6435]

That car was actually a 98 not an 88. 98’s have longer wheelbase and overall length and heavier. I feel sure no one survived that even if belted in the rear. Complete pancake to the A pillar, entire car buckled including the trunk, rear quarters. Unbelievable that a 20 foot long, 5000 pound sedan would crumple like a beer can.

[@Hombreextremadamentehumilde]

Aqui se desmitifica que los autos de antes eran más seguros con un accidente

[@sylvaintheate1237]

Niveau sécurité active et passive rien a voir comparé aux voitures actuelles ! La c’est une boite de conserve qui s’ecrase aussi facilement qu’une boite de soda !

[@therealxunil2]

Are you guys adding crap music to films now?

[@andrewsnow7386]

It was a silent film so you can just hit mute and enjoy it in it's original form.😁

[@lwilton]

If they don't add free "music", about 100 people will post comments in all capital letters: "WHERE'S THE SOUND TRACK!!??!!?". They got tired of it and add fake KZbin music, and now just get the occasional comment about "why isn't it silent?"

[@aarond23]

There is no narration you don't have to listen to the music if you don't want to

[@yankeedoodle1963]

I’ll be happy to read you box scores from the 1970 World Series if that helps

[@DanielTorok-nd7pn]

Across many decades there was only one manufacturer who could make cars and this was the Mercedes Benz The others were only industrial apprentices until the 90s all over the world!!! If somebody doesn’t think the same just look for a crash test from the 60s (fin tail)or 70s car,and gonna see what I’m mean! And besides this they were the best in luxury (see 600 s) ,and the king of the speed with w108 6.3 the fastest sedan in that time , and they were also the first in economy with their unbelievable reliability diesel ,and with the first turbo diesel ever in personal car( w116 300sd) and just one more, the first multi link suspension in the w201 series (190 e)and the first ABS as standard equipment in every vehicle in w124 series!! And this list is going on and on and on… In this period their advertising slogan was absolute true: the best or nothing

[@rovervitesse1985]

This is a 98. Not a delta 88

[@mexicanspec]

Yeah, those front passengers would be dead. The question is, would the air bag have helped the driver?

[@MrTommyboy68]

I think seat belts/shoulder belts and air bags MIGHT have helped, but just the force of coming to a sudden stop from 70 to zero plus the way the whole car just folded up would probably ben a fatal.

[@mexicanspec]

@@MrTommyboy68 My thoughts exactly.

[@johnbelwell2461]

Probably less cabin deformation than more modern cars and they test them with less speed now and on deformable crash barriers instead of a wall, they didn't had crumple zones and all the safety features we have now back then, but having the car collapse at a high speed crash traping you between a flesh and sheet metal alloy i don't see how crumple zones can save you either. Only downside of this car is the non retractable steering column, or does it have it? No idea.

[@milfordcivic6755]

You're having a hard time accepting the fact that you are dead wrong about crash safety.

[@randybennett7231]

One word: Tank 😂

[@diegosilang4823]

You are a squishy little car if you are against a concrete wall or a large tree.

[@markfortin421]

To be fair, you have to do the math. This is equivalent to 2 cars having a head-on at 35 mph. each. Not really fast in todays world. Considering the bulk of that full-framed 5k lb. car, I was very surprised at the severity of that impact. But the passenger area remained pretty much unaffected, which is how their designed. And no airbags!!

[@gieb6428]

Not equivalent to two cars at 35mph

[@andrewsnow7386]

Try again. Going 70 mph into a solid wall is the same as a head-on at 70 mph each! Consider if you set a weightless wall on the road. If you run a car into the left side of the wall, obviously the wall moves to the right with the car. But, if you run two cars (of the same type) into the wall -- one into the left side and one directly opposite on the right side -- which way does the wall move? In a perfect world, the wall doesn't move at all, just like the wall in the film doesn't move. Thus, hitting a non-moving solid wall at speed X, is more or less equivalent to two cars hitting head on where each car is traveling at the same speed X.

[@louf7178]

@@andrewsnow7386 No. 35 each.

[@mexicanspec]

The air bag wasn't available for 2 more years.

[@SpecialAgentJamesAki]

@@gieb6428 you’re correct. Myth busters did a test on this.

[@LITTLE1994]

That big car must be unibody rather than body-on-frame for it to crumble so horribly... But regardless, 70 mph into a solid wall at any classic metal car is DEATH.

[@twoeightythreez]

No General Motors car of that size was ever a unibody. Chrysler but not GM . A Unibody actually would've held up better. Unibody cars are built to be safe in accidents. Body on frame vehicles are built to hold up to extreme duty usage . Regardless 70 mph into a wall in any production car is pretty much guaranteed death And survivors would be outliers . It doesn't matter how well the car holds up. There's just too much force involved to slow down from 70 miles an hour to zero that quickly.