Crash worthiness of 80 vs. current vehicles (2 Viewers)

[cartercd]

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety commemorated its 50 year anniversary by doing a frontal offset head-on crash between a 2009 Malibu and 1959 Bel Air, each at 40 mph. This video shows how far safety engineering has come in 50 years. The Bel Air is no doubt a “tank”, but its driver would have been seriously injured or killed. The smaller, lighter Malibu would allow its driver to walk away.

YouTube - Crash Test 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air VS. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu (Frontal Offset) IIHS 50th Anniversary

It seems from numerous posts that the 80 series does a good job of maintaining the integrity of the passenger compartment, and I also understand the roof structure holds up well in rollovers. What might be lacking is the ability of the 80 series to absorb and distribute shock to minimize the g-forces of the occupants, as well as keep the occupants’ movements well-controlled.

How do you think the 80 would rate vs. current-model cars/trucks in the various crash tests (frontal offset, side impact, rear crash protection/head restraint, and roof crush)?

Additionally, I have read posts that say “my ARB saved me….”. Although armor may help avoid cosmetic damage in a low speed crash, wouldn’t it also transmit more shock to the frame (and thus occupant) in a high speed collision?

 

[BEE-JAY42]

A vehicle with a full ladder chassis will hold it's integrety better in a crash but the down side of that is that they don't have crumple zones so much of the force is transfered to the passengers. I don't know how an 80 series would compared to more recent cars but I know that the 200 series is the only vehicle allowed on a coal mine here in Oz without a rollbar/cage fitted due to it's inherent cabin strength.

 

[lt1fire]

Although I would want to be in an 80 in the majority of the situations crash zones for cars get better and better. The 80 design is almost 20 years old so if it came down to it i'd rather be in a 200, suburban, expedition of 2010 against an 80.

 

[Snowtire]

Check out his wreck thread from a few days ago:

https://forum.ih8mud.com/80-series-...hen-mine-met-buick-yesterday.html#post4807343

Classic offset frontal collision at pretty high speed. The proof is in the pudding. The MUD member was a little sore, but the other guys had to go to the hospital.

As was said, crush zone is good, but this is a heavy vehicle so that partially makes up for lack of it. I think that being up high helps a lot to keep the other car from intruding in the passenger compartment, and it causes some of the energy of a crash to be directed upward (at least for the LC) rather than parallel with the road.

But apples to apples, it might not fare as well against a modern truck of similar height and weight.

 

[ToothDr]

The design for the 80 series started in the late 1980's for the release of the 1991 model year. Can't really compare an over 20 year old design with current technology. Materials, regulations, etc.. have changed dramatically since the first FJ80 rolled off the line. That being said the 80 is a very heavy truck. Many mud members have posted some pics of 80's in accidents. I've been impressed with how well these trucks hold up and protect occupants in serious crashes.
BTW, I've never seen any government crash data on a crusier.


Pete

 

[onewhippedpuppy]

It seems that the 80 was pretty exceptional by the standards of its time. But a lot has been learned in the last 20 years in regards to making vehicles safer. As someone else said, the 80 seems to hold up well but does not have much of a crumple zone. There is only so much energy that the human body can handle in an accident, modern cars sacrifice themselves to dissipate this energy and protect the occupants.

Bottom line, I still feel safe in my 80, but I'm sure there are safer cars available today.

 

[Kaoscruizer]

I love the solid feel of my LX .. It makes me wanna believe that my family and I would be safe in the event of an accident. For head on stuff, I decided to make SURE that I had the upper hand:

 

[jeepocabra]

It should be noted that some point out that the Malibu bel-air test had stacked odds. Look at the huge ammounts of rust that come of the bel-air. That sucker had cancer. In addition the bel-air seems to crush too easily for a true frame vehicle. Fwiw, just what I have read about the test.

My personal opinion is that the 80 is a solid safe vehicle for when it was made, especially the 95 and later models with air bags. I feel that the 80 is made more like a domestic one ton truck rather than the halfton suv that it is. And thus why it is so beefy. That said a newer car will absorb more crash energy than an 80. But I feel that it is as safe as most modern compairible SUVs in most situations.

Look at any vehicle in the same time period as the lc and it's way ahead of the time. This vehicle was made to be sold around the world in countries with much higher standards than the USA. That is part if why it is so safe.

Brass tacks to brass tacks, I'll take the 80 as the best vehicle and most safe vehicle that I can afford. At least till I can buy a 200 or a Porsche Chyanne or it's Vw/Audi counterpart.

 

[Makelo]

interesting, I would like to see an IIHS crash test between a 97 FZJ80 against a 07 Sequioa and see how toyota "improved" their crash safety standards. I just have a feeling the 80 would fair better than the equivalent 10 year newer Sequioa. Now, if you have an 80 vs 100, I would go for the 100 series

 

[Cruisin']

One nice thing about driving a very solid, heavy vehicle in an accident situation is that you can go over to the Volvo owner who just hit you, thank them for carrying around a nice crumple zone, get back in your Land Cruiser, and drive home.

That said, accidents are complex, and it depends on what you hit and how fast what vehicle I'd want to be in. An 80 would probably be a pretty good choice in many situations though...

My $0.02

 

[-Spike-]

This vehicle was made to be sold around the world in countries with much higher standards than the USA.

I've never heard anything about any other country having crash safety standards higher than those in the US. If anything, the US is hampered in the MPG arena due to the high safety requirements imposed on cars here.

 

[scottm]

By the 90's, engineers had no problem designing a vehicle to crush and absorb the energy of an impact on a solid object. SUV and truck builders have been pressured mightily to make it safer for cars that collide with trucks, so "progress" has been in the direction of compromising truck occupant safety for overly crushable trucks. Better airbags, better stability control, better ABS, traction control, even better tires make newer vehicles safer.

There's certainly been some progress in impact absorbing technology, but not much, as there's little incentive especially with trucks. They already have their five-star rating. If they did improve crushing, they did it to save a little weight or manufacturing costs. There's a lot of incentive to reduce weight and cost.

There's also been some pressure from insurance companies and consumer groups to move expensive parts away from crumple areas, to reduce cost of repairing vehicles after accidents. Apparently there's been a lot of progress there as well.

 

[Snowtire]

This is a famous crash test among VW Vanagon drivers. The supposedly unsafe Vanagon (engine in back, driver up front right against the windshield) demolishes a Volvo wagon. The Vanagon rides over the Volvo and nearly decapitates the whole thing:

 

[scottm]

Old Vanagons are beasts, and darn heavy. My brother had a few, they needed heavier-duty tires than normal for their weight.

 

[ALCO]

Crumple zone or not, the government will not get me into one of their 'smart cars'.

 

[Loppy]

Just two weeks ago my 93 was totalled as I hit head on the rear of a PARKED van on the freeway going 55mph. My front left tire/wheel is dam near under the drives seat and the front left is dam near smashed againt the fire wall. Passenger compartment however was nearly perfect. Aside from my left ankle getting sprained and a general soreness, I crawled out the back window with a slight limp and some glass scratches on my left arm. I rode away in the cab of the flat bed she was on. No big.

I'm replacing it with another 80. Not even considering another vehicle. I walked away from an extremely violent crash. I'm sold. Pics and thread coming soon...

 

[bbb18c1]

Saw this on fifth gear a while back.......Its not a Land Cruiser, but its the same idea.

YouTube - Renault Espace vs. Land Rover Discovery crash test

 

[FirstToy]

Although I would want to be in an 80 in the majority of the situations crash zones for cars get better and better. The 80 design is almost 20 years old so if it came down to it i'd rather be in a 200, suburban, expedition of 2010 against an 80.

The design for the 80 series started in the late 1980's for the release of the 1991 model year. Can't really compare an over 20 year old design with current technology. Materials, regulations, etc.. have changed dramatically since the first FJ80 rolled off the line. That being said the 80 is a very heavy truck. Many mud members have posted some pics of 80's in accidents. I've been impressed with how well these trucks hold up and protect occupants in serious crashes.
BTW, I've never seen any government crash data on a crusier.


Pete

Totally agree with both of these points. 80 just can't compare to the occupant safety of current SUV's. I believe the ARB bumper helps quite a bit but that's only my unscientific opinion.

Here is a crash test of the 80 body
ANCAP Test Results

Also that Bel Air crushed because it has no consideration for occupant protection. It's fundamentally flawed and the weight is working against it instead of for it. The fundamental design of cars has completely changed since then- all the mass is now focused around the passengers. Bel Air is all glass and paper thin pillars. No structural support or design to cage the occupants, thus folds like an accordian.

 

[Loppy]

You guys may be right, newer is better. But my proof is in the pudding. My 93, 55mph dead hitting a parked van in the #1 lane. Walked away.

 

[EricE]

Classic offset frontal collision at pretty high speed. The proof is in the pudding. The MUD member was a little sore, but the other guys had to go to the hospital.

As was said, crush zone is good, but this is a heavy vehicle so that partially makes up for lack of it. I think that being up high helps a lot to keep the other car from intruding in the passenger compartment, and it causes some of the energy of a crash to be directed upward (at least for the LC) rather than parallel with the road.

But apples to apples, it might not fare as well against a modern truck of similar height and weight.

You said it well. One thing the 80 has going for it is that it is heavier than most of the cars it could come in contact with. The driver of the other vehicle in this wreck was injured, in part, because his car is a lot lighter than the 80 and therefor conservation of momentum dictates it takes a larger share of the impact.