3 ms·
I love older cars, but they are significantly more dangerous. My 93 pickup had no airbags and was notorious for the engine intruding into the passenger compartm
by cityofdelusion 2y ago
I love older cars, but they are significantly more dangerous. My 93 pickup had no airbags and was notorious for the engine intruding into the passenger compartment in collisions. My 91 sports car only has an air bag for the driver as a premium option, and they are known to not deploy due to the ancient explosives and electrical contacts. The A pillars on both cars are tiny and will fold in any kind of hit or rollover, plus both cars were designed for 55 mph max speeds, not the 85+ that is common today. An accident on the freeway in either would be a coin toss of survival.
- _yb2s 2y agoIt depends on how old and what you are comparing. In another thread on here I suggested comparing a brand new Chevy Trax to a 2012 Audi Q5- I think it's pretty safe to say the Audi will be a much safer car for 1/4 the price. If safety is important, someone with cheap new economy car money can instead get into a high end vehicle well known for its safety and quality, still for a lot less money. Sure, if you are going to compare something over 30+ years old, and from a manufacturer not known for safety or quality in the first place, it will be a lot more dangerous. Still, even with old stuff it varies. Late 80s Mercedes and Volvos, even base models, for example had most of the modern safety tech that other cars didn't see for a very long time. Weight is also a huge factor- a big old truck with no regard for safety in its design is still a lot safer than a light economy car in a collision. Probably the safest cars on the market are still the over-engineered 20 year old full sized luxury SUVs that weigh as much as a 3/4 ton truck and have tons of heavy offroad gadgets they don't put on SUVs anymore.