"Owe IRS And Can't Pay" Can't Pay Back Taxes And Owe The IRS.
Click Here: //www.taxproblem.org/free-irs-advice/ If you owe the IRS and can't pay then contact our firm. With over 30 years of dealing with the IRS, there's ...
Crash Test 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air VS. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu (Frontal Offset) IIHS 50th Anniversary
In the 50 years since US insurers organized the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, car crashworthiness has improved. Demonstrating this was a crash test ...
all those old car lovers that can believe that new cars are safer than
their old steel pipes and under the "cheap plastic,, is high strength steel
as crumble zone in new cars and the "plastic,, is for pedestrian protection
you old car retards and the old shit can have a engine insinde look at the
exhaust byeee^-^
Yes new cars are better at safety, but they are so boring and in some cases
ugly. Here's an example cars now don't have any style, then you have
classic cars from the 50s that had character and style, but they didn't
have the crash abilities that cars have now.
+TheTrueATXkiller fair point, although there is plenty of nice exciting cars around too. For the vast majority of people, cars are for getting from point A to point B safely and efficiently
I will admit, old cars aren't the safest things on the road. My reason for wanting one is that in small impacts such as backing in to a post, a '59 would have a ding in the bumper while the '09 would have a cracked bumper cover and the possibility of the airbags deploying (even at low speeds like this, I've seen it happen).
+Bradley De Santa You can still buy a '59.Just hope you never get in a wreck in it. You and the car will both be dead.My car has power everything except a driver's side ball washer, 120v, 12v, USB, a much better stereo than that relic, is faster from a smaller engine, and goes 100K between tune ups.Oh, but that has CHARACTER. Awesome. I'd like one as a second car for cruising on the weekends, but I'd never risk it for long trips, hauling cargo, or night time drives on windy roads.And near as I can tell, I'm older than you.
The purpose of this video isn't to demonstrate that the 1959 Chevy is a
piece of shit. Its to show what 50 years of analyzing car crashes, where
the weak points are and figuring out what's really important in protecting
the passengers. Think about crashing that '59 into a car 50 years earlier
like a model T at 50 mph and well, you'd just have sawdust on one side of
this. But probably some old curmudgeon was sitting there in '59 saying, my
Model T was easy to fix, and when the bed rotted out, you just went to the
lumber yard and bought new stock!
Look at any racing car crash from '59 vs one from '09. 150mph into a wall,
you're dead in '59 guaranteed, probably taking out 10 spectators. Now,
drivers routinely walk away from crashes (not that the odd fatality occurs,
but its rare). We have learned things in 50 years people!
+Musclman78TA1 You do realise the steel for the passenger compartments in modern cars is 10 times stronger than these old classics right? The rest are crumple zones DESIGNED to absorb the energy. In the test you mention, the result would be the same, dead people in the caddy.
+Musclman78TA1 It would be the same result. Modern cars aren't plastic. Their frames are more rigid and solid than ever. The plastic on the outside of for the crumple zones, which absorb energy.This wasn't even that fast of a crash test, and the dummy in the old car was almost certainly killed, whereas the dummy in the new car may not have even been harm. If safety is remotely a concern of yours, get a good modern car with strong crash test scores.