I know people been wondering if GM crash tested the 3rd Gen's ... and yes they did ... only a couple of photos from what I have ... enjoy !

Number of mandatory tests then comparing pre and post impact ... just picked a couple after impact to show you all

 

Forgot the side view ...

 

That actually did surprisingly well honestly. cool find

 

That's the 5 mph test.

 

Even if the door says "30 mph" ? (I do see your 'Smiley')

When the wife was in the middle of a 3 car sandwich in a construction zone in our '82 T/A, our's was the only drive-away car. So I can attest for their strong structure.

 

I know and understand that our cars aren't very safe in crashes compared to modern cars.

But that 30mph is kind of scary. Consider that in a 60mph crash the body would have to absorb 4x the energy as compared to a 30mph crash.

 

Sorry then, 3.0 mph, not 5.

Advancements have been made in new designs, but the long hood still has to count for something in a head-on.

 

Its interesting they did a crash with an old car and a new car... The Old car Looked (note Looked) great. and when they hit the old 60's car was obliterated... But if you actually watched the video, when they hit Rust was flying everywhere out of the Old car. It was a very inaccurate approach to show how much safer we are. Laws of physics 101: 2 Objects approach each other and they weigh the same. (without rebound) A Direct Impact would stop them both. However if one weighs twice as much as the other. Upon Impact the lighter object will be pushed backwards at half of the initial speed.

The New cars are much safer for a light car. It used to be that weight means everything, then when the government got involved cars had to become smaller and lighter to meet Requirements.

I would take an old 5000# car in great condition up against any new car.. See who fares better.

 

Thats atleast 30mph.
Don't these cars have 5-15mph bumpers that are supposed to take so much of a crash and cause less than X amount of dollar damage??

Heck one of my 3rdgens was backed into at 5mph and barely scuffed the paint on the bumper.

 

That is true. However newer cars have better designed crumple zones that actually extend the deceleration time, reducing the G-forces acting on the cabin. When done right it can make a huge difference in the actual g-forces that act against the occupants.

I think they are 5mph bumpers. But even then, forces increase exponentially. So a 5mph crash doesn't have anywhere near the forces a 30mph crash does.

 

don't fool yourselves these cars are not very safe. Thats only 30 mph at a wall standing still. Imagine 60 or 70 into a oncoming suv... You will not survive. But as far as the hood being long. That will only help in a front impact. What about side and rear impacts or better yet rollovers. This unibody was designed in the early 80's look at the other cars from the early 80's lol not safe either.

 

if you are going to make a post like that, its best to quote the person you are responding.

I know these cars aren't as safe as new cars. Hence my arguments about the differences between a 30mph and a 60mph crash.

 

I was responding to everyone that posted and mostly throwing in my 2 cents, if thats not okay then maybe we should just shut down thirdgen.org
since this topic has been covered probably 20-30 times in the past. along with any other thread pretty much. there is no need for new threads then. Or you or anyone here. Btw i know what you said and your opinion thats why i didn't quote you essentially because you agree with me... So explain why i must qoute? when i was making my own points and agreeing with some quite obviously

 

Because if you quote, it make it clearer what you are responding too. No need to raise the pitchforks.

This is also the first time I think I've EVER seen actual pics from the crash testing posted here. Its one of the area's on TGO thats sorely lacking in information.

 

And a few from when they crash tested the 1983 Firebird ... might post some Camaro ones as well at a later point

 

Had to add to this thread... I had an '89 Camaro RS Conv. I was hit (BY A DRUNK DRIVER!!!) at an off-set head-on. I was doing about 40 mph, he was doing about the same- maybe more. He was in an '88 Ford (hate those things) F-250. My whole front end was compacted back to the firewall, but NO PASSENGER SPACE INTRUSION. and I walked away with barely a seatbelt bruise!! Both cars were totalled ...

I am a paramedic, and have seen a million TC's (Traffic Collisions). What all of you discussing new "lighter"cars vs older"heavier" cars, is this: Mass x Velocity(squared) = Force... that means the speed of a vehicle being constant (ie: the given speed limit) a vehicle with less weight has less force- and that force is always transferd to the passengers. That's why newer cars break into pieces. Less mass=less force. Also, the human body doesn't like immediate changes in speed. So "crumple zones" that absorb energy and make a crash a decelleration and not an immediate cessation of motion, are great for passengers, but hell on auto body repair bills.
Over all, in the last 15-20 years, I've seen the same car crashes on the same roads go from definate fatalities to just bruises and scrapes. That doesn't mean I'm getting rid of my IROC, though.....haha

 

I've never wrecked a 3rdgen, and I hope I never do, because they just don't FEEL safe to me. To be fair though, I've see plenty of wrecked 4th gens, and they don't seem to hold up any better.

 

They are in fact 5mph bumpers, at least according to the cassette that came with my 92 - That's twice the government requirement!!(or so it said)

I heard somewhere that two cars colliding at 60 would have the same impact force as if you hit a solid wall going 120... if thats true then this is alot of damage for a parking lot collision

 

3rd and 4th gens are almost structurally identical. Look at the chassis on them. They are VERY close..

The 4th gen was discontinued in 2002 due to the cost of redesigning the car to meet new safety standards. The A-pillars would have been far too thick and cause visibility problems.

This is one of the reasons that the recent trends in car design have been for higher door and trunk lines, and reduced window profiles.

My GTA's trunk line is about as high as my hips, if not slightly lower. The G6 daily driver's trunk line is above my belly button. It doesn't seem like a large difference but rear visibility is much better in the GTA over the G6.

However the G6 has a much better crash rating than the GTA would.

 

I do understand about the whole 5mph vs 30mph bumper thing, big big difference.

3rd an 4th are the same floor pan from the rear of the driver/pass seat to the hatch area. Now go the other way and they are waaaay different..

I really don't like the taller belt lines on the new cars (i dd a G5) it makes them very hard to see out of.
So whats worse? Not being able to seeing out of the car and be safer when you crash into something ?or being able to see and avoid the crash?

 

I got rearended by a lady in her 08' top of the line acura car a couple months back. My car had paint transfer and bumper slightly smushed in. Her bumper was dangling and fender was torn.

I know our cars arent very "safe" but I would like to see more modern cars and ours collide (only to see how they compare). Although i bet most modern cars are more structuraly sound, i bet you $$$ damage they break easier. It seems like most modern cars are built with cheaper material

 

Thats because you misunderstand modern car design. A crumple zone is just that. Modern cars are designed to crumple in designated area's to increase the time it takes to decelerate the car in an accident. This significantly reduces G-forces acting on the occupants of the car. They are also designed with much stiffer cabin structures. All of this increases occupant survival ratings and yes the damage is "worse".