Just how safe can you feasibly get a first generation Mustang to be?

2+2GT · Sep 19, 2009

zookeeper said:
I get the impression that you just brought this whole topic up to stir crap.

Seems likely. We have been used. We contributed a lot of careful thought, based on, collectively, probably over a hundred years of experience.

His conclusion? "QUESTION: Just how safe can you feasibly get a first generation Mustang to be? ANSWER: Not safe enough."

Looks to me like he just tried to flame this entire forum.

BillyT903 · Sep 19, 2009

Aww, reality is a bit too much for the guys who drive death traps for a hobby so they have to resort to crying and flaming.

I'm a 35 year old software engineer and the cars I've owned are:

1973 Chevrolet Chevelle Malibu
1974 Dodge Dart Swinger
1972 Ford Maverick
1987 Chrysler LeBaron
1998 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 vert
1999 Ford Contour SE

I joined this website almost 6 years ago. And I was strongly considering the '65 Mustang restomod daily driver idea, but all signs point towards it being simply an irresponsible decision. Point that fact out to folks who are already doing it, and yeah, I'm sure some will get all butt hurt. Oh well.

2+2GT · Sep 19, 2009

zookeeper · Sep 19, 2009

Oh My God, is that a...a...Maverick??? Wow, that pretty much sums it up, don't it? You had more credibility before you posted those saaweeeet pics! Please don't buy a vintage Mustang (ever) stay with the Camaros and grow a mullet...

bnickel · Sep 19, 2009

there's nothing wrong with a maverick, it was basically a mustang (also based on the Falcon) with a lot less content and options. BTW, the maverick's safety aspect is about the same as that of an early mustang, remember they are both based on the for falcon

BillyT903 · Sep 19, 2009

2+2GT said:
Huh. So lessee if I have this straight. You don't own a 64-73 Mustang, never have, and apparently, never will.

You seem to have a hard time comprehending the idea of researching the feasibility of having a certain car as your daily driver BEFORE you buy it, eh? Too intelligent of an idea for ya, huh?
Your input = Worthless. Now run along.

zookeeper said:
Oh My God, is that a...a...Maverick??? Wow, that pretty much sums it up, don't it? You had more credibility before you posted those saaweeeet pics! Please don't buy a vintage Mustang (ever) stay with the Camaros and grow a mullet...

Yeah, and driving an old Ford Mustang while calling Camaro owners mullet heads and straight out dissing the Ford Maverick really leaves you with a ton of credibility alright.

bnickel said:
there's nothing wrong with a maverick, it was basically a mustang (also based on the Falcon) with a lot less content and options. BTW, the maverick's safety aspect is about the same as that of an early mustang, remember they are both based on the for falcon

Yeah, the Maverick was a cool car. I think I may have mentioned earlier that my biggest concerns with a first gen Mustang are based on how scary it was to drive that old Maverick sometimes. And a lot of my focus as far as modernizing one had to do with steering, brakes, suspension, but I really had no idea at all until seeing that video that the entire frame/chassis design of those days would fair so badly in a crash with a modern car.

Ah, the good old days. Cindy was a cutie, but I always resented that her dad refused to let me to take her out in my car and instead "allowed" me to drive her 2 year old Pontiac Bonneville. Looking back however, I feel quite differently.

BillyT903 · Sep 20, 2009

I was just thinking how the whole restomod idea has modern parts in an old car, but is it possible to have the old body on a modern car. BTW, as you can imagine I've been harassed about the new Mustang, new Camaro, and new Challenger a ton, and they're cool and all, but I just don't like retro cars at all. So I did a quick search, and sure a Miata wouldn't be ideal, but I ran across this interesting experiment...

Here at Carscoop we just l-o-v-e replicas and thank the Motor-Gods, there’s plenty of them out there. Our latest scavenge bought to our attention our second Miata replica, the M1stang, or better call it the Miata Stang. The man behind Mustang Replica is custom car builder and Stang enthusiast Bill Carnes. Practically, every single exterior component of the Miata -apart from the windshield frame and the roof top, is replaced with new steel body panels that are shortened and welded or bolted to the chassis. The base conversion price starts at $12.999 plus tax (€9.500) and doesn’t include painting and interior mods. The kit can be used on all previous gen Miatas (1990-2005). –Click “Read More…” for the image gallery

Mazda Miata / MX-5 based Ford Mustang Replica! - Carscoop

tx65coupe · Sep 20, 2009

BillyT903 said:
Well this pretty much answers my original question.

IIHS 40 mph head on crash. 2009 Malibu driver suffers minor knee injury. 1959 Bel Air driver dies instantly.

YouTube - Collision Chevrolet Bel Air 1959 and Chevrolet Malibu 2009

YouTube - Crash test: 1959 Chevy Bel Air vs. 2009 Chevy Malibu

QUESTION: Just how safe can you feasibly get a first generation Mustang to be?

ANSWER: Not safe enough.

I will say that there is some type if brown dust that comes out from under the classic. On YouTube it was commented that it might have been rust or something. I don't know what it was. That cars structural integrity is not known.

Also, I will say that just because that one classic didn't fare well in an accident doesn't mean they all don't do that great.

For example. A friend of mine in high school had an early 60's Chrysler New Yorker like this. He hit a Ranger or S10 doing about 40 and you couldn't even tell it got in an accident. The little truck pulled out in front of him and was totalled.

HowStuffWorks "1960-1962 Chrysler New York Hardtops & Convertible"

I have seen some pretty bad classic Mustang accidents where no one was hurt. So they are not that unsafe.

Its pretty much a given though that a newer car will be safer. I agree though that i don't much like the new cars that try to redo the retro style.

Also, I don't have anything against Mavericks. I like the Grabber with the sport lights. FYI in south america the Maverick is like a Mustang to them.

wicked93gs · Sep 20, 2009

here is my view on this...I think a lot of people are spoiled with what the term "daily driver" means, I am 29 and my "daily driver" is a '97 Dodge Neon with a 2.4L engine swap, the car has no power steering, no air conditioning, solid motor mounts and solid shifter bushings...is it comfortable to drive to work? you bet your a$$ it is, I personally dont use A/C even if I have it, I just roll my windows down...power steering? on a small car with 15 inch wheels? I dont miss it....does it do the job and get me from point A to point B reliably? yes it does...its reliable as a rock, its not pretty, and other people dont think its comfortable, but it does the job...the two main differences between it and my classic mustang from a safety perspective? shoulder belts and a collapsible steering column...shoulder belts into a classic mustang is easy.....when I had my 67 I used Nissan Pulsar belts, which were a direct bolt in oddly enough...total cost of $5...collapsible steering column....there you are looking at a bit of money...say $300 for an Ididit column...total cost...$305 to actually make it safer than my neon(which has no ABS...that was an option) because my neon has rear drum brakes and weighs about the same....now its true that I have 4 wheel disc brakes on the mustang already done...so go ahead and add the cost of that in...'84 lincoln rear end w/ disc...$100 from the junkyard...I have a mustang II front suspension...so lets add in that cost as well for the front discs and rack and pinion steering...another $1800...so $2205 to bring it all up to the specs of my "daily driver"...and past

p.s. as far as accidents...I was in one in my '67...driving down the interstate playing leap frog over the course of 100 miles with this early 90s nissan sentra....I was passing him when a deer jumps out in front of him...he swerves to avoid the deer, hits me and runs me into the median(then does a hit and run, but thats beside the point) total damage to my car...dent in the passenger side fender....his whole front end was destroyed...as he drove off his bumper was falling out...his headlight was crushed...his fender looked like a crumpled up piece of paper....dont tell me newer cars hold up to damage better....they do have crumple zones though

p.s.s. a lot of it is also knowing how to drive....most people out there dont...I make a habit of giving myself at least 100 feet between me and the car in front of me, regardless of the car I am driving...I do not ride peoples bumpers and I will tap my brakes if someone is riding mine until they back off, I dont like other cars anywhere near me and do my best to make sure they keep a good distance...true it doesnt always work(like the time that drunk ran into the back of my probe at 40 mph when I was sitting at a stoplight...he tried to do a hit and run too...but I got him nailed that time) just drive the car like you actually care if it gets hit and you will be fine...the facts are, its dangerous to drive ANY car...I personally do not believe that its much more dangerous to drive a classic...42000 people per year die in auto accidents in the US...thats 115 per day...1 every 13 minutes...fatal accidents, is driving ANY car safe? are you sure?

DJCarbine · Sep 20, 2009

In this thread : Someone asks a question they already have all the answers to just to stir up trouble

fostereast · Sep 20, 2009

The Devil is in the Details, as a software engineer you should know that...

This test only provokes questions, it answers none. The organization making the test did it as a promo for themselves.

Did this car have seats belts, I think they were an option back then on most cars. It's a valid test if the car came equipped without them.

Did the car have a spear-o-matic type steering column...

Was the car a low full frame with a body sitting on top.

What would have happened if it was a true head on collision?

The only data I got from this test is that we need to be a lot more distrustful of organizations that promote themselves with stuff like this.

On one of the forums (maybe this one) a guy just got t-boned in his classic Mustang in the driver side front end at 50mph and the car crumpled up just like a new car, he got beat up a bit, but was fine overall.

Can you make a classic Mustang pretty safe compared to things we know today about safety as opposed to how it was originally delivered? Probably. Can you make it more reliable than it originally was? Sure.

Should it be your only car? If your the kind of guy/gal that would have a porsche or corvette as your only car and you don't mind things deteriorating over time, sure.

BillyT903 said:
Well this pretty much answers my original question.

IIHS 40 mph head on crash. 2009 Malibu driver suffers minor knee injury. 1959 Bel Air driver dies instantly.

YouTube - Collision Chevrolet Bel Air 1959 and Chevrolet Malibu 2009

YouTube - Crash test: 1959 Chevy Bel Air vs. 2009 Chevy Malibu

QUESTION: Just how safe can you feasibly get a first generation Mustang to be?

ANSWER: Not safe enough.

DJCarbine · Sep 20, 2009

BillyT903 said:
Well this pretty much answers my original question.

IIHS 40 mph head on crash. 2009 Malibu driver suffers minor knee injury. 1959 Bel Air driver dies instantly.

YouTube - Collision Chevrolet Bel Air 1959 and Chevrolet Malibu 2009

YouTube - Crash test: 1959 Chevy Bel Air vs. 2009 Chevy Malibu

QUESTION: Just how safe can you feasibly get a first generation Mustang to be?

ANSWER: Not safe enough.

This is what I see.

1. You ask how safe a vintage mustang can be
2. Show us crash testing footage of a chevy bel-air
3. Say that vintage mustangs can not be safe enough

And you are a software engineer.
Try and compile this

1. Chevy Bel-air is not a Ford Mustang
2. Different cars perform differently in crash tests
3. Simple safety additions can greatly increase overall safety of the car (3 point belt being the main simple addition in my opinion)
4. We did not buy these cars to be safe. I daily drive an econobox with more airbags than cylinders

And before you read my sig and say that it is listed as a daily driver, that is old news. The car is a different color, and I haven't updated that thing in YEARS

zookeeper · Sep 20, 2009

I agree 100%, but I also think that if a driver expects the CAR to be crash-worthy, then the problem is the DRIVER. The question of, "is it safe enough to use as a daily driver?" is flat-out ridiculous. How safe is a motorcycle? Yet my co-worker rides his every single day, rain or shine. I bought my car from it's original, 93-year-old owner and it was her only car! Was she THAT good of a driver, or do you think she just may have been more careful? I know full well that attitude is everything, regardless of how many crash videos and horror stories and slanted statistics you see. When I rode street bike, I was always on the defense, there's no such thing as a fender-bender on bikes vs cars accidents. Same with my Mustang, I put too much work into it to see it damaged by some illegal alien in an inunsured Impala, so I'm much more careful than normal. But with my Mazda, who cares? I park close to the store in parking lots, I let my dog ride up front and yes, I am much more care-free in traffic. What's to lose? A $1500 truck? Big deal. Go ahead and pull out in front of me, see if I stop or make the doors of your car touch in the middle. Sad but true. Safe cars are a myth as long as people drive them. I once hit a 16 year old girl (who turned left without looking) head-on at a 70 mph closing speed. I was in my dropped S-10 Blazer, she was in a Subaru Justy. I walked away without a scratch, her passenger had to be carted off in an ambulance. Was either car unsafe? No, hers was nearly new. But in any collision, big car wins, small car loses, period. Safety is as safety does...

2+2GT · Sep 20, 2009

2+2GT · Sep 20, 2009

zookeeper said:
I agree 100%, but I also think that if a driver expects the CAR to be crash-worthy, then the problem is the DRIVER…

What he said.

StangDreamin' · Sep 20, 2009

21st Century British version of "Blood on the Highway"

Actually this was stolen from a post my daughter (known as "cowgirl tink around here) made on another Mustang Board, local to North Carolina. Like her younger sister, my oldest can manipulate her PCS phone at blazing speeds; but she won't, not while driving.

Below is a link that illustrates her reason why.
(WARNING: Graphic violence! But make your kids AND YOURSELF watch it anyway. Sometimes a good horror movie can impart an important lesson.)

My 2 Cents:

Hmmmmmm all modern "safe" cars; with 3-point harnesses, "crumple zones" and air bags.
Didn't help much.
Maybe the OP ("and his brother") should pay closer attention to themselves and their driving habits; as opposed to their vehicles' built-in safety.
Or troll smoewhere else.

crapola And please pay attention to your hypothethetical scenarios! What kind of "Remington" are you talking about???? Never mind! If you can't take the forestock off an 870 (or any other firearm, for that matter) without removing chunks of your own flesh; Darwinism is probably gonna take you out of the shooting (and classic car-driving) world LONG before you get this hypothetical first-gen Mustang bought/built!

BillyT903 · Sep 20, 2009

DJCarbine said:
In this thread : Someone asks a question they already have all the answers to just to stir up trouble

You caught me!

I posted the original thread over 6 months ago, knowing the IIHS would post that video this week, so I could then turn my original query into a flame fest! It was all part of my devious trolling plan.

Good job detective!

freddiecougar · Sep 20, 2009

who are you trying to convince? You or him?
You are not going to change his mind, obviously, he doesn't "get" it. The single best safety device is the DRIVER.....
air bags don't help if you tumble into the ditch because you are texting.
ABS doesn't keep you from sliding off the road because you are too stupid to take the rain into account. etc etc etc
Older cars can be very safe, as can newer cars. All the safety devices in the world won't help a bad driver in a new car as much as PAYING ATTENTION will help a good driver in an old car.
Obviously some things are out of your control, but it is completely possible to drive for 60-something years and a million miles, as my grandfather did, without a ticket or an accident.
It is also possible to total 2 cars by the time you are 17, as an old girlfriend did.
It is up to you.

BillyT903 · Sep 20, 2009

freddiecougar said:
who are you trying to convince? You or him?
You are not going to change his mind, obviously, he doesn't "get" it. The single best safety device is the DRIVER.....
air bags don't help if you tumble into the ditch because you are texting.
ABS doesn't keep you from sliding off the road because you are too stupid to take the rain into account. etc etc etc
Older cars can be very safe, as can newer cars. All the safety devices in the world won't help a bad driver in a new car as much as PAYING ATTENTION will help a good driver in an old car.
Obviously some things are out of your control, but it is completely possible to drive for 60-something years and a million miles, as my grandfather did, without a ticket or an accident.
It is also possible to total 2 cars by the time you are 17, as an old girlfriend did.
It is up to you.

I love this whole I'm too skilled to get killed logic, where swerving skills trump modern technology!
If you had the driving skills of the guys on Stangnet.com you wouldn't even need seat belts you !
Manual steering and brakes with drums? No shoulder straps or head rests? Bias-ply tires? No Problem!
It ain't unsafe at all when you gots Da Stangnet SKillz!!!

And I addressed this flawed logic already...

BillyT903 said:
And your Good Driver vs. Good Car comment is meaningless when a drunk suddenly crosses the center line and strikes me in a 2009 vehicle and I sprain my knee, but strikes you in your 1959 vehicle and kills you instantly. After your funeral, nobody will say you should have been a safer driver, but they will rightfully say you should have been in a safer car.

70vert · Sep 20, 2009

Okay, I'm taking the flame bait.

I have only been in two accidents in 19 years of driving, and one of them involved my '70 Mustang when I was 16. I nailed a car in the right rear quarter, an '88 Civic sedan, I think. that car had to have the bumper and rear quarter panel replaced. I had a dented bumper and a pushed in top center grille support. '70s have a nice "cow catcher" design up there. Otherwise, my motorcycle-derived, paranoid driving skills have kept me safe.

There's no way my Mustang will be as safe as my Scion xB if I get into an accident, but it's just about as good at stopping as the Scion and better at accelerating out of trouble. If I really wanted to, and if YOU really wanted to, with metal working skills or help, you could design your own crumple zones and not feel too bad about not keeping a '65 or '66 original. Add 4 or 5 point harnesses, a roll cage inside, and you could design a car that would be safer in some ways than a new Mustang, but wouldn't appeal to the average girlfriend.

But I'll tell you one thing: I'd rather have a beer with the guy in the top pic than the guy in the bottom pic, hands down.

BillyT903 said:
Aww, reality is a bit too much for the guys who drive death traps for a hobby so they have to resort to crying and flaming.

Just how safe can you feasibly get a first generation Mustang to be?

2+2GT

BillyT903

Banned

2+2GT

zookeeper

bnickel

BillyT903

Banned

BillyT903

Banned

tx65coupe

Active Member

wicked93gs

DJCarbine

New Member

fostereast

Member

DJCarbine

New Member

zookeeper

2+2GT

2+2GT

StangDreamin'

BillyT903

Banned

freddiecougar

New Member

BillyT903

Banned

70vert

New Member

Similar threads

Just how safe can you feasibly get a first generation Mustang to be?

Banned

Banned

Banned

Active Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Banned

New Member

Banned

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency