When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Car was body on frame i think, basically like a train car. So i bet it didn’t shake too bad.
My experience is different, lol. I feel like BOF the whole entire car shakes. Going over huge bumps in my truck, it's vastly different than in my LS430. The whole thing is hard to describe. BOF is rock solid, structurally, but sometimes it doesn't feel like it. Again, it's hard to explain. It might just be how solid and well engineered my LS is that skews it. Basically nothing within reason upsets an LS430.
My experience is different, lol. I feel like BOF the whole entire car shakes. Going over huge bumps in my truck, it's vastly different than in my LS430. The whole thing is hard to describe. BOF is rock solid, structurally, but sometimes it doesn't feel like it. Again, it's hard to explain. It might just be how solid and well engineered my LS is that skews it. Basically nothing within reason upsets an LS430.
comparing your truck to your ls430 probably has less to do with unibody and bof than it does to the suspension itself (ls430 cushy, truck stiff). that old cadillac had a VERY soft suspension but the vehicle's gigantic length and age meant that bof gives it some structural rigidity.
comparing your truck to your ls430 probably has less to do with unibody and bof than it does to the suspension itself (ls430 cushy, truck stiff). that old cadillac had a VERY soft suspension but the vehicle's gigantic length and age meant that bof gives it some structural rigidity.
Right, good points. In any case I would floss the hell out of that Caddy lmao.
comparing your truck to your ls430 probably has less to do with unibody and bof than it does to the suspension itself (ls430 cushy, truck stiff). that old cadillac had a VERY soft suspension but the vehicle's gigantic length and age meant that bof gives it some structural rigidity.
The older American BOF sedans/coupes had a very rigid frame itself, but the bodies attached to that frame (remember, they were two separate units) ended to loosen up and develop squeaks/rattles. Chrysler products, which had rigid unibodies dating as far back as the late 1950s, tended to develop fewer squeaks/rattles that were traceable to the unibody itself, though their poorly-assembled interiors often developed speaks/rattles on their own.
^^^ yowza, looks like the frame went down separating from the body, which crumpled like a cheap suit. deadly...
we’ve obviously wandered way off from ‘favorite interiors’.
Yes, lol. That truck did fail miserably but people aren't taking into consideration the weight of a truck like that in an accident. Running into a brick wall or overlap, what have you is different that a plain-jane accident. I'd rather hit someone head on in my 6000lb Yukon than in my LS430 which is vastly better engineered for safety I would imagine.
A relative who had a 1500 was hit head on by a drunk going 80, he walked away without a scratch. The drunk died instantly.
Yes, lol. That truck did fail miserably but people aren't taking into consideration the weight of a truck like that in an accident. Running into a brick wall or overlap, what have you is different that a plain-jane accident. I'd rather hit someone head on in my 6000lb Yukon than in my LS430 which is vastly better engineered for safety I would imagine.
Is there evidence to support that body on frame vehicle is going survive better than a non body on frame body in a head on collision?
Is there evidence to support that body on frame vehicle is going survive better than a non body on frame body in a head on collision?
Not that I know of. I'm just saying I know my truck didn't score as well as my LS but I'd rather be in it in an accident. It's higher off the ground and much heavier.
Not that I know of. I'm just saying I know my truck didn't score as well as my LS but I'd rather be in it in an accident. It's higher off the ground and much heavier.
I have read that the heavier the car, the better chance you will survive. Also, the larger the car, the better chance you will survive as well. It is mainly more opinion than it is study or test fact which I am hoping to find.
I have read that the heavier the car, the better chance you will survive. Also, the larger the car, the better chance you will survive as well. It is mainly more opinion than it is study or test fact which I am hoping to find.
With the basic laws of physics, all else equal, yes, weight and size is often an asset for crash-protection. But there are also many other factors to take into account....and well-designed safety features can sometimes compensate for being on the short end of the stick when it comes to physical size. A recent crash-test between a contemporary Chevy Impala and a 1959 Impala, of comparable size, proved that point....the crash-dummies faired far better in the newer design.
With the basic laws of physics, all else equal, yes, weight and size is often an asset for crash-protection. But there are also many other factors to take into account....and well-designed safety features can sometimes compensate for being on the short end of the stick when it comes to physical size. A recent crash-test between a contemporary Chevy Impala and a 1959 Impala, of comparable size, proved that point....the crash-dummies faired far better in the newer design.
Yeah, I can't really make my mind up which vehicle of mine I would ultimately rather be in a serious accident in (knock on wood, hopefully never). My truck is big and heavy but there are only 2 airbags, and I know for a fact my LS had way more R&D into safety than a Yukon. My LS has I believe 8 airbags and while it's not 6000lbs, it's hardly a light car. I feel like my LS might crumble but the passenger compartment may remain more intact. But then again IDK, you see these accidents where the cars are totaled and the trucks barely have a scratch.
07-13-19, 02:05 PM
So i bet it didn’t shake too bad.
