@@Spedley_2142 really these cars have a tube roll cage with heavy sheet metal over it. If the car had a 5 point harness in it, it wouldn't be that much different than a lot of classes of race cars.
Crazy how times change, this guy roles a car wearing safety goggles and a leather helmet. Today people get PTSD because a stranger hurt their feelings on Facebook….
And they need pillow-laden rooms full of puppies to help cope with mean tweets that say the most horrid things, like "Have a nice day" or "Lovely weather we're having!"
I drove a 1977 Ford LTD in high school. Once I accidently hit a friend who was driving a 1981 Buick we were both going over 20mph. Neither vehicle had a single dent. My car was 18.5' long and weighed 4 thousand pounds. This car would have still beat mine up probably since it has the cage.
Most of the people who are commenting on this video don't realize that they have to view the discussion about safety in the context of 1933 -1934, when this car first appeared on the market - It does have many useful innovations compared to other vehicles of its time,i.e.,chassis construction,safety glass, hydraulic brakes,improved riding quality,and many more.The general public's view of safety and many other life situations was vastly different from today. Most young people whom I speak with are surprised to learn about how the enforcement of drunk driving laws was very lax in this country prior to about 1980. That's just one example. Another good example: Car makers have been required by law to put seat belts and other safety equipment in their vehicles since the mid 1960's,but most people didn't use them until the government passed laws requiring their use starting in the middle to late 1980's. The point is that the Chrysler and DeSoto Airflows were indeed very advanced cars in their time. Any historical stories have to be considered in the context of their time period in order to be fully understood.
@@gailmrutland6508 When the rulling class write the history books generations assume it's all writ in stone as the truth. then they site history as some proof of "fact" of event's to skew objective reality to serve whatever agenda they are pushing.
@@chuckthebull *Well extrapolating the misspellings and incorrect verbiage I guess what you are trying to say is: The victors write the History. Well true, but that is in long ago history and not a history that is well covered current fact. I have probably lost you, but then again, most of you are so lost in matters not. Just internment, and you can bet your LIFE that is coming, and I doubt you even understand. GOOD!*
You could buy a refridgerator 50 years ago that would work for 20, 30, maybe even 40 years. Today they last 5 or 10. You could also buy power tools like a drill that could last for decades and decades. Today they last 5 years if you're lucky. Things really were made to last back then. Things are NOT made to last today because there's not much profit to be made by companies if we only have to buy the stuff we need once in our lifetimes.
My folks had a big fan because of no air conditioning. That fan lasted from me a toddler till after I graduated. Mom bought a new fridgadare washer in 1966 and used it many years. My old man passed away in 1993, and I have his 1972 Chevelle he purchased new and it runs like a Timex watch. Oh, and you can sit on the hood and it does not leave a dent. Lol.
This was one great car, but, it was not a thing of beauty, so the public mostly rejected it. The Lincoln Zepher was a similar idea, but was a beauty as far a looks, but couldn't hold a candle to the Chrysler/DeSoto mechanically. Yet, the public loved it for a few years. Styling rules.
Yeah, but the right rear passenger door flew open in the last roll. You would have had dead passengers. The cliff was more impressive. Think of what today's body sheet metal (what isn't plastic) would have done.
@@edwardhanson3664 Today cars are not meant to survive the crash, there are reasons why cars today are totalled in a crash! Making a strong car is easy, making a car that keeps its passengers safe in an accident is more complicated!!!
Back when it was a 3 day trip from Wisconsin to Iowa according to my Dad. Radiator needing water, flat tires and a basket of food was all it took. I think it was a model T. Dad did not miss those days at all.
Today’s commercials: Be free, everything is in your hands to explore, you are young, you are awesome, slip key in new (insert brand) and start expanding your life pallet. This: You are not sure? Let me demonstrate why should you buy this car. Hey pops! Bring the rifle and take a coat, we are going to a windy cliffs!
Could you imagine a young driver today attempting to drive a car, knowing there's someone that's going to shoot the tire? Just the thought would put them in therapy for 2 years!
Now days, you hit a small deer at 30 mph in a 1/2 ton truck and you're replacing the bumper, grill, radiator support, headlight assemblies, hood, fender(s) and door.
Impressive how it rolled down the cliff and suffered little damage. But with the lack of proper seatbelts and airbags, that event probably would have turned the occupants into strawberry jam. If the car doesn't absorb the force of impact, the passengers will.
I was in a head-on collision, and I only had a whiplash and a pulled muscle in my back, and wasn't wearing a seat belt. Admittedly, I saw it coming and braced for it, but still.
And today people say they didn’t make good cars all these reviewers of cars , pure snobs to plastic garbage of today.. pretend they know cars and bash American cars ... all the time ... great video ,a amazing engineering .. absolutely amazing .. imagine this with a modern day air bag it would be , so safe by today’s standards lol
this is a no nonsense "In Yo Face" commercial that lets you See by placing real people's lives on the line instead of just talking about it! Not if that's not a convincing commercial, I don't know what is!
"These boys don't fool" Yet they stand in front of a moving car. Moving pretty fast, at that. It would be interesting to see how fast it stops compared to modern cars. It does look like a remarkable car for that era.
I drove a 3\4 ton GMC pickup for 15 years. I backed into a power pole once, and knocked it down. Couldn't see a dent in the bumper. My "crumple zone" was anything that wasn't a 3/4 ton pickup with 150 pound steel bumpers. The 2\65 air conditioning was great.... 2 open windows at 65 MPH.
@@dustchip8060 Also I hate your tailgate. Being a mechanic I have had to work on those damn things. I think you will pick up 2mpg if you get rid of it!
+Dallascaper Yes, car safety has advanced through the last 80 years and now we know that the safest car is one that deforms heavily in front and back, deflecting the impact energy, but has a strong passenger cell so that you would survive bigger crashes.
+Car Lover Yup, that'd be my car that started it all in 1959 the Mercedes Heckflosse. Mine is still a daily driver after 50 years, the best car of the 60's, decades ahead, all discs, independent suspension, crumple zones, psgr safety zone, first comprehensive crash testing, many safety features, powerful and efficient 2.3l 6cyl engine, not bad for a taxi. Here's mine (for sale), daily driver, absolutely reliable even in my -10C starts: picasaweb.google.com/HeckflossePics/Chris1967230 Check out all the Heckflosse videos, especially the crash tests,
The Airflow was like the PlayStation 3 or Dreamcast of cars. It had high-tech gear on board but the people wasn't that arsed to buy such an expensive piece of engineering.
People also thought it was ugly as shit; compare it to an equivalent Chevrolet Master Sedan or Hudson Terraplane, and you could see just how much of a departure the Chrysler Airflow's design was PS 7 years ago, holy shit
Unfortunately,it's true people were turned off by the styling,which is a shame,because the Airflows (both Chrysler and DeSoto)were very advanced,well engineered cars that were far more advanced than the competitions vehicles. Another factor ( actually two factors) that came into play,were the previously mentioned styling,and also brand loyalty,to some degree.There were medium priced and high priced models available,but the cars sold poorly, and the last Airflow was a 1937 model with a Chrysler nameplate.
I guess the thought back then was that your BODY would provide the crinkle needed to survive an accident. The key was making sure the CAR wasn’t damaged.
The idea was that if the car survived, you would survive simply because you wouldn't be crushed to death. With flimsy cars, you died because the car caved in on you and crushed/impaled you.
The video refers to "Duplate" safety glass many times. I thought that it was a Canadian company, with plants in Oshawa and Hawkesbury. American built GM cars used "PPG" safety glass as I recall from the 1970's. I thought Duplate was a subsidiary of PPG.
Many commenters have stated a crash of an older vehicle as far as 1935, vehicle May survive but passengers will not, so true, unless one of those older vehicles was equipped with a restraint systems similar to those of a NASCAR vehicle
There's no crumple zone in an M-1 tank, either. But I wouldn't recommend slamming your car into it. Won't bother the guys inside a bit. If they even notice.
Something Important to remember though is that they had no other way to manufacture things back then then to use heavy durable materials, plastics didn't have the capacity to fill the roles they do today. Using the same manufacturing methods they did back then, that 40 year refrigerator would cost upwards of $10k an automobile would cost $100k. Things aren't built to last today is because american consumers are so damn cheap. they aren't willing to spend more then $500 dollars on an appliance.
Not impressed with the flat tire. I was driving a 59 Ford Fairlane on a two-lane road and the left front wheel came off. I immediately muscled the steering wheel to get the car over to the side safely and came to a stop. The guy coming the opposite way had to clean out his pants, but he stopped and checked on me and thanked me for not hitting him head on. Yeah, the Airflow was well engineered, but it also requires driver attention, skill, and confidence.
Despite what the video implies, people drove those cars without any kinds of safety features that we take for granted now. In serious collisions, people flew around the interior, smashing into windows, dashboards, other people and in head on collisions people would be impaled on the steering columns, something that was not address until about 1960, give or take. What they are really selling in this video is a deathtrap.
While it was not a particularly good-looking car even back then, it was technologically years ahead of GM and Ford products. This design was well ahead of its time, but the public was not smart enough to appreciate it. Same as with Tucker.
when carburetors left and fuel injection entered the american public should have stopped buying cars, now look what happened. I drive a 79 chevy 4x4, a 79 chevy impala, 83 buick and a 77 olds and they are great. when they do break down which is hardly ever, i can usually fix them for under $50 and along side the road if i need to. i own a repair shop and people always ask me why i drive old cars. DUH.
Used to drive a 1906 Oldsmobile Sedan, I felt like the crazy professor in his flying model t in that 1961 or 2 hit when I'd drive into parking lots. It never failed me, and it literally fell off a road hill, and was completely fine after ward with one connector line bumped off.
I own and like old cars, but fuel injection is the best thing that ever happened. I’ve had injected daily drivers since 1982 and I’ve never had a failure, never replaced a part, never had a starting or drivability problem. I surely don’t miss stinking rich carburetors, off-idle stumble, hard starting, flooding, vapor lock, carb rebuilds, or mechanical fuel pump replacements. That goes equally for Holleys, Carters, Rochesters, and German Solexes. FI just works.
Sad we don't build cars like that today. But, that's what the manufacturers want. They want them to break down, rust, have problems...so you'll buy a NEW one every 3-5 years. Yes, in a crash, they might be more survivable, but, if you don't wreck it, even with proper maintenance, some cars of the past, can last longer than the new ones. They've taken so much metal & steel out of cars, all they are is tin cans, if you can find metal in them. Front bumpers use to be made out of STEEL, not it is rubber and a few layers of styrofoam.
Sadly? Not building cars like that, is what allowed people to actually survive crashes. Go sit down old man. They made them like that back then, because that's the ONLY WAY they could.
No. They made them like that because cars had changed little since 1910. Horsepower was upped as a Depression beater. The increased horsepower, meeting 1910 engineering, led to a highway bloodbath. 1933 saw 35,000 killed. Engineers designed Airflow to be tank like, because other cars werent. it was in response to bad drivers meeting bad cars. DeSoto did a FIRST NEW CAR SINCE 1910 brochure. There was a book, SUDDEN DEATH, extremely gruesome, about the summer of 1933 car bloodbath.
Hey james P. piss on the junk crap new shit; i work on them and they all suck. you go sit down, on your thin metal car hood and be careful that it don't collapse. Junk it out.
Unit Body.. became Uni body... to say it's way ahead of it's time is obvious.. but still impressive, too bad it was so expensive for it's time and in true Chrylser fashion a Face only a Mother could love.. I want one.. Drive a Mopar or drive whatever a Ford is..
@@AtZero138 The terms "unibody" and "unit-body" are short for "unitized body", "unitary construction", or alternatively (fully) integrated body and frame/chassis. It is defined as: A type of body/frame construction in which the body of the vehicle, its floor plan and chassis form a single structure.
@@AtZero138 What does unibody mean? : a single structural unit of an automobile consisting of a combined chassis and body Weight was shaved by 800 pounds from the outgoing model with an aluminum unibody instead of body-on-frame construction …-
