It’s possible that the last time the vehicle was used, it might’ve been winter, and then something happened to send it to the junkyard. Likely possibilities were that the engine, or another expensive part, blew on the car; the car was so rusty that it was declared unsafe to drive; or it may have been in a crash (the right door’s missing, so it might’ve been smashed in and they needed to use the Jaws of Life to get it open, or perhaps the junkyard sold it to someone.) In another scenario, the tow truck driver wanted tires on it, so he wouldn’t have to drag it onto the truck.
Think the Regal was newer than 79...it looks like it had the quad headlight buckets and the lower hoodline of the '82-up cars. 1978-1979 had two headlights and a higher hood, also had wraparound front turn signal lights. This car had a separate front side turn signal lens.
Yeah i think you be right and i was wondering that when i posted as it didn't seem like it... it said 79 on the emissions lable but im guessing now that the fan shroud was replaced at one point with an older one.
This crusher wouldnt notice. It can crush far more than modern safety car regulations on reinforcement of those pillars. High strength steel pillars from vehicles in the pillars still wouldnt cause this crusher to break a sweat. I've seen modern cars on this channel that were less than 10 years old, that had those modern reinforcements in the pillars get crushed with ease the same way much older cars would, that don't.
@@SteelRhinoXpress no not the crusher but the machine you use to load the cars into the crusher. When you take the forks and push in on the B pillar for a crush buckle that’s what I was asking if you could tell if some vehicles were more rigid than others.
What if....I was inside that minivan wearing only diapers and I filled it up with as many as I could before getting into it an hour before you load it???? Would you still load it?
