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.
Tragic scene, looks like a '54 Chevrolet wrapped around a tree after a high speed collision. Video shows the old Chevy was swapped with what looks like a LS3.
One of the questions for investigators will be whether the brakes, suspension and steering were modified and upgraded to the level of the engine swap.
If the chassis was original, this car would have been a handful and potentially dangerous to drive.
Sadly the driver was killed.
They have been hot rodded for decades and like all old cars they never did handle well but I wouldn't call them dangerous.
They also don't hold up well in crashes. (Edit) Tree's are unforgiving no mater what you're driving, That car could have had a Nascar or the best NHRA cage and the results would still have been the same.
This video pretty much explains it all.
Although modern cars are much better designed for impact they did stack the deck in that IIHS crash video. The 1959 Chevy had the short-lived horrible x-frame design. A conventional perimeter frame from earlier years would have likely fared much better. Not to mention it looks to be in great condition in the video, you can see the "explosion" of rust during the impact. So who knows how much corrosion may have compromised the body and frame structure.
The '54 from the accident has large diameter wheels which could indicate they possibly upgraded the brakes. Never the less, hot rodders have been dropping 375hp SBC, and 450hp BBCs in older cars decades before the LS came along. It's all about the person behind the wheel. You can do that damage with 250hp. BTW, that engine has a LS1 or LS6 intake, so it's likely a GENIII 5.3, 5.7, or 6.0 not an LS3.
Never the less, hot rodders have been dropping 375hp SBC, and 450hp BBCs in older cars decades before the LS came along. It's all about the person behind the wheel. You can do that damage with 250hp.
I agree. Nothing about LS power, specifically, is "dangerous" nor "a handful", they can be driven responsibly (or not) at any power level. High horsepower is not the sole territory of Gen III-V SBCs, nor is application of that power a new concept for cars of this age and even much older.
That said, updating the brakes and suspension on a '50s car still doesn't bring it up to the safety level of a modern vehicle with the latest integrated equipment and design elements. It's just a fact that folks have to accept if they are interested in driving an antique vehicle.
Here's my 53 chevy with LQ4, mustang 2 front clip, power steering and ford explorer rear axle. Whilst handling perhaps not as sharp as a modern, it goes and stops like one, and drives lovely. Any car pre crumple zone era will end up like that, but perhaps it wasn't fitted with seat belts, hence driver's demise. I was in the Fire Service for 30 years (retired 2005) and certainly, modern vehicles crashed better with the passenger cage usually not too bad compared to cars of 60's to 80's. I recall going to a small Citroen with 4 passengers that had hit a lamp post at speed and we had to extricate them all by cutting roof off etc. All survived and I was really surprised how the car stood up to the impact. I couldn't have seen a similar result from a car from another earlier era. However, it's all about choices, and I know the result for me if I have a mishap. I'm sure my old chevy will fare better than my Morris Minor with LS power though
lol.
Any car pre crumple zone era will end up like that, but perhaps it wasn't fitted with seat belts, hence driver's demise.
.
Nobody would survive a crash like that in any car and there are no crumple zones on the side of a car/truck. Seat belts do nothing for side impacts like that one, The car is literally wrapped around the tree.
A sad, unfortunate, but relevant example of a vehicle with fantastic suspension and brake capability in the hands of a skilled driver; still ending in tragedy.
Nobody would survive a crash like that in any car and there are no crumple zones on the side of a car/truck. Seat belts do nothing for side impacts like that one, The car is literally wrapped around the tree.
I've got to agree with you. I only looked at the screenshot, not the video, I always told anyone I was teaching to drive to never hit a tree as you will come out second best, One of my last shouts was to an incident like that with the same end result, although a lot less car damage - the woman's head struck the tree side on.
A sad, unfortunate, but relevant example of a vehicle with fantastic suspension and brake capability in the hands of a skilled driver; still ending in tragedy.
Although modern cars are much better designed for impact they did stack the deck in that IIHS crash video. The 1959 Chevy had the short-lived horrible x-frame design. A conventional perimeter frame from earlier years would have likely fared much better. Not to mention it looks to be in great condition in the video, you can see the "explosion" of rust during the impact. So who knows how much corrosion may have compromised the body and frame structure.
The deck wasn't intentionally stacked in the video. The purpose was to show the difference of 50 years in safety design, which is why a 2009 was pitted against a 1959.
Yes, you can see the explosion of rust, but this is also representative of the condition of most of those vehicles in today's market. Unless a vehicle is completely taken apart, rust can and will hide inside the body, and there are plenty of instances where a vehicle looks immaculate only to have rust hiding somewhere inaccessible when the car is completely together. Regardless of the frame design, vehicles of that era had very little structure in the fenders and front end. Internal bracing on the sides was rather non-existent, as well, with doors comprising of nothing more than a shell of inner and outer skins.
The deck wasn't intentionally stacked in the video. The purpose was to show the difference of 50 years in safety design, which is why a 2009 was pitted against a 1959.
I didn't mean to imply they intentionally stacked it (clearly it was based on the year, make, model comparison from when IIHS was first established), but they inadvertently did by picking a poor example from that era to use as comparison.
Originally Posted by MuhThugga
Regardless of the frame design, vehicles of that era had very little structure in the fenders and front end. Internal bracing on the sides was rather non-existent, as well, with doors comprising of nothing more than a shell of inner and outer skins.
The steel gage used on body panels was much thicker in that era compared to today's vehicles. New cars with bracing and substructures are still far superior. But the old cars are not like taking a new one and simply removing bracing and substructures either.
I didn't mean to imply they intentionally stacked it (clearly it was based on the year, make, model comparison from when IIHS was first established), but they inadvertently did by picking a poor example from that era to use as comparison.
The steel gage used on body panels was much thicker in that era compared to today's vehicles. New cars with bracing and substructures are still far superior. But the old cars are not like taking a new one and simply removing bracing and substructures either.
But that thicker steel was attached to the frame with many less points of contact vs now. Also, the total amount of steel in weight is often higher in new vehicles in spite of it being thinner gauge. The alloy is stiffer and stronger and they have more structure folded into the fenders and body behind the painted surface that no one sees. Vehicles are heavier now, not lighter. They have more metal and structure in them, even though the painted surface is now thinner, everything else has been beefed up with either thicker steel than those eras and/or much better alloys.
But all things considered for the topic at hand, maybe cars from the 1950's and earlier its too much, especially in the current context of modern safety. Once you get to the '60's though I'm not sure there is any sort of ethical quandary for replacing a 300hp carbed engine for a modern 300hp EFI one.
But I think anytime anyone does a LS swap, especially a hotrod one, the budget should always include full hydraulic disc brakes, sway bared suspension, gas shocks and power steering, proper radial tires. Those things alone are responsible for huge decreases in accidents regardless of the HP involved. Anything pre 2000 should get a roll cage...even though i haven't done that to mine either. I should, it's a 1984 chevy pick-up with 700+. I did the rest of those things, but no cage. I know its not safe.
The alloy is stiffer and stronger and they have more structure folded into the fenders and body behind the painted surface that no one sees.
No disagreement. That's what I meant when I said, "New cars with bracing and substructures are still far superior."
Originally Posted by LetsTurboSomething
Vehicles are heavier now, not lighter. They have more metal and structure in them, even though the painted surface is now thinner, everything else has been beefed up with either thicker steel than those eras and/or much better alloys."
Actually a lot of that weight, is not from the steel structure of the car. By using FEA modeling and specially designed high-strength alloy steels, they are able to strategically stiffen exactly where it's needed to protect the occupants, minimizing the overall amount of steel used. Where the weight is, comes from all the new systems hardware, and related wiring that wasn't back then. Things like ABS/traction control, airbags, power windows, body control modules, and all the fancy add-ons that everyone loves and takes for granted plus the wiring that comes with it.
Actually a lot of that weight, is not from the steel structure of the car. By using FEA modeling and specially designed high-strength alloy steels, they are able to strategically stiffen exactly where it's needed to protect the occupants, minimizing the overall amount of steel used. Where the weight is, comes from all the new systems hardware, and related wiring that wasn't back then. Things like ABS/traction control, airbags, power windows, body control modules, and all the fancy add-ons that everyone loves and takes for granted plus the wiring that comes with it.
Excellent points. Another area where newer vehicles have lost weight is in the glass; the original glass on my '71 is thicker than what is issued today (though modern laminated glass offers better insulation/sound deadening while also improving safety beyond just the windshield, and overall weight is obviously a matter of both thickness as well as surface area). But while panels and glass are thinner, all those other add-ons mentioned above contribute to an overall weight which is typically heavier than cars of comparable exterior dimensions from earlier generations.
Originally Posted by LetsTurboSomething
But all things considered for the topic at hand, maybe cars from the 1950's and earlier its too much, especially in the current context of modern safety. Once you get to the '60's though I'm not sure there is any sort of ethical quandary for replacing a 300hp carbed engine for a modern 300hp EFI one.
But I think anytime anyone does a LS swap, especially a hotrod one, the budget should always include full hydraulic disc brakes, sway bared suspension, gas shocks and power steering, proper radial tires. Those things alone are responsible for huge decreases in accidents regardless of the HP involved. Anything pre 2000 should get a roll cage...even though i haven't done that to mine either. I should, it's a 1984 chevy pick-up with 700+. I did the rest of those things, but no cage. I know its not safe.
Even by the late '50s there were engines ranging from Chevy 348s to Cadillac 365-390s with horsepower ratings reaching ~335-345hp at the highest end. Granted, those were gross ratings (and certainly not common engines for the era), but still an amount of power pretty comparable to an L98 3rd gen/C4 or even an early LT1 4th gen. I don't agree with a blanket cut-off of "pre-2000" needing a cage (at least not for all applications), but those other suggestions are quite sound. That said, after restoring the [power] drum brake system on my '71 it proved to perform better than one might expect, at least when using modern friction materials and finned drums. Granted, it still doesn't have the fade resistance of discs and requires adjustment finesse which is a non-issue for discs, but for typical street use it now provides better than expected stopping power from reasonable speeds. Of course, bringing the car down from relatively high quarter mile trap speeds would be a different story. At the very least, I would always recommend a dual/split reservoir master for applications built prior to this becoming standard.
Kind of the same thing with Kevin Hart. Shop built the car like he wanted and then when they wrecked it, they blame the shop for not upgrading everything else.
Kind of the same thing with Kevin Hart. Shop built the car like he wanted and then when they wrecked it, they blame the shop for not upgrading everything else.
Paul Walker's family sues the Rodas Estate for the wrongful death. The Rodas Estate files suit against Porsche claiming a manufacture flaw. Why? Both men got into a car knowing the inherit risk of racing on public highways and as a result lost their lives but yet people can turnaround and sue for money when both of these individuals had plenty of money to begin with.
Excellent points. Another area where newer vehicles have lost weight is in the glass; the original glass on my '71 is thicker than what is issued today (though modern laminated glass offers better insulation/sound deadening while also improving safety beyond just the windshield, and overall weight is obviously a matter of both thickness as well as surface area). But while panels and glass are thinner, all those other add-ons mentioned above contribute to an overall weight which is typically heavier than cars of comparable exterior dimensions from earlier generations.
Even by the late '50s there were engines ranging from Chevy 348s to Cadillac 365-390s with horsepower ratings reaching ~335-345hp at the highest end. Granted, those were gross ratings (and certainly not common engines for the era), but still an amount of power pretty comparable to an L98 3rd gen/C4 or even an early LT1 4th gen. I don't agree with a blanket cut-off of "pre-2000" needing a cage (at least not for all applications), but those other suggestions are quite sound. That said, after restoring the [power] drum brake system on my '71 it proved to perform better than one might expect, at least when using modern friction materials and finned drums. Granted, it still doesn't have the fade resistance of discs and requires adjustment finesse which is a non-issue for discs, but for typical street use it now provides better than expected stopping power from reasonable speeds. Of course, bringing the car down from relatively high quarter mile trap speeds would be a different story. At the very least, I would always recommend a dual/split reservoir master for applications built prior to this becoming standard.
I should have worded that much better regarding the roll cages. If you swap a stock LS or keep the thing relatively stock considering swap headers and stuff are often used, then the roll cage is over kill. All of the other stuff you should do no matter what is the vehicles doesn't already have those features. But specifically, if you swap an engine in and pump out 600-800hp then **** ya you need to consider the cage. I don't believe there is any real factory consideration for roll protection in mid-90's half ton pick-ups, s-10s, etc...Maybe mustangs and f-bodies did? I highly doubt many things did pre2000, maybe even more like pre2005. There is a big reason the drag strips started allowing the new cars on without added cages.
The dual cylinder thing is spot on too. I have a c10 long bed with a turbo ls and last year i got it into the 12's with regular street tires on it. Slowing it down after the 1/4 got scary after I got out of the 13's and it has a 8.2 rear end with discs. I want about 1" more disc diameter and calipers twice the size. The SPP-TV guys did a brake swap on their s-10 and cut the rotors off the hubs, drilled the stud holes out for bigger studs, made a really simple bracket from flat bar stock and converted the s-10 front brakes to camaro brakes from a new model camaro. Big discs, really big calipers, I want it. Didn't look like to much work on a lathe to do it.
If you swap a stock LS or keep the thing relatively stock considering swap headers and stuff are often used, then the roll cage is over kill. All of the other stuff you should do no matter what is the vehicles doesn't already have those features. But specifically, if you swap an engine in and pump out 600-800hp then **** ya you need to consider the cage.
The SPP-TV guys did a brake swap on their s-10 and cut the rotors off the hubs, drilled the stud holes out for bigger studs, made a really simple bracket from flat bar stock and converted the s-10 front brakes to camaro brakes from a new model camaro. Big discs, really big calipers, I want it. Didn't look like to much work on a lathe to do it.
Power shouldn't define the need for a cage, How you use it should. If you plan on running fast enough to worry about surviving a crash at speed then a cage is needed, 300hp will propel a car to over 140mph but if you're driving around cones in a parking lot then the cage isn't needed even with 800hp.
I have big brakes on my S10, Camaro 4-piston Brembos with 14" rotors, Total cost as less than $400 not counting the larger wheels needed to clear the rotors.
03-15-2020, 06:05 PM
Is LS power too much for some old cars? 
