totally dissappointed

M

mikemo90

True Classic
as I am cutting up this 79 x(much to my dismay) I have noticed that the 800 pound steel bar that is supposed to run from the front wheels to the targa does not exist!!!
Jeremy Walton had stated in his book that the 73/74 x was the only car to withstand the mandatory 80 mph rollover that was mandated by the
"highway safety people" before the car even entered the country.
did they absorb the lax rules and build something akin to the pinto with the rear gas tank problem????
I am dismayed, sad and confused.
I do still LOVE my x's, but standing on my soapbox and berating how safe they are..... behooves me:sigh:
anybody know what might of happened between then and now??
I know the big three, gm, ford and Chrysler poo pooed the whole idea stating it could not be done and the x was the only one that passed.
ok... I will put the bong down...
jes kidding
mikemo9
 
dONT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT BUT DO REMEMBER THE tv ADDS WERE THEY SHOVED ONE off a cliff and the interior remained intact.
 
mikemo90 said:
ok... I will put the bong down...
jes kidding
mikemo9
Click to expand...

No you weren't... Haha
U should be happy that Nuccio followed the Colin Chapman school of car building.... Remove parts bit by bit until the car falls apart then add that one part back on
 
And there was this on mythbusters

Pretty mangled, but it did get squished by toe tractor-trailer trucks. The drovers seat is still in one piece, but surviving the blow would be tough.

squishedX_1.jpg


squishedX_2.jpg
 
74 X1/9 build quality?

Having had one of the very earliest X1/9's imported (bought new in NYC in early 1974), I can attest to the solidity of the car. I ran it into the back end of Volvo stopped dead on East River Drive - I had probably reduced my speed under heavy braking to around 50 mph when I hit.

The braking resulted in a "nose down" attitude which submarined the front of my under the Volvo's rear end. I guess that substantially reduced the impact force by extending the delta time of the impact (slow down distance):

F = 1/2 m v2 / s

The Volvo had considerably more damage than did the X :)

I doubt my later cars would sustain as little damage (but I hope to never find out). .

Ed
 
zonk

I have to admit I still feel safer in the x than' the 05 monte carlo my wife drives.. yes, the acceleration is intense, the braking, phenom.... the handling superb... but the x is still the car I want to survive a crash in.
my first x flipped a tractor trailer over on it side, while parked, that was delivering parts to the dealership I worked at.
all said and done, the balloon I carried is losing air:sigh:
mikemo
 
800 lbs? That would only leave 1200 lbs for everything else.

The "bar" is in fact there, more like a box section structure. Does it work? That's another question.
 
Many years ago I rear ended a Isuzu pick up with my '78 X with the ladder bumper. The truck was waiting for a red light to turn green. The impact sent the truck about 20 feet forward, fortunately it did not hit anything else. My car remained intact, but I had to pay for the truck's considerable damage. Thankfully the truck driver was not injured. That day I discovered, among other things, the strenght of my little car.
 
Last edited:
littlecar

the weight of the x was to match the lotus elan that was already in the u.s. at the time, and the government and the safety police said different.
I really thought that the bar was there.
I know that Volvo and Subaru use" space frame" tech, and thought that fiat would use that to promote the safety of what they built.
bubble...... POP.
sad to know that all these years I was disillusioned.
mike:sigh:mo
 
are you talking about this? That structure is indeed there.. and it's quite strong. No bars or tubes to speak of, but stamped and welded sections that do indeed run the length of the car and the targa bar.

Space frame usually refers to cars like the Ferrari 308, Volvo are unibody - like the X1/9.

 
The X is one of the earlier cars to use large crumple zones and strong unibody construction. The fact that the engine is behind you leaving a huge crumple zone in front is part of this. Notice the notches in the hood and inner fenders, telling the structure where to fold and crumple. If it weren't for the insane height of many cars today the X would be very safe.
 
Totally agree Greg......!!

budgetzagato said:
....If it weren't for the insane height of many cars today the X would be very safe...
Click to expand...

Just what the hell are today's automotive manufacturers trying to achieve with these absurd SUV's, clunky hi-top people-movers, suburban 4x4's (use on tarmac roads only)!! These vehicles are just plain nuts! :nuts:

cheers, Ian - NZ
 
This is one of the reasons (IHMO) the X isn't as safe as it once was, not because it's gotten worse, because the other vehicles are a bigger threat: they are bigger, taller, harder to see around and harder for them to see you, they have ABS and all wheel drive and four wheel drive and airbags everywhere so people don't drive as defensively as we all used to, they think they are insulated from harm, add in modern distractions, cell phones and on board computers and sat. nav. and all that stuff.....
 
Amen to that Jeff

I think Jeff hit the nail on the head. Lots of distracted driving going on. I am amazed at all the commercials selling cars that mind your lane, apply the brakes, place your call, etc.

Hopefully when all the folks who can't drive well get their totally driverless cars, we will be safer in our Xs. :)
 
Have to wounder if this auto braking , driveless parallel parking, self driving etc. How well would it work in 14" of snow we just got last week.
 
ianlawson said:
Just what the hell are today's automotive manufacturers trying to achieve with these absurd SUV's, clunky hi-top people-movers, suburban 4x4's (use on tarmac roads only)!!
cheers, Ian - NZ
Click to expand...

Sales? This is what people (the market) want and this is what sells. I suppose you could blame them for making it attractive and affordable, but that's just market competition.
 
Think it was my sisters Saab 96 she got rear ended shoved into a car infront of her both the front and rear were basicly flat. Interior looked as good as new no dammage at all. That was back in the mid 70s.
 
ianlawson said:
Just what the hell are today's automotive manufacturers trying to achieve with these absurd SUV's, clunky hi-top people-movers, suburban 4x4's (use on tarmac roads only)!! These vehicles are just plain nuts! :nuts:

cheers, Ian - NZ
Click to expand...

and no one is lining up to buy them!!! (sarcasm)


They're building them because people are buying them, period... and people love them..
 
It works...

Myron's pic I think illustrates it the best. I finally cut up MeloYelo, after the accident, and there is no single bar (I wasn't expecting one - as the pic shows the strength is in the overall frame), but hitting another car (that pulled directly in front of me) at near 60mph, the front end was gone, crumpled as engineered, but I could open both doors, and I got out with sore forearms and sore ribs from the seatbelt. That's it...
Yes, these cars are smaller and that makes them harder to see, and people assume you are farther away because they see small and perspective makes them think you LOOK small because you are not close. I have people pull in front of me all the time. These are the same issues that motorcycle drivers deal with. But the STRENGTH of the X has been proven, and I can personally testify to it having been a crash test dummy. I would rather be in my X than anything else...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top