First photos of Maverick

[Snoranger]

Just use the 3 seashells!

But I have all this TP!!!

 

[Dirtman]

Burn it for warmth!!!!!!

 

[Snoranger]

Burn it for warmth!!!!!!

Before or after I use it?

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I'm pretty sure the early 60's Falcons were unibody. My 68 Torino was. I put a BB 429 in it. Was very fun.

Yup, they had subframes but they are filed under the "unibody" category.

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

Not all of them. Some have 3.8's, the forum admin has a SHO. There's at least one member that has a Gen3 SHO, that thing's got a V8, it'll run circles around Rusty's 2.9 (so will the admin's Gen1 SHO.

And there are a number of guys driving '08 and newer cars, those have bigger engines with a lot more horsepower (and torque!) than the 2.9 and 3.0.




My parents had an '81 wagon. That thing was so gutless it was embarrassing! You think a 3.0 is gutless? Hell, my Taurus with that 3.0 (Vulcan) would fly by my folk's '81 Aries going up mountains.



Why? Did you fart?

 

[rusty ol ranger]

You mean this one?

I noticed a couple of things:
1) The '59's door came right off, exposing the driver
2) The '59' front seat broke away from the floor. Well, it might still be attached to the floor pan, but the floor pan sure got bent to snot to make the seat move like that (which means the frame is toast, too!)
3) The '59's windshield even popped off.
4) The '56's passenger compartment was pretty badly mangled by the crash.

Meanwhile:
1) The '09's passenger compartment remained fully intact
2) The driver of the '09 stayed in place

Yeah, I'd have rather been driving the '09 in that crash.... I'd have walked away (maybe limped).

The picked that 59 because it was one of 3 or 4 model years to use GMs "X" frame...

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to see that this was probably the LEAST crashworthy structure ever built.

Had they done that test with say, a 69 Impala....the outcome would have been much different, as the 69 would of sliced that 09 in half like a hot knife thru butter.

Oh and yes....i forgot about the K car.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Not all of them. Some have 3.8's, the forum admin has a SHO. There's at least one member that has a Gen3 SHO, that thing's got a V8, it'll run circles around Rusty's 2.9 (so will the admin's Gen1 SHO.

I dont care what year taurus it is...all i gotta do is cut through a few rough fields/ditches/etc and they'll no longer be any taurus's (tauri?) on my tail.

Ground clearence, I beams, and total disregard for body damage is a pretty good equalizer

 

[Saddle Tramp]

My parents had an '81 wagon. That thing was so gutless it was embarrassing! You think a 3.0 is gutless? Hell, my Taurus with that 3.0 (Vulcan) would fly by my folk's '81 Aries going up mountains.

My first car was an 83 Aries K wagon. Had a 4speed stick in it. Everybody thought I had a V8 in it because I could burn the tires in first gear.

 

[Saddle Tramp]

I just remembered that the Jeep Comanche was also a quasiunibody thing.

The cab was unibody and they made rails to connect the bed to it.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I just remembered that the Jeep Comanche was also a quasiunibody thing.

The cab was unibody and they made rails to connect the bed to it.

Ask some cherokee owners who offroad their shit how great unibody is.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

The picked that 59 because it was one of 3 or 4 model years to use GMs "X" frame...

View attachment 48660

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to see that this was probably the LEAST crashworthy structure ever built.

Had they done that test with say, a 69 Impala....the outcome would have been much different, as the 69 would of sliced that 09 in half like a hot knife thru butter.

Oh and yes....i forgot about the K car.

No, they started crash testing 1959 and was doing an anniversary thing to show how much cars had progressed in the time they had been doing it.

I dont care what year taurus it is...all i gotta do is cut through a few rough fields/ditches/etc and they'll no longer be any taurus's (tauri?) on my tail.

Ground clearence, I beams, and total disregard for body damage is a pretty good equalizer

Yeah, nobody cares that Taurus type family cars suck for flying thru corn fields.

Ask some cherokee owners who offroad their shit how great unibody is.

Couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting three of them last weekend at Badlands. Various builds were crawling out of the woodwork from mint looking ones that had evolved/devolved to almost tube buggy things like everything else.

Even saw a Commanche with a flatbed there.

People seem to really enjoy that platform for offroading. I would rank them #2 behind all the Wrangler variants there last weekend for numbers.

 

[MikeG]

Having the frame NOT bend in the crash makes the outcome worse, not better. It's like the old saying about falling off a building.... it isn't the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end

The bodies / unibodies / frames distorting and absorbing the energy in the collision greatly contributes to the survival rate, assuming a collision with something about the same size. There's always something out there bigger / more immovable. Dump truck, bridge abutment, etc.

Human bodies can only take so much deceleration. Re: Dale Ernhardt for an example. Even Nascar had to backtrack on some of the car building requirements, when it became clear that the cars were TOO sturdy, and hurting drives in crashes by not deforming.

I'll take a modern car over anything built in the 50's for a crash, even if it is a GM brand

 

[Saddle Tramp]

Couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting three of them last weekend at Badlands. Various builds were crawling out of the woodwork from mint looking ones that had evolved/devolved to almost tube buggy things like everything else.

Even saw a Commanche with a flatbed there.

People seem to really enjoy that platform for offroading. I would rank them #2 behind all the Wrangler variants there last weekend for numbers.

They are highly coveted among the hardcore off road crowd.

They are low in price and easy to modify with a ton of accessories.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

They are highly coveted among the hardcore off road crowd.

They are low in price and easy to modify with a ton of accessories.

I think the ship has sailed for cheap nice ones, I have always liked the concept of a boxy good looking SUV with solid front axle and a I6 though.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I wasnt trying to say that they arnt popular. But if you read the forums alot of guys end up with doors that wont shut right and shit cause the unibody cant take the flex, Same deal with big torque unibody cars, hell, even foxbody 302s were known to crack the trans tunnel even with factory parts.

I know thats why they picked the 59....but a car with a proper frame would have changed the result entirely.

A stiff frame may not be good in a single vehicle collision against a tree, but if a stiff vehicle hits a soft one the soft one will absorb the impact in much higher doses assuming similiar weights, makeing the guy in the stiffer vehicle come out on top.

Imagine a 2x4 hitting a pop can at 50mph