Today's cars as tall as those in '48

A fellow at work has a Lexus. He just bought his wife and Avalon and he's
thinking of trading the Lexus for his own Avalon. Nice ride and lots of
goodies.

 

When I was a kid we drove 41 Fords until 1953, when my dad bought another
Ford.
I cant remember any of them being light in steering nor responsive, nor very
stable in
corners, but sometimes memory lies.

I always wanted a 48 or 49 Ford business couple, but of course I wanted to
hop it up.

Those older cars are getting scarce now.

 

Well, it is an undeniable fact that a higher center of gravity,
combined with a relatively narrow track width and stickier tires will
combine to make a vehicle more prone to a rollover incident. If it
really took a four foot high ramp to cause a rollover we would never
hear of one on a public road, and yet they happen all the time.

nate

 

Nor did they stay on track without constant steering wheel motion.
Good for arm exercise though.

IMO those oldie cars are only good to look at; well some of them.
For real driving I'll take a current car any day.

 

You are free to believe whatever you wish buy as a retired automotive design
engineer I can sure you, on level ground, vehicles will spinout but not
roll. Inertia can cause any vehicles to roll when its strikes, or are stuck
by, something. The small difference in center of gravity among the various
types has little to do with it.


mike

 

An old (60s) car with modern radials and disk brakes is a whole lot of
fun, and that's exactly what I drive every day. I'm sure the same is
true for some 50s cars, but I've never owned a 50s car. I do own a 49,
and it would take quite a lot more than radials and brakes to get it to
handle well enough to share the road with mdoern cars on a daily basis-
so much so that it would be more of a resto-rod than a restoration. Most
automotive progress this century happened between 1945 and 1970. Since
then, electronics have come a long way, efficiency and driveability have
gotten better, there are lots more safety features (we can debate how
truly effective some of them are), but fundamental mechanical systems
have changed relatively little.

 

It's called "tripping syndrome." Same thing happens when you hold
your leg out in front of some moron running in a straight line...down
they go!

Has a LITTLE to do with it, but suspension has more to do with it than
CG. In the Explorer fiasco, spring rate plus a slightly higher CG
conspired to cause the rollover problem. You see that on GM's hulking
Suburbans, as well. In a "trip" situation, the Suburban is very prone
to rollover, while cars aren't. For some reason, Escalades don't seem
to be as prone to doing so....could be the spring rate or electronic
ride control? I do not know. What I do know is, in a multi-vehicle
collision involving either an older Explorer or a Suburban, the SUV
rolls every time.

 

Like I said you are free to believe whatever you wish no matter how
convoluted your reasoning my be. Do a bit of research you will discover the
Explorers were rolling because of defective Firestone tires. Those with
General and BFG tires did not have a problem.

mike

 

What the hell did you design, fucking door handles? Hopefully nothing
important.

Yes, on a billiard-smooth hypothetical test track. Maybe. If the tires
aren't too sticky. There's a certain point where coefficient of
friction, center of gravity height, and track width will conspire to
allow a rollover even on a smooth surface. I don't know if any
production vehicles have reached that point (I'm guessing no, for
liability reasons, but I have no facts to base that on) but it is
undeniable that higher CG's, narrower tracks, and stickier tires make a
vehicle easier to trip up.

*ahem* - I think you mean "fairly significant"

Bullshit.

nate

 

I believe that you are an idiot and a bullshitter who knows little to
nothing about cars, and that anyone reading your posts should disregard
anything you say as it is likely wrong.

nate

 

Certainly the tread stripping off the Firestone tires was a big problem,
but not the main problem in our cooler country.
Here they, and many narrow track high SUVs, roll when they slide then
hit higher friction area such a curb or rough road shoulder.
Of course then they are usually on their roof, whereas a car just slides
to a stop.
The Explorer has a very hight incidence of this problem, as do some
other makes such as the older Ford Broncos and Pathfinders of 5+ yrs
back. That old Trooper is ugly to handle in wind and on slippery
roads, confirmed by a few owners.
Following them is interesting as many don't follow a steady track even
on on dry corners, the Mazda van of several yrs back being one of these,
as well as SUVs with owner modified excessively wide tires.
Interestingly the Jeep Cherokee I never seen rolled over. Looking at
it's wide track for it's height tells the story.

I see this carnage every winter traveling our very difficult roads to
the ski hills. I know people who have returned to mid sized cars for
safety on these slippery curvy roads. It isn't just speeding SUVs that
get into trouble!

 

Consumer Reports confirmed what you say several years ago.

Then there is that released Ford engineering document that instructed
their test engineers not to test roll over on some Ford SUV and truck
models for their own safety! >

 

You are quite correct Nate.
Most of us categorize Mike as an auto company politician.

 

You forgot to say in my opinion. The fact concerning Firestone tires and
rollovers do not support you opinion however. You would have discover that
fact if you had done a search. The fact is the NHTSA investigation showed
Explorers, with other tires, did not have the same problem.

mike

 

With bias ply tires, my 40 Royal rides smoother than the PT with
radials. Also, the steering is pretty light, not really needing power
assist. My 49 Windsor was heavy in the steering, being a much heavier
car.