Today's cars as tall as those in '48

Have you ever owned a car from the '40's? I have had 3: a 48 Plymouth, 49 Windsor, and currently a 40 Royal, all great cars, dependable, easy to work on, and gets relatively good mileage from their flathead 6. They ride better than our new PT Cruiser Convertible!

Ya right

mike

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.

Hell no! Do you expect me to take my new vehicle and put it into a situation where it's known to roll over? Not me bud!! I can imagine trying to explain that to the insurance company.

Yep, easy to test without risk to the vehicle.

Snow? What's that? I only see it on TV.

Bob

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

Mike Hunter wrote:

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

Prior to 1949, all Fords were rather archaic in the suspension department. By 1953 they had improved dramatically. Also, prior to

Boy, the 48 and 49 were TOTALLY different cars. Which one caught your fancy? I'll bet it was the '48 - (basically the same as the pre-war '39-42)

My '53 Coronet was a joy to drive, but would have been nicer with some power assist. I had upgraded the brakes on the rear from center-line to Bendix self energizing from a '63 which helped considerebly. It was a lot nicer to drive than my '49 VW.(cable brakes). My '57 Fargo was a bit of a handfull (solid axle bump-steer with a big flathead lump and no power steering or brakes) My '63 valiant handled extremely well (upgraded shocks and lowered springs and torsion bars) but untill we got the Mystique my wife drives now, I had never driven a car that combined handling and ride (at a somewhat affordable price) quite like the '72 Rover 2000 TC. The Mistique has all-speed traction control, 4 wheel disks (with anti-lock, which I can take or leave) and a very potent 2.5 liter six.

An 83 year old friend of mine just bought his wife an Avalon, to replace her Caddy. He drives a Lexus 300, which replaced his 500 series Bimmer LWB. He loves them both. (and for his age, he still DRIVES - quite a bit, and very well.)

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 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.