Viral photos are going around showing a Michigan crash involving a modern Kia Rio and a 1973 Chrysler New Yorker. The Rio is completely smashed up, while the New Yorker looks almost perfectly fine. “They don’t make ’em like they used to” is what a police officer allegedly told the classic car driver. But is that Chrysler New Yorker’s bumper really that strong and is that 2015-ish Kia’s front-end really that flimsy? Here’s the real story.
The full story comes to us from the owner of the Chrysler New Yorker, Markku Jaakkola, who runs the Detroit’s Unforgotten Wheels Instagram page and blog.
It all began with his post on Facebook, shown below:
“So, how’s your day going ? I was just driving home from company picnic…Cop said ‘they don’t make them like they used to..’ when he saw the ‘damage’ on my 1973 Chrysler New Yorker: the license plate fell off,” reads the post, which includes the photos of the battered Kia and remarkably intact Chrysler.
Pretty much the entire internet shared this post, with many rightly criticizing modern cars for having useless bumpers, and many others rightly criticizing old cars for having poor crash performance (i.e. a lack of a crumple zone, and therefore a high impulse, which is dangerous for humans and in this case would cause severe whiplash).
Jaakkola posted a follow-up:
“Couple additional photos of today’s accident with my 1973 Chrysler New Yorker (my license plate fell off),” the follow-up reads, showing the mangled license plate, but the otherwise beautiful rear bumper.
But is the Chrysler New Yorker — which shares its C-Body platform with the Demolition Derby champion, the Chrysler Imperial — really that tough so that its rear bumper could demolish the entire front end of a Kia Rio without sustaining a scratch? The answer is no.
Jaakkola, a car-loving Finn who lives in metro Detroit, chatted with me over the phone about what happened.
“I was coming back from a company picnic; I took Dequindre [road] northbound, and I was driving north, and I saw this girl [in the Kia] coming from the middle lane towards me… and the next thing I know I felt a huge bump in the rear,” he told me, “then I saw a Chevy pickup truck kinda like bouncing around next to me on the right side, so after everything stopped I went outside kinda anxious to see what I was gonna find behind me, because it was completely crashed, but the girl was OK.”
“Then the Chevy pickup guy came over there, and he said [the Kia driver] hit him while he was driving the same direction that I was,” Markku explained, saying the Kia driver was trying to turn left behind him in the old Chrysler. “The truck guy, he spun around a couple times, hit a Ford Fusion that was maybe three or four cars in front of me, then he drove his car to a driveway that was on the right side of the street.”
This left just Markku’s 1973 Chrysler New Yorker and the Kia Rio in the street, so that’s when Markku took the photo. “I would think the truck hit her on the left side [front], and she hit me on her car’s right side [front],” Markku went on.
“I just posted it [to Facebook] like, so here’s my day, how’s your day going. I wasn’t thinking anything else about it,” he told me over the phone. “People are starting to fight over if the new cars are better than the old ones or vice versa…People are claiming that I never was really part of the collision.”
When I asked Markku why he thought his post resonated with so many people, he replied: “I think because it’s kinda unique that an old car would be in a crash, especially somebody taking a photo of it…basically nothigng happened…because there are a lot of people interested in classic cars…especially a lot of older people.”
Markku’s post has received quite a bit of criticism from skeptics who understandably believed Markku was implying only his car and the Kia were involved in the crash, with one Reddit post titled “Chrysler guy is lying” garnering over 36,000 comments as of this writing.
When pressed about whether he understood why his initial post made many think it was just his car and the Kia involved in the crash, he told me yes. “Yeah I get that, and I didn’t really put any comments on what actually happened, any details, so it’s easy to assume that the Kia hit me…I didn’t really include any details.”
In response to folks who are claiming he backed up to the crashed kia, Markku texted me: “I’d like to know if they really think that I would back up my car there while police is parked behind us and intervene on his investigation to get a photo for social media.”
Markku finished by telling me his thoughts on the old car vs. new car-in-a-crash thing. “Of course [the old car is] made out of thicker steel, but if you’re going to be in a high-speed accident I’d rather be in a new car.”
When I was around 10 years old I was having an asthma attack (thanks to the 6 cats and 2, 2 pack a day smoker parents) and when my mom and I went out to the car. the car on the next block had a leaf fire under it. (again with the smokers) and the gas tank went and the flames shot out of the behind the plate gas tank filler hole like the bat mobile. By the time I got to the doctor I was so pumped and excited my lungs were clear as a bell.
Thank you for nailing the growing-up-in-the-70’s vibe! I’m still laughing 10 mins later.
My daughter was rear-ended in her 07 Ford Focus stuck in stopped traffic on interstate several hrs from home. When she got home, it looked alright from the outside, but the trunk floor was completely crumpled up and the wheel base varied from side to side…crumple zone doing it’s job. The offending guy’s car was incapacitated.
She was disappointed that I wouldn’t let her drive it back to school and would have to drive ‘huge’ old Lexus RX300 til we found a replacement.
Either you die a hero in an old classic car, or you live to buy another Kia Rio.
Glad no one was seriously injured in that, and the glancing blow didn’t take out the old steel.
Don’t ya just luv the click driven internet.
Early 80’s I’m driving along in my 68 Galaxy 500 doing maybe 20 mph in traffic. I get distracted by a lovely flag woman standing on the side of the road who is attached to the road construction crew rebuilding the sidewalks in the area. When I look back up millisecond or so later, the 1/2 ton truck I was following has come to a complete stop. I jump on the brakes but it’s way to late for the bias plys and drum brakes to help and I hit the 1/2 ton square in the rear bumper.
Galaxy 100% totaled, fan through rad, fenders crumpled, bumper crunched. The 1/2 ton had a scraped bumper sticker and some mud and dirt knocked loose.
I had a sore neck and bruising on my chest from hitting the steering wheel bc shoulder belts were not integrated back then.
I did get a $1300 payout from insurance against the $75’i paid for it.
I saw that pic and immediately called bs.
People really believe this shit though. They think that a car without crumple zones is the safe choice when in reality you are the crumple zone, the steering column is now in your chest and the engine is in your lap.
Look at those old car crash pics from the 30s/40s/50s. Those cars have almost no structure to them.
Some of them are the same people who have taken the entire front bodywork off an old car and somehow didn’t process that it’s because they were only made up of a few panels of stamped sheetmetal vs a modern car with an integrated, properly engineered crash structure. I certainly get the love for old cars, but there’s no need for delusion—they were terrible for safety.
I know that I’ve mentioned/posted this before, but here’s a link to a sub-two-minute version of 5th Gear’s offset frontal crash test between a bigger/older Volvo 940 wagon and a smaller/newer Renault Modus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98XH2hmnD58
Both cars are totaled, but the intrusion into the passenger area is negligible on the smaller/newer Renault vs. the bigger/older Volvo. I’ve been driving older/bigger cars (or older/smaller cars: a NA Miata) for a while now, and I know that they’re not as safe (for me) as a newer/modern car, even a smaller one.
If I commuted (or even just drove) daily, including highway driving, I would drive a modern car just because I’m acutely aware of how fragile the bag of bones and organs I call my body actually is, and how inattentive many people are when they drive.
Yep. Older car is a second crumple zone for the newer car.
In high school in the 90s I drove my parents ’73 Newport with some regularity and my buddy had an MG Midget from about the same era and I would certainly rather be in an accident in the huge Chrysler than the Midget but would pick literally any vehicle sold new in the US last 15 years over either of them to be in a wreck.
The IIHS did a head on collision test between a modern Chevy Malibu and one from around 1960. Both cars were clearly wrecked, but the dummy in the modern Malibu showed the driver would have walked away with minor injuries at worst. The driver in the classic Malibu would not have walked away. It’s hard to walk when your feet and legs are crushed, your lungs are collapsed, and your neck is broken.
“Of course [the old car is] made out of thicker steel, but if you’re going to be in a high-speed accident I’d rather be in a new car.”
The only wise words here. I agree that modern bumpers are grossly ineffective ever since they stopped testing for minimal damage, but a non-issue once the energy levels are sufficient to crumple the highly engineered zones that absorb a significant amount of energy instead of occupants. Anecdotally, mass is a significant factor. Back around 2005, in my stopped at a stop sign 1984 C10 4×4, a new Hyundai Sonata ran into the corner front bumper, truck rocked on suspension, no damage, Sonata looked like it ran into a pyramid. One of the three from the Sonata was complaining of leg pain when the police dismissed me.
When I was a kid in the 80’s, my dad had a 78 K5 Blazer. I remember one time he was turning into a gas station, and a car hit him in the pass side front quarter. I don’t know what kind of car it was, but it was a “modern” sedan of the 80’s. I remember the hood buckled up, and coolant puddling under the car.
The Blazer had a dented pass fender and a scrape on the front bumper and drove away with no problem. He later replaced the fender it and it was good to go.
This guy was trolling people. Then played innocent. Well done sir. You win the internet for the day.
On my way to our town’s most recent Cars & Coffee, I saw the aftermath of a Toyota Matrix running a red light and hitting a ’64 Galaxie, and it was obvious anyone would’ve been much better off in the Toyota.
When someone says they dont make them like they used to, my brain goes to think about early 2000s cars. Reliable enough, still easy to fix, the big complexity and repairs cost was not even a thing yet, safety items started to cascade down to compact cars (ABS, airbags, traction control, etc).
There would be more damage to the Chrysler if it had been directly hit by the Kia, but I don’t think it would be much more than maybe the bumper mounts pushed up, the bumper bent in a little in the center, and scratched chrome. It’s a fact that 64-66 Chrysler C-bodies are banned from demolition derbies because of their exceptional robustness. I imagine this car (the following generation) is probably pretty tough, too. I have a 72 Ford LTD coupe and the bumpers on it are noticeably thicker than the custom off road bumpers on my daily driver Jeep Gladiator.
The lack of head restraints on the Chrysler would have been a significant factor if it were hit with force.
If you’d like to listen to the entire internet discussion on the toughness of old cars, here’s the 10 hour remix of Mr. Regular going Winga Dinga.
https://youtu.be/-qdbNbSTtGc?si=LHRKzTrAwRzaT8dJ
Years ago, there was a head on accident between a 1970’s big Ford and a 1990’s Honda Accord in front of my work. Honda was totaled, driver got a cut in her leg. Ford was still driveable, driver was killed instantly. So these stories are easy to believe, because although this one was clearly exaggerated, there plenty of stories where old Detroit steel had little **visible** damage while involved in an accident that totaled a modern car.
The ‘damage’ on the old cars is transferred to the occupants, many times serious/fatal.
Hose that car out and sell it to the next guy.
This is how we got Christine.
The driver is the crumple zone in the older cars.
Much better phrasing than mine!
Well, that and the photo specifically showing two cars, the caption talking about how the cop said they don’t make them like they used to, and the comparison of damage between the car that hit other cars and your car that was tapped…Gotta wonder how people got the wrong impression, huh?
This looks like someone who saw an opportunity to go viral. And it works, unfortunately. Both the people who blindly believe it and the people going to the effort to debunk it spread it farther.
I do have to give him some credit, though. At least he put the update on the original viral post. Too often, you see a viral post followed up with a correction that will absolutely not show up alongside the post with the actual reach.
I enjoyed the OP’s blog post, thanks for flagging this one!
And piling on, yeah, “they don’t make ’em like they used to” for good reason.
Side note a family member had a ’74 Imperial which was very similar to this New Yorker. What a boat!
“Demolition Debbies” would be a great roller derby team name
I had a 69 Cutlass and a Honda drove into it catching the fender on my bumper and opening up the side of the car like a can opener. Cop was looking at my car and could only find a paint scrape on the bumper. Dad ran into the back of an Oldsmobile with big Dagmar bumpers destroyed the front of his 190sl
Even if the geography of the photo didn’t make it confusing….I’ll take the car that dissipates the energy instead of the car that absorbs none of it and delivers it to whatever else it can, such as occupants’ flailing necks and bodies.
Glad this got cleared up. I saw the Reddit post saying the Chrysler backed up for a photo op but it didn’t make sense that the license plate came off if that was the case.
“I’d like to know if they really think that I would back up my car there while police is parked behind us and intervene on his investigation to get a photo for social media.”
In a world where influencers exist, this is absolutely possible.
This is why the modern Internet makes me sad.
None of the assumptions and accusations that were made were accurate.
“They don’t make them like they used to.”
I’d take “How do I know someone who doesn’t know shit about FEA, PDE, and Newton-Raphson for $100”, Alex.
You take your non linear equation solvers and get outta here, ya hear?
If you take away my nonlinear tools, all I’d have left is continuum mechanics (aka elasticity theory.)
25 years on those courses still give me PTSD.
I never saw this on my feeds, but I also wouldn’t have fallen for it.
While I believe in many ways older cars are way more durable than newer cars, I don’t believe that their bodies are dent proof, not even the old Soviet Ladas with their extra thick bodies.
Honestly it wouldn’t surprise me if most of these stupid posts that go viral are due to bots. Current estimates I’ve seen are 60-70% of the “users” on the internet are just bot accounts. Idk if we have to drop JDAMs on these bot farms to get it to stop, but blowing up a bunch of cellphones, servers, etc. to get it to stop wouldn’t be a bad use of our tax dollars.
Every day the dead internet theory becomes more real: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2021/08/dead-internet-theory-wrong-but-feels-true/619937/
I read “God Bless Ronald Reagan” bumpers sticker as “God Bless Donald Fagen”
Land Yacht Rock!
Also, Rikki don’t lose that number plate
I have a Chrysler, it’s as big as a whale and we’re about to set sail!
Her name is Rio and she crashes on the street…just like a teenager who’s trying to send a tweet.
That’s silly, because we all know that Ronald Reagan is in hell.
Fuel cap right where it belongs.
And right where it should be on EV’s.
I’m very much of the opinion the charging port should be up front or in the rear.
“I’d like to know if they really think that I would back up my car there while police is parked behind us and intervene on his investigation to get a photo for social media.”
Yes actually, because that’s the world of social media today. If we have “influencers” walking onto construction sites pretending to help build houses, why wouldn’t someone fake a car crash? I’m not saying he did, but lets not act like it’s completely out of the realm of possibility.
Ha, I basically repeated your comment.
Yeah, it’s already been proven, you are much better off in a modern car, than a classic in a collision.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB6oefRKWmY
Blocked for me, but I’m assuming it’s the old Malibu vs Malibu crash test?
I used to send that to everyone who always just thought more steel = safer.
I’ve also seen some counters to this, saying the Chevy was missing an engine, or that picking this particular generation of Chevy used an X-frame instead of a full perimeter chassis was unfair, etc. Even with those factors I still think the video proves a point.
I actually watched a video filmed after the test, showing the old Chevy. It definitely had an engine, another thing people said was that it must have been super rusty. I saw some surface rust exposed by the accident but nothing structural. From what I saw, it was a perfectly normal, unaltered car.
As if lacking a large cast iron engine would have left it unscathed, anyway!
Which is what many people will say when reality doesn’t match their expectations. There must be a trick instead the simple reality that decades of steadily increasing crash standards and engineering to meet them has made modern cars safer than old cars made literally before there were any crash standards.
Oh I’m aware, just saying that video proof is not enough for some people who are making those claims. But we live in an era where facts and truth and expertise don’t matter to a lot of people, so here we are.
I’m still a firm believer in curation and reputation (with internet stuff, especially) — and not a “different version of the truth for each person,” which is where Internet 2.0 is failing society on a grand scale. But I digress.
The fact that Chevy themselves produced and released that video gives me some comfort that it wasn’t just rigged. It’s not like Chevy was still selling 50yo cars at the time. They were just trying to prove a point.
I don’t follow the logic of your last paragraph. They had plenty of incentive to make the new car look good and the old car look bad. Though I don’t believe they did anything along those lines.
And jet fuel can’t melt steel beams.
Always a conspiracy.
As a practicing structural engineer whenever some jabroni approached me and said that, my responses were always in the line of:
1. So?
2. So fucking what.
3. Fuck off.
3 videos:
59 Bel Air vs 2009 Malibu
2nd gen Versa vs Tsuro
Old Euro hatch vs new Euro hatch