[LADAD]

Been reading some threads on this but let me describe situation. We gave our babysitter (have 2 kids) to buy a car (she used to have an old BMW and was borrowing a car forever). Our intent is so that, as needed, she can help take our kids to school etc.

Sort of last minute, she decided to buy a 1965 Mustang Hardtop Coupe, great looking car but my wife and I have major questions on safety. The seller still had original seatbelts so they were installed (hopefully correctly).

But in reading the posts, other questions come up, brakes and mostly fuel tank.

So question if, would you trust someone to take your kids in a 1965 Mustang, I know, tough question and I'm leaning to no but also see the American steel in those cars.

Anyways, any comments/guidance appreciated. Also, anyone know a Mustang expert in Los Angeles area that we can have check for safety features.

Thanks in advance! Miss my old Mustang from mid-90's :-(

 

[Ted1]

A few items others have added in the name of safety: Dual bowl Master cylinder/disk brakes, power brakes, collapsible steering column, 3 point seat belts, high back seats, fuel cell in place of gas tank(Not so much of an issue) Will your kids be riding in the back seat or front as well?

 

[LADAD]

Thanks Ted1. They would be strictly back seat, saw some of those safety upgrades, brakes are of concern given everyone is used to ABS brakes and they don't train pumping anymore.

But what about this gas tank issue, no real data but seems to be enough to be more than other cars from that era.

Guess question is if its worth it or use another car just to be safe.

 

[andrewmp6]

These cars would get a one star on a car crash test today.Ted1 you missed no crash bars in the doors.

 

[Ted1]

Also forgot a roll cage If it were me, I would chose a more modern car, teenage? girls are enough liability driving on the road as it is.....

 

[racerxlilbro]

For my money, the two biggest improvements I made in my '65 safety-wise were installing a sheet metal firewall between the trunk and passenger compartment (dirt cheap!), and getting rid of drum brakes.

Next in line is the upgrade to an inertia reel type shoulder seat belt in front. After that is the upgrade to Flo-fit seats which hopefully won't collapse in an impact the way the stockers are purported to do...

Let's face it, auto safety technology has come a LONG way in 47 years!

 

[Jonk67]

There are still cars that can have the gas tank contents enter the interior depending on how they are rearended, lost a friend when his ~99 crown vic was rearended and the fuel enered the interior, ignited and burned him badly - survived <30 days so it's not just the old cars. I think the 'expolding gas tank' was a little overplayed by 60 minutes or someone for sensationalism, sure don't remember a lot of reports of this or seeing burned out shells in the junkyard.

My bigger concern would be the inexperienced young driver and her skills with a 'manual' car (no ABS, PDB, etc.). At least the kids will be in the center of the car from most angles.

You can install 3pt. enertia reel seatbelts in the rear which I would do even if you have to pay for them and help install, at least you'll know they'll hold. Will the kids be in car seats or big enough for belts alone? I would not do a rollbar as they have a better chance of impacting it with their skull. If you are focusing on the rear occupants safety I'd focus on F/R 3pt inertia belts (need to hold the driver in to for control), close off the trunk pass through as mentioned it can be buttoned up easily with a panel (may want to seal the speaker tray to) and have the driver go through a defensive driving class with someone old enough to know the limits of an old car (longer stopping distance, keep room, exit lane option,etc.).
Jon

 

[Yadkin]

Seriously? You gave your kid's nanny money for a car and didn't have a say for what she bought?

Get rid of the old beater and get her a modern four-door sedan with standard safety features. Something boring like a Buick would be cheaper and more dependable, never mind safer.

 

[cuddyk]

Two words: Absolutely Not.

Even if she's the best driver on the planet and the only driver on the roads, these cars can (and do) break down. Do you want your kids waiting by the side of the road for a tow?

One other thing bigger than the mustang to consider: her judgement. The most important quality a caretaker of children can have (in my opinion) is good judgment. This choice for daily transportation doesn't speak well of that...

Keep the stang 'cause it'll be fun for you . And find a new nanny who owns a safe car. Just my .02.....

 

[rodbender]

There are so many variables there. Anything can happen in any car. Obviously the new ones are safer to a point. Some not much more reliable and alot more costly to fix. Disc brakes in front would be a great addition. Drums suck...bad. You have one shot at a panic stop, then they fade like hell. For what it's worth.

 

[andrewmp6]

Jonk67 did you know the 98 up crown vic was the only car with a 4 star rear end crash at 50mph.But the gas tank on those cars is kinda under the back seat not the best place.My first car was a 65 impala i learned the hard way big old cars don't handle i wrapped it around a tree.

 

[csouther]

No, No, No...

No, No, No....

It's sketchy enough as is having a teenage girl drive your kids around, but to put them in a classic mustang is something else. Setting aside the conversation about the teen driver, even with a perfect responsible driver you cannot control other non responsible drivers on the road. Like most have mentioned before that mustang is not a safe car at any angle you get hit

Front: No shoulder straps or telescoping steering = heads smashing together because the upper bodies are not restrained, steering wheel through the chest.

Side: Nothing but two layers of sheet metal = direct contact with vehicle and passengers.

Rear: Gas tank is not strapped but bolted directly to the body and no Fire Barrier = Kaboom factor is highly likely even under small impacts.


I have personally been in an accident involving a 66 mustang coup when I was 19 and would not suggest it to anyone, especially their kids.

 

[Jonk67]

No, No, No....

Rear: Gas tank is not strapped but bolted directly to the body and no Fire Barrier = Kaboom factor is highly likely even under small impacts.

So the '66 in your pic exploded? sure looks like more than one hard impact and at least one in the rear/quarter?

I was T-boned in a '70 right in the drivers door by a delta 88 going 40mph, it only bent the door in far enough to touch the dash and seat bottom. I walked away with a cut on my head from the rearview mirror and slight concussion. I may have been lucky but the STEEL in that car and rocker panel took the brunt of the hit and protected me. The car was totalled and guess what, no explosion!

There are words missing from the OP's sentences, I didn't connect that they gave the babysitter the money to buy a car to drive their kids in so in that regard i agree with Yadkin, I would have chosen the car and not left it up to an impulsive teen.
Jon

 

[SPeace-ATL]

One additional factor I didn't see mentioned is that the 65/66 does not have a latch on the front seats to hold them up in a collision. They offer no resistance to someone in the back seat and under those conditions it is my understanding that a hard collision can break the backbone of a person in the rear seat that is only wearing a lap belt.

A plate to seal the trunk from the back seat is highly recommended due to the vulnerability of the fuel tank.

 

[tommay11]

I would stay away from the classic Mustang. We can sit here and debate the hypothetical and swap outrages claims of "well I once saw..." but the bottom line is these are your kids we're talking about. Were I you, I wouldn't go for it at all. I love my 73 Mustang to death, and love driving it, but I have a 1991 Taurus SHO as my daily driver: 4 wheel disc brakes w/ ABS, great handling, air bag, A/C, Front and rear window defrost, fog lights, comfy seats and reliable. Keep in mind even something as simple as the Fog lights can make a big difference. Making sure the driver can see and be seen is an oft over looked safety aspect.

 

[Veronica]

Hello. When my son was born, I was driving a 66 Mustang. When my daughter was born two years later, I was still driving a 66 Mustang. For the last thirteen years or so, I have been driving a 64 1/2 Mustang. I went through a few 65/66 Mustangs while they were growing up, but, I never drove anything other than that. Occasionally, when we all went somewhere as a family, we would be in my husband's car, which was always fairly new, but, as far as going to school, over to their friend's houses, the mall, etc.. they never rode in anything other than a 65/66 Mustang. They are both in college now with cars of their own without having been dismembered in a crash or being horribly disfigured by the fire from an exploding gas tank. They both came away without a scratch. I never had an accident while moving forward because I pay attention to what is happening around me and drive with the assumption that everybody out there is waiting for a chance to crash into me. I don't just roll through lights that just turned green, I look to see what the cross traffic is doing, not what the lights are doing. I always keep my car in a roadworthy condition and pay very close attention to stuff that could conceivably become a safety issue somewhere down the road. My father was very adament about one thing when I was growing up. If I was in an accident, it was my fault in the sense that I could have avoided it if I had been sufficiently aware of my surroundings. That's a paraphrase of how he actually said it, but, that is the spirit of what he was trying to communicate to me. The bottom line would be that a car is only as safe as the person driving it.

 

[rodbender]

Man where's the "like" button. Amen Veronica!

 

[Veronica]

Hi again. I see all sorts of people around town that appear to be in their fifties. One could easily deduce that at least some of them rode around in the back seat of cars built in the 50s and 60s on a regular basis when they were children.

 

[andrewmp6]

Veronica people like you learned to drive with out the helpers like abs and traction control we have now.And stuff like cell phones and other toys we have that.There was a lot less distractions back then.When i was a kid my mom had a 78 nova my dad had a 71 mustang then a 83 grand prix we never wore seat belts tell it became a law.

 

[tommay11]

We should avoid debating whether or not a 1965 is safe itself, but instead discuss the fact that more modern passenger cars are safer. I am an MP in the Army and have responded to my fair share of car accidents, and it should go without saying that despite the make, model, or even year of the vehicle, an accident can be severe enough to cause death or serious injury to the occupants of the vehicle. It is a fact of life that car accidents can and do happen.

As Veronica mentioned, she drives in a very defensive fashion and places little to no trust as to the driving abilities of others she shares the road with and I completely agree with this. However I can not prevent a potential drunk or distracted driver from still hitting me. In order to increase the odds of 1) accident survival, and 2) accident avoidance, modern car features such as air bags and ABS give you a huge edge- features which are nonexistent in classic cars. And that's all car safety really boils down to; attempting to increase odds of survival as much as possible.

Also, the logic that "I see older people alive and well today, and by virtue of their age they must have driven/ridden in classic cars, and clearly survived" is an exercise in false correlation. By that logic we could claim that, since there are a lot of war veterans alive today, that war must therefore be safe. By doing this we overlook the glaring aspect that any and all non-survivors will be in large part unknown to us as they are not alive for us to meet in the first place.