1963 Gavril Bluebuck

I agree about the Barstow part, but the Moonhawk is already a tad weak for a vehicle of its kind as-is. Progressive updates to the damage model have really made it not great durability wise anymore. I’m saying the strength order should be something like this for the old cars. Barstow, Bluebuck, Burnside, Miramar, and Moonhawk as the top-dog strength wise till the Beufort or whatever is released, if it ever is.

 

I don't think they're that inaccurate. Despite the reputation older American cars have, they tend to deform much more than modern cars in higher speed collisions. For example, in the 59 bel air vs. 2012 Malibu crash test, the bel air crumpled past the A pillar, deforming the passenger compartment pretty badly, while the Malibu had very little deformation after the A pillar. At lower speeds older cars look better because of 5 mph bumpers and body-on frame designs, but at any higher speeds they tend to crumple bad, since their body strength is pretty much constant through the entire structure. On the other hand, modern cars have crumple zones that deform at any speed, but they are designed to deform in a very specific way, and the passenger cell of anything built after 1990 is probably orders of magnitude stronger than any older car. The recent updates may have altered the strength of cars a bit, they seem pretty good to me.

 

The Impala crash isn't the best reference to use; it was an offset (front corner to front corner) crash which is X-frame kryptonite. More modern cars are designed with that sort of thing in mind and so will show much better in a corner crash. The Impala might have put up a much better effort in a head-on crash (though to be sure there could still have been some cabin deformation), and a different old car without the X-frame might also have done better in the crash as it was conducted.

That reminds me, BeamNG really needs an Imperial expy with a gigantic two-in-one frame. Something that's a little quicker and more agile than a T-series or bus but can still easily bully just about anything except those two.

 

Wonder if it's possible to give the bluebuck side rails? That would make it considerably stronger.

 

The problem with the cooling might because of the radiator. The Horrible and the 423V8 have used the same radiator, thus the 423V8 has insufficient cooling. There should be an "V8 Radiator" that is a little bit more effective cooling than the I6 radiator, similiar to the "V6 Radiator" in the Bruckell LeGran.

 

I'll start by saying I've been around vehicles my whole life. Now I've not seen many 1950's or older vehicles crashing into newer ones. Two problems with that crash test you mentioned I've watched it over and over since I first saw it. Problem one is it's both an overlap, and 2, honestly I've not ever been quite sure if the Impala had an engine or not(I'm not the only one to speculate this). What I have seen however are at least a couple impacts between 1960's and 1970's vehicles head on vs 1990's to 2000's. The speed of each vehicle looked no more then 30mph coulda been 20. So minimum total speed of 40. Each impact the older car fared better then what I consistantly find in BeamNG in the Barstow or Moonhawk, vs say the Pessima or Sunburst. Now to be fair better didn't mean the older car was not totaled or that it could even drive away just noticeably less damaged. Also the driver took alot more force from the crashes with the older ones.

I stlll stick with that the older at least 1960's-1970's veicles could stand a bit of at least front/rear impacts, Even the Bluebuck perhaps though it's pretty close to what I remember in crashes with newer vehicles.

 

For the impala, it did have a slant 6 in it, you can see it occupying the passenger footwell in post crash photos. The moonhawk could stand to be stronger, 70s economy cars were typically made of the thinnest steel possible, but a luxury sport car like the moonhawk would probably be a bit more substantial. The barstow is unibody though, so it might be weaker than other cars of the era. In either case, some testing is needed, assuming good crash pictures can be found.

 

That would be a great mod, it's already one of the tougher(more realistic) older cars in front and rear impacts. giving it that kinda strength to the side would really make it a veritable Musclecar Juggernaut.
--- Post updated ---

Well if the case was it had an engine it was the overlap that may been the Old impala's Achilles heel so to speak in getting the short end of the stick in that impact. Should have been a direct head on impact, though I may hazard a guess they really wanted to showcase safety and " Just look at far we've come in these 50 years." they might say.

Also I haven't really thought on the fact that the Barstow has a subframe(till now), which likely would inherently weaken it's durability for at least frontal impacts. Also not to kill my argument completely,(lol especially as I'm an automotive enthusiast), but I loaded up the Barstow just now, and I don't know how I didn't ever notice it has no frame save for the subframe, I now realize why it has a subframe. I honestly till now just thought it was part of the frame and something to break off during impacts. Shows as much as I know automotively there are still things I don't. Still I stick with what I've said at least regarding the Moonhawk and Bluebuck. Also TY I learned two things The old Impala I guess had an engine, and the Barstow has a unibody w/subframe.

 

I do suspect this as well. That what happens when you X-frame, unfortunately.

 

Everybody gangsta till the Bluebuck gets siderails.

 

Hi all, maybe this has already been covered:

The Bluebucks with the manual transmission, the column mounted shifter doesn't move when the gears change. It works fine in the Burnside. Will this be addressed?

 

Higher performance models of the Bluebuck go crazy fast in reverse, with the stock car topping out @ 130 km/h. That's roughly the same speed as in first gear. Is this normal?

 

Yeah. First and reverse have similar gear ratios, and since the differential has a very low final drive so that the car can achieve higher top speeds, the car will reach very high speeds in reverse, as it does in first.

 

everybody siderails til the bubu gets gangsta

 

Also, read the sig.

 

found some alternate badging for the bluebuck:

it looks pretty cool IMO, though I get why they used the "Roadsport" badges instead.
(also while I'm mentioning it, there's also and alt badge for the front of the burnside.)

 

Is there a plan to address interior and engine elements poking through the exterior sheetmetal after collisions?

 

These are non-collidable parts, it's pretty much impossible to fix this without adding further complexity to the vehicle Jbeam structure.

 

Why are some parts collidable and others aren't? Why does this seem to be a bigger issue on some vehicles and not others? It's one of the bigger flaws in an otherwise superb game.