In performance obviously the Barstow is better overall. It was made before the 1970 performance regulations and therefore will have better V8s with better performance for the time. However, the Moonhawk seems to have a better I6.
in terms of crash worthiness? i think they are both pretty close but the barstow seems to have a sturdier front end, the moonhawks cockpit seems to crumple a bit more (doors fold out and A pillar seems weaker) but because the moonhawk crumples a bit more i think it would still be the safer car to have an accident in
Yeah sorry I can't change it. But I'd say the Barstow faired better. If you look. The Moon Hawk A piller is damaged a little but the Barstow is not just a little " Damage " the Driver side where it hit. You would walk away with little injury. But that's my personal opinion
And the Moon Hawk dashboard and foot petals was pushed back a good 2-5 inches back. The Barstow did not even budge
Well yeah, in terms off the crash, but I don't know what the contact points are. Did the front of the Moonhawk hit the Barstow offset to the side?
Oh okay.. Doesn't look fair, the grill area of the Barstow does't look like to have contacted whatever the Moonhawk hit.
Yeah, but... there is no reason to make the Barstow tested in a crash so offset the hood and fascia don't even contact.. It's not a fair safety test if you are using these tests to determine how likely someone is to survive.. say, hitting a tree on one side of the car... you aren't testing to see how the car will react if you skim the side of it. A more accurate test should look like: Both tested @66km/h [AirSpeed] (41MPH) Both offset on one of the blocks in the background at as accurately in the same acceptable area of the body. Now I wasn't going for anything professional here, just a test at the same speed, and the same impact zone within reason.
I'll preform something similar with a flat wall at 60 mph with the stock version of each car. Give me a few minutes.
From the looks of things, the Barstrow's roof does not buckle nearly as much as the Moonhawk. Both tests were done at 55 instead of 60 because I messed up on the first one by slowing down too much.
The crumplezones seem better in the Barstow, however the Moonhawk seems designed to bottom out more in most crashes.
That seems plausable. I think the Moonhawk has more of a backbone and wasn't designed to be safe, but to be sturdy. The Barstow is more modern in it's safety. I took the liberty of doing a 40 mp/h side crash test and a 25 mp/h rear crash test. I used the crash cart by Nadeox1 for both. Blue is Barstow, red is Moonhawk. Side Tests: Rear Tests: Too late. Why does it matter anyway? It is to compare.
The speed is not an important factor if we are comparing the safety. As long as both of the speeds are the same, it is a fair test.
