fob battery wont change anything, why would it, its the immobiliser in the car thats fucked and likely needs unlocking, resetting or reprogramming entirely
A truck I'm thinking about buying. Does this look like a good deal for $1500? 1962 Chevrolet C10 SWB Stepside 230 or 235 I6, not sure which one, runs, needs brakes, tires and rubbers, 4 in the floor bulldog transmission.
Are you referring to the Plymouth GTX? I'm not sure if they still own the trademark Even by that, the concept car is referred as the Opel/Vauxhall GT X Experimental (model names ending with the letter X is nothing new for Opel).
Just as well Opel aren't in the US then isn't it or using a GTX trademark commercially. Instead using GT X internally. Internal usage is not use for trade and therefore not violation of trademark (a fact proven in courts before)
UPDATE: misunderstood physics and shitposted accordingly. Disregard. Time to stir up some controversy: Crash tests are total bullshit. Let's start with a NHTSA crash test: Here, a Subaru Forester crashes into a solid barrier head-on at 35 MPH. While this is important in testing seatbelts, airbags and other safety technology, it is unrealistic for two reasons. One, I will get to later. The other is that in a real-world accident, you are unlikely to strike a barrier, or even another vehicle, head-on. There will almost never be a 100% overlap. Next up is the IIHS, who performs overlap tests in a similar fashion to NCAP programs around the world: Pictured is the small-overlap test. In this case, a car is launched into a deformable barrier at 40 MPH such that only part of the car strikes it. This is somewhat more realistic, in that the "strike zone" is not the entire front of the car. Here are the results of a BeamNG IIHS-style crash test of the Grand Marshal, a surprisingly safe vehicle - or so you would think. At peak deformation, the front crumple zone does its job, absorbing much of the shock before it reaches the passenger compartment. Minor passenger compartment deformation is visible; however, the steering wheel has not shifted and the door has remained shut, meaning the airbags would function as intended to keep the occupant safe. This vehicle, when new, would likely receive four to five stars from the IIHS, and potentially even earn an IIHS Top Safety Pick if equipped with side curtain airbags. However, the forces involved here are only equivalent (roughly) to two unladen cars striking each other at 20 MPH. An accident like this would likely be easily avoidable, assuming both drivers involved were sober and paying attention. What about higher-speed collisions on the highway? Imagine two cars travelling towards one another, each one moving at 55 MPH. The forces involved would be as though the IIHS had performed a crash test at 110 MPH! To my knowledge, no such test exists, so I will perform a similar one in BeamNG, colliding two Grand Marshals at highway speed: In both cars, the crumple zone has not successfully managed the impact. Significant passenger compartment deformation is visible, and the steering wheel has shifted forward, increasing the risk of injury to the abdomen and preventing the airbag from doing its job properly.
Partial overlap crashes are in fact very common. This is why they test them. They didn't decide how to crash test vehicles based on what would be fun to do, they base the tests around common types of accidents. Where your physics gets super dubious, is where you equate hitting a wall at 40mph, to two cars hitting each other at 20mph. That is wrong. When two cars both travelling at 20mph crash, they both decelerate from 20mph to 0 mph. Therefore the occupants of both vehicles both feel a 20mph deceleration, this is the same deceleration they would experienced if they hit anything else, including a wall at 20mph. This deceleration also occurs over the same amount of time, since you have two crumple zones absorbing 20mph each. Meaning the resulting forces would also be the same. So a 40mph partial overlap crash test, is equivalent to two cars having a head on crash, both travelling at 40mph. EDIT: Also, just to add some extra detail, when analysing a crash test, they take into account whether a car is likely to hold up to a larger impact. So when a vehicle's structure shows that it will not hold up to a larger impact than the one they did, they will specifically mention it in their written report, and deduct marks appropriately. Even if a cabin appears survivable after a 40mph impact, if it has crumpled, chances are it may not be survivable at a 50mph impact and so on.
