By on July 22, 2015

At TTAC, we typically don’t run whatever video is making its way around the Internet during whatever particular day. Today, well, we have a reason to break with that tradition.

The clip above, shot this past weekend, features a stretched Chrysler 300 beached on a railway crossing and unable to move as a train barrels down the tracks in its direction.

Instead of saying “You won’t believe what happens next!!!” like BuzzFeed Autos, I’d like to congratulate the builder of that stretched gangster mobile.


For starters, when you stretch a vehicle, you typically do it at the expense of its structural integrity. Secondly, if that train’s weight is likely measured in millions of pounds. While the train might not be moving incredibly fast, that’s a lot of force going into the side of a limo, a vehicle that should have less structural integrity than on the car it’s based.

Yet, this limo, against all odds, still looks like a limo at the end of its long trip down the tracks in front of the train’s cow catcher.

For comparison, here’s a Top Gear clip where the show ran a train into a much smaller car at a much higher speed, but you get the idea.

The coachbuilder responsible for this particular limousine should get a medal in doing it right.

[Source: CarScoops]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

81 Comments on “We’d Like To Congratulate This Limousine’s Builder [with Video]...”

  • avatar

    If I was the limo builder, I’d be featuring this vidya somewhere on my website.

  • avatar

    I believe nothing. FAKE!!!

    • 0 avatar

      I too call BS on this, at least until I see an accident report or something else that substantiates that this wasn’t a complete setup for publicity.

      And @pch101 No this doesn’t happen to the best of us…the best of us know better than to put themselves in a situation that could leave both axles in the air, due to wheelbase length.

      • 0 avatar

        If you had watched the video that I had provided, then you would have gotten the joke. Then again, you probably wouldn’t have.

        • 0 avatar

          Presumably your statement’s veracity wouldn’t depend on an external to it video.

          But I see you must have gone off your meds again…as soon as someone disagrees with you, you reach for your snark-gun and set it to “Blast Condescend”.

          It happened to be the case that I was skimming the comments and didn’t feel like taking the time to watch a video, specifically yours.

          Now I feel challenged to watch it, just for the satisfaction of proving your snarkiness to once again have been the desperate act of an unarmed man in what he perceives to be a battle of wits.

          What’s the matter, somebody take a whiz in your Cheerios?

          • 0 avatar

            You’re not very bright, so yes, you are annoying.

            Go watch the video. If the lightbulb doesn’t come on by the end of the video, then go sue your creator for not giving you a sense of humor.

          • 0 avatar

            Yeah @pch and all you’ve got is snarky comments like I wouldn’t be able to get the joke, you’re not very bright, … ad infinitum.

            And @jim_c2 apparently didn’t see you ranting on the comments about the Religious Freedom Act, where you said that anyone who disagreed with your opposition to it was an idiot who didn’t deserve a rational response.

            Of course, you didn’t HAVE a rational response, and that was your way of trying to make it look like you were the Enlightenment, dispelling the denizens of the Dark Ages.

            But it was so transparently just a series of ad hominem attacks against anyone who didn’t agree with your point of view, to the extent that I was far from the only one who called you out on your style of responding to those who disagree with you.

            And apparently Jim_C2 wasn’t a part of that, and he also failed to notice that I started out with a simple comment that the best of us DIDN’T get hung up on a RR track, as if to imply that it took a certain amount of obliviousness to end up in that situation. Nor did he note that your response to my questioning your idea that the best of us could end up like that, was to immediately go to an ad hominem attack about how I lacked a sense of humor and was too stupid to understand your point.

            And that was in spite of the fact that the only point you had was that the best of us could end up like that, when I felt like it was more that candidates for the Darwin Award end up literally “crossways to the railroad track.”

            So just keep on making your ad hominem attacks, and showing that you have no rational responses to offer. And I will continue to point out your simplistic ad hominem attacks whenever it suits my mood, sort of like throwing softballs at the clown in the dunk tank at a carnival.

            BTW, you never did explain why you would think that “the best of us”, who in your video was apparently Obama, could get crossways to the RR track if they were paying even a little bit of attention to what was going on.

            Kind of makes me wonder if you were defending that position, crossways to the RR track, because perhaps you, yourself, had ended up like that at some point in your driving career.

            And I see no more reason why I should lighten up than that you should, when someone questions an assertion of yours, and your response is that this proves that they lack a sense of humor, are stupid, and the rest of your litany attempting to prove your intellectual superiority, without ever once offering up any evidence of it.

            You can fool some of the people some of the time, but…

          • 0 avatar

            So if pch called everyone a moron, instead of just calling me names, then you’d think he should be banned?

            Boy, I’m sure glad I don’t have some of you guys at my back in a dark alley.

            And taking the time to count my words doesn’t substitute for a simple answer to my original question, why would you think that the best of us, rather than the Darwin Award types, would end up crossways to the RR track?

            Yeah, you do have one point, though pch. But if you comb your hair right, it won’t show.

            That seems to be the level you are capable of functioning at.

            But count one more thing for me, pch, how many people called you out for your ad hominem attacks on the RFA thread. We got the message that I have written a couple of thousand words. Now how about how many people can see through your ad hominem attacks?

        • 0 avatar

          Well @pc, having seen your video of Obama getting stuck, one possible meaning you could have intended was that Obama is one of the best of us (a statement I categorically reject), and that it looked funny when a superior man such as he, managed to get bellied on curbing of some sort.

          And the only other interpretation that would make sense, since you refer to it as a joke, is that you consider it a joke that Obama would be considered one of “the best of us”, a statement I suspect that you will categorically reject.

          Though in either case, the joke is somewhat weak, in that if it was the case that Obama had the luck of the Irish, then that would imply that he is “Black Irish”, which seems a bit preposterous.

          If you have ever seen a black man who considers himself to be both black and Irish, you would recognize that in almost every case, such a man is extremely Irish in his dress, his speech, and his mannerisms. Obama is none of these.

          So if there is a joke in all of that, I’d say this is like a game of tag, and you’re it.

          Obama as one of the best of us…that’s the richest thing I have heard all morning.

          Though I will take the trouble to thank you for giving me a moment of video that rather perfectly portrays Obama’s second term. Teeter-tottering in the middle, wheels spinning, all dressed up and no place he can go to…describes the situation at the White House fairly to a T.

          But don’t keep us guessing…please tell us what you see as funny in the video and why. And especially how your comment about the best of us relates to that image.

          It can only get better, whether you duck and hide behind snark, or seek to salvage some meaning for your droll comment about the best of us.

          Your turn, rocket man…put it on blast and pull your trigger.

          • 0 avatar

            I’m not going to even bother reading this. I don’t need to read it in order to know that my assumptions about your lack of smarts and humor were on point.

          • 0 avatar

            @pch101, after insultingly dismissing a comment, receives a rebuttal, to which his only reply is:

            “I’m not going to even bother reading this. I don’t need to read it in order to know that my assumptions about your lack of smarts and humor were on point.”

            So you get challenged and called out for your tendency to resort to snarky dismissiveness whenever anyone challenges anything you say, and you first hurl an insult, and when that is replied to, quickly duck and hide behind the feeble argument that you never even saw my reply.

            The only problem is, actually problems, plural, are, is that you know you will read this to see what I said in return, and most of the B&B, many who have called you out for that same annoying tendency of yours, will be watching, and will have seen you turn your tail and run, lacking any intellectual ammunition, and so hiding behind a pretense that it is I, not you, who lack intelligence and a sense of humor.

            I am content to have made my point in response to your snarkiness over my simple statement that I didn’t think this kind of thing, getting your car hung up on its center frame, did in fact happen to the best of us.

            And you cannot even explain why you think your video relates to the concept of the “best of us” either as fact, or as the joke you later referred to it as.

            So if you have nothing more to say to defend your immature and rude behavior, I’m done here.

            I do try to correct unruly children. But I don’t pick on them.

            But it would give me great satisfaction if anyone else who has called you out for this sort of behavior in the past, would drop a simple “ditto that”, or something similar, in response to what I have said, or something like that, to call you out on your childish and overly-sensitive behavior.

            Go watch some more Obama videos…perhaps they will sooth you when the world catches you way off base, and simple rudeness isn’t enough to make you look superior.

            I DO get the joke…it is you. You make me laugh…

            You are predictable. You do the same thing, over and over. And get nailed for it the same way. Over and over. The minute you say something that is refutable or incorrect, and anyone calls you on it, your next three moves are inevitable and predictable, and they always leave you in check.


          • 0 avatar

            If you’re lucky, I’ll read the first sentence of one of your posts. And right now, you shouldn’t be feeling lucky.

            You just went to the trouble of writing about 700 words just to prove that you didn’t get a joke. When Robert Farago was the editor of this site, articles could not exceed 800 words. There is a certain beauty in being concise, and you need to go find it.

          • 0 avatar

            AND @pch101 rises to the bait like a bottom-feeding flounder lured by a disturbance above his head to reply:

            “If you’re lucky, I’ll read the first sentence of one of your posts. And right now, you shouldn’t be feeling lucky.

            You just went to the trouble of writing about 700 words just to prove that you didn’t get a joke. When Robert Farago was the editor of this site, articles could not exceed 800 words. There is a certain beauty in being concise, and you need to go find it.”

            You think my day depends on whether or not you bother to see what anyone else has to say about your droppings?

            And yes, I noted that you counted my word length, hoping it would exceed Farago’s limit, but when it didn’t, your point about him was pointless. Even more so because he is gone now.

            And one of the things that makes TTAC a better site is that if someone has something of length to say, for the most part, the B&B let him, without hindrance, either reading it or not as they wish, but not complaining about a waste of electrons, or something.

            And concision without either content or veracity is a void.

            But if want concision, here it is.

            “You’re a dope, and I’ll bet you can’t find three regulars on here who will say ‘Wow, you really demolished that VolandoBajo with your sound arguments and witty humor’, because you have neither.”

            And if that’s too long:

            “You are an idiot who is too blind to even recognize that you are displaying your idiocy.”

            Snarkiness DOES NOT equal winning a debate…it equals an idiot who lacks any rational rebuttals to arguments.

            Or as Dylan would say “Idiot Wind!”.

            Or in simpler language so you can understand it “You’re and Idjeet!”

            Or as W.C. Fields used to say: “Run along, kid. You annoy me.”

            Is that a low enough level of snarkiness that it can fit inside what passes for your brain?

            You showed your *ss about three comments back, and have only been reinforcing your image since then.

          • 0 avatar

            @VolandoBajo- holy smokes, man, lighten up! It was a simple joke he made, nothing more. You don’t have to think it’s funny and that’s perfectly fine if you don’t. But you’re reading a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooot of symbolism into this.

            Did I mention you’re reading way too much into it?

            Relax, man, and enjoy your day. I mean that.

          • 0 avatar

            So now we’re up to almost 1,100 words. Great way to prove that you aren’t verbose and obtuse.

          • 0 avatar

            Volando, you are a really angry person. Go away.

          • 0 avatar

            So is Volando the return of the Mad Scientist who got hit with the ban hammer about 1.5 years ago?

          • 0 avatar


            Doubtful because:

            1. The mad scientist was much more of a general jackass.
            2. The mad scientist frequently praised Pch101, and did not attack him to my reelection.

          • 0 avatar

            @naterator Are you a sock puppet for pch101, coming out of nowhere all of a sudden?

            And no, @Corey_DL I am not the mad scientist, and if I got banned from this site for calling pch101 out for his snarkiness and ad hominem attacks, I’d know I was in the wrong crowd of people, and gladly move on.

            But I dare you two “noble defenders” of pch101 to let him try to come up with any answer OTHER than an ad hominem attack, and until he does, why don’t you mind your own business.

            If you don’t like the fact that I don’t lay down and play dead when I question one of pch’s statements, and he immediately starts with a series of ad hominem attacks.

            And while I’m at it, stay the hell off of my lawn.

            If it makes me an angry person to not silently suffer ad hominem attacks, and to not listen to everything pch ever says, without ever daring to question a single statement, then I guess I am. But to me, when you attack me for simply disagreeing with one of your statements, that is a legitimate reason to be mad at someone and to call them out for their behavior.

            Where I come from we have a name for people who cannot or will not stand up for themselves when attacked, but I’ll let you call it whatever you want. But that is what you are advocating, and I decline to join your club.

            But if you want to start a petition to use the banhammer on anyone who makes ad hominem attacks, I will gladly join you in that. How about it, we petition Mark to ban whoever STARTS with ad hominem attacks?

            I thought so…sit back down.

          • 0 avatar

            This part of the comments section has a much bigger train wreck than what was in the video.

            And no, this isn’t AgentHex/ MadScientist. That poster actually made sense much of the time (even though he would give me grief as well.)

          • 0 avatar


            Thank you.

            Do you remember pch101’s replies to anyone who supported the Religious Freedom attack a few months ago?

            Seems like some people around here haven’t seen pch’s standard treatment of anyone who doesn’t completely agree with him, or remain silent.

            I remember that he also attacked three or four others of the B&B in that set of comments, about the RFA and Detroit, all of whom called him out on his pattern of going to snark and ad hominem attacks, using the argument that if he didn’t agree with you, you weren’t worthy of a reply, you were only worthy of being scorned and having derision heaped on you.

            I hope a couple of them pass by here in the next day or two, remember how he treated them, and also take him to task.

            Then maybe some of the more short-sighted won’t think it’s just about over-reacting to pch101’s name calling and hollow defenses of his positions.

            And just where in the H did the Naterator come from? Don’t think it’s Nate. Never hear of him on here in months. I don’t know if Corey just hasn’t seen pch101 in full attack mode, or if he was one of the people on pch’s side in the RFA discussion/debate.

            Well, time will tell…let’s see who weighs in next and what they have to say.

          • 0 avatar

            You’re quite welcome but no thanks is needed. Sometimes when the topic deviates things get a little hairy, which is regrettable. I do wish people would remember its just a message board and be cool.

          • 0 avatar

            Definitely some OCD issues here.

          • 0 avatar

            I stopped reading those Mad Scientist posts a long time before he got the ban, so I had a hard time recalling. I do remember he used to go

            > quote <

            before he called everybody a moron though.

          • 0 avatar

            @pch101 Just can’t stop with the name calling and amateur psychology, can you?

            And if Mad Scientist was such a good guy/friend of yours for the most part, why did he get banned? Did he go over 800 words too many times?

            Or did he have to make even stronger personal attacks to trip the circuit breaker?

            So you have to respond to everything I post, but then imply that someone else has OCD issues?

            And as to a train wreck, all I did was question your assertion that the best of us would end up crossways to the RR track.

            You were the one who immediately jumped off the track and started calling me names again. Still smarting from having several of the B&B call you out for that on the RFA thread, are we?

            Or do you want to pretend that never happened, to see if I will bother to go back and dredge up some quotes showing what people thought of you and your style of ad hominem attacks in that thread. And you KNOW it wasn’t just me, too.

          • 0 avatar

            Is there a pill you can take for verbal diarrhea?

          • 0 avatar

            At this point, this poor guy has produced almost 2100 words, which is more than 2 1/2 articles’ worth of verbiage and about 2200 words too many.

            Writing more isn’t going to help. A cry for help doesn’t need to be nearly this long.

          • 0 avatar

            Volando, if I say yes, I am a sock puppet, will you go away then?

      • 0 avatar

        Good grief, pch101. You call me stupid, and then say I have produced 2,100 words which is 2,200 too many. In other words, I am 100 words short of having produced too many.

        You call me stupid, and you can’t even do elementary (school) math.

        And you tried to prove that my 700 were too many, before you discovered that Farago’s word count limit was 800, so your comment there proved nothing except that you started out to make a point, lacked the evidence to do so, but tried to claim it anyway. That sounds about like your MO.

        • 0 avatar

          @naterator Why are you so worried about the number of my posts, but not pch101?

          And no, I won’t be manipulated by your words, regardless of what they are.

          But if somebody at TTAC wants to check IP addresses and post to tell us if that’s you, pch101, I wouldn’t mind a bit.

          • 0 avatar

            Sorry, my lunch break is over. I’ve got work to do.

          • 0 avatar

            OK @naterator but if you want to get a long view of the underlying issues, google FCA US Joins Michigan Businesses in Opposition of Religious Freedom Bill by Cameron Aubernon on TTAC back in the beginning of May, to see how many people pch101 attacked in ad hominem arguments, having zero arguments in the debating sense, and just calling people names. You may think I went on here, but check out how many people he attacked, and who called him out for his juvenile name calling.

            You may think I took this one too seriously, but it helps to see the past, which is prolog. There were about a half dozen of the B&B that he said were too stupid to deserve anything but name-calling, that sort of stuff.

            Don’t take my word for it, see him when he has hit fifth gear.

  • avatar

    That is fascinating indeed. Kryptonite in the trunk?

  • avatar

    Ummmmmmmmmmmm wow. I wonder if this companies conversions end up weighing significantly more than their competitors (due to the amount of bracing).

  • avatar

    Kinetic energy is proportional to mass and proportional to velocity *squared*. If two trains have the same (or similar) mass, but one moves twice as fast as the other, the faster moving train impacts a car on the tracks with *four* times as much energy. Dynamic loads are much more severe to structure than static loads. The videos aren’t really comparable.

    Also, note that the Top Gear video shows the van sitting on its tires – the limo’s tires are off the ground so the train essentially pushes the limo along the tracks with the frame gliding along the rails.

    • 0 avatar

      I mainly used that video because trying to find non-Hollywood train-on-limo carnage is a futile exercise.

    • 0 avatar

      I wouldn’t look at the train’s weight or it’s kinetic energy. The train’s mass is so much greater than the limo’s that it doesn’t figure in. The train doesn’t look like it got much damage- the cowcatcher might have had a few inches deformation (either “give” and/or crush). The side of the limo looks like it crushed in a couple feet and the train looked to be moving at about 40mph right at the moment of impact. That tells me the limo went from 0-40 in about two feet. Or let’s adjust the numbers a bit and say 0-30 in three feet (being generous just for the sake of argument). The first SWAG is a 27g average acceleration; the second is 10g.

      Either way that’s pretty impressive. And even without the high school physics midterm question it’s impressive.

      • 0 avatar

        If you argue that the train’s mass is too large to factor in, then you simply change perspective and imagine it as the limo hitting a wall (in this case, an inelastic collision, like a pudding to a wall). After that inelastic collision, the limo I’d imagine as “one with the train” now. Relative speed (velocity really) still factors in for calculating energy, but just that of the relative velocity of the car to the train.

        direction of combined objects after collision is related to momentum, so yes the train wins. p=mv

        energy dissipated however 0.5mv^2

        I’m just saying the slower velocity or speed matters. The Top Gear comparison wasn’t fair (agreeing with 319)

        • 0 avatar

          The Renault in the Top Gear video was also at an angle and it was initially smashed by the cowcatchers. So the force would have been transferred to the Renault in a relatively small area.

          This limo was perpendicular to the train, and it somehow managed to glide along the rails. The effect was similar to pushing something that was on skis. If the limo had been on the tracks at an angle, it would probably would have been much worse.

          • 0 avatar

            “somehow managed to glide along the rails”

            Captain Obvious. The frame of the limo was the only thing in contact with anything, and that was the rails.

            So it was metal gliding on metal, so yes it “somehow” managed to glide along the rails.

            It couldn’t have done anything else, as there was no other place for any force to be applied, and minimal friction at the point of contact.

            Watch this space for zero reply to my point, except for a famous pch101 snarky ad hominem attack.

            BTW pch101 someone else over on Jack’s site said you were an incredible tool. So not everyone is enamored of your ability to dodge critiques of your “points” by simply calling names…

            Start calling them now. I’m done. Just want to see you go off and do it again.

            You’re totally predictable. Now prove it for me…

        • 0 avatar

          @InterstateNomad- yes, pretty much. We’re looking at this the same way.

          For simplicity, I ignored the friction of the limo, balanced on the rails just right, as it seemed to have a minor effect anyway (as Pch101 and others have also said).

          That’s not to say this is the only way to go about looking at it, but for very little work it yields a pretty accurate SWAG.

  • avatar

    I think the fact that it was riding (in a relatively low-friction manner) on top of the rails accounts for the limo’s survival. I don’t think any occupants of the limo (I know there were none in this case) would have been so lucky.

  • avatar

    An excellent demonstration of just how long it takes a freight train to stop. In the video you can hear the engineer say “I have 10,000 tons of train”. That’s *2 million pounds* of train with a contact area on each wheel the size of a quarter, steel wheel on steel rail.

    One big help here is that there was very little resistance to the limo being shoved down the rails – it was riding on its belly on the rails, stuck on the coupler of the locomotive. If the wheels had dug into the ground (like in the Top Gear video) the damage would have likely been a lot worse. The railroad ties would act like saw teeth. The acceleration forces to anyone inside would have been immense, even though the structural integrity was pretty impressive.

    If you had been inside in the back seat, you probably would have been MUCH better off if the thing ripped in half and sent you spinning around, dissipating the force of the crash. Think Dale Earnhardt’s relatively undramatic crash vs. the much more dramatic but much more survivable rally car flips and rolls. Sometimes what looks good is not, when it comes to crashing a car. It’s the sudden stops that kill you. Everything crushing and ripping off the car is dissipating energy, as long as it isn’t crushing YOU.

  • avatar

    if it was dragging the wheels like the Espace in the Top Gear video it would have folded up. Sliding on the rails helped a lot in this case.

  • avatar

    And a “You Tried” award goes to the guy waving his red bandana at the train while standing AT THE CROSSING. Does he think a train is going to stop like 911 GT2? Try the next county over, bandana waver.

  • avatar
    Firestorm 500

    “It’s not gonna stop!”


  • avatar

    I like how they stand there waving at the train as if he can’t see the dang car on the track, and as if he can just stop a dang train in 50 yards…

  • avatar

    I would call that luck. The train hit it at just the right point and it then just slid along the rails.

    • 0 avatar

      I think the train could have hit it anywhere where the limo’s center of gravity was in front of the locomotives front. Had it hit off of the C of G, the limo would have spun and been knocked off the track.

      But because the C of G of the limo was more or less directly in front of the train, it did what you said…it just slid along the rails.

      There was nothing at either end of the limo to resist the motion imparted in the direction of the train.

      In the end, though, the limo was just two steel rails balanced crossways to the long steel rails the train was running on.

      No force could be applied to deform the limo, except for a small amount of cosmetic panel damage before the train’s front end connected solidly with the near side frame rail of the limo.

      And the friction generated by the sliding of steel rails on steel rails was doubtless extremely low, so the train was never able to apply any crushing force.

      If there was an end of the line barrier though, the train would have crushed the limo flatter than a pie tin.

      But the whole thing looked staged, so much so that it is possible that even the frame rails were reinforced beyond normal for that type of vehicle.

      Still, I wouldn’t worry too much about getting T-boned in the limo by a compact car, for example, either. Though in that case, the limo would have won the inertia contest, and the compact would have flattened out like it had hit a brick wall, no doubt.

      I think if the setup had been real, the people on the side of the tracks, as they watched impending doom coming towards their limo, would have probably said a few R-rated things instead of just yelling without any blue language, just watching as if they knew they were on camera and wanted to be able to play the audio later without bleeps.

      Had the collision not been staged, I think the video would have been loaded with bleeps just before and after the moment of initial contact.

      • 0 avatar

        After further investigation, it looks like it was a true event that happened in real life, another exciting news moment in Elkhard Indiana, right behind the news that poultry would be missing from this year’s state fair, due to avian flu.

        News just keeps coming a mile a minute, there in flyover country.

        Still, I’m glad the fools all managed to evacuate before the moment of impact.

        And I’m guessing parents will be looking for a new limo service for next year’s prom.

        And I can hear it now “Come on Dad, let me drive the family car. It’ll be much safer than taking a limo.”

  • avatar

    Is that a Ferrari locomotive pulling that train? :)

  • avatar

    Well, that ruined someone’s prom night.

  • avatar

    Always liked those GE Dash 9-44CW’s. As reliable as the tides and goddamn — 140,000 lbf of tractive force!

    • 0 avatar

      I was just waiting for a foamer to weigh in! Where is the Truth About Trains?

    • 0 avatar

      I love the sound of the brakes, especially right at the end before it stopped, where the pitch rises up.

      9212, the winner, by a knockout!

    • 0 avatar

      @Brumus, TCragg, and nd515: I’m just glad that of the locos NS is running it was the Dash 9s and not 611! OMG I can’t imagine if she hits something…then again, with all the foamers following her around, they’d probably have pushed the limo off the tracks.

  • avatar

    Norfolk Southern, what’s your function….

  • avatar
    Compaq Deskpro

    The limo section of a limo is more structurally rigid than the front and back because they are not subject to all the crumple zone engineering. They are engineered like the trailer section of a semi.

  • avatar

    What Compaq said. Those pieced in stretch sections on limos are far stronger than the rest of the car. That combined with the fact that it could slide along the rails is what kept it in one piece.

    Perhaps the ability to adjust ride height would help these things (front and back having seperate controls). I’ve seen so many pics of limos high-centered, very surprised no one has come up with a solution to an apparently common problem.

  • avatar

    There appears to be an F150 or Explorer in the background that probably could have pushed the limo off the tracks if it had arrived early enough. Maybe it just got there.

  • avatar

    Most limousines (that are made properly) would fare well in that kind of accident, especially if both axles were off the ground and there was nothing to stop the vehicle from simply moving along with the train and dissipating some of the energy via said motion. Most likely, the occupants—were there any—would have still sustained injuries from all of the loose, unsecured items that typically reside in a limousine’s rear cabin.

    However, limousines are quite unsafe in front and rear collisions. Why? Because those welded-in sections are extremely rigid and don’t crumple. Instead, the OEM portions (the front door section and the rear door section) are crushed (along with their occupants) against the weight of the welded-in section, as it is pushed one way or the other.

    The car probably wouldn’t have been stuck on the train tracks at all if it were a regular-wheelbase Chrysler 300, since it essentially bottomed out. But I guess if you *are* going to get stuck at all on the train tracks, a limousine is a pretty good bet…least of all because there’s a smaller chance that the train will actually come into contact with the specific portion of the car that you are sitting in.

    • 0 avatar

      @kyree Not only would the occupants have been harmed by loose objects, they would not have been strapped in place like racecar drivers are.

      Hence they would have sustained considerable force of impact and sudden acceleration as they were thrown up against the side of the limo facing the train.

      And not only was there a strong g force, due to sudden acceleration, which would have only been felt as a pressure, there is another component of their change of position with respect to time: the first derivative of acceleration, known by its colloquial name of “jerk”.

      And it would have indeed been one helluva jerk at the moment they impacted the upstream side of the limo. Might have been enough to snap some necks, and at least do some serious concussing.

  • avatar

    I admit the video would be more credible if they hadn’t tried to make it look like a promotion, however the news reported on it here.

    In the story, a resident mentioned another vehicle got high centred recently as well. So there are some design issues.

  • avatar

    Based on the fact that the A pillar is almost directly in the line of fire for the locomotive and the windshield, though shattered, is still intact; I will go out on a limb and say that this was a very low speed impact.

    So congratulations to the coachbuilder for creating a limo that does not snap in half with an impact strong enough to fracture, but not smash glass.

  • avatar

    So what poked through to punch out a dent behind the front passenger door?

  • avatar

    It never gets old.

  • avatar

    Side impact safety is critical in limousine building, as noted by the fatal car accident when a (much smaller than a freight train) pickup struck a stretch limo making a u-turn on the east end of Long Island just a few days before.

    Commenter Kyree Williams had noted that the reason the limo did so well was the fact that it didn’t have any wheels on the ground, I wonder if that had something to do with it.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • ttacgreg: Interesting math there. Assuming said Silverado is getting 20 mpg, that means that 18 cents will take my...
  • ttacgreg: More like a narrative to mislead and anger people. A whole lot of politics is just a battle of narratives.
  • MitchConner: Owned a couple of Fords with the 2.0. Good engine. Decent power. Not buzzy like their smaller ones....
  • ttacgreg: Yeah you got to come for inflation. I Remember a number of different prices for different items in the...
  • dal20402: EBFlex has been informed before of the Escape Hybrid’s success as an NYC taxi (some of the most...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber