Bruce Griffis <bruce.griffis@xxxxxxxxx> said: >Basically, I just want my son to be able to participate without taking >more than the usual risks on his physical safety. I figured a newer >car would have met more safety requirements. I dunno. The main reason newer cars need all the safety junk added on is because they're constructed so light. I often drive my Ambassadors around, and one of my favorite things about the car is that "my crumple zone is the OTHER car!" Even the small Rambler Americans of the late sixties are relatively hard cars in crashes, compared to today's. Ever5y once in a while I snoop around to find a crash test of an older vs a newer car, just to see how our vintage machines do. But crash tests are super-expensive, so I don't see any reason why there would be a lot of them published. tom jennings<tomj@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> Warning: I risk wrath here, but AMC seats in the 1970's are total crap. >> Garbage. Wavy flat springs with maybe 2" of cheap foam. No wrath from this corner, Tom. I've rebuilt them, and they are crap. They are also un-ergonomic. The only exceptions were the slimline buckets that went into the Matador Coupes 73-75 and the Javelin & AMX 73-74. They were actually fairly well-designed and contoured well. I have a set of them that I intend to put in my 69 Ambassador 2 door car. Were I prepping a car for daily use, there are a *lot* of newer seats from brand X's to choose from; and there are many that are excellent. Seat design has made huge leaps since the seventies. Honda seats are darn good, Mustang seats fit AMC floorpans well, and so on. One of our local AMC guys has a set of top-of-the-line Lincoln Continental leather seats installed in his Rebel -- and they look great and feel fantastic. Find a pick-your-part and go shopping. -- Marc _______________________________________________ AMC-list mailing list AMC-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://list.amc-list.com/listinfo.cgi/amc-list-amc-list.com