'59 Bel Air vs. '09 Malibu Offset Frontal Crash

-
dustermaniac

dustermaniac

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
6,186
Reaction score
289
Location
Modesto, CA
OK, I know it's a Chevy crash video but I was wondering what all of you out here think of this video? Please post your thoughts. Personally, I'll take my classic car over a new one anyday but as for my children and their safety, well the newer cars have the classics beat hands down on safety improvements.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uOYKP-SYeE"]YouTube- Crash Test 2009 Chevy Malibu vs. 1959 Chevy Bel Air[/ame]
 
There was a thread out there before, about how that '59 had really bad rust and frame damage.
 
skokz said:
There was a thread out there before, about how that '59 had really bad rust and frame damage.
Click to expand...
I didnt see that thread, but I can say that when those cars were built they, as in the manufacturers didnt really give two ***** about safety. They were built to look good and attract buyers. Even if it was really rusty it didnt stand a chance. I replaced body mounts on a 59 biscayne last week and can say the frame isnt designed to take that. It's shaped like a wishbone and we all know how well those break!
 
skokz said:
There was a thread out there before, about how that '59 had really bad rust and frame damage.
Click to expand...


I was just going to ask how good of shape was the 59'. I can't believe that the 59' would fold up that easy if it was as if it rolled off the production line. I've seen some older cars after they had hit things that would obliterate a newer car and the older one would be repairable. I want to see the 59' against a Smart Car now. Let's see how many people would want a Smart Car after that collision.
 
The old one would be repairable, maybe, but I'd rather be in the newer one. The interior didn't twist up like the old one did. Save a life, to hell with the car.
 
As far as safety is concerned, I would definitely take the newer car over the older. The newer cars are designed around safety where the older ones were about looks. I'm pretty sure the driver in the older one is a goner. I would find it hard to believe that anyone would have survived in the 59' in that collision.
 
The current production cars aren't all cup holders and remote keyless entry stuff, there is a lot of engineering that goes into the new cars so that they can meet todays safety standards. That "front off-set" impact test is a very severe accident. I wonder what the weight difference between the cars would be without the engines and trans in. Almost all of todays cars are very heavy compared to our A-bodies, the Toyota & Honda minivans are around 4600 pounds.

There's another safety aspect to consider with new cars - they are aerodynamically stable at all attainable speeds.
 
I remember when this ran the first time. Check out the zip ties that are snapping after the collision in the 59. This was a staged video by the national safety board.(or whatever they are called). You can see them when it plays in slow motion.
 
BadAss71 said:
I didnt see that thread, but I can say that when those cars were built they, as in the manufacturers didnt really give two ***** about safety. They were built to look good and attract buyers. Even if it was really rusty it didnt stand a chance. I replaced body mounts on a 59 biscayne last week and can say the frame isnt designed to take that. It's shaped like a wishbone and we all know how well those break!
Click to expand...


One of the reasons safety really wasn't a concern was the fact that traffic was no where near as bad as it is today.

Pop talks about how he and a buddy used to race home with their flat head Fords, passing each other on blind curves all the time with no worries about oncoming traffic 'cause there was none. Talk to some of the old timers in your area. Some of those flyovers, bypasses, and expressways didn't exist back then, simply because they weren't needed.

I said it in the other thread, and most of us mentioned it there, too. Are newer cars designed to protect the occupant? Yes. But rigged is rigged. Nyties holding on fenders? Clouds of rust flying? Where's the engine and trans? Why rig the evidence? Dramatic effect?
 
As far as air bags and the restraints inside the car are concerned, newer cars are better where safety is the primary issue. Where there is a weight difference, I would rather be in the heavier vehicle every time. It is a law of physics, heavier objects retain more momentum for a longer period of time given the same conditions. To prove this all you have to do is look at a car-train collision.

Jack
 
With the advanced technologies we have today, if they wanted to they could start building 1959 Bel Air's again like the one pictured, but with crumple zones, seat belts, air bags, collapsible steering columns and probably even with engines that fall out of the engine bay upon impact. And they could even make them less ugly than the retro T birds.

That's one of the reasons why the Malibu won in the crash, was because of how the car was designed. The cabin it seems is now a "safe haven" while all else around it gives. Sort of like an Indy 500 car.

Those 1958-64 Impalas, Bel Airs, etc. were X frames which I'm sure also did not do very well in side impact crashes either. Due to the X frame "wishbone" design.

Also looks like the Bel Air had some rust in it, evident as the red power that came out upon impact....hopefully it was a rusted up turned bondoed up car and not a true solid car that they wasted for the sake of making a point most already knew about.
 
Read both previous threads about this video. The big cloud of rust, the fact that the bel air appears to have no engine/trans, and the fact that there are two white zip ties in the video make me think this video was staged. I don't think a big car like that would get folded so easily
 
I'll choose the newer car everytime as well.

A friend of my friend had a fairly similar crash in an early 60s biscayane(similar cars). She got ran off the road and hit a tree at a fairly decent pace. She survived, but she was slammed so far forward that some of her teeth were ground into the steering wheel.

To the cars credit though, she more then likely survived because the cars frame did what new cars crumple zones do. She hit the tree in such a way that the frame absorbed a large amount of the impact and bent almost to a U shape in one section
 
Safty was not realy thought of back then. If it had seat belts it was because it was a race car. LOL Looking at my Grandpas old dune buggy you can tell they just did not care. It has half a roll bar and one lap belt that is shared buy both driver and passenger. My dad said it was one of the few cars that had a seat belt at all back then. He said thre buggy before that did not have any belts and one time they had a roll over and every one was thrown out of the car. Even when they did start putting seat belts in the car most people did not use them. My grandma will still hold her hand out to try and catch the passenger to this day when she stopes hard.
 
The newer cars are 1000x superior in terms of safety, effiency, power... literally pretty much everything, EXCEPT for looking cool!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top