From our dear friends at the IIHS..
1959 Chevy vs 2009 Chevy Crash Test
- Thread starter moparwash
- Start date
ooops... i think that dummy died... LOL
Looks like the '59 had rusty floorboards and no engine.
I bet the Malibu is 1000 pounds heavier too.
I doubt it's a fair crash, especially noting the source.
Ken D.
I bet the Malibu is 1000 pounds heavier too.
I doubt it's a fair crash, especially noting the source.
Ken D.
dirtybuck
Well-known member
Ken (and others)
Check out the following links for comments and stories on this crash test.
Link #1
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/ask-the-best-and-brightest-is-this-the-bel-air-the-iihs-destroyed/
Check out the following links for comments and stories on this crash test.
Link #1
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/ask-the-best-and-brightest-is-this-the-bel-air-the-iihs-destroyed/
dirtybuck
Well-known member
Link #2
Watch the video a second (or maybe even a third time) and tell me that the driver in the Bel Air had any chance whatsoever to survive a crash like this.
http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightli...9-chevrolet-malibu-vs-1959-chevy-bel-air.html
Watch the video a second (or maybe even a third time) and tell me that the driver in the Bel Air had any chance whatsoever to survive a crash like this.
http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightli...9-chevrolet-malibu-vs-1959-chevy-bel-air.html
sigh
Good way to ruin a perfectly good 59 impala.
Good way to ruin a perfectly good 59 impala.
revvinkevin
Well-known member
Good way to ruin a perfectly good 59 impala.
Good way to ruin a perfectly good 2009 Impala too! There were two cars in that test after all!
Good way to ruin a perfectly good 2009 Impala too! There were two cars in that test after all!
estatesale_gary
Well-known member
Dinah Shore is rolling over in her grave...
...driving all of those innocent folks into their local Chevrolet dealers in the 50's and early 60's.
“See The USA…”
See the USA in your Chevrolet
America is asking you to call
Drive your Chevrolet through the USA
America’s the greatest land of all
On a highway, or a road along the levy
Performance is sweeter, nothing can beat her
Life is completer in a Chevy
So make a date today to see the USA
And see it in your Chevrolet
Traveling East, Traveling West
Wherever you go Chevy service is best
Southward or North, near place or far
There’s a Chevrolet dealer for your Chevrolet car
See the USA in your Chevrolet
The Rocky’s way out west are calling you
Drive your Chevrolet through the USA
Where fields of golden wheat pass in review
Whether traveling light or with a load that’s heavy
Performance is sweeter, nothing can beat her
Life is completer in a Chevy
So make a date today to see the USA
And see it in your Chevrolet.
...driving all of those innocent folks into their local Chevrolet dealers in the 50's and early 60's.
“See The USA…”
See the USA in your Chevrolet
America is asking you to call
Drive your Chevrolet through the USA
America’s the greatest land of all
On a highway, or a road along the levy
Performance is sweeter, nothing can beat her
Life is completer in a Chevy
So make a date today to see the USA
And see it in your Chevrolet
Traveling East, Traveling West
Wherever you go Chevy service is best
Southward or North, near place or far
There’s a Chevrolet dealer for your Chevrolet car
See the USA in your Chevrolet
The Rocky’s way out west are calling you
Drive your Chevrolet through the USA
Where fields of golden wheat pass in review
Whether traveling light or with a load that’s heavy
Performance is sweeter, nothing can beat her
Life is completer in a Chevy
So make a date today to see the USA
And see it in your Chevrolet.
gyrafoam
Well-known member
The hub of the steering wheel on the '59 punches the dummy right in the face!
Those cars always felt so heavy and solid. Just goes to show all the sheet-metal they had was not as effective as a modern "crumple-zone" and air-bags.
Those cars always felt so heavy and solid. Just goes to show all the sheet-metal they had was not as effective as a modern "crumple-zone" and air-bags.
Safety Features Make The Difference
The big difference between the '59 Chevy and the '09 Malibu was that the latter was designed for safety in a serious crash. Air bags, crumple zones to absorb impact forces, more secure door latches and seat mountings, three-point seat and shoulder belts, stronger and better secured windshields and a host of other safety features make a modern car far safer than the ones built 50 years ago. The '59 Chevy and its contemporaries were NOT built to sustain a head-on crash at 30+ or so miles an hour; today's cars are (thanks in part to federal regulations). The '59 Chevy was probably quite safe for its time, but as the IIHS tests show, the Malibu is a far safer car. It's like comparing apples to oranges.
The big difference between the '59 Chevy and the '09 Malibu was that the latter was designed for safety in a serious crash. Air bags, crumple zones to absorb impact forces, more secure door latches and seat mountings, three-point seat and shoulder belts, stronger and better secured windshields and a host of other safety features make a modern car far safer than the ones built 50 years ago. The '59 Chevy and its contemporaries were NOT built to sustain a head-on crash at 30+ or so miles an hour; today's cars are (thanks in part to federal regulations). The '59 Chevy was probably quite safe for its time, but as the IIHS tests show, the Malibu is a far safer car. It's like comparing apples to oranges.
whirlcool
Well-known member
I always thought that the 1959 Chevrolet was weird with those strange fins. Usually year to year models are an evolution of the year before. But in 59' it was a total departure from the 58' Chevy's. As you will note, the 1960 rear face changed to something more conventional.
I also thought that was a nice 59' to crash up too. As you can probably tell, I love going to old car shows. Last year I went to one and got to actually drive a 1966 Chevy Corvair Corsa. Mad, that thing was a rocket!
I also thought that was a nice 59' to crash up too. As you can probably tell, I love going to old car shows. Last year I went to one and got to actually drive a 1966 Chevy Corvair Corsa. Mad, that thing was a rocket!
Poor 59!
Were they hoping to find out the 59 was safer? What different outcome could they have possibly expected?
Don't get me wrong, I love the classics and I do believe they are superior to modern cars in many ways (aesthetics, for one) but they just didn't have the technology or understanding of safety 50+ years ago. It doesn't take a crash to tell that!
If you want an older car, there are obvious risks,
Dave
Were they hoping to find out the 59 was safer? What different outcome could they have possibly expected?
Don't get me wrong, I love the classics and I do believe they are superior to modern cars in many ways (aesthetics, for one) but they just didn't have the technology or understanding of safety 50+ years ago. It doesn't take a crash to tell that!
If you want an older car, there are obvious risks,
Dave
Don't forget the '59 is an x-frame car. Word is that's not rust but rather trapped road dirt and dust. 6-cylinder, too. -Cory
danemodsandy
Well-known member
rickr:
"I think the Oldsmobiles, Cadillacs, and Buicks would have held up much better than the BOL Chevy line because they were much heavier cars."
Rick:
Most full-size GM cars of this era - from Chevy to Cadillac - had what was called a "cruciform" frame, also known as the "X-frame." The idea behind the X-frame was that it could be shortened or lengthened easily to produce cars with different wheelbases; Cadillac pioneered the idea in '57. The problem with it was that it performed very poorly in crashes, folding up very readily in front and rear collisions and offering no protection whatsoever in side impacts. Add to that the lack of engineered "crumple zones" and you had a lot of rigid sheet metal riding on a frame offering little protection. That's what's causing the severe damage to the '59 you see in the video - the shock of the impact is being transmitted from the front of the car all the way through it, and the frame is folding up. The '09 has crumple zones that absorb collision forces before they can be transmitted throughout the car.
Anyone who wants to remember the "good old days" of cars fondly is welcome to do so, but they really were dangerous in a collision. Not only did they offer little protection, there were lethal knobs and other protrusions inside them. I lost a classmate in a minor fender-bender; he ended up with a sharp, protruding radio knob embedded in his skull. Today, everyone walks away up to about a 35 mph impact if they're belted in and the car is not T-boned - and higher speeds are survivable. Big difference.
"I think the Oldsmobiles, Cadillacs, and Buicks would have held up much better than the BOL Chevy line because they were much heavier cars."
Rick:
Most full-size GM cars of this era - from Chevy to Cadillac - had what was called a "cruciform" frame, also known as the "X-frame." The idea behind the X-frame was that it could be shortened or lengthened easily to produce cars with different wheelbases; Cadillac pioneered the idea in '57. The problem with it was that it performed very poorly in crashes, folding up very readily in front and rear collisions and offering no protection whatsoever in side impacts. Add to that the lack of engineered "crumple zones" and you had a lot of rigid sheet metal riding on a frame offering little protection. That's what's causing the severe damage to the '59 you see in the video - the shock of the impact is being transmitted from the front of the car all the way through it, and the frame is folding up. The '09 has crumple zones that absorb collision forces before they can be transmitted throughout the car.
Anyone who wants to remember the "good old days" of cars fondly is welcome to do so, but they really were dangerous in a collision. Not only did they offer little protection, there were lethal knobs and other protrusions inside them. I lost a classmate in a minor fender-bender; he ended up with a sharp, protruding radio knob embedded in his skull. Today, everyone walks away up to about a 35 mph impact if they're belted in and the car is not T-boned - and higher speeds are survivable. Big difference.
ronhic
Well-known member
I think the point that they're trying to make is to dispell this presisting rumour that old cars, that are big and heavy, are safe cars.
How many times do we hear 'I'd rather crash an old car than one of the tin cans you can buy today' or 'give me some real steel in a crash'. Much of the time we hear this from our parents or grandparents who mistakenly believe that in a real world crash they will be better off than the person in the new car.
Now car park knocks under 5-10mph is a different matter. Older cars with heavy bumpers do tend to come off better which only seems to exacerbate the myth that 'older is safer'
We can thank Voison, Mercedes, Volvo, John Hetrick and Ralph Nader, in that order.
- for Anti Lock brakes (Voison in 1929 for aircraft! cars much later)
- the Safety structure (Mercedes)
- 3-point seat belt (Volvo - in its modern form...who opened the patent to the worlds manufacturers for free)
- Air bags (John Hetrick, though the worlds auto manufacturers didn't use until his patent ran out in 1969!)
- and Ralph Nader for forcibly opening the eyes of government and the public.
It is estimated that seat belts have saved well over 1 million lives....with compulsory wearing first legislated for the front seat in Victoria, Australia in 1970.
How many times do we hear 'I'd rather crash an old car than one of the tin cans you can buy today' or 'give me some real steel in a crash'. Much of the time we hear this from our parents or grandparents who mistakenly believe that in a real world crash they will be better off than the person in the new car.
Now car park knocks under 5-10mph is a different matter. Older cars with heavy bumpers do tend to come off better which only seems to exacerbate the myth that 'older is safer'
We can thank Voison, Mercedes, Volvo, John Hetrick and Ralph Nader, in that order.
- for Anti Lock brakes (Voison in 1929 for aircraft! cars much later)
- the Safety structure (Mercedes)
- 3-point seat belt (Volvo - in its modern form...who opened the patent to the worlds manufacturers for free)
- Air bags (John Hetrick, though the worlds auto manufacturers didn't use until his patent ran out in 1969!)
- and Ralph Nader for forcibly opening the eyes of government and the public.
It is estimated that seat belts have saved well over 1 million lives....with compulsory wearing first legislated for the front seat in Victoria, Australia in 1970.
vintagehoover
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 50
Anyone under the mistaken impression that older cars are somehow 'safer' than their modern equivalents would do well to flick through this photo-book. Definitely not one for the sensitive or the faint-hearted, though.
http://www.amazon.com/Car-Crashes-Other-Stories-Photobook/dp/3822864110/ref=cm_cmu_pg_t
http://www.amazon.com/Car-Crashes-Other-Stories-Photobook/dp/3822864110/ref=cm_cmu_pg_t
hoover1100
Well-known member
On a motoring show here (not sure if it was top gear or 5th
They did a similar sort of test on a brand new Renault Espace and a 10 year old one, naturally the old one fared much worse.
But then they repeated the same crash with two 10 year old Espace's, the damage was much lighter.
So basically today you are much safer driving a modern car, but when those car's were new, they would have sustained much less damage in a similar collision.
Either way, it really pains me to watch such a beautiful car meet it's end like that =(
Matt
They did a similar sort of test on a brand new Renault Espace and a 10 year old one, naturally the old one fared much worse.
But then they repeated the same crash with two 10 year old Espace's, the damage was much lighter.
So basically today you are much safer driving a modern car, but when those car's were new, they would have sustained much less damage in a similar collision.
Either way, it really pains me to watch such a beautiful car meet it's end like that =(
Matt
crevicetool
Well-known member
Elaborating on previous "X" frame comments. The X frame offered virtually NO side impact protection. In addition to allowing cars to be easily adapted to different models, the frame also allowed for a more spacious floor. I think they were always prone to trouble for one reason or another. I think most if not all required a center bearing/universal joint, and two drive shafts. I know of several stories from friends "back in the day" when they would service these cars in the Chicago area in the mid to late seventies. The center section rusted out very easily. A friend of mine put a "63 Chevy Bel Air on a service rack overnight with all four doors open. When they lowered the car the following day, they couldn't close any of the doors. They had to chain it down at the bumpers and jack it up at that center frame union. They told the lady about it, and she ended up selling the car.
dirtybuck
Well-known member
X Frame Commercial for '59 Olds
I don't know why, but the father in this commercial reminds me of a drunk.
I don't know why, but the father in this commercial reminds me of a drunk.
abcomatic
Well-known member
1959 Lincoln
Great thread here. I have a question? I have a 1959 Lincoln Continental Mark 4, the biggest car that was built that year of ANY American manufacturer of that year; even bigger than Cadillac and Imperial.
The Lincoln is of unibody construction; all welded and no frame.
Does anyone know how that would have stood up under the same tests that were done on the "59 Chevy of that year?
Is there a listing on Y Tube that shows a crash test with the '59 Lincoln? "58-60 were the same body design. Thanks, Gary
Great thread here. I have a question? I have a 1959 Lincoln Continental Mark 4, the biggest car that was built that year of ANY American manufacturer of that year; even bigger than Cadillac and Imperial.
The Lincoln is of unibody construction; all welded and no frame.
Does anyone know how that would have stood up under the same tests that were done on the "59 Chevy of that year?
Is there a listing on Y Tube that shows a crash test with the '59 Lincoln? "58-60 were the same body design. Thanks, Gary
Most old cars don't crash well because they weren't designed to do so. This goes for both unit body and body on frame construction. I'd expect a unit body car to perform better, but not enormously so. In a side impact, four door hardtops are pretty bad; the impact just rips out the vestigial B-post and there's very little left to protect the occupants. Likewise, in a rollover the top is prone to just caving in.
The biggest problem facing safety researchers back in the '50s was a huge, huge lack of data as there had been almost no controlled crash testing at the time. One aspect of the twin Chevy crash worth noting is the significant displacement of the steering column in the '59. This was pretty common back then on cars with a steering box located close to the front of the car; even a minor wreck could sometimes kill the driver as the steering wheel would rush back towards his chest at the same time his body was thrown into the wheel. In the late '60s collapsible steering columns were developed which greatly improved this situation.
The biggest problem facing safety researchers back in the '50s was a huge, huge lack of data as there had been almost no controlled crash testing at the time. One aspect of the twin Chevy crash worth noting is the significant displacement of the steering column in the '59. This was pretty common back then on cars with a steering box located close to the front of the car; even a minor wreck could sometimes kill the driver as the steering wheel would rush back towards his chest at the same time his body was thrown into the wheel. In the late '60s collapsible steering columns were developed which greatly improved this situation.
The test results were stunning, and probably pretty accurate with impact zones, seat belts, air bags and a padded dash. The folks had a 63 Belair, no seat belts, the nice feature to a nine year old was the green "cold" light that stayed illuminated on the dash display until the thermostat warmed the heater core, at 5 to 9 years old, i thought that was a very useful feature, especially in a Michigan winter. I could not wait for the green light to go "out" to get heat.
I wish they would bring back the Belair name, I think "Malibu" kinda stereo types what seems to be a nice attractive car. I associate it more with my Grandmother than whats her name in alaska. What young tool wants to ride up in a "Malibu", its poorly planned marketing. alr2903
I wish they would bring back the Belair name, I think "Malibu" kinda stereo types what seems to be a nice attractive car. I associate it more with my Grandmother than whats her name in alaska. What young tool wants to ride up in a "Malibu", its poorly planned marketing. alr2903
danemodsandy
Well-known member
Malibu:
Is an impossibly expensive oceanfront community in California; it's a very cool place to live if you can afford it. Chevy picked the name for the TOL Chevelle model in '64 because it was associated with the California surfing lifestyle. At the time it was chosen, it was a cool name for a cool car. It was Chevelle Malibu through 1977, then the Chevelle name was dropped and the car became simply a Malibu.
http://tol
Is an impossibly expensive oceanfront community in California; it's a very cool place to live if you can afford it. Chevy picked the name for the TOL Chevelle model in '64 because it was associated with the California surfing lifestyle. At the time it was chosen, it was a cool name for a cool car. It was Chevelle Malibu through 1977, then the Chevelle name was dropped and the car became simply a Malibu.
http://tol
Malibu vs. Malibou
Malibu is the name of the coastal city and immediately surrounding region, but there's a lake about five miles inland called Malibou Lake. Chevy must have liked it better without the "o", but I rarely see Malibus in Malibu, LOL.
Malibu only became an incorporated city in the last 20 years; before that it was just a neighborhood in Los Angeles County. Then the County decided to install sewers in Malibu, which the residents vehemently opposed. So, they incorporated to avoid the sewers and keep their septic tanks. Most of the soil there doesn't percolate well at all, which means it's harder to design and install a good septic system. This makes many residents happy as they don't want more development . . .
While Malibu may be pricey, outside of oceanfront property I'm pretty sure Bel Air waxes it on costs. Don't see many Bel Airs in Bel Air, either.
Malibu is the name of the coastal city and immediately surrounding region, but there's a lake about five miles inland called Malibou Lake. Chevy must have liked it better without the "o", but I rarely see Malibus in Malibu, LOL.
Malibu only became an incorporated city in the last 20 years; before that it was just a neighborhood in Los Angeles County. Then the County decided to install sewers in Malibu, which the residents vehemently opposed. So, they incorporated to avoid the sewers and keep their septic tanks. Most of the soil there doesn't percolate well at all, which means it's harder to design and install a good septic system. This makes many residents happy as they don't want more development . . .
While Malibu may be pricey, outside of oceanfront property I'm pretty sure Bel Air waxes it on costs. Don't see many Bel Airs in Bel Air, either.
danemodsandy
Well-known member
Chevy X-Frame:
Here's a pic of the Chevy X-frame, new for 1958. As you can easily see, there are no side members at all, so the car's sheet metal was all you had between you and any sort of side impact. Also, the front and rear "Y"-shaped elements tended to fold up or spread open in front and rear impacts.
This dangerous design was invented for two reasons: 1) You could easily create different wheelbases just by increasing or decreasing the length of the centre member and 2) You could create much deeper foot wells in the floor pan, increasing interior seating height, very important in an era when cars were supposed to be as long and low as possible. Some cars rode 14 or even 13-inch tyres to get the height down that much more!
GM introduced the X-frame in '57 on Cadillac; Chevy got it the following year, and used it through '64. What I find interesting is that Oldsmobile kept using a more conventional "ladder" frame, with "X" bracing in the centre, which would have made Olds a much safer car, at least in terms of structural integrity.
Here's a pic of the Chevy X-frame, new for 1958. As you can easily see, there are no side members at all, so the car's sheet metal was all you had between you and any sort of side impact. Also, the front and rear "Y"-shaped elements tended to fold up or spread open in front and rear impacts.
This dangerous design was invented for two reasons: 1) You could easily create different wheelbases just by increasing or decreasing the length of the centre member and 2) You could create much deeper foot wells in the floor pan, increasing interior seating height, very important in an era when cars were supposed to be as long and low as possible. Some cars rode 14 or even 13-inch tyres to get the height down that much more!
GM introduced the X-frame in '57 on Cadillac; Chevy got it the following year, and used it through '64. What I find interesting is that Oldsmobile kept using a more conventional "ladder" frame, with "X" bracing in the centre, which would have made Olds a much safer car, at least in terms of structural integrity.
norgeway
Well-known member
Chrysler....
Chrysler products of this time frame were much more solid and safe, as were Ramblers, the unit body construction was much more flex free, as well as better in a crash,there main problem was a proclivity to rust, by 62 they had this problem cured,I have always thought G.M. products very overrated, Frigidaire was always the best thing they made,in my opinion, the best overall appliance on the market,but the cars paled in comparison to Chrysler or Ford...I know illcatch H*&% for this but ive been a Ford Chrysler person a long time.
Chrysler products of this time frame were much more solid and safe, as were Ramblers, the unit body construction was much more flex free, as well as better in a crash,there main problem was a proclivity to rust, by 62 they had this problem cured,I have always thought G.M. products very overrated, Frigidaire was always the best thing they made,in my opinion, the best overall appliance on the market,but the cars paled in comparison to Chrysler or Ford...I know illcatch H*&% for this but ive been a Ford Chrysler person a long time.
Speaking of AMC/Rambler,...
I was hit my a 1968 Rambler American years ago by a full-size International school bus. He hit me broadside right in the drivers door, pushed me sideways for 30 feet and up a curb. I drove it home. A used door and a yank on the B pillar, and it was almost as good as new. The bus had to be towed because his bumper was in the tire.
I'll tell you I wouldn't try that with a new Corolla.
Ken D.
I was hit my a 1968 Rambler American years ago by a full-size International school bus. He hit me broadside right in the drivers door, pushed me sideways for 30 feet and up a curb. I drove it home. A used door and a yank on the B pillar, and it was almost as good as new. The bus had to be towed because his bumper was in the tire.
I'll tell you I wouldn't try that with a new Corolla.
Ken D.
.
The pick up truck that ran the red light and hit me.
Both of these photos were taken at the impound lot.
The silver 62 Olds 98 in the background was also my car.(can be seen though the trucks windshield) I sold that one in 1982.
The pick up truck that ran the red light and hit me.
Both of these photos were taken at the impound lot.
The silver 62 Olds 98 in the background was also my car.(can be seen though the trucks windshield) I sold that one in 1982.
Similar threads
