From our dear friends at the IIHS..
1959 Chevy vs 2009 Chevy Crash Test
- Thread starter moparwash
- Start date
Help Support :
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
www.thetruthaboutcars.com
Check out the following links for comments and stories on this crash test.
Link #1
Ask The Best And Brightest: Is This The Bel Air The IIHS Destroyed?
Ask The Best And Brightest: Is This The Bel Air The IIHS Destroyed?
www.thetruthaboutcars.com
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.
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.
sigh
Good way to ruin a perfectly good 59 impala.
Good way to ruin a perfectly good 59 impala.
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.
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.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
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.
