<object width=425 height=344><param name=movie value=></param><param name=allowFullScreen value=true></param><param name=allowscriptaccess value=always></param><embed src= type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowscriptaccess=always allowfullscreen=true width=425 height=344></embed></object>
Crash Test 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air VS. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu
- Thread starter a440
- Start date
Help Support :
Think this was posted here a few months back, but worth looking at again.
As I recall, starting in 1958, Chevy replaced the sturdy ladder frame of their cars with the weaker "X" frame. The X frame allowed for a lower floor/stepover, but at the expense of frame strength and integrity. This might be a large part of cause of the easy crumpling of the '59 Belair into the passenger compartment. I suspect an earlier American car with a ladder frame might fare better against the modern car, but of course it still couldn't compete in terms of engineered crumple zone, seat/shoulder belts, air bags, etc.
As I recall, starting in 1958, Chevy replaced the sturdy ladder frame of their cars with the weaker "X" frame. The X frame allowed for a lower floor/stepover, but at the expense of frame strength and integrity. This might be a large part of cause of the easy crumpling of the '59 Belair into the passenger compartment. I suspect an earlier American car with a ladder frame might fare better against the modern car, but of course it still couldn't compete in terms of engineered crumple zone, seat/shoulder belts, air bags, etc.
what a great video, never seen them b4... take a look at the MB C300 vs the Smart car... whoa
dirtybuck
Well-known member
The Big Debate!
Was there or wasn't there an engine in the Bel Air? Some say yes and others say no. What's your take on it? I say yes!
Was there or wasn't there an engine in the Bel Air? Some say yes and others say no. What's your take on it? I say yes!
I vote yes for the engine, but it might have been just a six...
Speaking of which, Chrysler made a great motor, the slant six, which by laying on its side at about a 45 degree angle from vertical, allowed for a lower hood/bonnet and longer intake runners. But it also meant that the bulk of the engine was in front of the passenger, not the driver, so a driver side head-on collision might involve more injury to the driver than might otherwise be the case. But the motor was very strong and under-stressed, racking up a reputation for long life and reliability, if a few simple maintenance chores were attended to regularly (like keeping the heat riser valve in the exhaust manifold free to function).
Speaking of which, Chrysler made a great motor, the slant six, which by laying on its side at about a 45 degree angle from vertical, allowed for a lower hood/bonnet and longer intake runners. But it also meant that the bulk of the engine was in front of the passenger, not the driver, so a driver side head-on collision might involve more injury to the driver than might otherwise be the case. But the motor was very strong and under-stressed, racking up a reputation for long life and reliability, if a few simple maintenance chores were attended to regularly (like keeping the heat riser valve in the exhaust manifold free to function).
dnastrau
Well-known member
Bel Air engine (?)
Someone commented on another site that the '59 Chevy did have an engine - the 235 inline six. They said that you could see the air cleaner come off if you look carefully. The front end would also sit higher if there was no engine in the car.
The x-frame GMs were notoriously bad in side impact crashes from what I have read, but I was not aware of them being like this in front/offset impacts. A full frame '57-'66 Chrysler Imperial or a unit body '60+ Chrysler product or AMC would have been very interesting to see tested. I think one of these might have fared better overall.
On the other hand, I cringe everytime I see an old car destroyed!
Andrew S.
Someone commented on another site that the '59 Chevy did have an engine - the 235 inline six. They said that you could see the air cleaner come off if you look carefully. The front end would also sit higher if there was no engine in the car.
The x-frame GMs were notoriously bad in side impact crashes from what I have read, but I was not aware of them being like this in front/offset impacts. A full frame '57-'66 Chrysler Imperial or a unit body '60+ Chrysler product or AMC would have been very interesting to see tested. I think one of these might have fared better overall.
On the other hand, I cringe everytime I see an old car destroyed!
Andrew S.
I have a '64 Plymouth Valiant.
Once upon a time I had stopped on the freeway for traffic. I watched as a little British sports car came up behind me, top down. The driver was talking animatedly to his passenger. I watched him look forward, then to the side, then forward, then to the side, then forward at the last minute with an alarmed expression. He plowed into the back of my car.
Damage to his car: extensive, although apparently driveable.
Damage to my car: slight denting of the trim on the back of the trunk.
Once upon a time I had stopped on the freeway for traffic. I watched as a little British sports car came up behind me, top down. The driver was talking animatedly to his passenger. I watched him look forward, then to the side, then forward, then to the side, then forward at the last minute with an alarmed expression. He plowed into the back of my car.
Damage to his car: extensive, although apparently driveable.
Damage to my car: slight denting of the trim on the back of the trunk.
whitekingd
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2008
- Messages
- 484
I remember my mom's '66 Imperial getting into a tangle with a '69 Malibu. The Chevy was totalled and in quite bad shape. The police officer on the scene asked where the other car was that was involved. When told it was the Imperial he replied, "What kind of f***ing tank do you people drive? The Imperial got a dent in the front fender about the size of a small pancake. But then, the car weighed 5800 lbs empty. I always felt safe in that car!
whirlaway
New member
64Imperial
Ive been rearended in my 64 Imperial 4times in the last few years,only a bent trailer-hitch.The 59 Chevy was not a wide-track like the Pontiac of 59 actually still rode on a 56 frame.Look at one close up sometime and the frontend really hangs over the front wheels.
Ive been rearended in my 64 Imperial 4times in the last few years,only a bent trailer-hitch.The 59 Chevy was not a wide-track like the Pontiac of 59 actually still rode on a 56 frame.Look at one close up sometime and the frontend really hangs over the front wheels.
I think
this is a perfect example of why 'self-regulation' doesn't work for complex systems.
American car makers only began to care about safety when the government began to mandate it.
Except for Sweden, most countries didn't give a damn about safety until after the Americans began regulating it.
We no longer live in an agrarian society.
this is a perfect example of why 'self-regulation' doesn't work for complex systems.
American car makers only began to care about safety when the government began to mandate it.
Except for Sweden, most countries didn't give a damn about safety until after the Americans began regulating it.
We no longer live in an agrarian society.
whirlaway
New member
Not Really true
In 1956 Ford was offering seat belts,double lock doors,collapsable steering wheels.Chrysler as early as 49 had padded dashes and dashboard knobs flush for safety,huge wrap around bumpers,safety glass in the 30s,look back you find quite a feww safety features on American cars.Turn signals,many things we take for granted today. Bobby
In 1956 Ford was offering seat belts,double lock doors,collapsable steering wheels.Chrysler as early as 49 had padded dashes and dashboard knobs flush for safety,huge wrap around bumpers,safety glass in the 30s,look back you find quite a feww safety features on American cars.Turn signals,many things we take for granted today. Bobby
whitekingd
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2008
- Messages
- 484
THANK YOU!
beadsobleach
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 179
50 years
The Bel-Air has 50 years of corrosion on its body. On the passenger side shot, you can see rust powder coming out. While I'm sure an '09 car is safer, I don't think this is an exactly equal comparision.
The Bel-Air has 50 years of corrosion on its body. On the passenger side shot, you can see rust powder coming out. While I'm sure an '09 car is safer, I don't think this is an exactly equal comparision.
Those 1958 to 1964 Chevys and some other GM cars in those years with the X-frame fold up like a 5 dollar suitcase. This was known even then. They picked the perfect car to show what they wanted to show.
Ken D.
Ken D.
penguinsoup
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2009
- Messages
- 66
Amazing
I certainly would have never thought that would have been the result, especially considering how thin the metal on today's cars are in comparison. Of course, the big plus of the older cars is that a person can still work on the engines in their own garage at home. No computers & plenty of space to work. Not to mention the lack of plastic parts covering everything from the whatachmacallit to the doohickey.
I hope everyone had a wonderful New Year!
P
I certainly would have never thought that would have been the result, especially considering how thin the metal on today's cars are in comparison. Of course, the big plus of the older cars is that a person can still work on the engines in their own garage at home. No computers & plenty of space to work. Not to mention the lack of plastic parts covering everything from the whatachmacallit to the doohickey.
I hope everyone had a wonderful New Year!
P
classiccaprice
Well-known member
What a waste of a Bel Air!
I always loved the 1959 Chevys! That just makes me sick!
Though the discussion reminds me of the time that the mid-80's Ford Tempo hit my '79 Caprice. The front end of the Tempo was gone and the Caprice had a cracked lense on the rear turn signal.
I always loved the 1959 Chevys! That just makes me sick!
Though the discussion reminds me of the time that the mid-80's Ford Tempo hit my '79 Caprice. The front end of the Tempo was gone and the Caprice had a cracked lense on the rear turn signal.
