1959 Chevrolet Bel Air Vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu

[Dino Scuderia]

No, not in performance....safety.

Amazing.

YouTube - 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air Vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu IIHS Offset

[f6fhellcat13]

NO! :(

[Dino Scuderia]

Be careful out on the road, Fleet!

[Timothy (in VA)]

A graphic demonstration of the advancement of vehicle safety. Very impressive. Very original. DON'T DO IT AGAIN!

[NicFromLA]

Alright, alright: I'll stop complaining about all the weight modern safety systems add to today's cars.

PS: How fast were they going?

[cmcpokey]

sad to see such a nicely preserved bel air destroyed, but an excellent reminder for those that drive older cars to be careful.

[fpv_gtho]

Technically, they shouldve just compared each impact against a brick wall. As they did it theyre introducing alot of other variables regarding their relative safety.

If you want real scary though, they shouldve compared both cars on side impact, or worse still, rear impact. Alot of new cars today still have a pretty weak rear crash structure, and alot of authorities dont even crash test for rear impacts.

[kingofthering]

So they destroyed a clean vintage Bel-Air to tell us the obvious?

[wwgkd]

So they destroyed a clean vintage Bel-Air to tell us the obvious?

It's not like the IIHS is widely regarded as a car enthusiast organization.

[G35COUPE]

It has taken over 40 years to make that little difference in cars. You would think by now they would have encouraged the development of accident-free cars.

[clutch-monkey]

god no. the last thing people need is the belief that no matter what they do some form of safety net will save them.

[nota]

Technically, they shouldve just compared each impact against a brick wall.
Its not always possible to have a technical accident
No, not in performance....safety.

Amazing.

Amazing indeed - notice that the base of the A-pillar strikes the roof rail!


Additional footage
YouTube - Crash test: 1959 Chevy Bel Air

[johnnynumfiv]

I was just driving a '59 el camino a few weeks ago, glad I didn't get hit head on. Maybe being slammed to the ground would help in a collision. :p

[kingofthering]

It has taken over 40 years to make that little difference in cars. You would think by now they would have encouraged the development of accident-free cars.

Little difference? I think the difference between slightly injured and dead is quite large.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Alright, alright: I'll stop complaining about all the weight modern safety systems add to today's cars.

PS: How fast were they going?

both 40 mph

Technically, they shouldve just compared each impact against a brick wall. As they did it theyre introducing alot of other variables regarding their relative safety.

If you want real scary though, they shouldve compared both cars on side impact, or worse still, rear impact. Alot of new cars today still have a pretty weak rear crash structure, and alot of authorities dont even crash test for rear impacts.

This.
Testing each car against a similar car would have been a better idea. Of course it's less safe to drive an old car NOW than a new one, but back in 1959 this Bel Air would have never hit a 2009 Malibu, and I'm pretty sure the damages the Bel Air would suffer against another Bel Air would be inferior.
That said I also think crashing a Malibu against another Malibu would result in more damages than in this case, but less then in an accident against two old Bel Air'.

It has taken over 40 years to make that little difference in cars. You would think by now they would have encouraged the development of accident-free cars.

Little difference...yes.
Even assuming this difference is "little", that doesn't mean it was easy to achieve.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

That is just...wow. The BelAir driver dummy died about 14 different ways as best I can see.

Also goes to show how Big cars are getting these days.

[G35COUPE]

Little difference? I think the difference between slightly injured and dead is quite large.

Based on your perspective, I would naturally agree.

However, how has the safety in modern cars due to "little difference" made in auto design in the last 40 years, altered the way modern day drivers behave behind the steering wheel?

My thoughts on this is that, the greater the safety capability and driving comforts of a car, the more prone the driver is to an accident, due to a false psychological sense of safety and control in an auto cocoon. Just my thought.

Is the driver of a 1959 Chevy Bel Air more prone or less prone to accidents than a driver of a 2008 Chevy Malibu, due to improved safety and driving comfort?

[LeonOfTheDead]

Based on your perspective, I would naturally agree.

However, how has the safety in modern cars due to "little difference: mad ein auto design in the last 40 years, altered the way modern day drivers behave behind the steering wheel?

My thoughts on this is that, the greater the safety capability and driving comforts of a car, the more prone the driver is to an accident, due to a false psychological sense of safety and control in an auto cocoon. Just my thought.


Is the driver of a 1959 Chevy Bel Air more prone or less prone to accidents than a driver of a 2008 Chevy Malibu, due to improved safety and driving comfort?

would people buy self driving steering wheel-less cars?
no.
even if I could agree on what you said, it's a bit off-topic, at that point we should discuss on a safer mean of transport, not about a safer car.

[Matra et Alpine]

Testing each car against a similar car would have been a better idea.
As they were wanting to gaphically demonstrate the imrpvoemnts that the see THEY forced the car industry to undertake over the last 40 years then it's the bet way to "advertise". EXcellent marketing PR :)
Does anyone actually think this was intended for anythng OTHER than PR ?
Of course it's less safe to drive an old car NOW than a new one, but back in 1959 this Bel Air would have never hit a 2009 Malibu, and I'm pretty sure the damages the Bel Air would suffer against another Bel Air would be inferior.
Too hard to tell.
The old strong-chassis-rail car beds made for ideal "Lance" to puncture it's way through cars :( If you were unlucky the damage was collosal if not you might get away with it.
That said I also think crashing a Malibu against another Malibu would result in more damages than in this case,
I'm not si sure as the modern car has specifically designed crumple zones and are engineered to be in "similar" locations .. so letting each be more effective than the chance of a chassis-leg intrusion.
Also, tranverse engine helps a LOT in frontalsand performs key function in the energy distribution. With two cars distributing it the same way then it's possible there woudl be less overal damage than the point of impact concentrated force a chassis leg imparts.
Shame to see such a good condition car destroyed just so an NGO can promote itself :(

[LeonOfTheDead]

What I meant Matra is that crushing a old car against a new one is pointless (obviously not for marketing that is) for these reasons:

- an old car has less and worst crumple zones, so hitting them with something is obviously going to leave a deeper mark than if we hit with the same thing a newer (and equally dimensioned and so on) car.
That is visible with plenty of old VS new crashes.

- the Malibu comes out of this crash relatively well thanks to the fact a lot of energy is dissipated by the Bel Air, while in a crash between two similar cars, the dissipation of the energy would be equal, if not drastically less biased.
It's like (but not the same) trying to say an Hummer is safer than a Smart, just because in a crash between the two the Smart is launched on the other side of the highway.
More likely a Smart VS Smart crash would see the two drivers walking away, while I wouldn't be so sure about a Hummer VS Hummer crash, as it seems (I repeat, IT SEEMS), the main safety equipment for Hummer-ish vehicles is weight, together with a wrongly positioned crumple area, so that all the energy is transferred to the other vehicle.
those were/are my 2 cents.

[Matra et Alpine]

^ In general agrement, L , for sure.

But, as we've all said already. it isn't possible to imply very much from these at all.

With the Malibu the static crash gives the insight I think you seek.
As then the "wall" truly is the immovable object with lmited deformation.

The biggest improvemtn in modern is the control of trasnfer of energy to the occupants. Not just by defomrable zones, but the solidity of the passenger cell and then the secondary safety featiures of air bags, anti-burst doors, belts, pre-tensioners, anti-dive seats, sturdy seats and passenger safe inernal surfaces and mouldings with absorbant plastics.

Look at the dummy bounce around, the seats move, etc etc OUCH :(

WHcih is important Ithink in the ase of things like the Smart and it's safety.
I've said before the BIG benefit small cars have in accidents is the limited inertia they contain.
So a Hummer may well hit a Smart and push it 20m along the road ... until such point as meeting a solid wall that won't incur a lot of injury to those inside as padding and airbags provide decelaration of the body parts.
Just heaven forbid it's a 90 degree hit pinning to a concrete wall as then I doubt a passenger cell woudl help ---- course the same is likely true of the Hummer as it carries that wall around with itself ( loads of inertia, intrusion more likely than moving it :( )

[jcp123]

F*ck. And to think I've been looking for a '58/'59/'60 Chevy too. No wonder I can't find one, the freakin safety nazis are destroying them!! :mad:

[johnnynumfiv]

F*ck. And to think I've been looking for a '58/'59/'60 Chevy too. No wonder I can't find one, the freakin safety nazis are destroying them!! :mad:

What are you looking for specifically?, I know of some that are for sale.

[jcp123]

Base model, Del Ray/Biscayne. Manual steering/brakes, 235 and three on the tree. 2-door post or any station wagon...

[johnnynumfiv]

I know of a 59 el camino, 350, three on the tree, really rough mud wagon. Another 59 el camino, original paint, engine bay is like new, 6 2-barrel intake, interior is all new, new wood bed, slammed in the front, american racing T70's w/ whitewalls, 4 speed. Also a 1960 4 door wagon w/ a mild 454, 4 speed on the floor, old looking paint, one base coated fender, could prolly runs 12's. Then a 60 impala parts car is available.

[csl177]

It doesn't take an excercise like this to understand old cars are much less safe than modern ones. They could have just re-distributed the "Mechanized Death" series, the flicks shown to us in Driver's Ed classes... pretty grim stuff. Another was "Red Asphalt". Great titles.
Of course, I drive a '64 VW Bus most days so it must've really sunk in. :rolleyes:

Here's the first episode... viddy well, little brothers, viddy well. :eek:

YouTube - 1959 (1 of 4) "Shock" Legendary Driving Safety Film!!!

[csl177]

Part 2

YouTube - 1959 (2 of 4) "Shock" Legendary Driving Safety Film!!!

[csl177]

Part 3

YouTube - 1959 (3 of 4) "Shock" Legendary Driving Safety Film!!!

[csl177]

Part 4

YouTube - 1959 (4 of 4) "Shock" Legendary Driving Safety Film!!!

[csl177]

And finally, "Wheels of Tragedy" part one... love the narrator, you know he did classroom presentations just from his speech cadence.

YouTube - 1963 (1 of 5) Road Tragedies!