Crash Safety Then (1959) and Now (2009)
 

WOW very impressive!!! Nice find!!!

Technology rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:thumbup:

The whole, "I'm safer in a big car" mentality should just dry up and blow away.

Finest regards,

troy

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Damn that was a nice one too!!! :mad:

I wooda traded em some crusty parts for those nice ones. Or maybe the whole car. :mad:

Is that thing cool at about 35 seconds or what?!? Stylin' way to end it all...

I see the fuzzy dice did nothing to cushion the impact. Bummer. Back to the drawing board...

Actually the sizes of the two Impalas aren't all that different over the 50 year span especially where it counts: weight. They weigh the same!

that'll buff right out :)

SVOboy -

Damn you (crash test in the name of) Science! Poor Chevy Bel Air. It reminds me of my Dad's 1961 Impala.

How come no post-mortem on the crash dummies? Was Quincy on vacation?

CarloSW2

Kind of wish they'd used a smaller car, like a Mini or even a Smart. I'd be curious to see the results of that. Something tells me the smaller, modern car would still 'win'.

Very good vid; Wish I had posted it.

I think the 2009 dummy walked away and had some coffee before they could track him down.

...so-o-o-o, how many "stars" did the Bel Air get?

I don't know, but I bet that dummy was seeing plenty of 'em! :p
(canned laughter)

I will admit, it was tough seeing that '59 get pummeled. But, I guess it's like donating your car to Science. They needed a classic Chevy, in good shape and free of rust, to prove an excellent point. It's done in Hollywood all the time for entertainment, so why not in the lab?

RH77

Ummm... what was the point?

Dayam, that car was just like mine, same color and all! :sad: :mad: Maybe they could redeem themselves a little bit and give me the taillight bezels.

i'd like to see the test repeated with a same era cadilliac...

At least it didn't get crushed in the durn cash for clunkers mess.
I've seen so many lovely possibilities leaving us for rolling bricks that people bought.
Kind of like donating your body to science eh?

Lovely? A '59 Chevy? Learned to drive on one of those things, and I don't recollect ever looking at it without thinking how much it could be improved by a couple of hours work with a cutting torch...

I saw this this morning. Good video.

I like the dust pouring out of the bel air at 1:00.

Was looking for confirmation that the bel-air it still hand an engine in it, would have expected a better showing from a v8, maybe it got pushed to the side. They didn't do the overhead shot, around 0:30 looks pretty empty under the hood area.

I was wondering the same thing.

the ride height looks about right, fwiw.

Yeah, that stinks, I wanted to see the whole overhead view and all they gave was a teaser. :mad:

I think it had an engine, look at how it sits. Cars w/o engine sit a lot higher.

LOL, still a fun job at times :) That WAS their (IIHS) 50th birthday party celebration.

Other reports say it was an inline 6, which was IIRC the most common engine in that model. And it did leave LOTS of room in the engine compartment: when working on our old one (when I was a kid), I'd sometimes climb in beside the engine rather than trying to reach things leaning over the fenders.

It's probably in the front seat after the collision. The Malibu allowed the engine to be pushed downward, absorbing the impact. Whether a '59 Caddy was used, Physics will likely still win.

RH77

I'd love to see them test a 59 truck against a current model. Would be interesting at least.

I interviewed for a position with a crash test outfit in Michigan 8 years ago. I always thought that would be a really cool job. Of course, I'd rather be covering intentional crashes, than bloody ones. I've seen WAY too many of those.

Separate body and frame construction versus uni body with progressively collapsible structure.

Computer design and crash testing have come a long way, but the major component is the separation of the frame and body structure.

I spent 10 years working in auto body repair, and saw literally tens of thousands of wrecks.

One I remember was a 64 Malibu and a 70 Barracuda, in an offset head on collision (about the same as the one in this post). The differences were almost unbelievable. The Malibu (separate frame and body) literally disintegrated, while the Barracuda (uni body with a very strong front cross-member) just folded up in a very controlled manner.

Another thing to consider would be the deterioration of the fasteners in the old Chevy.

That being said the 59 Chevy only had 8 to 10 fasteners holding the whole front end on the car. Two under the radiator support and either two or one at the top and bottom of the fenders in the rear. You could literally remove the whole front end in a few minutes.

Now if you want to go to the extreme, consider the 73 era large Plymouth Fury, used by state troopers in Virginia. I have seen those cars cut a telephone pole in half, and while the damage was bad, it would be nothing compared to a modern vehicle hitting a telephone pole.

The ultimate 60S era tank was the Chrysler Imperial that was uni-body with all exterior panels welded together, except the bumpers and doors, hood and trunk lid. That thing would absolutely crush a modern car.

Chrysler started using uni-body in 1957. The first model I remember using uni-body was the Citroen Traction avant in the 30s.

No trying to be critical of the improvements in collision energy absorption, but I do believe we have gone beyond the point where minor bumper impacts can cost thousands in repairs.

Pops 74 Dodge dart at under 3000 pounds was a tank with those bumpers and the big rubber guards. You could literally bounce that thing off a wall at 5 MPH and break nothing.

In Insurance Institute tested a mid 80s Ford Tempo against a modern plastic bumper car and reached the same conclusion, concerning the high cost of relatively minor low speed impacts.

When I was young and crazy I drove a 63 Valiant Convertible over a slight rise with railroad tracks. The approach side was two feet of elevation while the down slope was at least 6 feet high. I hit it at 55 MPH, and the car flew about 60 feet in the air. When it landed sparks flew out of both sides of the car where the cross-member hit the pavement.

It didn't even knock the front end out of alignment. I had it checked by a friend the next day at the Chrysler dealer where I worked at the time.

regards
gary

While there was a lot of sheetmetal on the front of the 59, its evident there is no STRUCTURE. Which is why, it was destroyed and likely killed the driver in a 40 MPH crash.

Earlier, someone mentioned this should put the bigger vehicle being safer question to rest. I disagree. It only resolves whether the old TANKS of yesteryear really were safer or not. No, they aren't and I never considered them to be. Then again, if my Neon were in that crash instead of the Malibu, I MIGHT fare better than the 59's driver...

as a fellow neon owner I'd have to say Doubt it! although the 2nd gen is slightly better off than the 1st gen that I used to own. I would NOT want to get hit in either!!!

2nd gen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6mzVJwRTCs
1st gen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N13KOM1OpFY

Meh, the 2nd gen isn't too bad.

The New York Times writeup includes results of the crash test.

The 1959 BelAir was given Poor ratings across the board, and the driver would have been killed on impact. The steering column was driven into his chest, and the passenger cell failed.

The 2009 Malibu driver would have survived, with a chance of lower leg injury. Good across the board, except Acceptable in the driver's leg category.

Yes, that was the big deal back then, impaled by steering columns. IIRC it was Nader that brought reform to that item.

Yeah, safety's a real buzzkill.

Every time I step onto an aircraft, decades of reform and NTSB-mandated reforms, make certain that the plane will probably make it wherever in one piece -- as opposed to a cold-war era, Russian Antonov with 40 years on the airframe and "some" maintenance records.

It's the finest example of how Government-mandated safety modifications have made a form of transportation the safest per passenger-mile. The evolution of safety in the auto world has increased that safety margin as well.

Unfortunately, most manufacturers haven't figured out how to increase FE technology at the same rate (or haven't been mandated to do so). Volvo had it figured out before Nader came on the scene, and for a while, offered competitive FE at the same time.

RH77

Moron this crash "test"
 

More footage! With sound! In real-time!

Highway Safety Exclusive: Car Crashes, Travel Deaths Prevented by Technology - ABC News

And some info: each car was going 40 mph- yup, 80 mph closing speed! :eek:

What I don't know is, was the '59 driver even belted in? Answer: No.

And here is the car when the previous owner had it:

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...959belair1.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...94dsltrear.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...ltinterior.jpg

Ask The Best And Brightest: Is This The Bel Air The IIHS Destroyed? | The Truth About Cars

6 cyl 3-on-the-tree, 60,000 miles! :mad:

Here's an LOL

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...sonagallon.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...ttleluxury.jpg

P.S. Want to point out the "winning" 22.38 mpg in the Eco Marathon!

I figured (no gas log though!) my 283/PG combo at 20 mpg. However I've got mammoth oversized tires on it and haven't corrected for that.

Frank -

How depressing. If the Bel-Air was sacrificed to save lives, there should be a monument in it's name.

CarloSW2

Yeah. :(

That's the most depressing test I've seen. '59 Chevys are among my favourites.

IIRC that six with the three speed instead of a powerglide could touch 30mpg with half-decent driving and not even a rejet on the carb.

Maybe if you live in Colorado and pulse n glide the **** out of it.

Not sure it was a full-size Chev...might have been a later 230 in something smaller but IIRC when I heard about it, it was a 235. I know the 200" Mustangs and Falcons are capable of it, though a base hardtop rolls at around 2500 or 2600lbs, a lot lighter than a '59 Chev, without options probably a 3500 or 3600lb car.