Club Cobra - Crash Test 2009 Chevy Malibu vs. 1959 Chevy Bel Air

Club Cobra (http://www.clubcobra.com/forums/)

- ALL COBRA TALK (http://www.clubcobra.com/forums/all-cobra-talk/)

- - Crash Test 2009 Chevy Malibu vs. 1959 Chevy Bel Air (http://www.clubcobra.com/forums/all-cobra-talk/107191-crash-test-2009-chevy-malibu-vs-1959-chevy-bel-air.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZOERA-SC7XX (Post 1083625)

The Malibu was designed with 'texting' in mind. Seriously, though, fifty years of auto design make what you see very real. Imagine what the '59 Chevy vs. a 1909 automobile would look like in the same test.

Similar to what a cobra would look like? %/ :eek: :LOL:

Am I the only one who really cringed at the sight of a '59 Chevy being destroyed in this manner? It was one of my favorite vintage models ('55 and bubble top '61 being a couple of others) and looked like it would be restorable. Why not choose one of the other less desirable vintage models.....except, no matter what they crunched, there would be SOMEBODY out there who would feel the same about their Buick or Coronet being crunched as I do about the '59.

Cheers from Dugly :cool:

It is sad. At least it wasn't a 2dr HT

The fender skirts were not damaged.:rolleyes:;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZOERA-SC7XX (Post 1083625)

Let's look back to 1970 & fast forward to now. The weight of a 1970 Challenger R/T with a big block was around 3800 lbs. Now, 40 years later, with all the weight reduction technology, the new Challengers weigh closer to 4,000 pounds. I mean, thinner gauge steel all over, aluminum engines, composite intakes, & on & on. What has 40 years got us besides complex electronics & air bags? You can't compare the advances made from 1909 to 1959 as the same degree of advances from '59 to now - not even close. Vehicles in 1909 were Flintstone mobiles!

Quote:

Originally Posted by TButtrick (Post 1083591)

No sh!t... really? :LOL: It's a conspiracy to make us all think that newer cars are safer than older cars!!

I do not question that new cars are much safer in a crash. That is indisputable. However part of what makes new cars safer is that they design the crumple zones to absorb energy and decelerate the car while they design the passenger compartment to hold its shape. The criticism of the old cars is that they were too stiff. Many people died in cars that were easily fixable back then. They tended to bounce off of a tree resulting in huge G forces to the passenger, where a new car will crunch up and absorb energy to slow the car over a longer period of time.

The crash was designed to show the 59 at the worst and not necessarily a fair test. It would not have made a good picture, if they showed the 59 with lesser sheet metal damage and then tried to prove that the dummy inside didn't survive because of impact into a metal dash at twice the G's of the new car, even though that would have likely been the outcome of a full frontal crash.