Crash Test 2009 Chevy Malibu vs. 1959 Chevy Bel Air

dcdoug · #1 (**permalink**) 10-11-2010, 07:27 AM

Another CC member sent this to me, but I thought it was worth posting here. Now replace the 1959 Chevy with a Cobra. Maybe just a tad sobering?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uOYKP-SYeE

Sorry if this was a Mon AM buzz kill.

Excaliber · #2 (**permalink**) 10-11-2010, 09:15 AM

Well that was interesting. As it concerns the Cobra, I've always considered it the same way I consider my motorcycles. If you crash, it's going to be horrific! I ASSUME people don't see my on the bike and drive accordingly, same with the Cobra. Defensive driving is the only way to do it because "protection" just isn't there.

bingo2 · #3 (**permalink**) 10-11-2010, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Well that was interesting. As it concerns the Cobra, I've always considered it the same way I consider my motorcycles. If you crash, it's going to be horrific! I ASSUME people don't see my on the bike and drive accordingly, same with the Cobra. Defensive driving is the only way to do it because "protection" just isn't there.

Ditto.....

rustyBob · #4 (**permalink**) 10-11-2010, 09:31 AM

Hold on here........
if the 59 was designed to take a head on crash like the
09 Malibu then that would be a whole different looking
collision.........
the 59 is why the 09 Malibu is designed to take a head on
shot like that and have the driver at least make to a hospital
for treatment.............
and as far as a Cobra takeing a shot like that.....well there have
been some bad accidents with Cobras involved and the survival rate
is rather low...........

mdross1 · #5 (**permalink**) 10-12-2010, 03:59 PM

If I lived my life worrying about the worst that could happen might as well stay and home and waste away.Since I don't think that way, so far my life has been a true joy with a great wife and family,finally a garage full of my favorite toys.

TButtrick · #6 (**permalink**) 10-13-2010, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rustyBob

Hold on here........
if the 59 was designed to take a head on crash like the
09 Malibu then that would be a whole different looking
collision.........

No sh!t... really?

It's a conspiracy to make us all think that newer cars are safer than older cars!!

olddog · #7 (**permalink**) 10-13-2010, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TButtrick

No sh!t... really?

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.

Dangerous Doug · #8 (**permalink**) 10-11-2010, 10:42 AM

Gnarly. Crash-tolerance engineering has come a long way.

DD

67FEfastback · #9 (**permalink**) 10-11-2010, 10:57 AM

There are still a lot of traffic accidents and bad drivers. Can you imagine how many people would be dead or seriously injured, these days, if car safety technology had not been improved.

kitcarbp · #10 (**permalink**) 10-11-2010, 11:08 AM

Yes thats what 50 years of crash worthiness engineering will do. Imagine the amount of Finite Element Analysis that has occured to make this happen @ the OEMs and not to mention the billions of $ spent on crash R&D to get where we are.

*13* · #11 (**permalink**) 10-11-2010, 01:04 PM

That's rather nasty. Did they have this type of testing in 59'?

Silverback51 · #12 (**permalink**) 10-11-2010, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by *13*

That's rather nasty. Did they have this type of testing in 59'?

Yep, but it was on the highways.

*13* · #13 (**permalink**) 10-11-2010, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silverback51

Yep, but it was on the highways.

Seatbelts "were" an option in the 50s

Unique580hp · #14 (**permalink**) 10-11-2010, 07:33 PM

Wow! That was interesting. I thought the 59 would have done a little better.

Rare Iron · #15 (**permalink**) 10-11-2010, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unique580hp

Wow! That was interesting. I thought the 59 would have done a little better.

It would have done MUCH better if it had an engine & tranny in it.............................

Look at the crash again. This video was propaganda.

kobrabytes · #16 (**permalink**) 10-11-2010, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rare Iron

It would have done MUCH better if it had an engine & tranny in it.............................

Look at the crash again. This video was propaganda.

I watched it and it and I couldn't tell it the 59 had a power train...

I drove my Fathers Galaxy 500 in front of a dump truck and we all walked away... THe frame was bent, not a scratch on any three of us in side. I'd like to see a prius do that...

Trueoo7 · #17 (**permalink**) 10-11-2010, 07:40 PM

Like a 4-wheeled motorcycle, thats how I drive my Cobra. Best advice I've ever read.

tkb289 · #18 (**permalink**) 10-11-2010, 08:08 PM

Ouch ... Wow ... Ouch!

I don't know if the '59 Bel Air had seat belts back in the day (would have been lap belts at best) but based on the collapse of the passenger compartment not sure if they would make much of a difference at that speed.

Kind of sad to see the '59 destroyed ... all in the name of science I suppose ... the fuzzy dice were cool

olddog · #19 (**permalink**) 10-12-2010, 08:01 PM

If you notice, the 09 car is impacted about 50% of the front width. The 59 car is impacted about 33% of the front width. The difference of the widths of the cars is huge.

However the point is the impact on the 09 is centered on the drivers side frame rail. On the 59 the center of the impact is outside of the drivers side frame rail. Therefore the 59 only has sheet metal in the crash.

I speculate that if the 09 were hit outside of the frame rail it would be way worse.

I further speculate that if the 09 hit dead center of the 59 driver's side frame rail it would be in much worse shape even though almost the entire front end would be involved.

Certainly the crash is a real world possibility, but they cherry picked the impact that would put the 59 at its worst disadvantage.

Rare Iron · #20 (**permalink**) 10-12-2010, 08:40 PM

I read about a year ago that this whole thing was rigged to make it look like the newer cars have so much better crash technology, & that the '59 Chevy they filmed had NO drivetrain in it. I've seen way more crashed cars in my day than most people - in wrecking yards all over the SW US. The only cars that I ever saw that had the front passenger compartment crunched like the Chevy sustained in this video, were in over 80 MPH collisions. Lots of wrecking yard owners know the stories of the cars they end up with - lots of small-town yards that know everybody & everything that goes on, including auto wrecks. The whole driver's area of the Chevy was destroyed in the film - including the entire A-pillar area. You can also tell the frame did not take any of the brunt of this crash - just outer LH sheetmetal. Also remember that back in 1959, the sheetmetal guage was much thicker than today's sheetmetal. This film comparison is filled with tricks.