Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air Vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu Collision test

So true
Having a lot of experience with real world wrecks I can tell you that there is only one constant. And that is that there is none. There are far to many variables to calculated. This staged wreck can be taken at face value,that this is what will happen given this set of variables.Is it representative of real world crashes? No.
This wreck was engineered with a desired predetermined result.

Pat

Crash two malibus and then crash two older Chevies and see how they fare. Or run one of each into a concrete wall.

the malibu driver survived because of airbags and a seat/shoulder belt ...

Our drivers ed car was a 59 chev biscayne. First drivers ed car with a automatic trans that the school ever had.

The heavier engine in the old chevy , coupled with the greater weight overall would likely make the outcome much different in a head-on .

Think of the new car engine as a 100 gr ballistic tip meeting a 180 gr XXX at the same speed .

[ at least I THINK that's how it works ]

Wish I had that video when I was trying to tell some naysayers that modern cars, even one's that are smaller, are safer.

Conspiracy theories aside, the 'sample of one' test result is supported by the declining trend in MVA death rates....

They are safer in some areas but most newer small cars remain vulnerable to side impact. Especially when struck by larger vehicles. Take this crash for instance run the 59 into the side of the Malibu. The light weight unitized body on the Malibu would more than likely be a death shroud for it's occupants as the thicker sheet metal and heavy steel X frame of the 59 plowed through like freight train.

Pat

Passenger safety was never a factor in designing cars before the 1970's. Even Ford, who offered seat belts, padded dash panels and dished steering wheels in 1956 when Robert McNamara was President did not include controlled crush resistance in the design. His analysis showed that safety was important, but later discovered that it did not sell and it required Federal mandates to get it into the design.

Anyway, cars are safer now and many of us offer our lives to the new designs.

Physics will always come into play � bigger, heavier bodies carry higher inertia loads than smaller ones, and they penetrate more � just like 220 grain 30 caliber bullets vs. 150 FMJ bullets. Good design can mitigate the blow, but the energy has to be absorbed somehow, and crushing is one way.

Hi Pat - if I recall correctly, the GM "X" frame was VERY vulnerable to side-impact since there was no steel frame in the area of the doors. The "X" crossed in the middle of the car and offered no protection to the passenger, but it did offer protection to the engine compartment and the rear axle, where it extended to the side. You might be crushed, but the rear axle survived.

No conspiracy at all if you think that the wreck in that video was not staged say hello to the Easter bunny for me next time you see him.
Deaths are only part of of the results. Injuries are not declining in fact we are seeing more injuries. This is because,
One cars are safer and some wrecks that would have been fatalities are reduced to injury.
Two cars are lighter and made from materials of questionable strength.
Three some safety equipment on these newer cars actually cause injury.

Pat

Exactly.

djs You are correct much like some of the older cars built like tanks the car would survive the wreck but occupants died.
Overall newer cars are better and much safer, but in the end none of them are made to be wrecked.

It's just that the newer vehicles lack the cool factor.

Pat

I hit a moving freight train in the side with a 1975 Chevrolet Bel Air doing about 15 mph. The train was going about 10 mph at right angles to the car. The engineman in the train had no idea he had been T-boned. I knew for certain, that I had hit an immoveable object. I walked away from it though. PHEW! Close call. Got to see the colour of the District Police Superintendent's rug over that one.

If I remember correctly about wrecks with these old cars when I was younger. Most injuries were from being thrown out or rolled over. Then there was the steering column that would usually harpoon the driver.

So after seeing the results for yourselves, I see that you're still making excuses...I got nothing to work with here.

Well lets put the engine back in the 59 and try it again. You did notice there was no engine in the 1959 --right??

OK, so you believe that today's cars are Soooooo much better built that those of yesteryear.

A 1957 Chevey (or '55 T-bird) is a highly desirable collectable that can be restored to be as good (or better) than it was new.....incuding the original body, frame and engine....because these cars were built to last!!!

Now, can you even imagine that in 2050 something, all your friends will be drooling and saying "What a cool '07 Taurus!!!".....and that the car in question will still have it's original fiberglass, plastic and aluminum parts and engine in original form.

I don't think so......today's cars are made from crap and will last as long as most turds do.

Where are photos of the passenger compartment and dummies after impact?

Also to be fair, I think the test would be more iluminating if repeated with the '59 retrofitted with modern seatbelts and perhaps headrests. In that way, we could better gauge the benefits of the hightech innovations.