WOW!!!

It is an impressive video but I hated to watch the classic destroyed.

Never would have guessed the old tank would take the worst of it.

Yeah. Would have figured that they could have hosed the driver off the dashboard and sold it to the next guy.

Very impressive. Thanks for posting it Steve. We hear all the time how the old cars were the best, but this is proof. Proof otherwise.

I would still rather have the 59 dammit, It looks like a car! And you are not supposed to wreck.

I would have hated to do the body extraction after that much metal folded up and around it....

And, I hated to see the '59 destroyed.

what a waste of a perfectly good old Chevy

I would not have expected that result.

To me it does not look like the Bel Air has an engine which certainly would fold up that large hollow area. Could just be my crappy eyes.

I had the same thought. Impressive.

A text box at the start says that the cars are intact, no parts are missing.

Yup,.....

+1

GTC

Spoken like a true "Right Wing Extremist"

No engine dittos,.......

.........can Kool-Aid replace an engine block ?

GTC

I wonder if things would have been somewhat different had the collision been directly head on. The old Chevy had a body on frame construction. Catching it on the corner like it did in this test meant much of the force missed the most massive structures in the old Chevy, concentrating it in the sheet metal fender. The Malibu is a modern Unibody construction. I kind of wonder if the Bel Air would have wound up on top of the Malibu in a direct head on hit.

No question that modern cars do handle better and are safer than old. Also no question that a quartering/head on collision is possible in the real world.

Hokay,......

drive around looking for wrecks?

what a life, that.

GTC

Pretty amazing.

I don't see to many quarter fender head ons. All the ones I see are straight head ons. I wonder how the tank would fair than.

If the older car fared better in a true head-on crash......you'll never know (and you can bet they DID test that). Remember, the people making this video already KNEW the results they wanted to "prove" the newer "cars" they sell are better. Do you think it's possible someone might "massage" the test to show what they wanted???

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.

Don't know about Chevys, but current German cars use exceptionally rigid beams surrounding the passenger compartment in the A, B & C posts, door impact beams, rocker panels etc. Tungsten drill bits have a hard time drilling this stuff, I believe there is boron in the steel. BMW approved bodyshops now have to have specialized welding equipment to repair these cars (very high amperage) to penetrate multiple layers of metal when welding structural areas. Interesting thing is the crumple zones are constructed of aluminum and magnesium, even the fender walls and strut towers, but the passenger cage is the hard stuff.
I don't see any reason to doubt the results of that crash test........

Your right!! In 50 years none of the 2,000+ cars will be on the road. Know why? Computer chips! Try to buy a computer chip for you rig that's over 5 years old, all most impossible. Without the chips the car doesn't run. The 50's and 60's car will still be running in 2050 when today's cars will be in the junk heap.

Cars in the 50's, 60's were built to last, just not built to crash. Not sure why anyone with any real automobile knowledge would assume that the body on frame would fair well in a crash with a modern car.

You have thicker sheet metal and a heavy frame but what is holding the sheet metal to the frame? Fenderwashers and frame mounts. You simply can't compare the ability of that system to withstand an impact to a welded unibody with crumple zones.

I have restored late 60's Pontiacs from the frame up. I know every part of 60's GM A-bodys and F-bodys. They were built like brick shyt houses, but there is no way in hell I would want to be in a 1968 GTO or 1969 TA even with upgraded shoulder belts in a head on with a 2005 GTO or 2002 F-body. No way in hell.

Crumple zones have been evolving for 40 years. They started back in the 60's with building in crumple zones in the hood so that it would give in the middle rather than come back and decapitate you.

After working in the auto insurance industry for years, I'd rather be in a $13k Kia than a 10 or 15 year old anything if in an accident. The auto insurance industry works toward improvements every year and those that think the heavy old car is the sh8t in an accident don't understand what is involved in the auto accidents. Moving the impact from the occupant compartment has been amazing in the last decade or two.

edited to add: used to be body shops would bend a hood back straight and then weld a piece of metal across the crumple zone so it wouldn't "fold" so easily...made a nice guillotine <sp> if it were ever in an accident again. Crumple zones have saved so many lives it isn't a number you could count.

That's a neat video to say the least. Sorry a classic had to die in the filming but it's interesting if nothing else.

No matter what car you are riding in, your odds of severe head injury are reduced if you are wearing a helmet. Which we will all be doing under federal law within our lifetimes.

44henry

Saw a video maybe 25 years ago of a very small car hitting a very big car in a headon, with each doing 55 mph at impact. The big Caddy came to a rest, front end totaled. The very small car flew backwards through the air before coming to a stop. Easy to see I'd rather been in the Caddy that weighed probably a ton more.
The two cars in the video seemed to be about the same weight, or one of them would have moved the other backwards. As has been stated above, safety has been built into today's cars in alot of areas.
I would much rather get hit in the teeth with an airbag than a steering wheel.

Safety I'll give the newer cars (air bags, seat belts, design) but I never really thought that was a factor when judging which cars are better built. After all, a car was made to be driven down the highway, not be entered in demo derbies. If "safety" was the only factor, we'd all be driving something like you see at a Nascar race.....safe but hardly what you'd want to drive every day.

What I know is that I have a 1963 International Scout that has slid off a muddy road and into a tree. The only damage was some scratched paint on the fender and door and a smallish dent on the fender (one hit with a rubber hammer and it was gone). The tree actualy had more damage than the Scout!!!!

On the other hand, I've seen "modern" cars recieve $300 worth of body damage from someone just sitting on the rear hood or fender.....and lord help you if a heavy shopping cart runs into a door.

Maybe not a fair test, but for me I'd rather have the "tanks" built in the 50's-60's (particularly "tanky" were the Internationals).

Hey, we found a clue; hat's off to you sir. People just can't seem to get past the physics of the thing. And I understand that it is counter-intuitive. One would think a car that has a fender that weighs 150 lbs should fare better in a crash against something that has a fender that weighs 3 lbs. But it�s very deceptive because the heavy fender classic has nothing internal supporting that fender, so you have to rely completely on the integrity of the fender. With a modern car, the fender is just a skin and provides very little in the way of structure. But under that fender are steels unlike anything they had ever seen in the �50�s & �60�s. And those steels are stamped into structural beams that are computer designed for maximum rigidity. And those beams are attached to a unibody design with crumple zones to soften the impact. And behind that, you have really stiff beams that protect the passenger compartment; kind of a last line of defense. The old body on a frame designs didn�t have anything like that.

As for side impact, the newer car is much safer also, for much the same reasons. Which do you want inside your door? 14ga soft mild steel skin with a similar inner skin�or�A 22ga outer skin over a 4130 chromoly door support that�s welded to door bulkheads, and then mirror matched to a similar cross support on the other side that�s covered by an outer skin that�s padded. I�ll agree that side impact is the weak point of most any car, but if I�m going to take a hit, front, back or side; I hope I�m in a modern car; even if it�s a smaller car than the classic.

But I�ll also agree that a classic is exactly that; classic.

Don't anybody here drive a pickup ?

That's the best use I've seen for two chevy's in a long time.