Here is a video of a 2009 Chevy malibu vs. a 1959 Chevy Bel-Air. This was done by IIHS and both cars were crashed at 40 mph.

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/17/v...-modern-malib/

With that said my 78 F-150 is a great truck and I love the simplity of it, but my 94 F-150 is heads and tails above it, in every way imaginable. I just thought it was interesting that a unibody no metal bumper would do better than a full frame, heavy metal bumper car.

 

That is crazy how well the Malibu holds together.

It's amazing to me that anyone ever survived getting into accidents 50 years ago.

 

Absolutely amazing in every sense of the word. Especially how the BelAire was essentially crushed beyond recognition.

Bumpers have never been designed for more than parking-lot snubs. The highest government speed rating for bumpers has never been more than 5 MPH. Sure, those bumpers were HEAVY, but they were WEAK.

The "safety cage" concept has come FAR in the last 30-ish years; energy management via crumple zones, air bags, etc...

They're designed to be one-use cars, so to speak; one wreck, totally destroy the replaceable vehicle (in a predictable and manageable way), to protect the un-replaceable occupants.

-blaine

 

Really not what I expected at all.

 

as far as safety and comfort , ease of use yep the new ones have got the old ones whipped . but it's a matter of preference . i dont care if my 53 isn't as safe as the wifes mini van in an accident , i dont really care for the newer vehicles , there styling , or complexity . and the grand kids would much rather be with papa in his cool old truck than any of their parents or my wifes new rides . that says it all to me .

 

I think rust was the only thing holding that old `59 together. Did you see how much fell out when they hit?

 

To think that when a small child I rode in a '59 Chevy, without even lap belts, much less a safety booster seat. As you can see, SRS devices (its not "air" in those bags) wouldnt do a thing to save you if the structure doesnt hold up.

They used the softest steel, so those wild body shapes could be easily formed. There were no computers outside the nuke bomb factories powerful enough to do any stress analysis. That Chevy cost less than $3000 new and was probably a few hundred pounds lighter than the Malibu. The "old iron" looked heavy, but there wasnt much under the skin, flexi-frames with zero side protection, tiny 7.00x14 tires with miniature brakes inside, etc.

Jim

 

Back in school, they told me... "Always ask yourself, what did they not show your or tell you?"

They did not tell you the hypothetical driver of the Bel Air probably had no supplemental restraints and probably died because he flew thru the windshield or was squashed against hard objects in the interior and or speared by the steering column.

I think the driver restraints on modern cars are responsible for a majority of the lives saved.

What they didn't show you was a clear and detailed veiw around of both cars. I think the Bel Air probably came out worst in this crash, but the Malibu also took a good beating. Crumple zones are also a lifesaver so don't get me wrong but I think the hypodriver of the malibu probably survived becasue he wasn't thrown out of his seat. Been there NOT done that and restraints are my copilot.

I think if the Malibu driver was restrained(none) as a typical 59 driver was, both drivers would have been killed.

I think this was a bit of marketing hooyah, but still mostly valid, just a bit overhyped.

Always Buckle up, I have been saved from injury at least 3 or 4 times in almost 40 years of driving because I buckled up. One 69 Datsun station wagon was totaled all the way upto behind my seat. Just a few pin ****** of blood from flying glass.

Jim Henderson

 

Right you are! Have you seen the steering shaft on a pre-1968 US car?

I agree about the majority of lives saved, but the vast majority of survivable accidents do not involve impact severe enough to utilize all the crush zones and high strength steel areas in a modern car. BTW, you should see the results of side impact on one of those '58-'64 Chevys with the "X" frame.

Jim

 

Like I said... speared by the steering column.

I bet an X frame looked like a V or pretzel afterwards.

My basic belief is that if you stay in your seat instead of thrashing around like a rag doll, you will survive unless the car is pretty much destroyed. There was a movie something like "Space to Live" that showed that the driver "cage" essentially will protect you as long as you are in your seat and not driving one of those Chinese SUVs with video crashes in the last few years.

Cars have become so much better over the years, contrary to popular belief.


Jim Henderson

 

That was quite a large brown cloud that came off it when it hit, wasn't it?

 

There was a thread in here a year to two ago and a user (that is no longer allowed to visit the site ) was arguing that he would rather be in an older truck than a newer truck because he felt they were safer. No amount of arguing or reasoning would change his mind. I wonder what he would say after looking at this video.

Also, everyone gripes about the high expense of cars today. To me, they're worth it. You get what you pay for, in this case a much safer ride.

Of course, I still drive a 20 year old Bronco so what do I know.

 

I dont buy it. That car with the steel frame crumpled more than the car without the frame. Not to mention I have numerous photos of cars (when they were new) that was in wrecks and never looked like this.

I personally think that car had alot of rust in it and it caused the wreck to be alot worse than it would have new. Here are some photos of cars from the 50`s and 60`s that have been wrecked when new or slightly used.

<a href="http://s148.photobucket.com/albums/s8/Rusty_S85/Personal/?action=view&current=1950sAccident.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s8/Rusty_S85/Personal/1950sAccident.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://s148.photobucket.com/albums/s8/Rusty_S85/Personal/?action=view&current=1961ChevroletPoliceCar2.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s8/Rusty_S85/Personal/1961ChevroletPoliceCar2.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>



So in the end I am reluctant to say that the new frameless car will cause a framed car to crumple. Cause in all honesty the frame car crumpled back way more than the frameless one did, I dont buy it.

 

Buy what? That new cars aren't any safer than old cars?

If you want, we'll try it - I'll drive the new car and you drive the 59 chev. We'll see who walks away after it's over, but I bet you'll only be able to try it once.

One thing you're missing is that the video was a head on collision between two cars, each moving at 40 mph. That's an 80 mph impact. Take the car in the first picture and run it into a telephone pole at 80 mph and see what it looks like.

 

I dont buy that the 59 with a full frame crumpled back more than the new frameless car.

New cars are safer (advent of break down steering columns, air bags, seat belts, ect)

Regardless of the speed though that 59 Belair has alot more steel in it than the 09 Malibu. That Malibu shoulda buckled back like the belair did.

I am thinking from that plume of rust from impact that the 59 belair in question had alot of rust in it which could have resulted in more damage than if there was no rust damage.

Not to mention both vehicles moving at 40 mph hitting together doesnt = a 80 mph impact. It would be like hitting a brick wall at 40 mph for each vehicle since their going the same speed. Only thing is one with the more mass or stronger structure would fair better than the other vehicle without a better frame.