Interesting video showing how twenty first century engineering can save lives.

Crash test: '59 Chevy vs. '09 Chevy - Multimedia - MSN Money

 

If thats the 59 chevy vs 09 Malibu that test I wouldnt belive is straight. They say thats a 59 Belair but yet the roof vent and the chrome tailight bars says its a 59 Impala. Pitiful when your a major corporation and buy a car to crash test it and cant even list it by its real model name.

 

tQUOTE=Rusty_S;8545213]If thats the 59 chevy vs 09 Malibu that test I wouldnt belive is straight. They say thats a 59 Belair but yet the roof vent and the chrome tailight bars says its a 59 Impala. Pitiful when your a major corporation and buy a car to crash test it and cant even list it by its real model name.[/QUOTE]

Good eye for detail!!!

I am no expert in 59 Chevies-but the narrow chrome trim on the sides and the "Bel Air" in script in front of the drivers door seems to suggest that it is actually a Bel Air.

But at the same time-I do believe that the rear roof vent was an Impala only feature and that the chrome stripes on the taillights were also Impala only.

 

Good eye for detail!!!

I am no expert in 59 Chevies-but the narrow chrome trim on the sides and the "Bel Air" in script in front of the drivers door seems to suggest that it is actually a Bel Air.

But at the same time-I do believe that the rear roof vent was an Impala only feature and that the chrome around the taillights was also Impala only.[/quote]



Correct, the belair/biscayne didnt get the roof vent and since it required drilling holes in the roof to mount it this car has been modified and I would then put forth the argument that this was a "modified" car and this isnt a valid crash test. But they didnt do it for a valid test, they did it to celebrate their anniversary since they got their start in 1959.

On the body side emblems they could be changed, I swaped out the plain Vee`s on my 63 with the flagged vee`s used with the 327 and 409`s cause I liked the look better. I even seen a guy take and slap on some 1962 Belair quarter panel emblems on a 63 Biscayne and then get very defensive when asked what the first 4 digits of the vin is which is the body style and engine (1600 series would be V8 equipped 1611 series like my 63 comes back to Belair/2dr sdn/V8).

But in the end its no big deal it was interesting to watch the crash but I wouldnt put too much faith in it. I would like to see them do the same to a 2009 Malibu in 2059 and see how that car fairs after 50 years of being on the road.

 

Rusty:

Yeah-it would be interesting to see what 2059 brings in regards to safety!!

And it is somewhat scary to think that 2010 will be the "good old days" for people living in 2059.

2010 will be the time of 'unsafe" cars and "cheap" gas and "low" cost of living to the people of 2059.!! And probably freedom from Big Govt!!!

 

58, 59 and 60 chebbys had an "X" frame. Not very safe from the get go.
There was no outer frame around the passanger compartment.
I remember a commercial where a car company swang a wrecking ball into the side of one of their cars to prove how much safer they were than the chebby.

 

Good point. I was going to mention this earlier. But forgot. Mass doesnt necessarily equal safety.

 

Actually the 58 - 64 chevrolets (those are the ones that had the X frame) they did have a "outter permieter frame" thing is though it was built into the body not the frame. This rocker panel had strength applied to it to provide a stiff solid mounting point for the firewall, door pilliars and the rear door pillars. No its not as safe as a box frame but they sure arent deadly because they are a X frame. What makes them "deadly" now is cause they were very prone to rot out in the rocker panels due to water and leaves draining into the rocker panels from the wiper cowl. Thats why in the video you see all this rust shooting out of the rocker panel on the passenger side when the fender tore off the body.

But I do have some photos though of some old car wrecks two of them are of a 59 chevy. I also got a photo of a 64 Belair which was totaled worse than the one in the video but thats in a book I have and it said the driver was killed after wrecking the car at 110 mph.

1959 Chevrolet Impala 1 of 2 photos, Hit in side by icecream truck




1959 Chevrolet, hit concrete freeway overpass pilliar (take note steering column and wheel isnt pushed up to the roof as in the video)


Chrysler offset crash


1962 Chevrolet Corvair 1 of 2 (unibody construction)






So in the end yes old cars are unsafe, and yes they are unsafer after being around for half a century experiancing wear and tear as well as structual weakening due to rust. But I bet you that 2009 Malibu in 2059 would fail a whole lot worse than what that 59 did considering the extensive useage of plastic and the unibody construction would rust through quicker than a frame would. A 70 1/2 camaro I tried to buy that thing had rusted througy floor pans and wasnt really safe to drive without replacing the floor pans and the subframe connectors.

 

I wonder how the 09 Chevy would do against a 1986 F-150.

 

The article gives the weight of the 59 as 3600 lbs. The weight of the 09 is 3415. Less than 200 lbs difference. Not a whole lot of weight savings in 50 years. Now when you have near identicle weight in a smaller package it will inflict more damage. Kinda like a bullet hitting a pop can.

Also the article claims the 09 has great emissions and milage. Any old car can have similar emissions when tuned properly. Only you have to keep up on maintenance more frequently and maybe add a cat. Also gas was $.25/gal in 59 so who cared about milage right? What was the mpg of a run of the mill non high performance car in 59? Maybe 20 mpg properly tuned? In 59 $.25 was 90% silver 10% copper. Today that same 1959 quarter is worth about $3.12 due to the silver content so in reality a gallon of gas in 59 costs about the same as it does today.

What have we accomplished in 50 years?
-200lb lighter cars
-6 more mpg
-Price of gas has stayed relatively the same
-more safety features because people drive like idiots now
-less maintenance because people are lazy

In 1959 people thought they would be driving flying cars by now. I bet 2059 cars will drive and schedule thier own maintenance themselves because people will be too stupid and lazy to do it.

 

I am stunned to think that someone would actually think that the automotive progress of the last 50 years is limited to just the above statement.

Durability,safety,quality,performance,ergonomics, maintenance, standard equipment, manufacturer's warranty, quietness,and tire's performance and durability have increased and improved exponentially in the last 50 years-heck-in the last 25 years. The automotive horsepower/displacement ratio is almost reaching motorcycle territory(+100 net SAE horsepower per liter)for cars and even pickup trucks today. Not there yet-but getting there.

And it could also be said that the cost of a "basic" automobile has gone down over the years-as had the price of gasoline-if inflation is considered .

The fit and finish of today's cars are just wonderful. I remember when you could look at the top of the rain gutters on new GM cars and see no paint -just the red primer. And I remember when you would see chrome pieces one quarter inch off of alignment on new expensive new cars fifty years ago.I remember spending a weekend aligning all of the body panels on my new 68 Oldsmobile to make the panels line up.

Now the finish is almost perfect on most new cars and the fitment is much better-if not perfect-even on lower priced new cars.The tight gaps between doors and hoods and trunks on today's new cars are just amazing!!Today's body shops must really have a problem getting today's cars repaired after a collision-the body is so tight today and aligned so well before the collision.

No comparison at all in my opinion between a 59 and 09.

 

In 1959 that Impala properly tuned to factory specs was getting 30 MPG highway. This 59 has the Inline 6 engine with the small carb. I have a chevrolet vs the competition dvd showing the promotional video in 1962 and 1963 and the Inline 6 engine was getting 40 mpg highway out of a Chevy II in 1962.

My 78 Mercury at 4,000 lbs (3,950 lbs to be exact) is listed as 12 mpg city and 18 highway. I am getting 16 on avg 18 best in city with the engine tuned up for most vacuum (not using the 20* BTDC timing the emission sticker calls for). But mine is a smog engine I am expecting 18 - 20 mpg city out of this engine with a dual pattern comp cams street cam with a slight performance gain.



Phoneman, the new cars I see at the yearly autorama I can pick otu all these fitmit errors in new cars even in the honda`s and toyota`s. The mustang was one of the best with fitmet but the others I could pick out fitmet issues.