Crash Test: 1959 Chevy Bel-Air VS. 2009 Chevy Malibu

[Kingman]

Crash Test: 1959 Chevy Bel-Air VS. 2009 Chevy Malibu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CU-k0XmLUk&feature=player_embedded

You hate to see a 'Classic' wasted like this, but the proof is there.

 

[Empty Pockets]

'Wonder what "head on" would have produced?

 

[Jason's Auto Spa]

'Wonder what "head on" would have produced?

Probably a "Head Off" :eek

 

[Shelby#18]

That just about ruined my day. I wonder which one will get me killed first...My 59's = Lincoln MkIV, Edsel Corsair x 2, Ford Country Squire, Ford Fairlane 500 Retractible, Mercury Colony Park, Mercury Park Lane....:frown

Hopefully the Ford Company Line-up was better than the GM...

 

[Empty Pockets]

The spooky thing here is the fact the '59 was a FULL SIZE car...and the '09 was just a "mid-size". :willy

 

[nota4re]

Just the mass and weight of the old car must account for something, right? Well, not as much as you might think. First of all, the Bel Air really didn’t weigh that much more than the Malibu. The manufacturer’s curb weight of the Bel Air was 3,615. The published curb weight of the Malibu was 3,436. A mere 179 lbs is probably not the weight differential you were expecting.

A very modest weight difference.

 

[Shelby#18]

The lightest in my stable is 3,710, the heaviest is 5,190. With me in it add....:eek

I should be O.K..

 

[Empty Pockets]

"Just the mass and weight of the old car must account for something, right? Well, not as much as you might think. First of all, the Bel Air really didn’t weigh that much more than the Malibu. The manufacturer’s curb weight of the Bel Air was 3,615. The published curb weight of the Malibu was 3,436. A mere 179 lbs is probably not the weight differential you were expecting"


I always figger any '59 Chev is a 348 powered rig and pushin' 3,800 lbs!!! :lol I keep forgetting about those puny 283's and 6's! (If I remember correctly, my LS-7/5-spd/9" equipped '62 weighed in at around 3,900 lbs.)

 

[Sinovac]

So much for the "good old days" and the "theory of bigger, heavier, safer cars" of yesteryear. The outcome of the crash is no surprise given the safety improvement over the years.

I'm sure most here remember the old station wagons with the rearward facing back seat that was a great device for catapulting passengers (typically children) through the back window in a rear end collision.

I recently saw the aftermath of a collision between a 1971 Mustang Mach 1 (just like the car my wife drove in high school in prehistoric times) and a late model Camry. Similar outcome to that in the video. The Mustang driver is lucky is was a rear end impact.

Cars are better now in every objective measure. I try to keep this mind when I complain about the bland styling and heavy weight of new cars.

 

[Empty Pockets]

So much for the "good old days" and the "theory of bigger, heavier, safer cars" of yesteryear.

Except that, in yesteryear, the bigger, heavier car WOULD have come out on top - just like the heavier car would today if one matched an '09 midsize car against an '09 Escalade, for instance...:wink

It'd be interesting to see what the outcome would be if that '09 Malibu said 'hello' to my dad's 4,000+ lb '73 Caddy Coupe Deville! :wink


'Reference your observation regarding station wagons: Back in '78 (I'm 'sounding' like my DAD now! ["Back in '29..." :lol]), Wifey & I thought NOTHING of putting our two lil' girls in the "play area" at the rear of our '78 Town & Country wagon!!!:ack EVERYBODY with a 'wagon did that - AND THE KIDS L-O-V-E-D IT! Good gallopin' krymuny!!! What WERE we thinkin'!!! :eek

 

[Dr Robert Harms]

It should be noted that the 59' was a six cylinder (see 6 cyl aircleaner in shot) with the central mass of the motor narrow and at the longitudinal axis and the impact was completly in the sheet metal only area

 

[Nardo GT]

It should be noted that the 59' was a six cylinder (see 6 cyl aircleaner in shot) with the central mass of the motor narrow and at the longitudinal axis and the impact was completly in the sheet metal only area

Doc can you splain that diagnosis in regular terms?:biggrin

 

[KMCBOSS]

So much for the "good old days" and the "theory of bigger, heavier, safer cars" of yesteryear.

Except that, in yesteryear, the bigger, heavier car WOULD have come out on top - just like the heavier car would today if one matched an '09 midsize car against an '09 Escalade, for instance...:wink

It'd be interesting to see what the outcome would be if that '09 Malibu said 'hello' to my dad's 4,000+ lb '73 Caddy Coupe Deville! :wink


'Reference your observation regarding station wagons: Back in '78 (I'm 'sounding' like my DAD now! ["Back in '29..." :lol]), Wifey & I thought NOTHING of putting our two lil' girls in the "play area" at the rear of our '78 Town & Country wagon!!!:ack EVERYBODY with a 'wagon did that - AND THE KIDS L-O-V-E-D IT! Good gallopin' krymuny!!! What WERE we thinkin'!!! :eek

remember - seat belts were an "option" in cars in the early 60's - until 64 I believe.

 

[Empty Pockets]

Doc can you splain that diagnosis in regular terms?:biggrin

Actually, Doc has a good point. If the '59 was in fact "6" powered, there really would be nothing but tin impacted, whereas, in the Malibu's case, 1/2 the entire drivetrain would be involved (FWD).

One has to wonder if in fact that ISN'T specifically why a '59 with a "6" was chosen for this illustration.

My bet is that's EXACTLY why. (And like I said B4, I wonder how a "head on" would have turned out...)

 

[Empty Pockets]

So much for the "good old days" and the "theory of bigger, heavier, safer cars" of yesteryear.

remember - seat belts were an "option" in cars in the early 60's - until 64 I believe.

Somehow I doubt even a racing harness would have helped the driver of the '59 in this example! :lol :thumbsup

 

[Sinovac]

remember - seat belts were an "option" in cars in the early 60's - until 64 I believe.

1966 I believe. I have a 1964 Lincoln Cpnvertible that had front seatbelts from the factory-optional I think- and no rear belts.

 

[jaxgt]

I know seat belts were an option in GM cars in 1958. My 1958 Cadillac Eldorado sales book listed them as an option. I believe there were standard in mid 1960's.

I've added lapbelts to my 3 classic cars, to at least keep me from getting 'launched' out in a collision.

Scary video none the less.

 

[Empty Pockets]

The Highway Safety Bureau required FRONT 'belts in '68 (I seem to remember they were 1st required the same year as the side marker lights). I think Google will pbly back me on that. If not - I'll stand corrected! :biggrin And I think it was about '84 ('83?) or so that a few states started to make their USE manditory. Up 'til then, they were pretty much regarded as just another darned annoyance that was there to bug us (like those danged seat belt buzzers!).

 

[MAD IN NC]

For 2023 the NTSB can start planning now with a 1973 Eldorado Conv.... I'll even donate mine for $10k :biggrin

This beast is 5,115 lbs. DRY. with 26 gal of gas, oil, and fluid - it's close to 5,500 Lbs.....

Let's see what a "green car in 2023 will do against the most obese American car ever built and released in the midst of a gas crisis :rofl

 

[RALPHIE]

Ford started putting seat belts in their cars in 1966, prior to the mandatory Federal requirement. I had two Mustangs - the belts in the '65 were optional, and were standard equipment in the '66, although you could upgrade the belts with nicer optional buckles. I still have the '66.