They don't build 'em like they used ta.... thankfully

[angib]

Anyone who thinks old cars were built tough should see this video of a 59 Bel Air being crashed into a 2009 Malibu: YouTube crash test

Apart from being a terrible waste of a beautiful 59 Bel Air, I wonder where they found one that still had all its frame strength - I would have thought that even in a dry climate, the frame would have deteriorated some. But just seeing the video shot from inside the Bel Air cabin, as the dashboard hits the seatback, suggests that a little bit more strength wouldn't have made a difference.

Not surprisingly, the Bel Air driver would have been killed instantly, while the Malibu driver would probably have a lower leg injury.

I looked up the specifications and, while they are probably measured different ways, the Bel Air curb weight was 3600lb and length 210" while the Malibu is 3400lb and 192" - so they're not as different as I'd imagine.

Andrew

[dovaka]

wow im surprised it did that badly

[halfdome, Danny]

From 1958 to 1964 Chevy used the notorious "X" frame. Not a fair crash test. I was seriously going to sell my 55 Chevy until I found this out. The 55 has two rails the full length of the car. It's still not as safe as a new car but then I don't drive it as my daily car. I'm putting in 3 point seat belts which that driver didn't have. Danny

[Mini Renegade]

mini mpv Renault Modus vs rock hard swedish Volvo, place your bets now..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBDyeWofcLY

[Aaron Coffee]

to me this video kind of reeks of propaganda,"old cars= bad, new cars=good"
I t-boned a 91 Mercury wagon with a 1967 Dodge Dart 4-door, and everyone that saw my car says I never would have survived had I been in a newer car(happened in 92). I realize by 67 some safety features where being implamented(mandated), such as collapsible steering column(it did work), crush zones, seat belts,etc. I survived not to much worse for the ware, cracked ride, lost 5 teeth and a ruptured spleen.

[High Desert]

just be happy you don't have one of these cars

Holden Commodore- worst crash test EVER

[S. Heisley]

Halfdome Danny wrote:

From 1958 to 1964 Chevy used the notorious "X" frame. Not a fair crash test.

Also, the cars were purposely aimed so that the other car would hit right where they knew the Chevy would crumple.

(I loved the look of those Chevys but am glad I never had one!)

[caseydog]

to me this video kind of reeks of propaganda,"old cars= bad, new cars=good"
I t-boned a 91 Mercury wagon with a 1967 Dodge Dart 4-door, and everyone that saw my car says I never would have survived had I been in a newer car(happened in 92). I realize by 67 some safety features where being implamented(mandated), such as collapsible steering column(it did work), crush zones, seat belts,etc. I survived not to much worse for the ware, cracked ride, lost 5 teeth and a ruptured spleen.

I am constantly around classic cars, and when people look at a stunning 57 Chevy and say, "They don't make 'em like this anymore," my thought is always, "they never did."

The restored classics are perfect, which they were far from when they rolled out of the factory in 1957.

I love the styling of many of the oldies, but today's cars are better, faster, safer, more reliable, and pretty much beyond comparison with the classics.

So, I love the old cars for what they are. Trying to compare them to new cars isn't fair for either.

BTW, if you had been in that wreck in a new car, you might still have the teeth and spleen.

CD

[boomboomtulum]

Send me your classics now that they are dangerous, I'll send you a Kia.

Dave

[halfdome, Danny]

Send me your classics now that they are dangerous, I'll send you a Kia.

Dave

Dreamer...
A family member is a body man and can't stand to work on Kia's, cheap very cheap. Danny

[angib]

Also, the cars were purposely aimed so that the other car would hit right where they knew the Chevy would crumple.

I think they just carried out the standard half-overlap crash test.

If you look at any modern crash test, you'll see that only half the car impacts the fixed barrier and that barrier is faced with a honeycomb structure that collapses in a predictable way, so it behaves like another vehicle.

Long gone are the days of crashing the whole width of a car into a fixed concrete block - it is way too flattering to the vehicle's crash behaviour. A (fiberglass) body-on-frame Bristol famously cracked a concrete block with its frame in one of the very early crash tests here!

I can imagine the X-frame isn't ideal but the real problems are (partly) the body-on-frame construction and (mostly) that the designers didn't have crash energy absorption as a design goal. You can see the Bel Air 'submarine' under the Malibu since it is stronger at the bottom (where the frame is) than at the top (where the body is weak) - the strong frame member may go though the other vehicle like a medieval lance, but that doesn't absorb much energy.

Andrew

[boomboomtulum]

Send me your classics now that they are dangerous, I'll send you a Kia.

Dave

Dreamer...
A family member is a body man and can't stand to work on Kia's, cheap very cheap. Danny

OK how about a YUGO