Crash test of 1959 Chevy with 2009 Chevy

[Gary and Cheri]

Have you ever wondered if you would be better off crashing in a heavy 1950s car with a full frame vs crashing in one of the newer lighter space frame cars? Well so did the insurance industry and they crashed a new 2009 Chevy into a older 1959 Chevy. The results are very interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g

Gary

[KCStudly]

Shame to wreck a classic just to demonstrate what we all should know already.

Look at all the rust and dirt that comes off the chassis of the classic during the crash!

[halfdome, Danny]

Kinda an unfair fight. The 1959 Chevy had a horrible chassis referred to as the X frame.
As you can see it wouldn't take much to make it fold from a frontal collusion.
Pity the poor driver who got "T" boned in one.




For comparison the chassis on the left is an original 55 Chevy, the one on the right is a new Art Morrison chassis.
The front suspension construction is similar to a C5 Corvette. Mine rides nice but it would be nicer with an Art Morrison chassis but I'm not willing to spend the big bucks.
link
Danny

[doug hodder]

I guess that's all well and good...put 50 years on that 2009 Chevy and see how it holds up in a front end crash. Chances are...it wouldn't be around anyway. 50 years on that much plastic with it's degradation...oh yeah, I'm sure it'll be fine. It could be a bit misleading...after all, it's a 50 year old car. Who knows where it spent it's life....in Detroit or the rust belt? At least the average Joe can work on it and nobody gives a thumbs up to a 2009 Chevy!

It seems kinda silly to me. Makes as much sense as crashing a 59 Olds into a '09 Olds. If they can't build something that is better after an additional 50 years of trying, they ought to give up. Oh wait...I forgot...Olds did!

[working on it]

I agree, today's cars don't have the "charisma", or maybe the longevity, of the cars of the past. Though the technology available now should make today's cars so very much superior to yesterday's, the durability/quality of many parts (not all) is less than in the past. Sure, engine technology makes them last longer and be more efficient than before, but only to make them not repairable by the owner. Problems will surface on all vehicles, sooner or later, but most problems in today's cars may not even be diagnosable by anyone other than the dealer, and very often , not even by them. Old cars were fixable by "Bubba" under a shade-tree. Therefore, when multiple problems arise, especially computer related, the owner may decide to move on, and the "superior" newer vehicle may never be repaired, and the older "classic" will outlive it. And then there's the use of plastics, instead of steel, and building as cheap as possible instead of as good as possible. If I could afford the gas, I'd drive my '66 Chevelle every day, instead of my HHR. I may have overbuilt the Chevelle (to race), with old time user friendly parts, available to anyone, but I can't even improve the weak points (brakes, steering) on my '09 car, because there are no consumer available substitutes. I really like them both, but it's apples and oranges, old vs. new. All other things aside, I guess I'll always be old-school.

[Shadow Catcher]

I am on Subaru number 13, we have had them exclusively since 1977, all of the early ones went to the junk yard having rusted to death (that living in NW Ohio salt thing) but with good drive trains. Sube #11is owned by my son now and has 300,000+ miles on it and looks to be finally wearing out. American auto makers have made cars only as good as they had to be, and that has been largely driven by the Japanese who for the most part made cars and good as they could be. I can give specific examples having worked in nondestructive testing in test labs and for North Star Steel who supplied special bar quality steel to the auto industry.