2009 Chevy Malibu vs 1959 Bel Air Crash Test | Consumer Reports
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 09. 2009
- Join CR at CR.org/joinviaYT see CR’s rigorous lab test scores - and to access our comprehensive ratings for items you use every day-become a member. CR is a mission-driven, independent, nonprofit organization.
This crash test between a modern sedan and the classic 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air shows just how far passenger protection has come in the last fifty years. Check out www.ConsumerReports.org for additional reviews, tips, and recommendations.
Subscribe to our CZcams Channel: bit.ly/1Nlb1Ez
The Institute for Highway Safety staged the test to commemorate its 50th anniversary. Find more crash tests on our web site: www.consumerreports.org/cro/vi...
Follow Us on Social:
Facebook: on. 1IQ2w5q
Twitter: bit.ly/1Yf5Fh2
Pinterest: bit.ly/1P37mM9
Instagram: bit.ly/1I49Bzo - Auta a dopravní prostředky
Well I'm certainly not going to buy a brand new 1959 Bel Air now
@Mr. Awesome buy a Ford f150 or whatever model it was, it got very good rating
@Mr. Awesome Better yet just another company that got bailed out by government. Ha.
Bryan Holland they took the engine out of the 59 chevy
I don’t think anyone can buy a *brand new* Bel Air
Do not let these very manipulated results change your mine. Buy your new 1959 Bellair and change the problematic X-frame and you will have a great car that will go through any modern car. The Bellair was chosen for this test intentionally because of the design flaw X-frame. Only the GM vehicles had this very dangerous frame. Ford, AMC, Chrysler, Hudson, Willy's, Kaiser, all had ladder frames that would make their vehicles crush through a modern vehicle. Many car collectors will get rid of the dangerous X - frame in Impalas, Bellairs and Buicks of the era. So get your new 1959 Bellair and come to Uranium City in Saskatchewan, Canada and I will put your new Bellair on a huge ladder frame that will go through a lorry.
It still breaks my heart to see that old classic car get destroyed.
Me too! I was petrified when I read the title hoping they really didn’t do it! 😢💔
Completely unnecessary
Not me. It was a sarcophagus on wheels. lol
Very unnecessary. Plus, they used the worst car to test, as the Bel Air is X-FRAME, meaning it was a bad construction even when it was new.
What would your doing if you actually crashed in one of them?
2009: Driver walks home
1959: "We cannot find the driver, anywhere"
1959: We found the driver here, and here, and here, and here and here and here. We need a bucket.
Found the driver. He was in the glove box.
“I found the driver! He is uhh..he is merged with the dash board!”
We found the driver, he was at home because he didn't have a wreck, since he didn't have his face glued to a freaking cell phone!
Look in the ashtray,,
"They don't make them like they used to"
"Thank GOD for that"
Yet the FanBoys still prattle on about how the video was faked, or biased in some implausible stupid way.
The 1959 car is one of the weakest cars of its era. I'm not trying to defend it because it was obviously a weak car. But they put an average modern car up against one of the weakest classic cars you can get. Also, whatever impact the car doesn't take, the driver will. That's why crush zones are a thing.
@@user-sf7kl9uh7kThe 1959 car is one of the weakest cars of its era. I'm not trying to defend it because it was obviously a weak car. But they put an average modern car up against one of the weakest classic cars you can get. Also, whatever impact the car doesn't take, the driver will. That's why crush zones are a thing.
@@luckyaustin Ok, but it's crazy to say any car of that age is going to do well against a modern design. Very little protection in a head on crash, virtually none in a side impact.
@@luckyaustin Stop duplicating posts.
My eyes are bleeding from seeing the bel air destroyed
Wammles 123 my ancestors haunt me for watching this...
So would your eyes in the final several minutes of your life had you been in that Bel Air in a crash like this
Imagine the lives saved by keeping that death trap off the road. I think that's 40 mph. Imagine 60.
I believe that’s a replica of the actual ‘59. Made with the blueprints of the original for that test
@My Beautiful and amazing Princess
Recreating an old car would cost a lot, so it is not worth it.
2009: We need safety
1959 Chevrolet: Whats a safety
To be fair, they make what was sold. People weren't concerned with safety back then. They wanted cool looking,powerful cars
1959: We need style
2009 Chevrolet: Whats a style
You say 1959 Chevrolet like it was specifically Chevy that was making unsafe cars. Seatbelts didn't exist in ANY brand until the 1960s.
@Mr Cabot How do old cars like that affect you if you don't even drive them? So what if they don't have seat-belts
why did they remove the engine from belair ?
1:39 “in the past 50 years, the institute has made a great impact”
I see what you did there
Indeed. Caught myself muttering: "Pun intended" 😄
Yet the speed limits are still 25 and pigs happily take your money for safetly going 35
@@jasonbenso, sadly, pedestrians weren't upgraded as much as vehicles in the past 50 years :(
@@GoklasM Well, they do tend to have more fat protecting them.
@@drh3b Hahahahahha good one
I worked in salvage. Seat belts are essential.
A driver was killed in a low speed 25mph crash in a 1972 Monte Carlo. His head struck the passenger side A pillar. The hood, fender and bumper were bent and thats about it.
@@LTNetjakI believe a 72 already had a collapsible column. The 59 did not. Can be added though.
@@taylorsopko5807 It would make little difference.
Now just make the new car look cool like the old car and we’re good.
Way too much time and materials required to shape body panels like that. Also the car design was a style of the times it was in. A 1950's car just won't sell in todays times. Sure you may like it and so may a bunch of others, but fact is most do not or just simply want a car to get around. These cars are for out to have fun and cruise around in on your weekend off. Then you put it back in the garage for another sunny day.
Most new cars look the same, I can’t tell one from the other, I’m mad as hell, not gonna take it!!
Leo Verran ikr there all cross overs now, just ugly things
The PT Cruiser proves that old cars are ugly af, and they do not fit in the current era. Then again, looks are subjective.
@@samt.8533 Nice joke.
This is a very impressive demonstration of improved safety.
However, I'm sorry to see the '59 destroyed.
I’m not sorry 🤷♂️ it deserved to be totaled to show how much of a death trap it is because people back then seemed to care more about the look and style vs the safety
@@JamesK7911 it's not that simple, the technology was not there yet, driving was relatively new and the understanding of the physics of a collision weren't up to par with today's
@@Weeblicker
Nah not really. They just didn’t care much until the 1970s oil crisis in the US when they started to make safer designs as well as fuel efficient designs.
it's possible they used a replica
@@JamesK7911 you're trying to say the oil crisis had anything to do with safety systems? I'd try to argue you but obviously you're too far gone.
I "knew" about most of the safety features newer cars had, but "seeing" the difference was still quite impressive.
And that's just a chevy malibu, not exactly the pinnacle of modern safety either.
This year of chevy malibu actually received 3/4 safety in a lot of areas, and 1/4 when it came to driver and passenger head injuries. 💀
@@domenik8339Exactly, modern cars will always crush classic's in a head on.
I question whether this was a replica or classic car.
@@rusty1491 You can question whatever you want, it obviously wasn't. Why would they do that? Old cars aren't safe, deal with it.
@@user-sf7kl9uh7kThis car was stripped down and a replica
I'm not a classic car enthusiast, but I even felt this.
a small masterpiece of history obliterated!
Because of the FanBoys, it's important
Yeah that hurt me 2.. Bad...
They always conduct these test with an off set collision never a head on no matter what the 59 is a better looking car well was a better looking car 😄
@@cherrylove3656 Because that's the most realistic scenario! I don't care about X Frames, I don't give a damm about Ladder Frames. I couldn't give a hoot about lap belts, or silly rumours of engines being taken out, or structures cut through. No car from this period in time, or even 25-30 years later is going to hold up well in a crash. It's called PROGRESS!!!
I totaled a "59 Bel Air at 45mph in 1978, when it was less than 20 years old. They had to cut me out. The steering wheel ripped through my chest and the motor ended up under the back seat.
Holy shit you sound like a very lucky man
Pretty sure if the steering wheel ripped thru your chest you’ll be dead but okay
@@SepaloidTV There's a guy that survived a metal rod through the skull, its possible.
Show us. I want pictures. Let's see that wicked scar lol
That’s terrifying
The crash test dummy on the 59 Bel Air needs a lit cigarette in one hand.
🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂
And 2 kids climbing around from front to back seats while one lays in the back window
And a can of Budweiser.
Love how they made sure to include the mirror dice in the BelAir 😂🎉
I used this clip in my auto tech classes. Shocking to some, but glad I was not in the '59. Did that in a 50 Olds. Didn't end well either. At least I had the forethought to add seat belts to the Olds, Walked away! After 60+ years of driving, with no at fault accidents, I am thankful for air bags and good safety belts. They do come in handy!
WS .............I got you in years ...........and I use this to shut my old car guys up ..........and remind them of the yearly tune ups ,water pump replacements , brakes ,mufflers altinators by 60 thou !!!!! and drying the brakes out after each water crossing .........it made me a good half ass mechanic
@@dannycalley7777water pump replacements? Stop using the hose and use distilled water like they do in newer cars or the same thing goes wrong. Also this video is flawed. That car was clearly a rust bucket that was structurally compromised before the test. I mean look at all that red dust lol. Wouldnt have had the same out come if they were both new. Also new cars have alternators too i changed one on a 2011 Mercedes about 3 months ago for my friend. It only has 80k
@@taylorsopko5807 How many "never" cars have distributors? You know, the ones that have points that have to be cleaned and cam has to be lubricated. Also, point dwell has to be adjusted every 5k miles, along with filling the oil cup at the base of distributor. Then there is the matter of lubricating a dozen zerks under the car every 1k miles, etc. It is interesting that you mentioned distilled water ONLY to mix with anti-freeze. If you have a dealer or shop change your coolant, how many shops do YOU think would stock distilled water? I have NEVER seen bottles of distilled water on the shelves at a parts department! Those "classic" cars were fine IN THEIR DAY, but in today's world, they just don't belong!
@@TheOzthewiz the only thing that doesn't belong is your comment lol.
Distributors from the 60s and early seventies had points dude. Later ones were actually electronic. Also what's so bad with the points and if they were that bad that you had to adjust them every couple of weeks then why does my corvair still run after years I haven't touched it I set it "correctly" one time. I think that's their problem they don't know how to set it correctly. Also your oil cup delusion must be something from the 30s cause i aint seen it 😂 ever seen a honda or nissan distributor they're on their side LMFAO 🤣 you know nothing.
@@TheOzthewiz and if I found out they were putting tap water in my car I would file a law suit but i dont have that issue i work on my own cars as well as everyone's in tucson daily im a mechanic LMFAO 🤣
Questionable results. Both cars should have had fuzzy dice.
The new one should have my fuzzy ball sack on it cuz new cars SUCK BALLZ ! 666 OUT
@@666mrjimbo no they don't but old cars are very cool
😂
Chris konte he said something exactly I’ve said on other videos NEW CARS FUCKING SUCK AND SO DO YOU
666mrjimbo I don’t like your username but I 1 billion percent agree FUCK NEW CARS
Nostalgic people: "They don't make them like they used to!!!!!"
Me: "Good"
lol seriously. people always say old cars were safer and stronger because they saw a video of an old volvo barely getting dented while the driver takes on all the shock
@@johnsmith4432 I've seen some old cars barely dent but those are the ones with very small windows, built like tanks and of course, little to no rust.
And the new ones look like garbage too and can't cope with anything but smooth paved roads. Good thing the wheels on new cars have to be 20" tall with no sidewall height to absorb any road roughness and the bumper covers need to look like the car is in Nascar so that small snow drifts (front) or gravel spray(rear) can destroy them in record time. Oh and who can forget the failure of traction control in loose surfaces. I am glad for better safety of crumple zones but modern cars leave a lot to be desired when it comes to everyday durability.
Yeah, I like my cars going 50 mph top speed too! Take off your nostalgic helmet, guys
Well... I'm a mechanic, we do obviously mechanical and collision work. I've smacked a few deer with my truck going 65+ mph. It's a 1980 truck. I mean it when I say not a dent and I was perfectly safe. A new car hitting a deer would got torn up to shit, but the driver would still be safe. We just had a GMC Denali that hit a deer and it costed him $12000 to fix the front end, ouch. My truck not even a scratch on the front bumper after 3 deer have smacked it. However, I guarantee if I hit that Denali head on going 50mph my truck would have less damage overall but I would be severely injured where as he would be fine but with a a completely wrecked car. so yeah, they don't make em like they used to but that's because of crumple zones during major crashes, those crumple zones do suck tho when you just barely tap a deer and now your front end is all fucked up. That's takes and gives when it comes to modern safety technology.
Worked in a Rehab Unit (many car-crash folks) about 20 years ago. Older cars typically had engines coming up into the passenger compartment (lower limb loss etc), and modern 'chunky tyre' utes and SUVs tended to roll and cause head injuries (as well as the SUVs causing disproportionately severe injuries to pedestrians). Staff could fairly accurately predict the vehicle class by the client injuries. Also, spending serious money on protective gear if you ride a motorcycle will be the best investment you ever make ...
"client"?.............So you were an ambulance chaser? Free initial consultation?🤣
SUV's are unnecessary death machines
I agree with everything except the "spending serious money on protective gear if you ride a motorcycle". I have been a dispatch rider in London UK for about 20 years. Protective gear isn't substitute for knowing how to ride. Wear leather jacket and trousers.
@@mirkograveho1388 I'll take the plates in my riding equipment any day. When you go for a slide it's nice to have plates to slide on instead of azz meat and elbow skin.
I feel bad for the 1st responders of the 50’s,collisions that are fender benders today were life altering back then
In class I was told that in those days, most of the ambulances were actually run by funeral homes. First responders were hardly a thing. It wasn't until 1969 that the USA developed its first paramedic program, which adopted a lot of techniques used in the Korean war.
Cars werent going 80 mph
@@darthvader6533 Neither were these. Two cars hitting head on at a closing speed of 80 mph isn't the same as one car hitting a stationary one at 80. Newton's third law, bet you wish you'd worked harder at school.
@@user-sf7kl9uh7k *at a closing speed
Closing is not plural, i wont even touch the rest of that sentence lol
Laws of English grammar
:p
Jokes aside, that wasnt my point, but.. ok? Haha
The point i was trying to make was that, as poor as the safety design was back then, in comparison, modern collisions are likely far worse because of the gigantic increase of speed, and therefore force.
Thats entirely my opinion, i havent researched it and cant back it up, im just spitballing an idea.
Its great that you just learned or remembered a law of physics, but I never referenced the cars in the video, nor did i reference a parked highway strike. It helps to read what someone says before you make half cocked assumptions and insult them haha
Take a chill pill lad
@@darthvader6533 That was a typo you sad xexk.
I just can't stand the BS people come out with in relation to car safety, it's bordering on Flat Earth levels of stupidity.
The big jump occurred in the early to mid 90's, before then it was all mild steel and collapsing passenger compartments.
Can't y'all just have an anniversary cake like normal people?
OMG that is so funny
😂😂
hahaha 🤣
Nope. They've got to fucking ruin the 50 year old car that their celebrating. And btw I'm your 420th like. You're welcome.
EXACTLY.
At least you can change a headlight on the Bel-Air without taking the bumper off
Dude..., duuuuuuuuuude..., omfg....
Hmm.. that IS what matters when you crash..
@@druidofthefang, don't drive like a idiot and you'll be fine.
@@zasadacrew Everyone else drives like an idiot...
@@zasadacrew Doesn't matter how good you drive if an idiot hits you.
"They don't build them like they used to." Yes, and we're better off because of it
Not in all cases.
Not to mention the horrible MPG and exhaust of these things.
Worse off, can't work on new vehicles for shit. Don't give me that garbage
@@LindeSir Learn how to work on them, then. I'll take complicated cars that save my life any day.
@@toddbarton1049 I have worked on them they are a joke
Coming to this video to say the 2009 malibu saved my life as well as my passengers in a crash I had. I bought another one after. Love this year model and car.
Yet the FanBoys still claim this was rigged.
@@user-sf7kl9uh7knobody is claiming this is rigged sit down
@@brandon8900 I suggest you have a closer look through the comments. There's claims that the Bel Air was a replica, rusted though, cut through, had the engine removed etc. So many stupid people in this world.
@@user-sf7kl9uh7k Yes, and they get to drive cars-----Watch out!!
Needs bigger fuzzy dice for safety improvements
right LOL
No it needs to be lifted higher
And a high visibility jacket
The Malibu driver should be distracted while on a Cellphone.
I had a 59 Bel Air. The engine compartments are hollow compared to cars today. I could stand inside it to work on it.
I wish I was an adult back in the days where you could tinker with your own car. I'm an 80's baby...by the time I got my first car, you needed an IT degree to change the damn oil.
Mr. Ras Lyon THATS because your dumb.
@@BARelement ok normie
@@mr.raslyon6626 you can still do it yourself. They arent that hard to figure out.
@@BARelement You're* If *YOU'RE* going to correct someone, make sure you are correct as well.
This video is what the people who says “Old cars were real hard metal cars” need to see
They'll not be told sadly, just read the BS excuses they're making for the Old Tin!!
@@user-sf7kl9uh7k Oh really go watch how solid steel fairs in a crash and then watch this as someone who has hit new cars in his old Datsun 280C and seen firsthand how an old car held together by chicken wire and zip ties absolutely mangled the modern Suzuki Swift this car was clearly fake the of course new cars are safer thanks to things like airbags and whatnot but nobody is denying that the argument is it will not fair good in a crash it will not be fixable in a crash and the older cars are safer in low speed crashes on account of the giant bumpers made to absorb the low speed hits
1:30 Finally! We get to see the overhead shot.
1:33 Psych! It’s the same side shot you’ve seen five times.
I remember in approx 1979, I worked part time at my 1st job, picking parts at a wrecking yard.
Never forget the 67 camero, basically turned inside out from hitting a tree at way, WAY OVER 100mph.
The back of the front seat was pushed out the back window.
My job....strip it.
I saved the right side, rear pass, glass...that was literally all that was left....
There was a beer can 1/2 opened, stuffed into the speedometer, with basically a scalp and shoes smashed between the firewall and the underside of the dash.
This car would have fit in the bed of a truck.
Before you ask..."Olympia"
The driver clearly had zero chance.
Think before you drink...
Iv seen it, so you dont have too
Even in a new car you´d be dead at 100mph. The only difference today is, that the paramedics can keep their food inside their stomach when they see the victim
first of all its spelled camaro not camero
anyways how would the newer cars fair at over 100 mph. i kind of have the feeling that any car at that speed and impact, will be completely destroyed. that is why is it so unwise to drive at those speeds. just because something is capable of going that fast does not mean that you SHOULD go that fast.
Andrew, that word is spelled "fare", not "fair". And you forgot the question mark at the end of the sentence.
Wow, very good description of what had to have been a horrific moment back then.
@jackthegamer It's 2019, people drive looking down now. (pisses me off too)
Now we just need something that has the safety of a new car, and the beauty of an old one.
Fiat 500
+MK3424 The 500 is a great piece of shit
Victor Melchy At least it's not as ugly as the new Mini's (although you can't call them 'mini')
Victor Melchy it's just a ladies car, such as all those retro modern cars. Real man have the guts to drive the original ones, but women have to make a statement without sacrificing modern car technology. As far as I know there will never be a car as stylish as those old car but able to reach modern standards. All they can do is fuck up the original to meet the modern norm. The Ford Flex is called a retro styled car, not in the way that the fiat 500 or Volkswagen Beetle try to mimic their predecessor, but just try to imitate the old station wagons (but making it a crossover to make it US-market-friendly). The closest you can get to old school cars are morgans and they did change through the years to meet regulations. But I have never seen them crash tested and I doubt they would get close to modern cars, but at least they don't try to mimic the old school, they are doing the old school
@Brecht Schatteman "Real man have the guts to drive the original ones, but women have to make a statement without sacrificing modern car technology."
Seriously? Why do you have to inject sexism into this? It has fucking nothing to do with men vs women. Everyone likes creature comforts. It has nothing to do with "guts". Some people just like classic cars enough to forget about the deficiencies, and some do not.
You're basically cherry picking the perfect car-guy and comparing him to the average woman with no interest in cars. This is not a realistic comparison, most guys don't give a shit about cars either.
It's funny that people say "They don't make them the way they used to" because it's true, *but not in the way they may think!* It's also funny that automakers were very hesitant to put even safety belts in their cars because they felt it made their cars seem unsafe to buyers. Years later, automakers would resist putting airbags in their cars because they said it would increase the price too much. Vehicle safety is one area where government intervention was actually a good thing.
Pre 90's tin isn't safe at all.
Thinking back as a kid in the 60s in our local newspaper almost every week on the front page was a picture of some car that was totaled. The speed of the highways was 65 where now it’s 55. Yet the roads were much narrower, steeper hills, and sharper curves let alone the low quality of tires and suspension. It was cool to drive fast and drunk! It’s good to know that some things get better.
It unfortunately is still cool to drive fast and drunk. We have just grown up.
A significant proportion have Not 'grown up'.@@evocatus989
@@evocatus989 I graduated high school in 2009, and driving fast was still cool but driving drunk absolutely not. it was heavily stigmatized
When I got my first drivers license (1973), 50,000 people died in car accidents per year.
Now, with with 50% more people, 30,000 die per year.
That's progress.
Correlation does not equal causation.
You tried though.
@@bLackmarketRadio But he's not wrong.
and more people are killed with Knives, clubs and fists than AR15's every year, but they want to ban AR15's.....since cars kill 30k a year, Why do we not want to ban them ? and motorcycles, bicycles, skateboards, trampolines and swimming pools......The Horror...The Horror.....
@@lrlapua8035 lol he clearly wasn't advocating for things to be banned, he was just stating how it's impressive that the death toll of car accidents can goo down, despite the number of drivers going up thanks to advances in the design of car monocoques, compared to older body on frame designs that don't divert the force around the occupants.
why even bring up the discussion of gun rights in a conversation about vehicle safety anyways?
It really should be getting higher, we need to control the population somehow don't worry though just buy a Chevy and it'll get higher.
Poor guy in the Bel Air was racing to get home to in time to catch his old lady with the Maytag repairman. Mr. Wipple down at the A&P told him about it
Please, dont SQUEEZE the Charmin!, you must be from NY, A&P , used to shop there.
@@lt4324 Rather have the '59 any day. You coulda told me the '09 was a Chevy, Toyota, Suburu, Honda, Dodge, etc., and I wouldn't have known the difference, because there aren't many......
Milo, babe, I actually care about my grandkids.
I will take the ‘09, as anyone with some semblance of intelligence would.
You get the ‘59.
@@sludge4125 Yeah, pre 90's cars for the death.
This is the video I'm going to suggest next time I hear someone say "those things are built like a tank."
I've got to say, this one surprised the hell out of me! I was a fan of those big older cars and I drove them all through the 90s for pennies on the dollar! I could buy an awful lot of gasoline with what I saved on the car, but I really thought I was safer! THANK YOU!!
People think old cars are safe, they're not..
@@user-sf7kl9uh7k They actually are, maybe not this model, but lets say u got rear ended by a new toyota for example while ur in a 69 charger, the charger would not have a dent while the toyota is completely totaled, same with front end collisions depending if you or the other drives is going faster
@@swefishers9529 They're not, stop making up silly things. There's no evidence that old cars are safer and plenty to the contrary. Please educate yourself before writing such misleading nonsense.
Did you read what i said? everything i said is true because it has been tested by my father, most of it is because of the massive weight of a old classic muscle car, and that makes the impact heavier for the toyota, so no, i am not wrong dude@@user-sf7kl9uh7k
@@swefishers9529 COPE
"They don't make 'em like they used to." Yeah, thank God!
Is like when someone wants a f250 cause on the eighties or early nineties had a f150 and didn't have enough power
+crazy wheel in my opinion any 80s car is a death trap from what I've seen
Not any 80s car. Some were much better than others, just like today. There's a video on here with the crash test of a 90 Crown Vic, but the body and chassis were changed very little until 92. It actually does a little better than the Malibu. The Malibu is only a few inches smaller too.
I actually didn't know that till I looked it up just now. I drive an 89 Grand Marquis, and I feel a lot safer driving it now.
btw it had a roll cage in the silver car so it BS
THUNDER STORM VOLTAGE
All vehicles are currently required by law to be able to support their own weight upside-down. They're all like that. That's why newer cars almost always have double side mirrors. They have blind spots the size of the moon.
I can't believe these two drivers were such dummies, no attempt to brake or steer away. lol Cheers from John, Australia.
Used to 'driving ' Camrys?
Lol, they ARE dummies, because they are test dummies
Hahaha
Dummies, I see what you have done here.
They actually are dummies
It's always interesting to watch the "Signal 30" (1959) video from the Ohio State Patrol. Signal 30 is the call sign for a traffic fatality. The Signal 30 video is here on CZcams.
Personally, I think the ‘59 was thinking “For Science!” Before it made impact.
I’ve always been under the impression that an older metal car would demolish modern day cars if involved in an accident but this completely blew my mind
Modern cars are designed to crumple the front and rear ends while keeping the passenger compartment intact. Yeah, it means higher repair bills for smaller accidents, but the soft squishy parts stay intact in high impact collisions. Notice in the video what happens to the passenger compartment, how the Bel Air folds up like an accordion mashing the head and torso down while the Malibu stays intact inside.
Robert Wallis If the Bel Air had its engine it would have been even worse, too. A lot of work goes into making sure the engine isn’t going to crash into the passenger compartment in a collision nowadays. Back then the engine would rip out fast.
Ambient Morality The Bel Air did have an engine in it - straight 6. Less than a minute to look it up online.
I saw brown dust, they rigged the Malibu
GG Bro don’t believe everything you see. That rust dust from the frame of the bel air doesn’t look good. Compromised frame junker was used to show off the 2009...
Thank god the Fresh Prince wasn’t in there.
Because the test was not done in the "Summer Summertime..."
"...listen MISS-would a lunatic drive a car like this?!" (based on the above-YES)
If he was, it would surely be a systematic hate crime....
No it wasn’t.
Underrated 😂
Yo home, smell ya later!
Can't wait to see how the 2009 Chevy Malibu holds up in this kinda test in 2059.
How do we know if it'll even be around anymore? Old cars were built to LAST, modern cars are NOT!!!
@@OtomoTenzi Better rust protection on a modern car, but in less than 50 years cars will be autonomous.
No they will not
@@JacobSeed_2018 Yes they will.
@@user-sf7kl9uh7k nope
“Old cars have a reputation of being rock solid”. Yes, including the steering column. It’s almost like there is a solid bar linking the front of your car directly into your face and chest.
Yet the Clowns cry foul 😂
my stomach hurts seeing a classic ruined
i am glad that there's one less fire hazard, unsafe death machine pile of metal garbage on the road
So sad
Why
+DJ Jesus.He Died for your spins
The ladies been laughing at you as you drive by in your Prius? Don't cry man. I bet your mom still loves you. Sort of...
myk sanchez i don't care what people say. At least when i crash into a "Classic car" I won't be the one dying on the hospital bed.
people that drove model "T",S and model "A",s were the bravest except for motorcycle riders
I am tired of people thinking an old car is safer because it's "stronger," and criticizing new cars for crumpling so easily... they crumple easily on purpose. In fact, old cars crumple more easily at higher speeds because the shock is not absorbed. That's the kind of crumpling one does NOT want.
Crumpling is crumpling.
+JAMES HAY Have you never heard of CRUMPLE ZONES? Stop spreading bullshit "Crumpling is crumpling." UNSAFE ideas. Idiot.
Do you not know what a crumple zone is?
Wow. The old car's dashboard exploded into the dummy's face.
"Why did Consumer Reports trash a classic antique car in a crash test?"
"Cuz it's cool."
This is all a matter of perspective. I played this video backwards, simulating each car running in reverse, and the net result was BOTH cars came out just fine in the end. So, NTSA would do well to promote legislation that reflects these findings.
Where's my time machine?
It is incredible to see how much of that impact energy is absorbed in the modern car - the cabin hardly shudders during the collision, a stark contrast to what happens in the older car.
tjf4375 Yeah, the good old days are missed. Back then you actually had to give a shit and pay attention because it was more than likely only a body that would be recovered from a wreck. I miss the days stupidity would get you killed.
Pitviper1979 Not gonna lie, that's a real dumb statement. Being a stupid driver these days will still get you injured, your car might be written off or even worse, you can certainly end up dead still. The only difference is that nowadays you are less likely to die from a car crash because of improved safety. Harking back to the old days because you could die more easily in a car crash is ridiculous, especially considering you can still get in an accident caused by someone else. Think.
Pitviper1979 that makes no sense. That also means those are the days that people die from OTHER people's stupidity. You miss that too?
You mean the stupidity of, for example, drunk drivers getting innocent bystanders/drivers killed? What an idiotic and awful comment, which suits the idiotic and awful person who wrote it.
phxcppdvlazi Think he's trying to say people need more real consequence for their actions is all. Or maybe the stupidity of commenting on the stupid comments on stupid CZcams.
This was shown to us at my factory job (big emphasis on safety in and out of the plant) to remind us of safety protocol importance. One good ol' boy afterward said he didn't believe it that '59 wasn't the mightier vehicle.😑
At lower speeds and better angles, maybe that solid steel box would do more damage and not feel any itself. In this worst-case scenario? Neither car would have a chance to survive, but with modern designs the people might survive.
Who cares about a mightier vehicle? I prefer to walk away and buy another car. The SUVs and pickups of today have the same problem, they do terrible in crash tests and people believe they are invulnerable.
The '59 Impala was and is one of the best looking cars ever made.
I agree. Not sure why the "batwing" tail lamps were dropped for the next year. I really like them.
58, 59 and 60 impalas were beautiful cars. Each year was very unique. I can see why they chose a Bel Air instead of an impala to use in this crash.
The Malibu is actually more dangerous because anybody driving it would die of boredom. At least the Bel Air has character, but I am glad they didn't ruin a '57!
the malibu in 60 years will be viewed the same as the bel-air today, don't kid yourself.
Kevin Carlson lol, not all nostalgia is good. If you have that much faith in it, buy a few of them and sell them for the equivalent of today's $100k in 2075. The '57 Bel Air has been highly sought after for decades. I still think 80s cars are boring as hell.
MrChevypower i'm saying that the bel-air is nothing special, as is the same with the malibu.
its overpriced because of nostalgia, the current malibu might not recieve that same kind of attention in time (but it could) regardless it would be unwarranted (in my opinion), these cars are average examples of cars from their times, and that is my point.
Kevin Carlson The fins on the back of the 57-59 were innovative for their time (though everyone did it) and it was challenging and expensive for them to do. I don't believe car companies (especially GM) puts as much effort into building cars anymore. Actually Bob Lutz even admitted that while he still worked for GM.
MrChevypower you bring up fins as a engineering challenge, and then also bring up that everyone else was doing it, its nothing special, they were simply following what trends more innovative car companies have set.
the Bel-air fit into its market segment and sold well, just as did the Malibu, they are simply responding to the demands of the customers of the times.
What most people do not know is that that the old Chevy has the infamous X-frame construction. Even when car restorers plan to restore a Chevy Belair with an X-frame, they always pull the stock X-frame and build a different frame. The Belair was picked purposely to give the illusion that all older cars are not as safe as the new ones. I would like to see the Malibu go against a 1956 Buick Road master, any year Crown Victoria, or old Cadillac or Lincoln. The X-frame was the reason the Belair line was terminated.
+Indrid Cold "The Belair was picked purposely to give the illusion that all older cars are not as safe as the new ones." No illusion. Safety records show that newer cars are significantly more crash worthy than older ones. I think what the critics here are perhaps viscerally reacting to is the concept of old versus new without consideration of the engineering and technical aspects. Yes, there are a lot of gorgeous classics out there. But if your loved one was in an accident like the one shown in this video, would you rather they were in a new car with a "good" safety rating (highest possible from IIHS), or in a typical 1950's sedan?
+Indrid Cold Every car restorers I know who worked on 59 Chevy didn't change the frame... Pro touring or custom builders are more used to do that kind of modification :) Anyway I agree with Hector, my 59 is not safe, I know this, but I won't feel safer in another 50's classic, old cars were not made to resist to crashes, they were made to be beautiful, comfortable, powerful and huge, laws about deformations during crashes arrived later :) (Sorry for my approximative english, this is not my native language)
+Indrid Cold The 1956 Roadmaster would probably be in pretty good shape. You'd be able to wash the remains of the driver out with a hose so that someone else could drive it.
There is a tremendous amount of kinetic energy involved here. That energy has to go somewhere. It can either bend sheetmetal or it can break bones. A modern car is designed to act as a giant shock absorber. It will crush in a controlled fashion to protect the passenger compartment. The engine is designed to go under you rather than end up in your lap like the old days. At the end of the day it's what the occupants look like after the accident, not the car.
+Indrid Cold
Welcome to the world of "cherry-picking".
I suspect you're right. There's a reason why the Crown Vic was the vehicle of choice for cops and cabbies in the 90s. I don't know how the 1950s era version stacked up but it wouldn't surprise me if it was a similar design.
Cars were once built on two rail-like beams that were usually a hollow rectangular frame that was contoured to the mount the body. Pickup trucks are still made this way. It is called body on frame construction. Sometimes the frame was not a hollow rectangular frame. Some were just a squared, "C," and not fully boxed in.
Well, the Chevrolet Bel Are had a frame that instead of having two parallel beams running the length of the car and having joining cross beams to support the body, GM decided to make a frame that made an, "X," under the car. This was just fine for the front and back, but he middle was very thin and week. In a gentle collision, the car bent in the middle because only the flimsy body was providing any sort of support. The very thin junction where the X met in the middle bent very easily. The X-Frame idea was quickly abandoned by General Motors.
Today's vehicles have what is known as unibody. The body has stamped contours and reinforcing patterns to take the place of the frame. This makes the modern cars very easily crushed. This is why modern cars have so many air bags. They need all the airbags to make them safer. In a way, the car crushing around you makes for safer small collisions. But in a large collision, the car will crush you and trap you inside tinfoil.
I have seen these two vehicles at the IIHS facility in Ruckersville, VA. Seeing them up close really is eye opening as to how far we've come in vehicle safety.
Yup, F the FanBoys.
@@user-sf7kl9uh7k yea your just a troll lol everyone who knows old cars knows this is a terrible example they set up on purpose.
X frame cars do this when hitting other 60s cars they simply are flawed.
@@taylorsopko5807 I do have an issue with people claiming old cars are safe, it's childish BS.
@@user-sf7kl9uh7k I think you should read your own comments man you keep telling everybody off. Your just being a troll. You've apparently never even owned older cars and hate them for some reason, probly an environmentalist.
@@taylorsopko5807 I just understand that each generation of car's safer than the last. It's called progress, you're just delusional.
古い車は頑丈そうな印象ですが違いますね。現代の居住スペースが守られるクルマの安心さがわかりました。
01:30 why would you cut this shot? It's a great shot.
Agreed! It looks from the other views that the left side of the car pretty much shears off, would be great to see it from above.
I guess it’s too expensive
It'll take too long to render from that view.
Notus Notus They did not go on their website of the vehicles after the crash they take pictures. You can see the engine in both cars. They are not a government company that scams people The are run by insurance teams. This is a true test I don’t understand how people can be so hurt to not just admit old cars are not as safe. Like why would they make unsafe cars today in the first place. New technology brings better things no matter how much you want to argue it.
One reason could be, they didn't shoot the film . . . maybe . . . ya think?
Shame to see an old Bel Air terminated like this. One less classic to be had.
I'd be more sad if it was an Impala two-door hardtop or convertible. The four-door Biscayne and Bel-Air sedans are more plentiful.
atleast it was a four-door
You say "It had four doors" but you do NOT say "It was a four doors". You DO, however, say "Two words for you" and not "two woprd for you".
not really if you pay attention you can see all the rust dust in the air most likely this was a junk yard find and had rust issues but they just painted over it made it look pretty and crashed it i doubt they would actually use a solid road worthy car.
but if they did use a fully restorable car who ever's idea this was should be castrated with a rusty dull bic razor blade. cause people like that have no need reproducing 💁
also it was in mint condition
Re-watching this video, I'm mind-boggled that the Bel Air's hood crumpled together like that despite being longer than the Malibu's!!!
It's just sheetmetal. The only structure with any strength is the frame, and it doesn't run the full length or width of the car. The frame doesn't protect the driver at all in that car. A Chevy that old was designed by the styling department, and engineers had to figure out how to make the sheet metal into the required shapes and make it go. The frame is there for workers to attach stuff to it as it goes down the assembly line.
A modern car actually has structural shapes designed for rigidity and crash safety. Engineers are no longer subordinate to the styling department.
Some fan of old cars complained that the 2009 car had a roll cage installed but in reality *that's how cars are made now*
The 59 bel-air was an X-frame car and the location of the impact was right in the bel airs most vulnerable spot. There is no protection in a side swipe collision with an x frame car. Also….LOOK AT THAT CLOUD OF RUST come from under the Bel Air! That car was rotten underneath its pretty paint job. This is not a fair comparison for how the bel air would do in a collision.
Its a fake video, the 59 would destroy the malibu
@@acmecompany BS
@@MikeN-cs8qe No, it was a solid example. Old cars aren't safe, deal with it. Then move on.
You'd think the older car would cut through the new one like tissue paper. Not so. Great engineering.
The 59 was strategically weakend, cars in that era did not react that way in a crash. I'm old enough to have seen many of them in actual wrecks.
That's what 60 years of metal fatigue + the removal of the engine will do.
@@raytycker1656Drivel, the test was representative and repeatable. The NTSB just wouldn't get away with doing that.
@@EdmontonRailsNope, try 50 years of progress. You're a Butt Hurt Fan Boy!
But damn did cars in the 40s and 50s look good! Drop dead gorgeous machines! I'd drive one over any thing on the road today
late 50 like this one and early 60 were a great time for huge rear fins, and other "space age" features, very unique interiors too
Nick Tasy Same.
Fjolfrin the Silk Beard that's true I own one
'59 Bel Air vs dorky '09 Malibu: No competition
Why did they cut away the top view 1:30 right at the moment of impact! That was going to be the best view!
Exactly
Cuz they fuckin suck ass dude
Ikr i wanted to see where the hood and windshield were going
In the original overhead shot you could see there was no motor in the '59 chevy
Too graphic ;)
I noticed with the Bel air the steering column punch through the dash board nearly piercing the dummy.
So dangerous, all pre 90's cars are I'm afraid.
Crumple zones, seatbelts and head rests make a huge difference.
Noooo the bel air :( such a great car though
Jack Hintze - Didn't you notice the Rust on the old one when it crashed and how it blew dust off.
The classic has weakened cause of the rust, otherwise it's strong
Golden 47 it wouldn't be very strong even without rust. But thats not the point of owning a classic.
This is why I laugh when people say “I’d rather be in an old car in a car crash, they’re made out of steel so they’re obviously safer”
Standard old guy comment.
This Impala looks like it was altered so it failed miserably in the crash. Don't be fooled by internet videos.
Don't forget seat belts just keep you stuck in the crash... if you don't wear a seat belt you can be thrown out of the car to safety!
@@jimkeskey BS. This isn't just some idiot looking for views. This was done by a legitimate organization. Do some research before making yourself look foolish.
The car shown in the video was suffering from massive amounts of rust and it didn't have an engine
Thank you to everyone that has helped make cars so much more safe and comfortable!!!!!!😀😀😀😀
My first car was a 1959 Bel air, I thought I was safe as being in a tank. Thank God I didn't have a serious accident. Now let's see how an Olds 88 would stand up to head on with a Malibu.
It would be about the same the 88 would be pretty much the same car with a fancier trim package.
I had one of those '88s. '68 if I remember right. Felt like I was in a tank. Maneuvered like a tank. People got out of the way like it was a tank. It drank like a tank. But yeah, at speed this thing would crumple like a tank doesn't.
I've been in the automotive collision business since 1975 amd i can tell you without batting an eye that modern cars are infinitely safer than old cars of the 50s, 60s and 70s. The Chevy Malibu is hardly the best 2009 car in a crash either. match that 1959 Chevy to an E series Mercedes (or VW) and I can promise you that the 1959 Chevy driver would be dead and the E series driver would suffer only minor bruises from the airbag. The fact that automotive technology has improved over the last 50 years has been well documented in the automotive trade journal "DUH".
Certainly the engine was still in the old Chevy, the car needs to be intact to perform these tests. Those old engines/transmissions just broke off their mounts and slid under the car/into the firewall in a crash like that. The U joints on the driveshaft just allow it to fold. You can see from the interior shots the whole dashboard caving in, it's the engine that did that.
You are correct, the engine was inside. It was a V6 btw.
@@kalinandonov2799 Chevy didn't make V6'es in 1959. It would be an inline 6
Yes, no car that age is going to do well in a test like this. The modern car is made using high tensile steels and computer designed load paths.
@@user-sf7kl9uh7k the car was clearly a rust bucket I would never bother to restore.
Modern cars completely bounce off my Cutlass, I've completely decimated them and I still drive the Cutlass lol. This video is beyond flawed I can't believe people are so gullible.
@@taylorsopko5807 It was on display in a publically accessable reception, nobody has reported seeing any rust. Photos of these modern cars that have bounced off your Cutlass, (lol) or it's never happened.
Sad to see the loss of a genuine classic. Nice to see how the engineering works to keep passengers safe. And yeah, I'd still rather have the classic.
Yeah, but it would be nice to also have the newer car if you ever felt like you were going to be in an accident. 😉
Not really a classic... it was a Bel Air. Now if they did that to an Impala, I'd be crying.
@@petemcintire4339 An Impala would fold up the same
@@user-sf7kl9uh7k Folding isn't the issue. Impala is the classic from that time period, not the Bel Air.
Even though the Chevrolet Bel Air crumpled into a piece of origami, it had more style smashed, than the Malibu had before the crash! 🤔🤣
The 59 Chevy's steering wheel also came out and hit the driver in the head. A common design flaw in older cars.
Jason Schwartz and the back bench was completely air born
Yeah i would love to have a bel air but in a crash its really sketchy
Wolf Coyote the Bel Aire would have faired better had its engine and drivetrain in place and wasn't filled with rust. The new cars are still much safer than the old will ever be, but when they were new, we weren't traveling at high speeds. This made crashes much less severe. I honestly believe it we reduced the died we travel at today to that if 40+ years ago, there would be no traffic fatalities with how safe today's cars are.
Agree! and good observation, I noticed the rust as well.
Look at the video very closely. That is the front bench that is air born.
I still think this video is an awesome demonstration. Before I saw it several years ago, I was of the mindset that those big old classic heavy steel-filled cars were somehow safer because of how much metal is there, but that concept went into the toilet for me very quickly after watching this.
Yup. Modern engineering trumps inert mass.
Yup.. I showed this video to my grandparents a few years ago.. it blew their minds. They immediately called farce because big 'murrican cars were built like tanks. I said, well so are the newer domestic cars, and all cars. Something like the Smart ForTwo is a good example of how extreme engineering can get in impact absorption nowadays in automobiles.
its some what true but this test was a little riged
Did you not notice how there is no engine in the bel air and when they collide a huge cloud of rust comes from the bel air? It looks like they went to a junkyard and gave a clapped out bel air a new paint job and brought it back for a "legitimate" crash test.
Tony Allen oh please, this car doesn't have an engine, and it is rusted. If you were to put a ford falcon or chevy chevelle. It would eat right through that malibu.
Not gonna lie. I thought that Bel-Air would obliterate that Malibu. I'm kinda impressed.
It would if it wasnt a rustbucket. Notice the huge cloud of rust from the belair?
The old Bel Air, like most cars back then, was just made from sheetmetal.
They hadn't put any effort into making the structure safe in a crash. The frame was a convenient starting point to mount things as it went down the assembly line.
The styling department dictated to the engineers what the car would look like. Engineers had to figure out how to make the shapes, and make it go. Safety equipment back then meant the center of the steering wheel was recessed so your chest would hit the rim first, and in a light enough impact the center wouldn't impale you. And they might have stopped putting pointy toggle switches on the dashboard.
By 1959 I'm not sure they'd even invented collapsible steering columns, or that safety glass that's laminated on the inside. Seat belts were rare, and people even claimed they were dangerous.
The Malibu is the safer car because we actually have *standards* now, and some engineering and crash testing went into that body structure. The 1959 car showed that if you drive a really large tin can, it's still a tin can.
@@liquidleopard4495 I know, I restore and play with classic cars. The Bel-Air would destroy the malibu if it were solid because it doesnt have crumple zones. It would also probably kill you to get in that crash. But id rather die in a 59 Bel Air than be paralyzed in a 09 malibu.
@@allurared9029 its just an x frame, they were a flawed design. Thats why they picked it for this test.
My brother was stopped in a traffic jam in his Malibu when a Ford F 150 ran into his trunk at 50 miles per hour shoving his car into the car in front of him and crushing the back of his car. He was fine no injury when he got home he was finding glass chunks in his clothes. He went to the local Chevy dealer and bought a Malibu the next day .
That's the whole point . . . "Any landing you walk away from is a good one."
Photo's, or it didn't happen. Plus, no headrests, you'd literally be paralyzed from the whiplash instantly.
no shit. but i still think the old car has 'design.' modern cars are all alike, which is sad.
nostalgia goggles, how is that any different from old cars in their generation? and this is coming from someone who doesnt even want a car made in the last 20 years.
***** nice opinion.
*****
thats what i said
if you looked up "cars from the 50's" they would all practically look alike, nothing has changed
Xisadz Gokou thats ture
Yinan Liu yeah, with as little as human beings have changed physically in the past 50 years, (30% fatter, 20% less well educated) you'd think that car designers would put less emphasis on your staging alive, more on how stylish you look approaching a collision. idiot.
props to the two people who sacrificed themselves for such a informative video
Nice sarcasm.
Pah. Only a dummy would volunteer for this.
they’re a load of dummies for that
And don’t forget the two camera men who sat on the back seat and recorded the video
Actually the Malibu driver survived.
All I can say is, thank you Consumer Reports!
man idc if new cars are meant to be ‘safe’ i will forever love older cars
For some reason, because the Bel Air is a 'cool' car it discredits the video?
Considering that a modern day Fiesta makes a 90s Saab or Volvo look like a death trap on wheels, the results in this video are of no surprise whatsoever. I'm surprised it even held up as well as it did.
Modern cars are safe because they are required by law to pass certain tests.
Sadly, these facts are lost on the FanBoys
Still those 50`s cars were like a living room on wheels.
I know, modern cars even 'larger ones' are very claustrophobic and packed in.
May I introduce you to the Stout Scarab?
Mine was more like a bedroom on wheels!
Pity they handled like boats
Emppu T. My mom drives a Escalade but even that looks small compared to old cars!!
I really _didn't_ expect the old "59 Bel-Air to wind up _that_ damaged, especially from a newer car with a thinner metal skin, but the test shows something different!
X-frame have no chance against 40%hit and becomes curved K
Moreover the straight uncollapsed steering column and luck of seatbelts gives no chance to driver and passengers 😢
@@Seregium No 50's 60's 70's or even 80's design is going to hold up well against a modern car.
Go ahead. Take a vote on which car the viewers would still rather have.
It was a shame to total that '59 in a destructive test.
The Mailbu certainly is designed for better safety, and is solidly packed.
The off center collision, hits the Bel Air where there is a large empty void.
1959 Chevy bel air
safe: no
styling: beatiful
2009 Chevy Malibu
safe: yes
styling: ugly
Faaaaaaaaaaaaacts
Yes.
Would u rather drive a ugly style car and live? Or drive a classic car with non of the safety standards and die?
True indeed
@@huskerman8850 I'll take the die one
2009 zoomer vs 1959 boomer
Electric boogaloo edition
*siiiiip*
@Burleon ok boomer
Burleon THATS still dumb and a waste of cash. You’ll need to constantly fix it, with hard to find expensive parts if it’s anything worth money.
@@BARelement That's not true, these cars were known to start up and run perfectly even after 40+ years of neglect. Also the parts are way more cheaper and easier to repair than the modern electronics in cars nowadays
I’m a zoomer and would take the 59 anyday over any mordorn car
I'm 62 years old in 2023 my first car was a 59 Chevy Belair 4 door I loved that car
Preston Tucker, in late 1940's, designed and built cars (49 in total before FEC put him out of business) that used WWII aircraft concepts to create a 'cage' of passenger compartment with front and back fenders crushing under pressure to absorb energy of impact and lessen potential passenger injuries. Big Three resisted, until, under Nixon, they were forced them starting in 1969, to design these vehicles safer. This video, of 1959 vs 2009 Chevy response to crashes and affect on passengers, shows how effectve all this was.
Why are people getting upset about this? It's obvious modern cars are more secure, how is anyone surprised by the result? And this doesn't mean you can't own and love your classic car, it's just a display of the clear difference technology and engineering made through the years. We should be happy about it.
they are mad about destroying a classic car
@Rata 4U So classical music or architexture is ugly?
Such a non-car guy... >_
@@kingofroses302 It is not even ugly. Even old cars are not ugly.
Because its design is completely rare on newer vehicles. So I would rather use a classic vehicle(But not on dangerous roads).
@Matthew Dawood Khaghani dude fuck yourself if you look at the comments you are in way over your head.
I was surprised that the '59 crumpled that bad, note the steering column coming out like a missle to the dummy's head! I don't think a human would survive in the '59, or if they did, they would be severely injured. And to think back in the 60's, I used to, as a child, ride standing up in the front seat between my Mom and Dad, my only restraint being my Dad's right arm!
Looking at the results, you were probably better off catapulting through the windshield than being restrained inside the car.
I'm 72. Watch this video and see how intelligent regulations can save lives. I remember when seat belts were non existent or an extra. Wind shield washers went from non existent to an extra. The fight over airbags went on for years. Crash absorbing front ends another battle. Ford had a truck where the fuel tank was outside the frame and burst into flames in a side impact. Ford's money guys calculated it was cheaper to pay the claims for driver deaths than fix the problem.
I first saw this like 8 years ago and just found it again, I won't lose it this time
Too bad the Malibu doesn't look as good as the bel air
59 Malibu is an ugly car.
when buying appliances, do you really care what it's like visually? no, you just get something that has better performance and gets the job done, and that's all a car is. an appliance of transport to get people from a to b
@@smoketrash6807 Well, you're definitely not a car enthusiast. Probably still roll around on your mom's hand-me-down 1996 Toyota Camry!
Sam T. Get out hipster
I don't really care about looks. I just care about getting from point A to B in one piece.
Cough- Bel Air -Cough
Removing the engine is cheating
Is it seriously removed in both vehicles? I can’t seem to spot it.
There's no way to prove that, buy in any case the engine in the Bel Air likely would've been more of a danger of being pushed back into the passenger compartment through the firewall.
I was thinking the same thing. That bel air crumbled as if nothing was there. I call a bluff.
@@chaddsteinberg3758 The '59 was too heavy for the catapult so they removed the engine and transmission to make the weight.
I don't think there would have been much a difference
I never wouldve guessed, thank god they did this test
Many fools don't believe this is real dude. We need more and more until they do.
"They don't make them like they used to" because someone invented crash test dummies and proved that 4000 lbs of sheetmetal is still just sheetmetal.
admittingly I would've called for the complete opposite effect. I learned something new today.
My first car was a 1965 Chevy Bel Air (seafoam green, of course). While I miss it, I do think about how badly things would have gone if I were ever in a wreck in that thing.
Your 1965 Bel Air would have been a bit safer since it wasn’t on the x-frame like all 1958 to 1964 GM cars with the exception of Oldsmobile since they had their own frame vs all the other GM divisions at the time. By 1965, all GM vehicles (with the exception of a few) went to a perimeter frame chassis since they probably got a lot of negative feedback (more than likely from insurance companies) since most had issues with the frame bending even in a fender bender which totaled the vehicle since the frame would have been distorted along with the body that was on it.
Put air bags, seat & shoulder harnesses in the 1965 & it would
be just as good! I had a '68 Bel Air & it was a 'tank'! It hit a tree
& it just had a small dent in the hood! A new car would have been
a wreck!
wear a motorcycle helmet!
@@rongendron8705But who's going to do that? Your crash into a tree sounds impressive though dude, got to give you that!
Pictures, or it didn't happen.
In the winter of 1976 I slid on some ice in my first car at the age of 16. It was also a 1965 model. A Chevy Impala convertible. I sure did love that car! I hit another car head on about about 20 mph. I hit them at an angle, so his front corner struck the middle of my fender. Caved my fender in good, but I still was able to drive it home. I sold it weeks later for 75 bucks and got me a 1970 Ford LTD.... that thing was a monster by today's standards. My Impala only had a six cylinder in it.
One thing is for sure is this ‘59 Chevy Bel Air is on the X-frame chassis and it was the worst chassis for safety since there was no side rails on the sides and this is why the front end caves in. The last GM vehicle to ever use the X-frame chassis was the 1970 Buick Riviera, and all other GM vehicles by that point switch to a different chassis designs by that point.
The result would be the same either way, old cars aren't safe.
@@matthewking5612 old cars aren’t safe if the driver doesn’t drive safely 😉
@@seana806 Ok, but we're discussing crash performance here.
@@seana806 And by extension, other drivers driving safely as well. You can control your own actions, but can you really control the actions of others especially when they are easily distracted by shiny things constantly buzzing and ringing just because they have to be in contact with everybody at every minute of every waking hour?
But in the 50's especially, x frames were common. Yes a full frame is safer, but those weren't nearly as common in the 50's.
Anyone who would destroy a classic car like that should be arrested.
the worst part about the old cars when it comes to safety is the lack of a seat belt . i read in a car magazine from the early 60's that to hold yourself back from hitting the dashboard in a 30 mph collision into a fixed barrier you would have to be strong enough to do push ups with 15 people on your back . seat beltslessen your chance of serious injury a lot , ones with shoulder belts even more so . a lot of times in a collision it is not a question of whether you get crushed or not , but whether you hit the dashboard hard or go through the windshield because you did'nt have seat belt on. and they will keep you in the car too if you are hit on the side or roll over at high speed .another important safety feature is a collapsible steering column . the old beetles where bad about causing injuries because the steering box is mounted far forward and the column is solid until the 68 models . volvo , saab , and mercedes benz cars from the seventies are probably the safest cars
Only 15 people?
Lol. Everyyyyone forgets peugeots with their integrated roll cages, crumple zones, 3 stage bonnet retention, cardan joint collapsible steering collumns, and active safety in the shape of excellent steering and brakes (drive a 70s volvo. Theyre fkn awful. So were saabs).
Put a mercedes up on a hoist next to a peugeot from then. Only difference is the merc has a bigger engine and recirculating ball steering instead of rack and pinion.
Theyre both built tough enough for africa and australia.
Many classics in the 1970s and 1980s had seat belts...
Plenty of other little improvements in the actual passenger cabin as well. When you say "dashboard" it's notable how many older cars had a steel dash perfect for smashing up bones, compared to the plastic-and-foam safety dash we have today.
The seat belt was invented in 59.... it's obvious previous cars wouldn't have them in.