I found this pretty interesting.
Video - Chevy Crash Test: 1959 Bel Air vs. 2009 Malibu - WSJ.com
Ouch!
Video - Chevy Crash Test: 1959 Bel Air vs. 2009 Malibu - WSJ.com
Ouch!
1959 Bel Air vs 2009 Malibu in crash test
- Thread starter georgewe4
- Start date
just plain john
El Camino a Go-Go!
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2007
At least it was a 4 door Bel Air.
There's been talk about this on another board I frequent. The crash is interesting in which if you will notice a red dust cloud that exits the car during the collision....which brings into question just how much rust there was and how sturdy this car really was. Looks like it was really a rust bucket covered in nice paint. Safety I don't was a big concern to US automakers until starting in the mid 1960's.
Really though I'd like to see them take a Chysler Imperial...the same ones that are banned from demolition debies....and run it head long into an '09 Malibu...and see who comes out the winner.
Really though I'd like to see them take a Chysler Imperial...the same ones that are banned from demolition debies....and run it head long into an '09 Malibu...and see who comes out the winner.
I found this on Craigslist. Here is a reply that someone posted about the video. He has some interesting things to say about it.
Of course, Chevy would like to show off the new products and encourage a purchase. But, the real information regarding that car was that it wasn't a rust bucket. It was actually a pretty nice, reasonably low mile automobile. If you search, there are articles documenting its purchase. They didn't use a particularly rusty classic to start with, which could have easily shown the point they were trying to make. Some of those cars from the midwest (ohio in particular) are as strong as a cracker...after the rust scales and creates holes everywhere.
Anyway, that was a decent '59 used in the test. Of course there was dust/dirt/rust coming out of the crash, but any 50 year old car would have that. However, what they don't tell you...is that while it wasn't a rusty vehicle...it has a notoriously weak frame regarding that particular make and model. In '59, they used something called an 'x-frame'. It was a poor design even in that day. The 'frame' if you will call it that is stamped pieces of metal. It is shaped in the form of an 'X' with the center of the X under the passenger compartment.
That means that if you get hit directly in the front or on the side, there is no protection. As you see, it'll basically go straight through to the middle of the car. At best, it folds one piece of the frame back...and still keeps going.
I think they used that frame for 4 or 5 years before they realized it was a horrible idea. '64 or '65 and later had what you would call a rectangular frame. Two larger frame rails running down the side of the car, connected by crossmembers. That sort of frame is FAR stronger. Imagine a ladder as a frame under a car.
You hit at any angle in that type of frame and you don't have a small part of the frame to bend or break. You're hitting a larger piece of the frame that won't move nearly as much, or snap like one of the arms of the 'X'
So, I'd love to see this test of a modern car against say...a 1973 pontiac grandville or something.
Don't get me wrong....I think the new cars are still far safer....but the results of the test are misleading...and they knew that they would be. Heck, it appears to have worked....that video is getting plenty of play time.
Or maybe the results weren't misleading. Indeed....a 2009 is far safer than a 1959. They established that as fact.
....it's just when people extrapolate to believe that the 2009 is far safer than any old car...when the water gets muddy
Of course, Chevy would like to show off the new products and encourage a purchase. But, the real information regarding that car was that it wasn't a rust bucket. It was actually a pretty nice, reasonably low mile automobile. If you search, there are articles documenting its purchase. They didn't use a particularly rusty classic to start with, which could have easily shown the point they were trying to make. Some of those cars from the midwest (ohio in particular) are as strong as a cracker...after the rust scales and creates holes everywhere.
Anyway, that was a decent '59 used in the test. Of course there was dust/dirt/rust coming out of the crash, but any 50 year old car would have that. However, what they don't tell you...is that while it wasn't a rusty vehicle...it has a notoriously weak frame regarding that particular make and model. In '59, they used something called an 'x-frame'. It was a poor design even in that day. The 'frame' if you will call it that is stamped pieces of metal. It is shaped in the form of an 'X' with the center of the X under the passenger compartment.
That means that if you get hit directly in the front or on the side, there is no protection. As you see, it'll basically go straight through to the middle of the car. At best, it folds one piece of the frame back...and still keeps going.
I think they used that frame for 4 or 5 years before they realized it was a horrible idea. '64 or '65 and later had what you would call a rectangular frame. Two larger frame rails running down the side of the car, connected by crossmembers. That sort of frame is FAR stronger. Imagine a ladder as a frame under a car.
You hit at any angle in that type of frame and you don't have a small part of the frame to bend or break. You're hitting a larger piece of the frame that won't move nearly as much, or snap like one of the arms of the 'X'
So, I'd love to see this test of a modern car against say...a 1973 pontiac grandville or something.
Don't get me wrong....I think the new cars are still far safer....but the results of the test are misleading...and they knew that they would be. Heck, it appears to have worked....that video is getting plenty of play time.
Or maybe the results weren't misleading. Indeed....a 2009 is far safer than a 1959. They established that as fact.
....it's just when people extrapolate to believe that the 2009 is far safer than any old car...when the water gets muddy
Little6pack
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2002
I guess for all the years that have past safty has improved
Similar threads
