1959 Bel Air vs 2009 Malibu

crunchierthanthou

New member

• Sep 25, 2009

• #1

IIHS celebrated their 50th anniversary by pitting a 1959 Chevy against a current one. Here's an offset crash test at 40 mph-

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CU-k0XmLUk"]YouTube - 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air Vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu IIHS Offset[/ame]

CR blog post

 

crunchierthanthou

New member

• Sep 25, 2009

• #2

oh, this one's better. it has view from inside the cabins.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xwYBBpHg1I&NR=1"]YouTube - Crash test: 1959 Chevy Bel Air[/ame]

 

I

InTheWoods

New member

• Sep 25, 2009

• #3

Wow, look at the windshield fly out of the '59 Bel Air! Pretty much intact, like a frisbee.

Beyond that, car safety's come a long way, thank goodness.

 

lovinwaves

New member

• Sep 26, 2009

• #4

I noticed the windshield too. Did you see how the dummy in the older car hit his head on the ceiling! Yowch.

 

skaterbabs

Well-known member

• Sep 26, 2009

• #5

wow!

 

2BunniesMommy

Well-known member

• Sep 26, 2009

• #6

In the one view it looks like the Bel Air swallows the Malibu.

Wow, just wow!

 

abacus2

Well-known member

• Sep 26, 2009

• #7

Wow, the views from inside the cabins are incredible!

 

LuvMyCharlie

New member

• Sep 26, 2009

• #8

I suppose that makes the saying, 'they don't make 'em like they used to,' a moot point, eh?

Wow.

 

LISmama810

Admin - CPS Technician

• Sep 26, 2009

• #9

Very cool!

(When I read the title, I thought you were trying to decide between the two cars! Guess the answer would be pretty clear now, huh? Well, that and the fact that the Bel Air probably doesn't have seatbelts...)

 

canadiangie

New member

• Sep 26, 2009

• #10

Absolutely fascinating. :thumbsup:

 

mama2Cecelia

New member

• Sep 26, 2009

• #11

I second the "wow"!!!

I can't believe the damage.....those older cars were like tanks, but after watching this I don't think so

I've owned a few older Pontiacs from the mid 60's and thankfully never got in a wreck

thanks for posting this-----definitely one to share

 

S

southpawboston

New member

• Sep 26, 2009

• #12

LuvMyCharlie said:

I suppose that makes the saying, 'they don't make 'em like they used to,' a moot point, eh?

Click to expand...

mama2Cecelia said:

those older cars were like tanks, but after watching this I don't think so

Click to expand...

+1. they may have had thicker sheet metal and were heavier than heck, but tanks they were not!

 

lovinwaves

New member

• Sep 26, 2009

• #13

southpawboston said:

+1. they may have had thicker sheet metal and were heavier than heck, but tanks they were not!

Click to expand...

And heavier isn't always better.

 

Jeanum

Admin - CPS Technician Emeritus

Staff member

• Sep 26, 2009

• #14

I need to find the link, there was an article on examiner.com that stated the curb weight of the Bel Air isn't all that different from the Malibu's weight. Seatbelts, crumple zones that act as crumple zones and protect the passenger compartment, etc. have come a long way in 50 years, thankfully.

ETA: Here's the examiner.com article with the curb weights of the two cars, with the Bel Air outweighing the Malibu by 179 lbs., not as much of a weight difference as one might think: http://www.examiner.com/x-10974-Kan...ash-test-as-seen-on-ABCs-Good-Morning-America and another article discussing the X-frame used in the Bel Air which isn't as optimal a design as other cars contemporary to it, although other 1959 models were also lacking in comparison to today's safety features: http://www.examiner.com/x-1006-DC-A...IIHS-crash-tests-a-1959-Chevy-was-it-a-set-up

 

crunchierthanthou

New member

• Sep 26, 2009

• #15

Jeanum said:

I need to find the link, there was an article on examiner.com that stated the curb weight of the Bel Air isn't all that different from the Malibu's weight. Seatbelts, crumple zones that act as crumple zones and protect the passenger compartment, etc. have come a long way in 50 years, thankfully.

Click to expand...

that CR link I hid at the bottom of my first post says 300-400 lbs. Which I don't think is all that much in terms of vehicle weights, especially when comparing one from 50 years ago.

 

Jeanum

Admin - CPS Technician Emeritus

Staff member

• Sep 26, 2009

• #16

I edited my earlier post with the article link and a second article from examiner.com. 179 lb. weight difference, and the Bel Air's frame is an X-frame which wasn't the most optimal of frames.

 

Jeanum

Admin - CPS Technician Emeritus

Staff member

• Sep 26, 2009

• #17

Apparently there were some detractors who suggested the Bel Air didn't even have an engine under the hood and/or it was nothing but dusty bits of rust ready to crumble at the slightest bump, etc., and that the IIHS had "rigged the test." The NY Times did some digging to find out more details about the specific Bel Air used in the crash test. While it wasn't a museum quality piece of automotive history, it did have an engine and a relatively sound frame and body panels for a 50 year old car: http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/more-details-about-1959-bel-air-crash-test/ You might need to register to read the NY Times article.

 

ketchupqueen

CPST and ketchup snob

Staff member

• Sep 27, 2009

• #18

If it asks you to register you can use bugmenot.com to get in.

 

classicseats

Active member

• Sep 27, 2009

• #19

That's a crime to destroy the 59 even though it's a 4 door.

 

H

HisMommy414

New member

• Sep 28, 2009

• #20

The '59 looked as if it crumpled like paper! I am so glad I ride in my parents' made-in-2009 cars! The video that shows the view from inside the vehicle is scary. I mean, the Malibu looks a lot safer but both accident POVs are scary to see.