| Author | Message | ||
     Buelleaver |
I thought this was Interesting ... http://www.carthrottle.com/video-malibu-vs-bel-air -crash-test/ http://www.autoblog.com/gallery/iihs-09-malibu-vs- 59-bel-air-crash-test/#5 | ||
| Froggy |
Yep. I made references to that test in another thread regarding why modern cars get poor fuel economy. The improved safety came at a cost of more weight, reduced performance and worse fuel economy. Still, I think the tradeoff was worth it.  | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
As a classic truck owner, this interested me greatly. However as a proper test it has absolutely no meaning. The Bel Air was a rotbox just look at all the rust & crap that comes out of it at 1.00 into the video. It's 50 year old steel! To do a proper comparison they should have built one up from new parts from the ground up. | ||
| Oddball |
Screw safety, let cagers understand they can get hurt, can die easily if they f up. Not go on oblivious to everything believing their tank of steel and styrofoam has got their ass. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
I don't remember who said it, but somebody stated that road safety would be vastly improved if all steering wheels had a sharpened 6" spike sticking out the middle. | ||
| Natexlh1000 |
I want to see a rematch between the impala and my first car: 1975 Olds delta88. That thing had some bumpers! | ||
| Oddball |
Maybe taking every driver for a ride (or a great simulator) would open eyes and humble a few. The road has a different look and feel without the cage insulation, separation. I think the feeling of vulnerability would scare the hell out of many. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Or like the Mum who got nailed, put them in a cardboard box on the roof.  | ||
| Froggy |
I did some research, the car was in good shape, the "rust" that comes flying out was dirt and other soot. | ||
| Teeps |
No one mentioned the "X" frame that the old Chevy had(s.) http://www.xframechevy.com/chevrolet341.htm New metal(?); that car would fare no better, in that offset crash sequence, even if it was right off the end of the assembly line. Any 'T-Bone' side impact, over a few mph, would result in a dead driver or passengers. Yes! I'm glad "They Don't Make'm Like That Any More." (Message edited by teeps on October 10, 2009) | ||
| Hughlysses |
Good point about the frame Teeps. We had a 1961 Impala when I was a kid that had the same setup. You have to wonder what Chevy's engineers were thinking when they came up with that. It couldn't have been very rigid, no side impact protection, and apparently not much front impact protection either. | ||
| M2nc |
I want to see a rematch between the impala and my first car: 1975 Olds delta88. That thing had some bumpers! Yeah or my first car, my mom's left over Ford Country Squire Station Wagon. All us kids learned how to drive in that and we all took out something with it. In my case a Maverick rear ended the Queen Mary as we called it and destroyed itself on that 25mph rear bumper. In another incident, my brother sliding on ice hit a '69 Impala. Sheet metal of the Impala was on the road and the wagon drove off. That said, Froggy makes a good point. My GLH weighed 2100#. Not many cars today weight that little. Even the Queen Mary had a curb weight of 4300#, or a 1/4 of ton less than most "mini" vans. That is why it is so hard to get the smaller European cars here in the US. They are just too small to match up against the cars and trucks on our roads. | ||
| Froggy |
Many of the small Euro cars won't pass US emissions and safety requirements, thats the big hold back. Secondary is the design of them. The Saturn (Opel) Astra was brought here untouched, and it flopped. Reviewers complained about the lack of cupholders and other stupid things that are normal for Europeans. The average American doesn't want an European car. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Death Proof (Message edited by Ferris_von_bueller on October 10, 2009) | ||
| Buelleaver |
I did a little searching and this crash test has been on blogs all over the internet. It’s amazing all the different takes on it. There are people up set because they wrecked a bel air. Some crazy liberals claim that if it weren’t for the democrats we would not have safe cars. Other just flat out can’t believe the results possible. They have accused the test of being rigged from a rotted frame, motor removed, cut frame, or whatever.. The test institute insists the bel air was intact and not rotted. If the bel air or any old car tested better it would be strictly coincidence as no one considered safety back then. From what I read the bel air didn’t even have seat belts that year. I guess old opinions die hard. In the side view of the Malibu did anyone notice how quickly The air bag deployed? It was open before the dummy’s head even began to move forward. | ||
| Swordsman |
WOW. All new respect for modern safety equipment. I never expected an old car to fold like that. The dash in the Malibu didn't even budge. ~SM | ||
| Etennuly |
Having been a body man for forty years(wholly crap, it hurts to say that), the old super size cars were basically a metal box full of air, the body lines were the structural strength, the inner panels were not there to do anything but hang the outer panels and necessary mechanical parts from. The Chevrolet "X" frame was touted as the new best thing for ride comfort back in the day. Of course this was before radial tires, good suspension components, and any concern for safety. Seat belts were not even stock items until I think it was 1971. Prior to that, they were an 'add option' from about 1963, few cars had them as options before that. I did not see anywhere rust was noticeable on that '59. A lot of dirt and dust flew out, but looking closely I did not see any areas that had been rusted structurally and or having been repaired for rust. I did a stint at a junk yard in 1975. We lined up and crushed a lot of wrecked cars from the 40's, 50's, and 60's(yeah, I know). The ones that were in bad wrecks were easy to see, as in the pictures of the '59, where they structurally 'gave up' upon impact. I saw many where the doors blew open and the door opening closed up to nothing, the steering wheel into the roof, and floor touching the ground. Most of these were wrecked when they were fairly new. No doubt the newer automobiles are much safer having reinforced passenger cabins with crush impact zones with certain inner panels, door impact bars, and uni-body frame rails and their reinforcements made from 'High Strength Alloy' steel that is much thinner, stronger, and lighter than the old iron boxes. If you want to see heavy big weak cars, check what happens when a round body/round fender'ed car of the forties wrecked. For many that I have seen, it must have been like a balloon popping when they impacted. Again, when you crush a car it is all about letting the air out of it(see the cubed Blast) the changed shape is a direct result of less internal air space. I have always been passionate about wrecked cars. It is and amazing field of study to reconstruct new damaged cars to make them as structurally sound, proper fitting, mechanically correct, and cosmetically as good, and sometimes better than new. That depending on where and who you are working for and $. | ||
| Etennuly |
Having been a body man for forty years(wholly crap, it hurts to say that), the old super size cars were basically a metal box full of air, the body lines were the structural strength, the inner panels were not there to do anything but hang the outer panels and necessary mechanical parts from. The Chevrolet "X" frame was touted as the new best thing for ride comfort back in the day. Of course this was before radial tires, good suspension components, and any concern for safety. Seat belts were not even stock items until I think it was 1971. Prior to that, they were an 'add option' from about 1963, few cars had them as options before that. I did not see anywhere rust was noticeable on that '59. A lot of dirt and dust flew out, but looking closely I did not see any areas that had been rusted structurally and or having been repaired for rust. I did a stint at a junk yard in 1975. We lined up and crushed a lot of wrecked cars from the 40's, 50's, and 60's(yeah, I know). The ones that were in bad wrecks were easy to see, as in the pictures of the '59, where they structurally 'gave up' upon impact. I saw many where the doors blew open and the door opening closed up to nothing, the steering wheel into the roof, and floor touching the ground. Most of these were wrecked when they were fairly new. No doubt the newer automobiles are much safer having reinforced passenger cabins with crush impact zones with certain inner panels, door impact bars, and uni-body frame rails and their reinforcements made from 'High Strength Alloy' steel that is much thinner, stronger, and lighter than the old iron boxes. If you want to see heavy big weak cars, check what happens when a round body/round fender'ed car of the forties wrecked. For many that I have seen, it must have been like a balloon popping when they impacted. Again, when you crush a car it is all about letting the air out of it(see the cubed Blast) the changed shape is a direct result of less internal air space. I have always been passionate about wrecked cars. It is and amazing field of study to reconstruct new damaged cars to make them as structurally sound, proper fitting, mechanically correct, and cosmetically as good, and sometimes better than new. That depending on where and who you are working for and $. | ||
| Patches |
Do you remember this one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH0_9m5SORg | ||
| 2008xb12scg |
Old cars had the advantage of more steel and bigger bumpers. New cars have impact zones and air bags. I would rather have impact zones and airbags any day. The new car always looks worse after an accident than the old car does. But the driver in the new car gets to walk away. | ||
| Oddball |
Patches, so Korn covered an old cheech and chong song from up in smoke? | ||
| Froggy |
That has been proven time and time again to be a disadvantage. | ||
| 2008xb12scg |
True... | ||
| Patches |
I have seen 100year old trees stop cars with full frame under them and not have that effect. If NO-Frame were better Insurance Co. would not have not requested auto makers too make light trucks with crumple zones. So they tare up as bad as compact cars. As far as the 59' in the test, I have Drove, Rebuilt, Raced and Restored them all my life. It was a rust bucket! | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Rust had nothing to do with the action of that front end | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Nobody bought a 59 Belaire for safety. Remember life longevity then, hell they were lucky to make it to 50 Thats why the 'American Dream' was get married and have kids quickly, cuz your life expectancy sucked. And if you were gonna buy the BatMobile, you should have opted for the twodoor  | ||
| Court |
More steel and bigger bumpers were precisely what made those cars LESS safe . . . WEIGHT (technically Mass) is the natural enemy of safety. None of those cars had any thought toward safety. I had the pleasure, in 1961, to be in a 1959 Ford that left the Kansas Turnpike at 85 mph and rolled 80 times. The good news is that the cars of that era thoughtfully ejected all occupants. | ||
| Swordsman |
Well, there was ONE old car that was built with safety in mind...  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Tucker_Sedan ~SM |
