sure, i'm impressed at how much safer cars have gotten over the last 50 years. but did you have to do this to a '59 Chevy to prove it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CU-k0XmLUk&feature=player_embedded

--rick

OUCH! That hurt!

Duh...

Oh dear lord...that was unusaully stoopid!

It proved what exactly?

That seat belts, crush zones, and woopie cushions save lives? Got nuthin' new or innovative? So let's state the obvious just in case someone popped out of cryogenic stasis and was none the wiser.

Ummmmm, yeah.

It makes a good visual point, sure, but it pretty much makes a visual point of what is completely obvious. So I don't know about this one . . . seems redundant.

We better hope for no actual '59 Impala and '09 Impala head on wrecks I guess?

I think they should have unbolted the fenders and doors on the '09 too, hey!

I agree joez870. Something doesn't look quite right????? Does the 09 car have a full chassis??????

Makes me want to get a 59 chevy and make a bee line for a new malibu.. just for revenge!!:devil:

Makes me want to get a 59 chevy and make a bee line for a new malibu.. just for revenge!!:devil:

ya know.....I was thinking the same thing, Ujoe....but rather than revenge it was more along the lines of "See?! How do YOU like it!" I would simply let my inner child out. :D Of course, I'd use a rust-heap.....and move the radiator.....and fill the doors with concrete.....:devil:...plow into it and then RUN!

That wasn't exactly 'head on', and it does look like they unbolted everything on that 59.

Yeah no doubt, when they show the collision from the right side the 59's headlight pops out w/o any ring or trim piece. So you can't trust IIHS? Who's next UL?

That's great but what if the '09 Malibu crashed into something other than a '59 Bel Air? Like oh, say an '09 Tahoe XL? Didn't have many of those on the road in 1959 but now they're all over the place.

Yeah, I highly doubt this 59' Chevy was more than a POS before it died this death for the general public to go "ooooooh, aaaaaaah, look how much safer we are".

It was probably duct taped together, given a Maaco paint job and sent on it's way.

I won't be crying too much over this one, ya over-sensitive bunch a maroon's! :tongue: (I hope I quoted Bill Hall accurately enough here :) )

It was a POS. Not a highly desirable car them 4 doors.. Here is a link with some alternate sets of camera angles including inside the car views.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d309QCuve7c&feature=response_watch

There were a couple of intelligent sounding, seemingly knowledgeable posts in the comments section, and I'm gonna quote them, because the odds are they will get buried within a day or 2.. I did fix all the typos for them..:rolleyes:

Quote..: the 58-64 gm`s had an x-frame which means no frame on the sides,just sheet metal,so any car would have went through that sheet metal fender with the dash being next, they were very strong on front and rear collisions but not on they`re sides, thats why gm did away with the x-frame. all that malibu had to go through was sheet metal to do that, if it had been a gm previous to 59 or 65 and above this wouldn't of happened cause there would be a perimeter frame on the sides, not just sheet metal."

Another quote.. "Sadly though..the engine, doesn't matter what size are bolted to structural parts such as frame...When structural parts collapse or crush the engine is moved into the firewall..causing more damage...Newer cars engines are designed to crush or drop to the ground...Engines have little to do with the structural integrity of a car..and if this thing had a V8 there would have been more damage because it would move/crush into the passengers seat.."

Obviously, these guys knew the weakness of the 59 Chevy chassis and it made for a dramatic example. If it was hit head on instead of the offset collision, the chevy may have fared better.. There is one more thing to mention, and that is the fact it was a 50 year old car. I know 48 years has done nothing but damage to my frame, I'm willing to bet the chevy wasn't much better! :tongue:

just fyi; i found this here:

http://jalopnik.com/5361769/jalopnik-crash-week-begins-1959-chevy-vs-2009-chevy

all kinds of speculation in the blog. first it was suggested that the engine/transmission had been removed from the '59 and that it had serious rust issues. then someone came across a page on TTAC (The Truth About Cars) that actually exposed where the '59 had been bought, with pictures and all, and according to THAT source, it had been a solid driver when the guy sold it (not knowing its eventual fate, of course). way too much to go through and quote, but makes for some interesting reading...

--rick

Yeah cramming the hardest corner of that bu's frontal crush zone....that being the hidden fat assed aluminum bumper slug...and running it up and under the eyesocket of that poor ole 59 was hardly a fair fight.

Makes me wanna find the guy who dreamed that trash up, jam my elbow violently in his eye socket; laugh and say, "Ya shoulda been wearing yer helmet. Now get on the short bus and fasten yer seat belt!":mad:

Makes me wanna find the guy who dreamed that trash up, jam my elbow violently in his eye socket; laugh and say, "Ya shoulda been wearing yer helmet. Now get on the short bus and fasten yer seat belt!":mad:

:lol:

Rick sez:... did you have to do this to a '59 Chevy to prove it?

Yeah. Danged shame really. Should have been a '60.

-- D

"................................................." (a moment of silence for the fallen 59)

I think the chances of running into a 2009 Malibu back in 1959 were pretty slim (if not none!). And it would be highly unlikely (but still possible) that you would be running into a '59 Bel Air with your '09 Malibu today. They have to compare apples to apples here.

I think the chances of running into a 2009 Malibu back in 1959 were pretty slim (if not none!). And it would be highly unlikely (but still possible) that you would be running into a '59 Bel Air with your '09 Malibu today. They have to compare apples to apples here.

Apples to apples, eh?

Tho I doubt there'd be much enthusiasm for it on this forum, I suppose we could crash two '59 Bel Airs into one another at 50 mph, and likewise two '09 Malibus. I feel fairly confident in predicting two pulverized brainboxes in the one case and two bumped knees (or similar) in the other. Nothing in the conclusion changes much.

I have a deep nostalgic affection for Sixties cars, but I don't delude myself into thinking they were actually very good or very safe, reliable, comfortable, or convenient vehicles (by today's standards). They're just, well, exciting. :thumbsup: But you sorta had to be there to appreciate them.

Hey, the past is a great place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there (or, in this case, die there). :freak:

-- D

Just saying that the Malibu would have not fared as well if it crashed into something stronger than a 50 year old Bel Air and the Bel Air would have done better crashing into something less solid than a brand new car 50 years newer.

I think the Mailbu prformed quite well in that frontal offset crash. You usually think old cars were tanks but they were not as stong as they appeared. Mostly just big box of air under the hood, new cars with their boxed front end unitized construction with crumple zones and engins that rip out thru the bottom of the car offer much greater structural rigidity with relative light weight. I loved the second video with the in car views outrageous!

Just saying that the Malibu would have not fared as well if it crashed into something stronger than a 50 year old Bel Air and the Bel Air would have done better crashing into something less solid than a brand new car 50 years newer.

They do the same test into a wall, Im sure the video is out there on the net. It will look the same.

I think the Mailbu prformed quite well in that frontal offset crash. You usually think old cars were tanks but they were not as stong as they appeared. Mostly just big box of air under the hood, new cars with their boxed front end unitized construction with crumple zones and engins that rip out thru the bottom of the car offer much greater structural rigidity with relative light weight. I loved the second video with the in car views outrageous!

What ever! Lesee how you feel after some young whippersnapper beats up yer grandpa! LOL!:tongue:

The 70s cars seemed to be a great balance between size and safety.
I wonder how that Malibu would look hitting a 75 Malibu, or the 76 Monte Carlo's 10ft hood.
You could build a good 4x8 layout on that hood.

Rich

It's a shame for the 59 but have you heard the skinny on what becomes of the Klunker Trade In's ?

Madatory " engine blow or flood with fiberglass" . After which the tiotles and serial plates are destroyed. You can buy parts from them such as a fender etc but only for 30 days as the wrecking yards are required to cruch them after 30 days.

There was some perfect cars went to that program.

Also , this will put a premium on used engines that might be lurking in your garage.

Gonzo

yeah, there's a video on YouTube that documents them doing it... essentially they drain the oil and put in a couple quarts of sodium silicate (also called "liquid glass") mixed with water. start up and run at 2000 rpm. the water evaporates and the other stuff destroys all the metal parts of the engine. the poor car in the video sounded like it was screaming in pain before it locked up.

(okay, maybe a LITTLE melodramatic... :rolleyes: )

--rick

Yeah, a great and stoopid idea that's waaaaay better than setting up a program that would somehow provide decent used transpo for starving students, needy single parents, and other deserving victims of circumstance.

I'm gonna invest in shoes and boots because the shiny new future they're creating is still gonna have a fair amount of folks hoofing or humpin' it.