• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

'59 vs. '09 in crash test

Register to hide this ad
Well, oh crap, I was of the 'vintage' that older cars would 'beat the crap' out of newer cars. Plus, my Dad had a 59 chevy (with one of the biggest trunks you'll ever see) in the early 60's.

These crash tests woke me up.
 
Last edited:
What a waste of a good '59! There was no reason to destroy that just to make a point that everyone already knows and understands... What next, a head on crash with a volvo and bicycle?
 
Impedance said:
What a waste of a good '59! There was no reason to destroy that just to make a point that everyone already knows and understands... What next, a head on crash with a volvo and bicycle?
Click to expand...

Kind of my thoughts too. I would love to have that car, it looked like it was in pretty decent condition.
 
Well....There's more to this, as usual. Not to excuse the abyssimal crash performance of cars 50 years ago, when little was known or understood about such things, but in 1959 GM went to a new frame design for their "standard" cars-company wide. Instead of having 2 rails that went the length of the car, on the edges of the body structure, they used a SINGLE frame rail that went down the center...This allowed them to lower the cars, making them more visually appealing, while still keeping an adequate amount of headroom. The drawback was obvious-the cars were fundamentally weaker in a crash situation, as was seen here. This frame design was only used for 5 years, & in '65, GM "Big cars" went back to a standard perimeter frame design. However, since so little was known about vehicle crash dynamics in those days, I doubt that ANY car of that era would do well against a modern car that has much, much better crashworthiness designed in...
 
A lot of folks still think cars from the late fifties and sixties are safer than today's cars. That video might help dissuade some of them.

Considering all the people who have died in cars designed like that Impala, I'm not losing a lot of sleep over sacrificing one for a higher cause.

True, if it was a 65 Mustang GT fastback, I might feel differently. ;-)
 
Sandy G said:
Well....There's more to this, as usual. Not to excuse the abyssimal crash performance of cars 50 years ago, when little was known or understood about such things, but in 1959 GM went to a new frame design for their "standard" cars-company wide. Instead of having 2 rails that went the length of the car, on the edges of the body structure, they used a SINGLE frame rail that went down the center...This allowed them to lower the cars, making them more visually appealing, while still keeping an adequate amount of headroom. The drawback was obvious-the cars were fundamentally weaker in a crash situation, as was seen here. This frame design was only used for 5 years, & in '65, GM "Big cars" went back to a standard perimeter frame design. However, since so little was known about vehicle crash dynamics in those days, I doubt that ANY car of that era would do well against a modern car that has much, much better crashworthiness designed in...
Click to expand...

That was the cruciform or "X" frame. Oldsmobile was the only GM division that stuck with the perimeter frame, and they actually promoted it as being safer than the frames the other GM divisions used. Ford also stayed with the perimeter frame design. Chrysler went from body-on-frame construction to unit bodies around 1960, if memory serves.
 
Holy smokes, I thought this might be the result but seeing it...dang. Every time I ride in an older car, I look at the dash board like its a guillotine. One big unpadded slab right where my neck would be in a crash.
 
"X" frame...Yep, that's it...Couldn't remember if it was Olds or Buick that stayed w/the traditional frame...And yeah, Ford stayed w/the perimeter frame design, but went unibody w/the Lincoln in 1958, & stayed w/it til 1970..Actually, both the Lincoln & T-Bird went unibody in '58, the Lincoln prolly should have stayed w/body on frame construction, they had LOTS of developmental problems trying a unibody so large. The cars ended up enormously overbuilt, & were the heaviest production cars made up to that point, w/the largest-430 cubic inches-engines available to power them.
 
Whoa, the guy in the '59 would be dead! Notice how the steering wheel in the '59 comes back and punches the driver in the chest/face and no movement in the new car.

Murray
 
Look at that rust pouring out from the rocker panels. I bet those floor pans were trashed!

I've been telling my folks for the longest time old cars are death traps. My dad always wanted me to fix up a clean Chevelle or Malibu. HAHA yeah right! After seeing something like this, it's confirmed my thoughts. I don't even want to sit in one, let alone own and drive one. Tin cans of death!

I currently drive a 2001 Mercedes-Benz S500. One of my favorite things is it's excellent safety stats.
 
I hate to see any vintage item ruined, and I didn't watch the video. However, I was aware that the vintage cars are nowhere near as safe as anything newer, even 1980s & up. The problem is (and this may have been touched on in the video I didn't watch), the dash is steel, and there's no side impact protection, and no crumple zones. The passenger compartment is the weak spot on the big American cars of the 30s to 60s, and in a bad enough crash, the engine can get pushed right into the front seat, and the steering column will undoubtedly pierce right through the driver's body in such a crash. By the late 60s, they made collapsing steering columns, and began to notch the frames in cars so that the frame would bend under like a taco, and keep the motor from punching through the firewall to the occupants. Also, they started using crumple zones in the 60s or 70s, and that would allow the car to smash more softly, keeping the passenger compartment intact, and keeping the passengers from getting the full impact shock.

All that said, I'd still rather be in a '49 Buick Limited than a '10 Mercedes SmartCar if I'm going to be hit from behind by a bus.

Charles
 
I still remember a police officer telling my 9th grade class, in vivid detail, what happens to a driver in a car when the steering wheel is pushed back past his head in a collision.
 
JohnVF said:
I still remember a police officer telling my 9th grade class, in vivid detail, what happens to a driver in a car when the steering wheel is pushed back past his head in a collision.
Click to expand...

The Chevy Corvair was infamous for this. The car used a non-collapsing steering shaft for most of its model run, and the forward end of the shaft actually extended past the front wheel because of the way GM mounted the steering gear. It didn't take much of a frontal crash to push the steering wheel back a foot or more.
 
Dr Tinear said:
The Chevy Corvair was infamous for this. The car used a non-collapsing steering shaft for most of its model run, and the forward end of the shaft actually extended past the front wheel because of the way GM mounted the steering gear. It didn't take much of a frontal crash to push the steering wheel back a foot or more.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, the collapsible steering column was not available
until the 1967 model year, but was then very widely adopted by
all car makers. IIRC, it was developed by GM, but freely licensed
to everyone else.

Also, the X frame was used by GM from 1958 to 1964, but I doubt
the test shown would have been much different with a 1965 Chevy.
 
Stupid pointless article...... That car was in nice shape! The other side always talks about how heavy old cars are....... the article says more than 3600 pounds, then neglects to say that the new Malibu....a SMALLER CAR!! only weighs 200 pounds less, because of all the padding, and electronics.
 
I don't think it is that pointless. I hate to see a nice car wasted this way
(two nice cars, when you think of it), but the number of people who believe
the big Chevy is safer is certainly not near zero.

I don't know about other regions of the world, but where I live the annual
number of fatalities on the roads is currently lower than it was fifty years
ago, while the total miles driven have surely increased by a significant
factor, and it would be pointless to conclude that this can be attributed
mainly to better driver education!

One thing they could do would be to repeat the same test with two modern
cars, one big and one small. I trust in that case I would prefer to sit in
the larger car...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom