• 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

Crash test video : 2009 Chevy Malibu vs 1959 Chevy Bel Air

What car did the Jaguar E-Type look like? What car did the Gremlin look like?

Both cars looked different, one is considered by many to be the most beautiful car ever made, the other one of the ugliest cars ever made. Looking different doesn't necessarily spell success, but it sure helps to get you noticed.
 
but they picked one of the best today vs one of the worst back then. the 59 was before ALL safety innovations. I could rattle off a few dozen that a 72 bel air has over the 59.

that being said, the newer cars are designed EXPLICITLY to fold up around the passenger compartment - the car gives its life so you do not have to.
 
These results are not that unusual when it comes to old versus new car crash tests. I recall seeing a similar crash test between a newer European compact of some sort versus a '90s Volvo 900 series. The Volvo would be far safer a car than the '59 Bel Air.

Huh, that was easier to find than I thought.


I have no idea why they chose a '59 Bel Air for the OP's test, seems an extreme when they could have chosen something considerably newer to prove their point.

John
 
devnull said:
I have no idea why they chose a '59 Bel Air for the OP's test, seems an extreme when they could have chosen something considerably newer to prove their point.

John
Click to expand...

Actually I have read somewhere they they specifically picked the 59 Bel Air because they knew the X frame would fail big time in an offset crash.

X-Frame-61-Buick-a-1024x426.png
 
olson_jr said:
Actually I have read somewhere they they specifically picked the 59 Bel Air because they knew the X frame would fail big time in an offset crash.

X-Frame-61-Buick-a-1024x426.png
Click to expand...

Then I would wonder what car from '59 might be expected to do well in such a crash?

John
 
Anything with a perimeter frame (or a properly designed unibody, which were pretty new at that point) would be better than that X frame design.
 
Sam Cogley said:
Anything with a perimeter frame (or a properly designed unibody, which were pretty new at that point) would be better than that X frame design.
Click to expand...

Don't bet on it, one of the big killers back then was the steering column (attached to the frame) moving backwards and smashing the drivers skull.

Those old frames may look strong but they fold up like an accordion when they hit something solid.

This is from Shorpy, you can see the full image here. The engine from this car is down the road a ways, the driver's no doubt in the Morgue.
car-crash.jpg
 
Eric H said:
Don't bet on it, one of the big killers back then was the steering column (attached to the frame) moving backwards and smashing the drivers skull.

Those old frames may look strong but they fold up like an accordion when they hit something solid.

This is from Shorpy, you can see the full image here. The engine from this car is down the road a ways, the driver's no doubt in the Morgue.
View attachment 682192
Click to expand...

I said "better," not "perfect" or "modern." As already noted, that X frame wasn't exactly known for it's collision performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom