'59 Bel-Air headon into a '09 Impala, who wins?

stuwee

I would have bet money on the big old boat Bel-Air crushing the new Impala, but nope, the driver of the '59 would have been killed, or horribly disfigured :eek:

Not a pretty test result for the bat-winged wonder. I'd think the Impala driver could have walked away from that one.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=59+chevy+crash+test&mid=D1CF4B1D965EC3F60DDCD1CF4B1D965EC3F60DDC&view=detail&FORM=VIRE7

nooshinjohn

the test was rigged...

RuSsMaN

Crumple zones win.

Polkersince85

RuSsMaN wrote: »

Crumple zones win.

Yea, but what a way to go. Elvis blasting on the radio, your best gal riding the hump with your arm around her, big dice on the rearview mirror swinging in the breeze and no seat belts.

disneyjoe7

Wow, Just wow.

sucks2beme

Let's not forget the big, no collapse steering wheel and the full metal dash
with no padding. I had a 1960 Bel Air. Other than the am radio, pretty much
stripped. Even had the rubber mat instead of carpet!

codyc1ark

Ha, I show people this same video all the time on my laptop when I get the 'they don't build em' like they used to' crap. They are right, they DON'T build them like they used to, for good reason.

madmax

I saw a honda crx that hit head on with an older thunderbird, one of the bigger ones. The crx won, at least the guy lived. There was not enough left of either car to identify. The only way I know which was which was by seeing it in the paper the next day.

nadams

I'd be interested to see an equivalent test when the Impala is 50 years old...

exalted512

nadams wrote: »

I'd be interested to see an equivalent test when the Impala is 50 years old...

I'm willing to bet the result would be very similar.

Now lets see the impala hit a parked Bel-Air at 5 mph and see who wins
-Cody

billbillw

Am I the only who noticed it was a Malibu, not an Impala?

Jstas

billbillw wrote: »

Am I the only who noticed it was a Malibu, not an Impala?

For you:



Am I the only one who noticed that I saw this video about 2 years ago.


I also find it hilarious when old people feel a test like that is "rigged" 'cause, you know, there's no way in hell that anything new could be anywhere near as good if not WAAAAAAAY better than it was 50 years ago. And yes, a '59 BelAir is 52 years old and that new Malibu, with all it's safety equipment and sound deadening probably weighs just as much as that Bel Air...actually, probably more.

'09 Malibu LS = 3415 pounds
'59 Bel Air = 3510 pounds.

Yep. That "beast" of a Bel Air weighs a whopping 95 pounds more than the '09 Malibu.

POIDOG

stuwee wrote: »

Not a pretty test result for the bat-winged wonder. I'd think the Impala driver could have walked away from that one.

Perhaps, but he would certainly need a new pair of "britches" :biggrin:

billbillw

Jstas wrote: »

For you:

I'm hungry now!

sucks2beme

At low speeds, the old Chevy would drive away, the new car towed away.
The difference is in the higher speed crashes, the guy in the old car
is going to get speared by the steering wheel. And the other guy up front
is going to hit that metal dash like a watermelon hitting the pavement.

nadams

Here's the result of a Barracuda being t-boned by a Cherokee. My buddy's car... happened a few years ago. Cherokee ran a red light at about 45mph at the intersection. Barracuda stopped him pretty quickly.





My buddy, from the driver's seat, walked away. Not saying that's the norm...

VR3

I got a feeling if your buddy was hit a few more feet towards the driver he would not have walked away, IMO

nadams

Vr3MxStyler2k3 wrote: »

I got a feeling if your buddy was hit a few more feet towards the driver he would not have walked away, IMO

I agree with you, no doubt. When the cops showed up, they were looking for the body. He had to point out that he was the driver....

FTGV

Dumb question but at what speed was that crash test done?

Airplay355

I thought they were usually at 35mph. Might just me making crap up though.

stuwee

FTGV wrote: »

Dumb question but at what speed was that crash test done?

They are usually 35mph, but that one was done at 40. Alot of old car guys cried foul on many levels, but most were debunked. I love old cars, but it does make you think, 40 isn't that fast in todays traffic. 55 would have been horrific :eek:

exalted512

Most crashes also do not happen head on at 40 mph....
-Cody

nooshinjohn

Vr3MxStyler2k3 wrote: »

I got a feeling if your buddy was hit a few more feet towards the driver he would not have walked away, IMO

Gotta agree here. 18 inches was the diferent between walking away and being 6 feet under. I hope he bought some lottery tickets after that hit.

comfortablycurt

I really don't understand why people always think that the big old steel cars from the 50's and 60's are tougher and safer than new cars. Those older cars were built with safety practically as an afterthought. They didn't even come standard with seat belts, and it was an option that most people went without. Newer cars are built to very high safety standards, and I'd think it would basically be common knowledge that you're going to be a lot safer in a newer car. They're built with crumple zones to absorb the impact, and prevent the majority of that transfer of energy from going into you.

With a big old steel car like that Bel-air, it's going to be like hitting a steel post with an aluminum baseball bat as hard as you can. Sure, the bat might bend a little bit...but most of that impact energy is going to go right to your arms and jar your head. Compare that to hitting that same steel post with a hollow wiffle ball bat. The bat is going to just crumple and absorb most of the transfer of energy.

The same principle would apply to a big old car like that. There's not as much there to actually absorb the impact, aside from a bunch of extremely rigid steel. That transfer of energy is going to go to the softest place it can find, which is you. A lot more of that transfer of energy is going to end up in you in that big old solid steel car.

A lot of people don't seem to realize that newer cars are also generally a lot heavier than older cars. Even if they're not as big as some of those old boats, they still generally weigh about the same, give or take a little. With all of the modern safety equipment, and luxury equipment and whatnot, newer cars are generally a lot heavier.

exalted512

I don't think many people argue (or at least I'd hope not), that newer cars are safer. But by no means do I think they're tougher.

Both of those cars are totaled. Dying of a heart attack is a lot less gruesome than dying by falling off a mountain...but you're still equally dead.

I say they're tougher because if it was lower speeds, while the passengers of the new car are safer, the old car is going to be able to take a hit and keep going whereas the newer car will not.
-Cody

bobman1235

exalted512 wrote: »

I don't think many people argue (or at least I'd hope not), that newer cars are safer. But by no means do I think they're tougher.

Both of those cars are totaled. Dying of a heart attack is a lot less gruesome than dying by falling off a mountain...but you're still equally dead.

I say they're tougher because if it was lower speeds, while the passengers of the new car are safer, the old car is going to be able to take a hit and keep going whereas the newer car will not.
-Cody

I guess it all depends on what you value more : a hunk of metal that takes you places, or your life and safety. I prefer the latter, personally.

Who gives a **** if your car gets a scratch from a shopping cart if ti's gonna save your life? (not to mention be 1000x more reliable than a 59 Bel Air)

Upstatemax

comfortablycurt wrote: »

A lot of people don't seem to realize that newer cars are also generally a lot heavier than older cars. Even if they're not as big as some of those old boats, they still generally weigh about the same, give or take a little. With all of the modern safety equipment, and luxury equipment and whatnot, newer cars are generally a lot heavier.

My little Volvo C30 weighs in at 3,000lbs and I could probably fit my entire car in the Bel Air's trunk...

If I'm going to be in a serious accident, I'll take my little car anyday. Especially since most of the accidents I see are at highway speeds (70-80mph around here).

exalted512

And I agree with you totally Bobman. At the end of the day, I like my head being attached to my neck.

I'd also prefer not to have to pump the gas to get it to start when its cold. And having a digital radio.

Oh, and the air bags are nice too.
-Cody