Crash Test - '59 Bel Air vs '09 Malibu

Doesnt surprise me at all

 

Once again, the car I'd want to crash in isn't the car I'd want to drive

 

Amazing how well that Malibu holds up.

 

I was thinking about this little crash... Of course the new car is MUCH safer than the old one, but I think the test might be a bit misleading. In 1959 seat belts were not required, and it seems they ran this test so unequipped. I wonder how much difference seat belts in the '59 would have made?

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

 

Which one do you think weighs more???

 

Might surprise you... Yes the '59 is heavier with a shipping weight of 3,625lbs, but not by much. The Malibu's advertised weight is 3,415lbs.

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

 

As with most of the tests carried out by the IIHS, this one was specifically designed to help increase regulation of the industry. It doesn't necessarily reflect the real world.

Remember that the IIHS is a front group for the insurance industry and they are out to show how the crash requirements that they have foisted on us over the years have made things a lot better.

The impact location in this test was SPECIFICALLY designed to miss the main frame rail of the 59. Most of the front impact strength in that design was due to the frame rail. If the impact had been a foot closer the center the old car would likely have aquitted itself a lot better. But showing a that wouldn't help them increase regulation, so they did the test that gave them the maximum results. This is about as valid as hitting a Model A in the door with a semi, yes, everybody is dead, so what's the point?

I'm not saying that the new car isn't a lot safer, but that in this test they specifically crashed the two cars in a manner that was intended to inflict damage where the old car had no structure. If it was a more simple head on impact the results would have been a lot more similar.

Just remember, when you watch anything the IIHS does, it is being done to forward their agenda, which is to pay out less while raking in more money.

 

I am betting that the difference would be death at the ER vs death on the roadside. Remember that in 1959 seatbelts were nothing more than lap belts and the occupants would have still been bouncing off everything inside of that car.

 

Absolutely true. I should have said that I wonder what difference a set of 3 point seat belts would make.

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

 

I can't tell 100% but it seems to me that there is no engine in the 59.

 

There is.

 

3 point belts would have kept occupant centered better for more complete eating of steering wheel and dash.

 

This is why my standard answer in my F-328 "how fast have you gone?" is usually
something like "... well, pretty much the speed limit - maybe a bit more".

If I want to take chances, I'll do it in the E350 with 900 airbags, crumple zones,
and the thingy that automatically calls the ambulance and sends the coordinates
of the tree I just killed.

Jedi

 

Only car you will crash in is the car you will drive. Did that occur to you, Sir?

 

Yep, why else would they make such a test, if it was flawed from the beginning.

 

Passengers do not get in car crashes?

Did that not occur to you?

 

First comment says there isn't and the hit the 59 at the weakest point. Which is it?

 

According to another board I'm on there was an engine. A straight 6. It was confirmed by GM press.

 

whenever I see an imminent crash, I stop, get out, and get into a more crash-worthy car.

 

This is a wise course of action.

 

I don't know how it works in the US but it's a standard thing in Europe to do the test with an offset impact, since this type of crash happens more often than that with the two cars completely in line.

 

Wow, that was A LOT of damage to the '59... more than I would have guessed.

Mike in Kuwait

 

Touche!

 

this diff was a staged crash to show how a new car takes a crash better then a 50 year old one,i would have liked to see a real head-on crash,not one were they missed the frame rail