http://www.drivesmartbc.ca/video/video-1959-bel-air-vs-2009-malibu

Yes saw this on another forum a few weeks ago - from the commentary the caveat was that the Bel Air's frame construction was particularly vulnerable in this angle of crash; the thinking was that if they had used a 59 Ford or Chrysler the damage would not have been as severe.

Either way, it does show that the "good ol' days" weren't always good ;)





On a related note, a guy at our church brought his 1955 Oldsmobile this past Sunday, and while it was extremely cool to look at, I'm glad for my 2009 car, both for safety and for the amenities :D Plus the interior ("original seats!" he proudly proclaimed) stunk pretty bad; obviously he was happy tho'

where did that get that bel-air from???? wth who wrecks that on person but thos cars had weak frames...

I'm sure the specifics can be googled but IIRC they bought it from a guy in Ohio for $8,500. Not as much as a brand new Malibu costs, just to put that in perspective as well :)

but if it was used that could bring up a big issues mainly rust....... Any rust free bell-air is not gonna be 8k....

Here's the scoop:

More Details About 1959 Bel Air Crash Test
By Christopher Jensen
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety released on Thursday a video of a crash test between a 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air and a 2009 Malibu to demonstrate how car safety has improved. Not to simplify matters too much, but the Malibu won. And several Wheels readers speculated in comments that the car didn’t contain an engine, which would have affected the test.

Armed with these conspiracy theories, I returned to David Zuby, the senior vice president at the institute’s crash-test center in Virginia. He explained that when the institute went looking for a 1959 Bel Air to crash-test there was one thing the organization didn’t want and some things it did.

“We didn’t want to crash a museum piece,” Mr. Zuby said. “We were not looking for one that had been restored for museum or show quality.” But the vehicle had to have a solid structure, although a little surface rust would be acceptable.

They found what they wanted in Indiana. “The frame was sound and all the body panels were sound,” he said. It had a 3.9-liter 6-cylinder engine and was in driving condition.

The car was bought for about $8,500 and had about 74,000 miles on the odometer, which was broken. It was trucked to the test center in Virginia.

Mr. Zuby said the cloud that shows in the crash video wasn’t rust. “Most of that is road dirt that accumulates in nooks and crannies that you can’t get it,” he said.

Here's something pretty cool from our friends at CR -

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/safety-recalls/carcrashtest/crashtestvideo.htm?INTKEY=%20I95BCE0

You can even see how our beloved G6 & G6 convertibles fair :eek:

It brings a tear to my eye to see them intentionally trash our cars. :p

But its good to know that we have a "good" crash rating, and an "acceptable" side crash rating... Although, when I was first shopping and looking at my G6, if I recall correctly, I had saw/read/thought that the G6 had an extremely high crash & safety rating... weird. :confused:

With a car that old, metal fatigue will come into play. Without a crumple zone design, older cars will not flair very well, but should not flair as bad as the one shown on the video. Overall weight and sheetmetal thickness works to the older car's advantage.

With a car that old, metal fatigue will come into play. Without a crumple zone design, older cars will not flair very well, but should not flair as bad as the one shown on the video. Overall weight and sheetmetal thickness works to the older car's advantage.

Yeah but that saves the car not you.......