I got rear ended in my 63 Cadillac by a car that hit the car behind me, both of their cars were totaled my car stoped the chain reation and I drove home with 500 bucks worth of damage.
@Steeeff87 lol wow for real you cant see this was set up. i got into a wreck with a new dodge in my 1966 chevy and my car was the only one that was able to drive away .
@insanityauto I did get a chance a few years ago to see the remains of a on-road collision between an older 60's car and a 02' saturn. The driver of the older car blew a light and was impacted by the saturn at about 35. The driver of the 60's car died and his passenger was left in serious condition in the ER. the Saturn? The driver walked away with a slight limp. Not a set up at all.
@jimmyp42002 not saying new or old cars suck i like both just saying this video is fake the passenger fender was not bolted on in the back the windshield had no seal in it and a lot more stuff was not wright
scam,the 59 had no motor n did u see all the rest dust fly out of it,i pearsonaly no that if u hit a 04 grand prix at 55 60 allmost the exact same way,the grand prix will never run again n ull have to replace the hood,bumper,grill fender hood on the 59,n i got brused four arm,n abbs,he got a broken nose n caller bone,im driven my car after a year of work. just sayn,cause ive been there.
in real life the old cars did not do this ..not good for the ones not seat belted ,,but the 59 would have knocked that 2009 out of the way did that with my 56 chevy ...i hit a 66 olds at 47mph ..i had 375 dollar damage ...dont know about the olds...oh i still have my my 56 ,,try to keep out of drunk drivers way
I'd rather be a part of the TEA PARTY and eventual winning party in 2012 than a loser and member of parties like the Leftocratic Party and "Piss Party" also known as Occupy Wall Street.
The tea-taliban folks with their heads buried deeply in the past are free to ride in whatever damn car they wish and take their chances. As for me, I'll take modern engineering and manufacturing any day. I don't see vast "big government" conspiracies here either, just progress.
The "dummies" are not only in the cars. They are alive and commenting on this video, as they are delusional enough to think a 2005 vehicle is stronger than a 50s vehicle made from thicker guage steel. Most of them too myopically impaired or just brainwashed to comprehend that a 50's car without an engine is severely handicapped in a head on collision.
@91dodgespiritrt thats fine for the car itself, but all that energy just gets transferred to the occupants in a collision because there are no crumple zones, etc...lets get impaled on a steering column yaaay
"the vehicle safety features weren't as good half a century ago."
They didn't have to be. The older vehicles were made with a thicker guage steel.I doubt anyone has the guts to do this test by sitting in 2009/2010/2011/2012 vehicle and take a 50s/ 60s/70s vehicle head on. The job of any manufacturer is to produce a product CHEAPER. Making a vehicle of thinner steel, and plastic while employing a few principles of physics will save money rather than making a car of heavier guage steel.
@91dodgespiritrt Did you not watch the video? The '59 had heavier construction, yes; but the driver would have died instantly. The thinner walled construction of the 2009 allows the car to break and not the person inside the car. Which is why the 2009 driver walked away with a slight knee injury.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"We salute the insurance industry." WTH? You don't think car manufacturers could have created more with less government intervention!? You know what that's called don't you? Fascism. The problem with you left wingers is you have no faith in the common man. What a sad way to live. Before someone castigates right wingers for war you need to research true right wing ideology which is anti aggression, no taxes, no laws, etc. Don't let MSM fool you.
It is a fake.Just as jasper2222able said, look at the windshield how it comes of in one piece.It is obvious that is laminated, a thing that they didn't use in 1959, and this proves that this car was rebuilt.
this was staged watch the windshield and the hood the windshield comes out in almost one piece with no trim and the hood bearly gets any damage at all the red dust going everywhere was planted no big chunks of rusty car fell off
i love old cars and i own old cars. so maybe my opinion is biased. However, this isn't a crash test, it's another peice of history being destroyed for nothing. Of course the vehicle safety features weren't as good half a century ago. Old cars do hold up better at low speed crashes though. With something as simple as properly reinforcing the frame, adding 3 point seatbelts, and airbags the 1959 chevy would do fine in a crash test. And ps, the 2009 chevy looks like a soap bar...
There is more info on iihs dot org. Despite the fact that older cars were heavier, modern cars are designed with more sophisticated analysis of how they crumple and absorb energy and prevent the passenger compartment from deforming.
It's not really a fair comparison. The 1959 car relies on the structural strength of steel, and it's 52 year old steel at this point, likely with tremendous stress and decay over time.
most of the crash tests talk about the cars "crush zone" for safety, in my 88' Buick LeSabre wagon, my crush zone is the jackass unlucky enough to be in my way!
While I think its fantastic that the illusion of safer cars and lower gas mileage will make some people happy, I have to say I hate how ugly cars are now a days. 1957 Chevy Bel Air is the most beautiful car ever made, who cares if its a gas guzzling death trap. Shame on the makers of this video for destroying a beautiful 59 Bel Air. Id take beauty, style and speed over safety and gas milage any day
I would imagine the sane person driving and paying for gas o.0 especially when regular costs 3.62 a gallon now... Minimum wage is only 7.25/hr and with the driving done today it will go just like that.
Rotted out steel? Rust dust? Your kidding right. And I bet you feel safe putting your kids in in a 98 F-150 cause its big? Check out that horrifying crash test..
I don't know why the don't show the interior. It's even more dramatic inside. Consumer Reports covers this test too, search for it on YouTube. There it's clear to see the 1959 Chevy dashboard get all deformed; meanwhile the 2009 Malibu's dash is intact. Cars today are much, much, much better.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No way steel body succumbs to plastic. I don't care how many slide rules you whip out, that vid was rigged by the manufacturer AND the insurance companies to make you think it is safer. Most cars these days can't survive a frakkin shopping cart in WalMart parking lots, let alone a 1959 STEEL Chevy.
@THEevildweeb You are right, but what you are forgetting is speed here, a paper milk carton in the back seat of your car can fly and kill you if you end up in a 30mph crash.
@THEevildweeb Its not like the Malibu is driving away after the crash. The thing is totaled. The point is that the driver would alive. You can see the front end collapse just as much as the Bel Air, but when it gets to the cabin, the structural stability of the Malibu is superior. And while the Bel Air is "STEEL," the Malibu isn't entirely plastic. There is only 200lb difference.
@THEevildweeb The steel didn't succumb to plastic. Two large metal engine blocks met at about the same speed and stopped each other. In the 1959 Steel Car, the heavy steel rear decided it was not finished moving yet and pushed the whole front of the car (and driver) into the engine. Meanwhile the modern car had the rear pushing into the engine too, but it slid up over the engine and also just absorbed a bunch of the energy in various crumple zones.
How about a Hellfire missile crashing into a Hummer H2 filled with Justin Bieber, Miley & Billy Ray, and various other "reality" stars? I might pay to see that
Expected. It's only natural that collision safety systems would progress over time. We're talking about commercial-grade automobiles, not something designed to take a serious beating and keep rolling. That's why you can crash a 2009 Chevrolet in to a Renault FT and the tank would still win. It has a design based on structural integrity that uses its increased mass to reach that goal. If the older Chevy was made to plow through heavy objects, the same would have happened here.
I think it's important to know whether the 1959 driver was wearing a seat belt in this video since it would not have been mandatory at the time, right?
It's pretty awesome to see the 2009 car though. You can see the cabin was barely penetrated/displaced at all.
I think it's important to know whether the 1959 driver was wearing a seat belt in this video since it would not have been mandatory at the time, right?
It's pretty awesome to see the 2009 car though. You can see the cabin was barely penetrated/displaced at all.
No HD video? We've come a long way with automobile safety but apparently our video technology is still in 1991. I was trying to see the dummy in the 59 but it's so grainy and dark. Repost in HD please.
@PublicCommerce Perspective, dear. The 1959 Chevy Bel Air is exotic now, since you don't see them on the street every day. Remember when Back to the Future came out and people thought the DMC De Lorean was exotic?
Frankly, the Bel Air looks like an ugly, ostentatious piece of shit. It got mileage that would make modern battletanks look efficient, and was about as dangerous as they come.
that test BSi own a 2 door 64 impala that has the same exact X frame as that 59. I was driving on my 64 impala on the 5 freeway in east LA and traffic came to a hault, and i look in my rear view mirror to see a dodge charger (2008) coming straight behind me at 45 mph and slams me in the back with me standing still and the front of her car was absolutely unrecognizable and airbags everywhere, and my car has a twisted rear bumper and bumper shocks. For me it felt like a go kart hit me in the rear
Always hated it when some old person says " they don't make them like they used to" or something about cars back in the day were stronger because they used metal to build them... I'm saving this to my phone to show them!!!
the reason the windshield goes flying out is not because it is not in it's place properly or that it is not "glued" in. the engineers used the same mentality with the windshield as with designing the car. stonger, harder is better. the windshield is too solid and strong to shatter and absord energy from the impact. it just maintains the energy it always had, which is to keep going forward; and who absorbs the energy that would have shattered the windshield? thats right the driver.
Today's vehicles are as safe as possible under the present set of circumstances - lighter gauge steel and energy efficient with the extensive use of plastics. Given a chance to choose a which car to be in an accident in - an 09 or an 59, 69, or a 79 - I wouldn't take an 09.
Consider this - why did NASCAR move toward using total race cars in the past 20 years in favor of using "stock" vehicles? Just ask Richard Petty, Buddy Baker Cale Yarborough and David Pearson - they're still around.
@91dodgespiritrt Yes, today's cars are lighter, but the composites are so much stronger after 50 years of development that its not even a close competition. Add in the fact that today's cars are actually designed from the frame up specifically with thought to the safety of the occupants and its clear that ANY '09 would be much safer than a '59 or '79 of the same size. A car coming through an accident with less damage does not mean that it is safer. Crumple zones help absorb crash energy.
An 09 anything racking up a 59 is very very hard to believe. The 59 doesn't appear to have anything under the hood. I owned a 66 Fury that would've gone though that 09. I have in fact gotten in an accident with an mid-eighties Cutlass - my Fury got a broken headlight and the Olds had a seam down the side where my headlight and bumper hit it. It was probably totaled. NO this accident footage is bullshit.
the bel air has no engine or tranny, the windshield was not properly installed if it were it would have shattered out instead of completly flying out, look at it this way, i dont care about "crumple zones" if the belair wieghs more than the malibu it should push the malibu backwards, its physics im not disputing that newer cars are safer, this video just sucks
The old cars were more interesting to look at BUT they certainly were'nt safer. There is a film of a crash test from the late 1950s or early 1960s and the cars body actually comes completely off the frame when it hits the wall!
The old cars WERE thicker & heavier steel, but new cars have thinner & lighter steel of a much higher QUALITY. And also, the issue of Unibody vs Frame comes into play. EVERYTHING on older vehicles were pretty much quite literally, "a few bolts here, a couple bolts there..." Now days, everything but the body panels on a unibody is WELDED together. Hey, there's a reason corvettes have unibody, ok?
@supremehydra1 Dude, there's a half-century of engineering and technological improvements between these cars. Are you really suggesting that safety technology hasn't progressed at all since Eisenhower was president?
How is it rigged? Aside from the fact that if you have so much experience with collissions you should pay better attention to the road, I'm sure they were low speed impacts. If you hit a modern car head on going this fast, paramedics would have to surgically remove the solid steering column from your chest before you'd be able to come on here and say ooops!.
Newer cars are safer. Big does not equal safe. Of course, if Americans knew that, automakers wouldn't sell as many SUVs.
@Superdessucke sweet generalization. So you would think a 2009 malibu and a 2009 yukon would have similar results in a crash test? What about a 2009 volvo tractor trailer? With similar technology, being higher and bigger is likely to make a difference. You can make things better, but in the end, more material has better potential to be protective.
I'm not a fan of SUV's, but I'm against ridiculous speculative general arguments.
~60 years ago crash design in cars was build around two things. First solid = better. And all crashes are dead centre on. It's really only been the last 10 years that 'off centre' crash design has become the norm, after some brainiac figured out that it's the majority of crashes. So yes the test is rigged, and the rigging gives it for off centre. If it was head on, you'd be peeling both drivers out of the car, but in the bel air you'd still recognize them.
Mass does indeed make a huge difference in safety. Sorry, mate. Get a physics book. It's not the end all be all, but a tiny car is far less safe than an average one, unless you age the larger car for half a century, I guess.
How about we test your theory scientifically, with a wreck between a compact and an SUV, since you insulted SUVs specifically. Doesn't that seem more reasonable than your logic does?
A coworker pointed me at this after I got done explaining how solid, heavy steel isn't necessarily better than structures designed to channel energy away from occupants, despite how big/small/dangerous they might /seem/. This is an excellent demonstration of this point.
Sure, newer cars are enginnered to be safer with more crumple zones and airbags, etc. Are they so much better overall, more durable and comfortable than the older cars? Comparing the 2000 Jeep Cherokee I have to my older car, a 1978 Pontiac Lemans, the answer is a resounding NO in my opinion based on my own experiences.
gemini monkey and razgrits are both fucking retards that clearly know nothing about unibody construction. i own old cars and work on new cars. the older cars looked cooler but thats it they cant hold a candle to the new ones in any way. handleing, performance, saftey , durability you name it. your fucking dreaming or just plain stupid if you cant see or understand the improvments made.
who really cares people didn't drive as muck back then and anyone that has a 1959 anything today it would be on a trailer to a car show or a junk yard and they probably rigged the video by putting the 59 together with rusty bolts everyone knows metal would destroy plastic
@geminimonkey23 The new car weighs the same as the old car. That's not plastic creating most of that weight, it's metal, but it's smartly used for safety in the structure, not thick sheet metal that has nothing to do with safety.
Razgrits your a dumb Fukc that is a 1959 car... go research how the car was made dumb @zz compared to how todays cars are made to resist crashes.... what a tard
Uhh- a little info for all you retards who seem to pick sides.
If that was an actual 59's car it would have gone right through the 09' whichever model it would be, it doesn't matter, because back then cars were made of harder, more resistant and solid materials. But, the truth is, both drivers would be dead. One would die because of the old car passing right through them, the other driver would die from the force of impact, even if wearing a seat belt, his insides would turn into a bloody pulp.
@myphonyaccount Really? Then why do I feel cramped in new cars yet I can stretch my legs fully in the classics? I think they completely annihilate new cars in comfort, leg room, style, looks, and space.
@Supergungun Old cars had terrible ergonomics. They were uncomfortable within a few miles and CAUSED back and neck problems. Space is not the same as comfort. Old cars also did NOT have more space inside than new cars. They were simply bigger on the OUTside. Get into a new Ford Taurus and see.
@Supergungun So old cars comfort work for you. They apparently don't work for almost everybody else. New cars don't cause all the back, neck, leg and eye strain that old cars did.
I got rear ended in my 63 Cadillac by a car that hit the car behind me, both of their cars were totaled my car stoped the chain reation and I drove home with 500 bucks worth of damage.
uniballer1963 2 hours ago
To everyone who is saying the new car is safer you can sit in the 09 and ill sit in an imperial and we'll see who dies and who has a knee injury
Igottastroke 1 week ago
it is fake i do restorations for a living and i seen allot of things that was not right with the 59 this was set up to make the 09 look good
insanityauto 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
@insanityauto like som Chrome or what? Come on, cars from that time are really dangerous compared to the cars thats made today.
Steeeff87 3 weeks ago
@Steeeff87 lol wow for real you cant see this was set up. i got into a wreck with a new dodge in my 1966 chevy and my car was the only one that was able to drive away .
insanityauto 3 weeks ago
@insanityauto Haha, americans are funny, the clowns of the world! Link some pics then or your word are lies :)
Steeeff87 3 weeks ago
@insanityauto I did get a chance a few years ago to see the remains of a on-road collision between an older 60's car and a 02' saturn. The driver of the older car blew a light and was impacted by the saturn at about 35. The driver of the 60's car died and his passenger was left in serious condition in the ER. the Saturn? The driver walked away with a slight limp. Not a set up at all.
jimmyp42002 3 weeks ago
@jimmyp42002 not saying new or old cars suck i like both just saying this video is fake the passenger fender was not bolted on in the back the windshield had no seal in it and a lot more stuff was not wright
insanityauto 3 weeks ago
Theres no engine in tha 59 this is a rip if it had and engine it woulda been far less damage
DJ4000VOLT 2 months ago
scam,the 59 had no motor n did u see all the rest dust fly out of it,i pearsonaly no that if u hit a 04 grand prix at 55 60 allmost the exact same way,the grand prix will never run again n ull have to replace the hood,bumper,grill fender hood on the 59,n i got brused four arm,n abbs,he got a broken nose n caller bone,im driven my car after a year of work. just sayn,cause ive been there.
notforscrap 2 months ago
wait a minute..there isnt an ENGINE in the 59?? what kind of a rigged test is this??
ZeeboLaywicker 2 months ago
not to be an ass..but try that same test with a 1974 impala and a 2009..just do it for kicks n giggles and see which car fares better..:)
ZeeboLaywicker 2 months ago
rather be death than crippled ;) (jk)
nickstockmx 2 months ago
yea, but the 2009 has no class
astratmann1995 2 months ago
uhm....shittt!
xAnnaxlovesxyoux 2 months ago
this is the saddest video i have ever seen.. ): poor 59'...
sk8mcawsome 2 months ago
in real life the old cars did not do this ..not good for the ones not seat belted ,,but the 59 would have knocked that 2009 out of the way did that with my 56 chevy ...i hit a 66 olds at 47mph ..i had 375 dollar damage ...dont know about the olds...oh i still have my my 56 ,,try to keep out of drunk drivers way
animalcorvair 3 months ago
Died "instantly"? Unless the driver was decapitated, it wouldn't be "instant".
Pretty cool video - thanks for sharing!
ErikInCanton 3 months ago
"The tea-taliban folks"
I'd rather be a part of the TEA PARTY and eventual winning party in 2012 than a loser and member of parties like the Leftocratic Party and "Piss Party" also known as Occupy Wall Street.
91dodgespiritrt 3 months ago
@91dodgespiritrt How is this at all relevant to this video?
FadoDeo4444 2 months ago
assholes wasting a 59 impala y not a less desirable 59 car ????
accin88 4 months ago
@accin88 It's not an Impala- it's a Bel Air. Still a waste, though.
fbama73 4 months ago
No worrys, there are spare parts on ebay now
kncklesandwich 5 months ago
The tea-taliban folks with their heads buried deeply in the past are free to ride in whatever damn car they wish and take their chances. As for me, I'll take modern engineering and manufacturing any day. I don't see vast "big government" conspiracies here either, just progress.
bagelboi66 6 months ago 6
The "dummies" are not only in the cars. They are alive and commenting on this video, as they are delusional enough to think a 2005 vehicle is stronger than a 50s vehicle made from thicker guage steel. Most of them too myopically impaired or just brainwashed to comprehend that a 50's car without an engine is severely handicapped in a head on collision.
91dodgespiritrt 6 months ago
@91dodgespiritrt thats fine for the car itself, but all that energy just gets transferred to the occupants in a collision because there are no crumple zones, etc...lets get impaled on a steering column yaaay
img6493 6 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@91dodgespiritrt "a 50's car without an engine"
Urban legend: google. com/search?q=iihs+1959+chevy+engine
"Yes, The IIHS-Crashed '59 Chevy Had An Engine"
"Commenters seemed to think the '59 didn't have an engine"
hitssquad 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"why waste a fucking great car, chevy 1959????"
It is a CHEVY - no big loss. Go MOPAR!
91dodgespiritrt 7 months ago
"the vehicle safety features weren't as good half a century ago."
They didn't have to be. The older vehicles were made with a thicker guage steel.I doubt anyone has the guts to do this test by sitting in 2009/2010/2011/2012 vehicle and take a 50s/ 60s/70s vehicle head on. The job of any manufacturer is to produce a product CHEAPER. Making a vehicle of thinner steel, and plastic while employing a few principles of physics will save money rather than making a car of heavier guage steel.
91dodgespiritrt 7 months ago
@91dodgespiritrt Did you not watch the video? The '59 had heavier construction, yes; but the driver would have died instantly. The thinner walled construction of the 2009 allows the car to break and not the person inside the car. Which is why the 2009 driver walked away with a slight knee injury.
zachsbanks 6 months ago 9
They should have done it with dummies in place. Or whoever decided to wreck such a rare classic car.
I wouldn't *drive* it on today's roads, but was beautiful.
Divinar2 7 months ago
@Divinar2 Watch it again, there are dummies in place. And the one in the "classic car" got punished.
Jagabot 7 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"We salute the insurance industry." WTH? You don't think car manufacturers could have created more with less government intervention!? You know what that's called don't you? Fascism. The problem with you left wingers is you have no faith in the common man. What a sad way to live. Before someone castigates right wingers for war you need to research true right wing ideology which is anti aggression, no taxes, no laws, etc. Don't let MSM fool you.
gatersaw 7 months ago
@gatersaw '
No, we don't think that the car manufacturers could have or more importantly WOULD HAVE without government intervention.
Lerianis10 7 months ago
It is a fake.Just as jasper2222able said, look at the windshield how it comes of in one piece.It is obvious that is laminated, a thing that they didn't use in 1959, and this proves that this car was rebuilt.
lernoki 8 months ago
Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin West Philadelpha born and raised...
Fai27 8 months ago
this was staged watch the windshield and the hood the windshield comes out in almost one piece with no trim and the hood bearly gets any damage at all the red dust going everywhere was planted no big chunks of rusty car fell off
jasper2222able 8 months ago
@jasper2222able Who says the old car has to be rusty?
zachsbanks 6 months ago
why waste a fucking great car, chevy 1959????
Tehfirter 9 months ago
Of course, only the front wheel was struck, how about head on?
chaoticfisherman 9 months ago
Why destroy such a beautiful car?
MrFranck002 10 months ago
The 1959 Chevy had no engine in it.
mrjim271 10 months ago 3
i love old cars and i own old cars. so maybe my opinion is biased. However, this isn't a crash test, it's another peice of history being destroyed for nothing. Of course the vehicle safety features weren't as good half a century ago. Old cars do hold up better at low speed crashes though. With something as simple as properly reinforcing the frame, adding 3 point seatbelts, and airbags the 1959 chevy would do fine in a crash test. And ps, the 2009 chevy looks like a soap bar...
minterdt 11 months ago
ok, but people knew how to drive back in the day without geting into a wreck...!!!!!
splashrd 11 months ago
There is more info on iihs dot org. Despite the fact that older cars were heavier, modern cars are designed with more sophisticated analysis of how they crumple and absorb energy and prevent the passenger compartment from deforming.
DonPMitchell 11 months ago
It's not really a fair comparison. The 1959 car relies on the structural strength of steel, and it's 52 year old steel at this point, likely with tremendous stress and decay over time.
Oh well.
DTownzz 11 months ago
most of the crash tests talk about the cars "crush zone" for safety, in my 88' Buick LeSabre wagon, my crush zone is the jackass unlucky enough to be in my way!
MrXXxSpankyG 11 months ago 2
Comment removed
xestradax1 11 months ago
Comment removed
xestradax1 11 months ago
Low center of gravity wins!
gkiltz0 11 months ago
The 09's windshield didn't even break. Fantastic demonstration of how much better passenger compartment integrity is in the here and now.
BeachBum88m 11 months ago
While I think its fantastic that the illusion of safer cars and lower gas mileage will make some people happy, I have to say I hate how ugly cars are now a days. 1957 Chevy Bel Air is the most beautiful car ever made, who cares if its a gas guzzling death trap. Shame on the makers of this video for destroying a beautiful 59 Bel Air. Id take beauty, style and speed over safety and gas milage any day
forevercomescrashing 11 months ago
@forevercomescrashing
I would imagine the sane person driving and paying for gas o.0 especially when regular costs 3.62 a gallon now... Minimum wage is only 7.25/hr and with the driving done today it will go just like that.
brooklynboiz 11 months ago
It's only "safer" because of the socialists said the cars need to be "safer". More and more we are seeing through their lies with videos like these.
yaosio 11 months ago
@yaosio Did Glenn Beck tell you that? Seriously, you are a fucking idiot, and should not be allowed internet access.
proanti1 11 months ago
@proanti1 hopefully he's just trolling...
Baxxter101 11 months ago
Rotted out steel? Rust dust? Your kidding right. And I bet you feel safe putting your kids in in a 98 F-150 cause its big? Check out that horrifying crash test..
ShamonLaw 11 months ago
Lesson learned today? Throw an airbag in any old car and your good to go.
diemilkdud 11 months ago
Crumple Zones allow for the 2009 Malibu, to crumple in a controlled manner, where-as a 1959 Bel Air would simply crumple were the steel was weakest.
time2shineve 11 months ago
There isn't an engine in the 1959
synergydesigns 11 months ago
Still would pick the 59' bell air over the 2009 Malibu
lewisro245 11 months ago
@lewisro245 Who wouldn't?
brooklynboiz 11 months ago
I don't know why the don't show the interior. It's even more dramatic inside. Consumer Reports covers this test too, search for it on YouTube. There it's clear to see the 1959 Chevy dashboard get all deformed; meanwhile the 2009 Malibu's dash is intact. Cars today are much, much, much better.
mschwage 11 months ago
i believe if the belair had its engine that would not look that way..chevyplease re do o_O
soila1987 11 months ago
Poor old car it must have been rotted out to fold like that I call BS on this one
evil1customs 11 months ago
@evil1customs Wrong.
jlg395 11 months ago
50 year old steel. Notice all the rust dust? I'm not sure this is really a fair comparison. Also, was there an engine block in there?
92poophatch 11 months ago
50 year old steel. Notice all the rust dust? I'm not sure this is really a fair comparison.
92poophatch 11 months ago
If this is what happens when we regulate an industry, we need more regulation! Let's start with the banking industry!
kdauschm 11 months ago
What I thought was cool was the window of the Bel Air flies out and the Malibu windshield is still intact.
ThreeDPeruna 11 months ago
Is that rust which comes out of the old car?
MavelGeorg 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No way steel body succumbs to plastic. I don't care how many slide rules you whip out, that vid was rigged by the manufacturer AND the insurance companies to make you think it is safer. Most cars these days can't survive a frakkin shopping cart in WalMart parking lots, let alone a 1959 STEEL Chevy.
THEevildweeb 11 months ago
@THEevildweeb You are right, but what you are forgetting is speed here, a paper milk carton in the back seat of your car can fly and kill you if you end up in a 30mph crash.
MrAverageToaster 11 months ago
@MrAverageToaster My friend was killed by a mailbox going less than 30. It's not just some abstract idea or anything.
j0phus 11 months ago
@THEevildweeb Its not like the Malibu is driving away after the crash. The thing is totaled. The point is that the driver would alive. You can see the front end collapse just as much as the Bel Air, but when it gets to the cabin, the structural stability of the Malibu is superior. And while the Bel Air is "STEEL," the Malibu isn't entirely plastic. There is only 200lb difference.
batkevn 11 months ago
@THEevildweeb The steel didn't succumb to plastic. Two large metal engine blocks met at about the same speed and stopped each other. In the 1959 Steel Car, the heavy steel rear decided it was not finished moving yet and pushed the whole front of the car (and driver) into the engine. Meanwhile the modern car had the rear pushing into the engine too, but it slid up over the engine and also just absorbed a bunch of the energy in various crumple zones.
kgelner 11 months ago
You can't explain that.
livinglegend1187 11 months ago
I would only buy a car thats also been sold in the EU and therefore made to withstand crashes on germanys no-speedlimit-highways
Charlemagne0815 11 months ago
i hate those fucking "slight knee injuries". i want my car with knee airbags.
g1981c 11 months ago 9
It's good to see two more american cars taken off the road
MrWendaru 11 months ago
Comment removed
MrWendaru 11 months ago
they don't em like they.....d'oh!
PotheadPundit 11 months ago
cool music
MGoBlue324 11 months ago
How about a Hellfire missile crashing into a Hummer H2 filled with Justin Bieber, Miley & Billy Ray, and various other "reality" stars? I might pay to see that
teenonator 11 months ago
Comment removed
Dandruffshampoo 11 months ago
music??
flooaweeb 11 months ago
@flooaweeb im interested in the music too =(
ownsuallownsuall 11 months ago
@flooaweeb Yes, there is music. Turn your sound on. ;-)
jonescaleb12 11 months ago
See, if the 09 looked like the 59, id buy one.
bapparappa 11 months ago 2
BIGGEST WASTE OF A 1959 CHEVY
syntak 11 months ago 39
I can see how James Dean died now, Different car of course but still.
seven7years 11 months ago
THANK RALPH NADER , HE PUSHED FOR BETTER POLICIES TO THESE FORMERLY UNREGULATED INDUSTRIES.
DONT BELIEVE THEM FOR A MINUTE.
raguspag55 11 months ago 6
the malibu looks nice lowered... @0:26
fankyousomuch 11 months ago 2
@Ren1319 I'd thumbs up this if it weren't directed towards chevys.. heck its funny I'll do it anyways
herbinsmoker 11 months ago
Nissan Honda Chevy
OrganicStuff1 11 months ago
Expected. It's only natural that collision safety systems would progress over time. We're talking about commercial-grade automobiles, not something designed to take a serious beating and keep rolling. That's why you can crash a 2009 Chevrolet in to a Renault FT and the tank would still win. It has a design based on structural integrity that uses its increased mass to reach that goal. If the older Chevy was made to plow through heavy objects, the same would have happened here.
CEOrko 11 months ago
generic music is amazing
someguymc 11 months ago
ill die looking good.
Banshie 11 months ago
2 people still think old cars are safer
sploosh56 11 months ago
Does anyone know, what music that is?
hentori 11 months ago
what a waste of such an awesome 1959 chevy -.-
idiots
Farkeman 11 months ago
@Farkeman idiots in the name of science!
dankidge 11 months ago 13
@dankidge Its the same science that stops kids dying in road crashes.
wolfieCLANwop 5 months ago
Ok, now let's see the Malibu VS a 2011 Sierra
mariokartprime 11 months ago
the two people who disliked this most likely own 1959 Chevrolet's haha
fawkes78 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think it's important to know whether the 1959 driver was wearing a seat belt in this video since it would not have been mandatory at the time, right?
It's pretty awesome to see the 2009 car though. You can see the cabin was barely penetrated/displaced at all.
ispshadow 11 months ago
I think it's important to know whether the 1959 driver was wearing a seat belt in this video since it would not have been mandatory at the time, right?
It's pretty awesome to see the 2009 car though. You can see the cabin was barely penetrated/displaced at all.
ispshadow 11 months ago
@ispshadow The '59 Bel Air did not have seat belts.
robert482 11 months ago
WHY THE FUDGE ARE YOU DESTROYING THAT BEAUTIFUL VINTAGE CAR?
metalfalsetto 11 months ago 2
@metalfalsetto For Science!
mothguy 11 months ago
The one person who disliked this is dead......wrong!
sshue33 11 months ago
No HD video? We've come a long way with automobile safety but apparently our video technology is still in 1991. I was trying to see the dummy in the 59 but it's so grainy and dark. Repost in HD please.
mcgenetics 11 months ago
Can we do something like this with a 70's nuclear power plant versus a new power plant? Say, simulate a big quake + tsunami?
dascandy 11 months ago
The 1959 is a beautiful care. The 2009 is obscenely boring.
PublicCommerce 11 months ago
@PublicCommerce yeah but your "1959 beautiful care" woman in the passenger seat would be mauled by the obscenely boring 2009 vehicle
elusi0nx 11 months ago
@PublicCommerce Perspective, dear. The 1959 Chevy Bel Air is exotic now, since you don't see them on the street every day. Remember when Back to the Future came out and people thought the DMC De Lorean was exotic?
Frankly, the Bel Air looks like an ugly, ostentatious piece of shit. It got mileage that would make modern battletanks look efficient, and was about as dangerous as they come.
DownOnMyLuck 11 months ago
aww he dead
zachmagik 11 months ago
what a waste of a beautiful classic car :(
redvelvetskull 11 months ago
that test BSi own a 2 door 64 impala that has the same exact X frame as that 59. I was driving on my 64 impala on the 5 freeway in east LA and traffic came to a hault, and i look in my rear view mirror to see a dodge charger (2008) coming straight behind me at 45 mph and slams me in the back with me standing still and the front of her car was absolutely unrecognizable and airbags everywhere, and my car has a twisted rear bumper and bumper shocks. For me it felt like a go kart hit me in the rear
lakers24suns 1 year ago
Always hated it when some old person says " they don't make them like they used to" or something about cars back in the day were stronger because they used metal to build them... I'm saving this to my phone to show them!!!
bittersweetneon 1 year ago
@bittersweetneon They definitely dont make them as cool looking, with as much personality.
But thats about it
Tenga151 11 months ago
the reason the windshield goes flying out is not because it is not in it's place properly or that it is not "glued" in. the engineers used the same mentality with the windshield as with designing the car. stonger, harder is better. the windshield is too solid and strong to shatter and absord energy from the impact. it just maintains the energy it always had, which is to keep going forward; and who absorbs the energy that would have shattered the windshield? thats right the driver.
MadmanApex 1 year ago 3
@MadmanApex try this test;
1. jump off of a second floor balcony.
2. land with your legs locked straight, solid stiff. dont cushion the fall.
3. come on youtube and tell us how that felt.
4. jump off of a second floor building again, this time let your legs bend and cushon the fall.
5. now come on youtube and tell us how stong, solid and stiff is still better than a crumple-zone.
MadmanApex 1 year ago 3
Today's vehicles are as safe as possible under the present set of circumstances - lighter gauge steel and energy efficient with the extensive use of plastics. Given a chance to choose a which car to be in an accident in - an 09 or an 59, 69, or a 79 - I wouldn't take an 09.
Consider this - why did NASCAR move toward using total race cars in the past 20 years in favor of using "stock" vehicles? Just ask Richard Petty, Buddy Baker Cale Yarborough and David Pearson - they're still around.
91dodgespiritrt 1 year ago
@91dodgespiritrt Yes, today's cars are lighter, but the composites are so much stronger after 50 years of development that its not even a close competition. Add in the fact that today's cars are actually designed from the frame up specifically with thought to the safety of the occupants and its clear that ANY '09 would be much safer than a '59 or '79 of the same size. A car coming through an accident with less damage does not mean that it is safer. Crumple zones help absorb crash energy.
jding19711 11 months ago
An 09 anything racking up a 59 is very very hard to believe. The 59 doesn't appear to have anything under the hood. I owned a 66 Fury that would've gone though that 09. I have in fact gotten in an accident with an mid-eighties Cutlass - my Fury got a broken headlight and the Olds had a seam down the side where my headlight and bumper hit it. It was probably totaled. NO this accident footage is bullshit.
91dodgespiritrt 1 year ago
@supremehydra1
why don't you look at some crashtest footage from the 60s and 70s?
then you would realize that you're talking bullshit
those cars just got destroyed even though they were doing it at 60mph.
zwimble 1 year ago
the bel air has no engine or tranny, the windshield was not properly installed if it were it would have shattered out instead of completly flying out, look at it this way, i dont care about "crumple zones" if the belair wieghs more than the malibu it should push the malibu backwards, its physics im not disputing that newer cars are safer, this video just sucks
Woqoot 1 year ago
The old cars were more interesting to look at BUT they certainly were'nt safer. There is a film of a crash test from the late 1950s or early 1960s and the cars body actually comes completely off the frame when it hits the wall!
lasuvidaboy 1 year ago
The Malibu might be safer, but it's a boring piece of plastic crap, like most new cars.
Adam19822000 1 year ago
@Adam19822000 who gives a dam atleast you have yur fucking life man does that mean nothign to you at all
pattycarljackson 1 year ago
@pattycarljackson no, not really :)
Adam19822000 1 year ago
@supremehydra1 Proof?
wolfgoblin 1 year ago
The old cars WERE thicker & heavier steel, but new cars have thinner & lighter steel of a much higher QUALITY. And also, the issue of Unibody vs Frame comes into play. EVERYTHING on older vehicles were pretty much quite literally, "a few bolts here, a couple bolts there..." Now days, everything but the body panels on a unibody is WELDED together. Hey, there's a reason corvettes have unibody, ok?
DarthHick12 1 year ago
@supremehydra1 Dude, there's a half-century of engineering and technological improvements between these cars. Are you really suggesting that safety technology hasn't progressed at all since Eisenhower was president?
emkajii 1 year ago
How is it rigged? Aside from the fact that if you have so much experience with collissions you should pay better attention to the road, I'm sure they were low speed impacts. If you hit a modern car head on going this fast, paramedics would have to surgically remove the solid steering column from your chest before you'd be able to come on here and say ooops!.
Newer cars are safer. Big does not equal safe. Of course, if Americans knew that, automakers wouldn't sell as many SUVs.
Superdessucke 1 year ago 41
@Superdessucke
Why do you assume all American think this way? You're just as big of a dumbass for making blanket statements.
Fonzie8819 11 months ago 4
@Superdessucke americans just like big.. I don't think it has anything to do with safety
Nivlac1982 11 months ago
@Superdessucke sweet generalization. So you would think a 2009 malibu and a 2009 yukon would have similar results in a crash test? What about a 2009 volvo tractor trailer? With similar technology, being higher and bigger is likely to make a difference. You can make things better, but in the end, more material has better potential to be protective.
I'm not a fan of SUV's, but I'm against ridiculous speculative general arguments.
osbjmg 11 months ago
@Superdessucke
~60 years ago crash design in cars was build around two things. First solid = better. And all crashes are dead centre on. It's really only been the last 10 years that 'off centre' crash design has become the norm, after some brainiac figured out that it's the majority of crashes. So yes the test is rigged, and the rigging gives it for off centre. If it was head on, you'd be peeling both drivers out of the car, but in the bel air you'd still recognize them.
elilla331 11 months ago
@Superdessucke
Mass does indeed make a huge difference in safety. Sorry, mate. Get a physics book. It's not the end all be all, but a tiny car is far less safe than an average one, unless you age the larger car for half a century, I guess.
How about we test your theory scientifically, with a wreck between a compact and an SUV, since you insulted SUVs specifically. Doesn't that seem more reasonable than your logic does?
DTownzz 11 months ago
what a waste of an old car. newer cars might have a better safety rating, but the old ones are much easier to work on and look way better.
MissMarisaAndrews 1 year ago 3
@MissMarisaAndrews
you make no sense...
cctoronto 1 year ago
A coworker pointed me at this after I got done explaining how solid, heavy steel isn't necessarily better than structures designed to channel energy away from occupants, despite how big/small/dangerous they might /seem/. This is an excellent demonstration of this point.
taroliw 1 year ago 43
@taroliw i doubt they actually used 1959 chevys made from steel/iron probably just the same body but not the material
WheresTheAnyKey1 11 months ago
@WheresTheAnyKey1 What the hell do you think the 1959 car in this video is made of, then? It's clearly an actual, metal car.
GadBoDag 11 months ago
malibu, plastic? WFT, go to a dealer and touch one. also, stop sleeping through physics class so you understand how the transfer of energy works.
romesserfilm 1 year ago
Sure, newer cars are enginnered to be safer with more crumple zones and airbags, etc. Are they so much better overall, more durable and comfortable than the older cars? Comparing the 2000 Jeep Cherokee I have to my older car, a 1978 Pontiac Lemans, the answer is a resounding NO in my opinion based on my own experiences.
fordlords 1 year ago
why the cuss words?
cc0192 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'd rather be in the 59 in the real world. I don't want a car to try to protect me from dying. That's my job as the driver.
Besides if you simply put a roll cage in the '59 it's just as strong as the '09.
TestECull 1 year ago
Comment removed
TestECull 1 year ago
wow newer cars are little more safer
ChrisBennett18 1 year ago
dude da bel air waz made in 09 for testing but da real one iz heavy and the boy iz strong fuck da chevy 09
kmoney543 1 year ago
Haha, look at all the dust coming out of the 59.
wolfgoblin 1 year ago
gemini monkey and razgrits are both fucking retards that clearly know nothing about unibody construction. i own old cars and work on new cars. the older cars looked cooler but thats it they cant hold a candle to the new ones in any way. handleing, performance, saftey , durability you name it. your fucking dreaming or just plain stupid if you cant see or understand the improvments made.
lordironrat 1 year ago
who really cares people didn't drive as muck back then and anyone that has a 1959 anything today it would be on a trailer to a car show or a junk yard and they probably rigged the video by putting the 59 together with rusty bolts everyone knows metal would destroy plastic
geminimonkey23 1 year ago
@geminimonkey23 The new car weighs the same as the old car. That's not plastic creating most of that weight, it's metal, but it's smartly used for safety in the structure, not thick sheet metal that has nothing to do with safety.
myphonyaccount 1 year ago
Razgrits your a dumb Fukc that is a 1959 car... go research how the car was made dumb @zz compared to how todays cars are made to resist crashes.... what a tard
clintbhs02 1 year ago
Uhh- a little info for all you retards who seem to pick sides.
If that was an actual 59's car it would have gone right through the 09' whichever model it would be, it doesn't matter, because back then cars were made of harder, more resistant and solid materials. But, the truth is, both drivers would be dead. One would die because of the old car passing right through them, the other driver would die from the force of impact, even if wearing a seat belt, his insides would turn into a bloody pulp.
Razgrits 1 year ago
Eye strain? Do you know how much glass is in cars from the 1950s? I get far better visibility.
Supergungun 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Too bad that Impala wasn't full of niggers.
headoverseer 2 years ago
lol that was funny XD
marcus974ever 2 years ago
The south lost the war. Get over it. Old cars lost the war against new cars too. They are inferior in every way. Get over it.
myphonyaccount 2 years ago
@myphonyaccount Really? Then why do I feel cramped in new cars yet I can stretch my legs fully in the classics? I think they completely annihilate new cars in comfort, leg room, style, looks, and space.
Supergungun 1 year ago
@Supergungun Old cars had terrible ergonomics. They were uncomfortable within a few miles and CAUSED back and neck problems. Space is not the same as comfort. Old cars also did NOT have more space inside than new cars. They were simply bigger on the OUTside. Get into a new Ford Taurus and see.
myphonyaccount 1 year ago
@myphonyaccount I never noticed these "ergonomics issues". I feel far more comfortable in a old car. I actually slept well in my 1964 Cadillac.
Supergungun 1 year ago
@Supergungun So old cars comfort work for you. They apparently don't work for almost everybody else. New cars don't cause all the back, neck, leg and eye strain that old cars did.
myphonyaccount 1 year ago
they got a old car and ran into a o9
what could be learn from this?
you must buy a new car or die
lies to scare you out your car and buy a new one
even if you dont need one that why they fake this
if new cars are so good why did GM need help?
why is Detroit a ghost town?
why did they kill Saab?
IIHS may need to close as then you and your dad can work at Wendys.... or go and win the war with your huge brain
wasjunk 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
iihs got tax money to fake this
thats why it went half the way thru
the 59
wasjunk 2 years ago