IIHS '59 Bel-air vs. '09 Malibu, video response.... not faked.

[3762569]

are you really going to believe that an 09 malibu drove through the block of that 59?

[mfree80286]

@3762569 Nope. I am going to believe though, that the '09 drove right up along that skinny 6 block and straight up to the passenger compartment.

Are you going to believe that one unsupported angled steel bar, a sheetmetal inner fender, and a sheetmetal outer fender is going to stop a nearly two-ton car from diving right in to passenger space and swimming around like a shark?

[3762569]

@mfree80286 it would also help if they actually met frame rail to frame rail.

[mfree80286]

@3762569 The only thing that would help the '59 in a frontal offset like this is if that driver's front frame rail met *anything*. It's hung out there like a tree branch with no support, and better yet, there's no support behind it at the rocker panel either. Hit one hard in the side and watch it split in half. An X frame might be an interesting idea for driving dynamics or efficient production, but not for anything with any possibility of taking a vehicle strike.

[kevintomb]

@3762569 Yes. If you understand how structural engineering works and look at the structures of both cars, its obvious why the outcome was what it was. No big deal. Emotions dont control how things deform, but physics.

[jeremiahskates]

h well they also forgot to mention the little fact that

1.It had a fucking straight 6 in it get a v8 and go head on!

2.They had x frames.

3. And no i dont like gm but i like and no that an older car would fuckin cremate a peice of shit new car. in fact i could make a vid of my 66 dodge doin a 5mph test and i doubt it would cost the typical 3000+

at most i might have a scratch...

[markVIIchick]

@jeremiahskates

For that matter who daily drive in a 1950's classic car anyways unless its to a car show once or twice a year? Then they picked a car with a *x-frame*; its a flawed test to begin with and they chose the weakest frame for a reason. I say do a retest with the same '09 Malibu versus ANY late 60's-80's similar sized car; lets see *those* results >8-)

[mfree80286]

@jeremiahskates You know, with about 5 seconds of searching you can find NCAP percentage offset tests (done outdoors) for the '08 and '10 Tauruses. IIRC the 50% was done with an impact speed of 70mph. Granted that's about the best chassis I've seen for impact durability, but pretty much any older vehicle with the same test will look like a rumpled ball of tin foil afterwards. For that matter, you can go watch the car start to roll off the test pad after a 35mph direct head-on barrier test.

[jeremiahskates]

@mfree80286 Okay without being myself all try to go soft on you. First we are talking about this crash, and do you really want to no why new cars "MIGHT" have some better crash results at higher speeds? It's the simple fact that they stuff the front with so much bullshit! like wiring and random shit. Where if you go look under the hood on a old car you can actually work on stuff and see parts... which thus weakening the front.

[jeremiahskates]

@mfree80286 And id rather be able to afford or even fix my own car if it got in a crash, instead of having to take a fucking loan out just to pay for the fucker! And tell me this If you tool a 36 inch sledge and swung it at the side of a new pickup would it dent it? Cause i no that it didn't dent a 1973 ford f-250! And maybe when they get a real test one that's even some what fair all believe it... but only proof you got now is a video which they choose a straight 6 car with an x frame!

[Indogyearsimdead]

Just one question.

Which car do YOU want to be in?

Old cars are great to look at, but I'll let somebody else drive them.

Gotta love technology ;-P

[64Laurentian]

I agree with your analysis of the crash. I do have to wonder though about the condition of the frame after 50 years of exposure in regards to corrosion. It can look just fine outside, but inside it can have some pretty serious pitting which would weaken it. I am very familiar with restoration of the '59 through '64 Chevrolet and Canadian Pontiacs. Contradictory to the information quoted by @bodymanification from Hotrodder magazine, there are a minimum of 8 body mounting points;10 for ragtop

[InteriorCommando]

Tests such as these are moot unless a complete scoping of the inner frame sections and other structural areas is done to evaluate the loss of strength due to rust and corrosion. However I do agree that the X -frame in the Chevy was an engineering weak point as demonstrated here.

[Supergungun]

I bet if they put a 1959 Cadillac up against that Malibu the Malibu would have exploded into a rain of legos. That extra half ton would brutally rip into that tiny plastic car.

[Supergungun]

You're forgetting the Malibu is all plastic. I've driven a 2010 Camaro and the whole damn interior is all plastic. The 59 however is metal. I believe metal is stronger than plastic.

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun If metal is stronger than plastic, why is the old car a death trap?

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount Because this metal is rusted.

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun Old cars were death traps when they were new because they had no safety engineering in them. Get out of the past and into today. Denial won't help you face the future.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount I'm sorry, I just don't have the stomach to drive those bland aero-cubes with dead, uninspired, and rubber/plastic trim.

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun Now you tell us the real issue. That's fine, but look at all the accusations and lying about newer cars and denial about old cars to get to this very simple personal choice.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount So... you like falling asleep at the wheel from such a bland interior and crashing? The sad part is the interior of a 1947 Chevy is more luxurious, alive, and attractive than a $200,000 Bentley's.

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun Styling is personal opinion. Safety and ergonomics are fact. A new car has much better support and relationships between driver and vehicle. Hence, you won't fall asleep driving one compared to the exhausting effects of poorly designed seats, wheel and pedal positions in old cars.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount I never found the seats to be poorly designed and the wheel and pedal positions to be in a bad place and I've driven these cars for months. I also notice you don't deny that the interior in a 1947 Chevy is better made and more luxurious than the Bentley.

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun Well the rest of the world agrees that newer cars cause much less driver fatigue than old cars. But if you feel differently, that's fine. And I didn't bother denying the chevy vs bentley thing because it's too rediculous to waste time on. Of course a new Bentley has a better interior than a 47 Chevy. But that has nothing to do with safety.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount So plastic is now super luxurious? When did this happen?

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun How are metal dashboards and vinyl seats in old cars luxurious? Many new cars have real wood. Plastics can be made nicely or poorly. Maybe you're used to American brands with cheap plastics. You need to get with the times and out of the past.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount I don't think the 47 Chevy or my 1959 Impala had "vinyl" seats. I could have sworn mine was leather and cloth. Also metal dashes are more expensive than cheap shoddy, ugly plastic ones. Sure the plastic ones are softer but most people don't hit old cars so the safety issue is not important. Old cars completely rip apart newer ones in lower mph crashes. 1 5 mph crash won't dent my METAL BUMPER but it'll completely annihilate the new car's plastic one.

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun Older cloth seats tore easier than todays man made fiber seat materials. Accidents that kill people are above 15 mph so that's what matters more. Newer cars protect people better than old cars when driven for every day uses.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount Tore easier my ass. My 1959 Impala's seats took 51 years to tear.

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun That's because it wasn't driven every day, 12,000 miles a year since 1959 like a regular car.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount I can't entirely be sure of that it seems well traveled.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount and it runs like a charm.

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun Lots of maintenance and few miles driven can keep an old car running well. A good new car don't need that kind of maintenance and last 300,000 miles.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount That's massively overestimated. MY crown Vic's tranny gave out at 100k.

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun There's many more cars like Hondas with 300,000 miles on original transmissions than there are old cars with 300,000 miles and original transmissions.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount Show me them. I bet my Impala has similar mileage. It made a 1200 mile trip and its 51 years old.

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun I'm not going to "show you", you're going to have to chose to look and study statistics. But so far, you're only chosing to study opinions that suit you which is "old cars were better in every way" which is obviously false. Keep deluding yourself by remaining stuck in the conservative, paranoid past.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount Either you're an ignorant kid who never saw the beauty of these cars or you were raped in the back of one of these cars as a kid and can't love them because of it. Face it. You're defending soulless hunks of plastic. Why must you be so foolish?

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun Because people need practical cars that work and do the things modern cars do, not art on wheels that does nothing and causes too many problems.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount Which one were you? The rape victim or an ignorant kid? I know you're one of them.

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun I'm the one who's not stuck in the past. I'm the one who is able to cope with the present and the future. I'm the one who doesn't ride around on one of those huge front wheel bicycles from the 1800s that is taller than I am.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount You must be an ignorant kid. You have no appreciation for the culture, glory, magnificence, beauty, and quality of these cars.

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun You're right, I have no appreciation for them as daily drivers. I only have appreciation for them as occasional weekend cruisers and as collector pieces.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount I doubt you've ever even owned one. Someone's a hypocrite if they have not experienced their glory in person.

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun I'm not foolish enough to think that an old car should be driven as a daily driver. A proper collector knows the difference between appropriate uses for their cars and their liabilities. You are not based on reality. Typical of Islamic and Christian fundamentalists who are stuck in the past.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount So you've never owned one you could have just said that.

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun You don't need to own an old car to appreciate one or to know you're not supposed to drive it as a daily driver.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount This implies that you're young. Any person over the age of 40 should have driven a car of a similar era.

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun Delusional, paranoid and typically conservative. You don't have to own something to have driven it (many times) or to appreciate it. You're foolish enough to drive a collector car every day for 12,000 miles a year. That's your mental illness, not mine.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount I don't drive it all around all the time. I have my shitty Ford Crown Victoria for that. I drove it 1200 miles when I bought it from New Mexico.

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun Why not get a Honda if you want something that feels and drives better and lasts longer? Why torture yourself in a Crown Vic?

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount Remember Pearl Harbor? The Crown Vic is also a fleet car meaning its durable. The only reason I like it is because its an ex cop car complete with spot lights and back seats that can only be opened from the outside.

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun Japan has been our friend since 1946 when we helped rebuild it. It's one of our best friends today. Hondas are made in America. Many Fords are not. Your gas hog Crown Vic funds fanatical faith based lunatics. Wouldn't you rather save gas and not feed today's enemy?

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount I have leg room and trunk space in my crown Victoria. I also can instill fear in the hearts of people since it still resembles an undercover cop car (It's flat black and has spot lights). Can a Honda do the same?

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun Well no, a Honda can't do that, but if you're secure and don't drive aggressively you won't need to intimidate anybody, although it's kinda cool. But the interior room, space efficiency and ergonomics in the Crown Vic is poor for such a big car. An Accord feels better and doesn't produce the driver fatigue that the flawed Crown Vic does. Even the new Taurus feels bigger. And both cars are safer and use less terror funding, oil spilling, troop killing, money wasting fuel.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount I don't know. The leg room in the Ford Crown Victoria rivals that of my great Impala. Both completely dwarf the pathetic dimensions of my relatives Honda Accord. The Honda Accord feels cramped in Comparison to either. I've driven my relatives accord and it feels like shit. Sure its a 2000 but it really hasn't changed much in 10 years. The best car I've ever owned was a 1964 Cadillac Coupe Deville...

[mfree80286]

Supergun; myphonyaccount;

Ok, time for the results: who pissed further? You two have been bickering for a week plus now... take it elsewhere, please.

[gorkdork]

Great description of what happened! I know these new cars are tough and I understand what is being shown in the test but I really would be curious how the malibu held up against a 1990's full boxed frame caprice or roadmaster wagon

[osvst]

dude the windscreen flew out!. yea the old car has alot of metal ... but its hallow ... and todays cars are built to crash ... they know people are not smart when driving ... so of course there gonna crash ... and todays cars are designed to do just that. safe crashing.

[bodymanification]

For many of the people who comment on these videos this will be thier first lesson in structural engineering so don't expect to many intelligent responces. It's a very good clip. It's a shame they had to destroy the 59, but in order to move foward in engineering we need to see where we came from.

[myphonyaccount]

A lot of old cars fans are not very smart. New cars are a threat to what they know and they don't like to learn new things because the unknown is scary and they have control issues. Taliban all the way. Check out guy48065 he's got a video that shows the engine after the test. He made it after all these Taliban conspiracy theorists kept saying the engine was removed.

[mfree80286]

@bodymanification I picked up last month's 'Hot Rodder' magazine and was surpised to find it had an article on how to gusset and reinforce the X-frame. Seems it got picked up on... they also confirmed the body is only held on with 4 bolts. With only 4, they may as well be hinges...

[1959chevy]

I would rather be in a 59 Chevy than in this 90's honda. look at the headless dummy 86RuYXoJA

[myphonyaccount]

Says "malformed video".

[wasjunk]

they rigged this

money can buy IIHS

this fake video shows it

everyone can see what a lair

they  are

[mfree80286]

And everyone can now see what a contrarian attention wh*r3 can do to a comment thread.

Conspiracy theorists are all alike... they want so desperately to stand out, to know something unique, that they buy into lunacy.

[myphonyaccount]

Taliban, the old ways of car safety are invalid once people read the death statistics from the 1950s and 1960s. Old cars were poorly made for safety. The 09 and 59 even weigh the same.

[harlon2u]

let me point this out one more time....Almost any older car itself is safer than any new non-framed car, period. The seat belts, air bags, etc ARE the safety of the new car. Speed this malibu on up to about 60-70and collide it with a '73 chrysler imperial. See which is safer then. Quit trying to make people think that old cars arent safe. I believe that after 65 ALL cars came with seat belts, so other than the air bag, which has been around forever, safety has not improved one bit, period.

[myphonyaccount]

This car was not rusted. A better non-X frame might have held up better, but it's occupants would still be dead and that's what matters. The Malibu's unibody is extremely strong and designed to hit a car of it's own weight and stay together and protect it's occupants. The 1959 Chevy weighs the same as the 2009 Chevy. An old car of similar weight would lose every time to the new Malibu.

[mfree80286]

@harlon2u All I'll say is, you're wrong, and I hope you never have to find out the hard way. There's a reason it's impossible to find a new mid-sized car today that weighs less than 3500 pounds. My '03 Sonoma weighs a hair over 3000, and it's considered a death trap. Hell, a new Taurus weighs well north of 4000, up near the 4300-4400 mark. That's MORE than the '79 LINCOLN MARK V I learned how to drive in. The force control and absorption is far better on newer cars.

[harlon2u]

@mfree80286 Im really not arguing with you lol. And yes I know that they are engineering cars to be safer. When it comes down to it though, its about the dollar that they put into them, and as long as the cars pass the standard test. My point is, they used the worse older car out there (X frame) to try and trick people into thinking things are better now, but they arent. Something tested, on paper, etc isnt like real life. I was in fire and rescue 6 years, I know what older cars do to new ones

[harlon2u]

@mfree80286 And I am telling you 90% of the older cars destroyed the new ones. Seeing in real life is believing. I have had to pry the new cars out of the older ones grills. And it varies from car to car. Heck, take a 69 mercury marauder and peg a 05 corolla with it. It can go both ways. No need in arguing since the older cars are all but perished. By the way, a 79 lincoln mark v weighs over 4700 lbs.

[myphonyaccount]

@harlon2u Even if old cars had airbags and seat belts, their structures were not designed to absorb crash force. That means that no matter what, old cars couldn't possibly safer than today's cars. Who cares if the car can be repaired if the human can't?

[demoskunk]

@harlon2u Modern cars have MUCH stonger structures than old ones. New steel and composite materials are also stonger than old-school steel.

Your arguement is purely emotional and delusional.

[harlon2u]

@demoskunk Let me correct you about "new" metal, composite materials, and stronger structures. New metal (as you referred to it) is nothing more than recycled scrap. Composite junk will not protect you from a piece of 4000 lb steel. New cars are made out of weak, thin metals. So yes, they have to build a structure to handle a crash better. Quit trying to analyze things by your weak theories and poor analyst of character. Call a metal recycling center and ask which is weaker.

[demoskunk]

@harlon2u Even if a car's body was made out of solid titanium, and could withstand faster crashes, the occupants would die from the sudden abrupt impact on their bodies. So, when you referr to "weaker" materials of modern cars, what you're really referring to is something called a "CRUMPLE ZONE". It's a GOOD thing.

Btw, carbon fibre is stonger than ANY steel made in the 50s. Why do you think F-1 cars' tubs are made of it?! Do a little research, man.

[BobaJett]

@harlon2u Buddy, I bet youre one of those that think 9/11 was fake!! C'mon now, do you honestly think what youre saying? The video before you is proof. Just for shits and giggles, How much do these 2 cars weigh? I bet the 59 out weighs the 09 by a good 200-400 lbs. Kind of funny how a heavier car wasnt able to absorb the amount of energy it dished out!!

[harlon2u]

@BobaJett Do some research. Fairly simple to crunch up an old rusty X-frame at its weakest point. I stand by the comment that cars are not any safer (strength wise) than old full framed cars when they were new. And yes, the 2009 malibu is a hefty car. Once again, you'll never see the 2009 malibu up against a chrysler imperial because they know it will fold it in half.

[harlon2u]

It is true that the '09 malibu tested in this video is safer than the bel-air tested. lets get that over with. But I am sure that they researched for the weakest rustiest car in '59, which happens to have a weak x-frame, to make this look good. I still say that this is a bogus video for that reason. Hit that '09 impala with a 1969 mercury marauder and see what happens to the 'safe" impala. Safety features like air bags are great. The cars are not.

[harlon2u]

It is still bogus. The older car passes the black line before impact. If it were heavier 9which it should be) it would not get to the center line (black line) first. This signifies an improper procedure, or maybe the removal of metal to make the older one weaker, causing it reach the point of impact faster. At another point of impact in this video, you can clearly see light under the new one, but not the old. This is staged but not very well.

[mfree80286]

Not bogus, all points addressed here and in video.

[myphonyaccount]

The black line was not the "center line" it's a track that's used to pull another car if they want crash something from another angle. Old cars were simply not designed for safety, new ones that pass IIHS tests are. The IIHS is not NHTSA which is a weak government test. Look it up.

[SippRider89]

I've got modern belts. snagged the bucket seats, belts and rollers out of a mazda 626... better safe than sorry lol

[SippRider89]

do you think that the '57 driver would survive with seatbelts or would be killed instantly as in the case with the '59.. I have a '57 Bel Air and I've been around cars my whole life and I do know that the 57 and 59 are completely different designs.. in 58 they switched to the X-Frame.. and my '57 just so happens to have a "California" box frame.. now I know it's not only the frame that matters but I'm just curious to know what you think! Thanks again!

[mfree80286]

You're looking at different modes of injury.... the '59, the deceleration forces were likely fairly sedate, but the blunt force and crush trauma would be incredible. On a '57, the decel would likely be greater since the car wouldn't absorb as much impact, but no crushing, and only blunt force trauma.

Factory belts or modern ones in the '57? With a lap belt you'll be picking steering wheel out of your teeth for years (or vice versa).

[SippRider89]

What would the outcome be of an 07 Malibu vs. a '57 Bel Air, any difference? I know the framd on the 57 is substantially stronger!

[mfree80286]

if I had to wager a guess? With the same overall circumstances you'd see more damage to the malibu, but not by much. The '57 though, provided the frame is properly squared and impacted on the end of the rail, it probably going to take the impact well but buckle above the B pillar and jam the doors shut. The G forces in the Bel will be MUCH higher than in the malibu or the '59 and may be fatal all by themselves.

Something always discounted too is that brake dive on older cars is *extreme*...

[myphonyaccount]

Finally a video to prove that older, bigger cars really are unsafe compared to newer ones that pass the IIHS test.

[mfree80286]

Pop-out windshield: actually did used to be somewhat of a safety feature back then in the era where if there were belts at all, they were loose lap belts on long, flexible bench seats. I would much rather have the windshield pop out instead of the alternatives... ejection *through* the glass, or putting your head through the window and then dropping back into the car. Glass was also laminated, but damn sure not "safe" and barely tempered.

[u121921]

Great response.I agree it wasn't faked but it's so typical of the IIHS's staging for sensational self agrandizment and claiming credit for the work of the auto engineers.typical that they took a vehicle known for a weak frame and staged a crash to exploit that weakness.

Suppose they pitted a 09 vs 65 Dodge.That would have been a much more balanced test.The 65-78 design was tanklike.The remaining cars have been banned for years at Demo derbys since they have a structural advantage.

[myphonyaccount]

IIHS is the one that humiliated the automakers into improving their products. IIHS isn't government. So yeah, they do get to take credit for what carmakers do because without their videos to embarrass them, they wouldn't improve their cars' safety.

[mgabrysSF]

Thanks for posting this. Some people forget the engine configuration - or the fact that compartments were open by todays standards. Lots of travel room. I still can't get over people who have been apologists for the pop-out winshield. As if hitting the other car or tree with your head was a good idea. Hold-overs from the thrown clear idea I guess. Thanks again.

[nirvana896]

they chose to to do an off-set collision for this exact reason. they knew that it would show the most impact sense the only safety crash tests at the time where head on. I still would love to see 50 years from now how many 09 malibu's are still driveable or are even in existance.

[mfree80286]

They "chose" to do an offset test because offset tests are what IIHS *does*.

[JimmyVolmer]

I agree with you on a lot of points however I had to point this out. When you say "It is only bolted to the frame..." you're pointing to an area that had no mounts. The closest body mounts to what you're pointing to are on the front of the firewall, about 1 foot to the left and right of the transmission tunnel. Take another look.

[mfree80286]

I was waggling the pointer in general locations. Actually, I probably had it over air, which is kind of hard to sink a bolt into...

[Stumper1939]

Sounds like you have it nailed.  And that's coming from a 70 year old who used to be a car nut. Lee Iacocca mentioned in his last book that weight really wasn't as much of a deciding factor as was design when it comes to safety.

[0rbin]

tip: you can pause/unpause by clicking on the video area.

[69OldsNut]

Sufficient research. I have a question regarding your opinion. I just recently left my comment on the actual video, and I would like to know what you think about the rust? I consider myself a classic car enthusiast, I'm around them all the time. Even if it wasn't rust and was in fact just silt and crap, it's 50 year old metal. It's going to give. I suggested crash test the 09 in 50 years and compare. By the way CptTuttle I can accept the fact of saftey. I have an education of Industrial design.

[mfree80286]

I don't think the rust is structural at all, I can't remember if I mentioned that or not. It's as you said, silt and crap, flash rust that built up in nooks and crannies that the paint booth couldn't reach (i.e. inside the door sills), and possibly even paint dust from surfaces scrubbing togehter under pressure. The actual support structure is exposed, I doubt it'd have been allowed to decay.

[mfree80286]

OH, and... a modern car in 50 years is going to be a rebuilder's DREAM. Surface prep, galvanizing, parkerizing, better paints, stiffer structures, no gutters or water catches... I had a Daewoo Leganza that got a ding on the fender lip deep enough to chip the paint. I procrastinated since it wasn't that important to me, and months later, the exposed metal... was still rough and grey. Sure looks parkerized to me. Totalled it later, paint was so flexible that the rumpled hood didn't even crack.

[CptTuttle]

That's OK, I weren't talking about you, more like the people that says comments like "OMG FAKE THE STEEL TANK BEL AIR WOULD RIP THAT STYROFOAM CAR INTO PIECES THEY REMOVED THE ENGINE AND CUT THE FRAME!!!!!!111111!!11!!!!1111!­".

[myphonyaccount]

Look, an engine in the 59 after the test! Guess the automotive Taliban are wrong. /watch?v=RoG9wDAmkcQ

[69OldsNut]

Thanks for the replys guys. I just wanted to ask opinions. I understand where people are coming from with questioning, (or answering I should say) when it comes to rust. My Dad has an '89 F-150 Frame rotted completely out. From what I understand manufacturing cut out some of the zinc in the 80's The guys that fixed it said they seen the same thing happen to a 2000 F-150, thats sad. With that said, I do agree that the '59 "Folded" naturally, but it didn't help that its 50 year old metal. Thanks

[soderlund16]

Good research. Thankfully they don't make them like they used to. It's nice to see someone proving things and not just speculating like most of these fanboys.

[CptTuttle]

I remember looking at the frame from a '59 Elky once... I was about 12 years old but already then I understood that it was a quite bad design from this point of view. Some people probably won't understand it even after they have seen this. You understand and believe what you want I guess. I don't understand why people simply can't accept that a classic ain't very safe in a crash. I understand that and I don't care, I will take the risk and drive them anyway, I think that it's worth it.

[Buick61]

I think the ladder-type frame of the '55-'57 model years would have fared better in this crash.

[Vearrow]

The frame would fare better, but the rest of the car would have been destroyed anyway.  Those cars were never really fastened to the frame very well.

[Carpro1017Returns]

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

I'm finally glad someone cleared things up!